BMCR 2008.12.27, Volker Grieb, Hellenistische Demokratie

Volker Grieb, Hellenistische Demokratie: politische Organisation und
Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Grossen.
Historia Einzelschriften 199.  Stuttgart:  Franz Steiner Verlag, 2008.
Pp. 407.  ISBN 9783515090636.  EUR 77.00.

Reviewed by Sara Saba, Kommission fuer Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik,
Munich ([email protected])
Word count:  1700 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-12-27.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/12/20081227.html
-------------------------------

The 2008 book by Volker Grieb treats the difficult and interesting
theme of Hellenistic democracy in free cities. As the author suggests
at the beginning of his work, for decades the general tendency was that
of studying the topic of democracy only in relation to the Classical
Age, while its development and very existence in the Hellenistic Age
was often considered of secondary importance, if not outright ignored.
This resulted in the rather common view that ancient democracy did not
survive the political and social changes brought by the Hellenistic
period. In the last two decades, however, attitudes have shifted in
scholarship on this issue and Grieb enters the debate by asserting his
disagreement with the above-mentioned long-held opinion. Through the
analysis of institutions, political praxis, and relevant historical
events of Athens, Cos, Miletos, and Rhodes, Grieb tries to make a case
for the vitality of democratic forms of government, the demos' active
role within them, and their impact on the international scene after
Alexander the Great.

To each polis he dedicates a chapter, and these are invariably
articulated in somewhat rigidly conceived sections that study the
demos, the political institutions of the community first at a local and
then at a city level, after which follows a section misleadingly
entitled demokratia, eleutheria, and autonomia and then a final
treatment of the changes brought about by Roman influence and
domination on these communities.

The first chapter is dedicated to Athens, for which it must be stressed
that the author handles a rich and complex amount of material well by
systematizing it in a readable study. His analysis of the institutions
is shorter than it could have been and leaves room for discussion on a
few points, such as for example his treatment of the demoi, whose
importance he sees undiminished throughout the centuries. His faith,
however, rests on weak, indirect evidence that seems to have more to do
with pragmatism than with a constant role of these units in political
life. For example, the author uses the 4th century honorary decrees for
prytaneis as a proof for this constant political relevance on the basis
of the fact that the names of these officials were listed according to
the demoi to which they belonged. Regrettably, for Athens the author
does not offer any analysis of what he calls political praxis in the
subsequent chapters. After this section follows that entitled entitled
"demokratia, eleutheria, and autonomia", which is not a history of
ideas or an analysis of their use through the sources, rather a
pragmatic discussion of historical events written with an eye to the
People's[[1]] participation and to the freedom a community had in
pursuing an independent foreign policy. Given that these correspond to
Grieb's definition of demokratia, eleutheria, and autonomia and that he
uses them to measure the democratic level of a city, a systematic study
of the context where they appear, although one could object that this
is a whole new book, would have given this section a different
standing. In the specific case of Athens, skeptics may wonder whether
popular participation measured via, mainly, honorific decrees is a
reliable factor for establishing the actual maintenance of a form of
government whose significance may have changed. This would not, by the
way, mean that the institution of the polis was not vital or that
democracy did not exist, only that it existed with a modified content.
Be that as it may, the author's view emerges strongly from these pages:
he sees Athens as a city that, with sporadic interruptions due to
historical events, never failed her democratic animus. It was only when
Roman influence became a physical presence that her institutions lost
their democratic shape and creed.

Cos is next in this study of Hellenistic democracies. Following the
usual scheme, the author offers his interpretation of the available
data on the island. A premise is necessary: once more I must stress
that one of Grieb's merits is that of having meticulously gathered and
studied a monstrous and widely scattered quantity of data. The
treatment of the demos of Cos shows clearly the nuanced citizen and
non-citizen status of the local inhabitants, on which, however, not
enough is known. Grieb presents a short review of the activity of the
most important political and decisional organs, along with the mention
of the most relevant offices. In regards to the democratic structure of
the community, he makes a convincing case. Its democratic form was
certainly maintained in part thanks to a skilled foreign policy, which
sought to preserve a constant equilibrium in the relationship with the
Hellenistic kingdoms. The reader, however, has the impression that the
author is determined to prove his thesis relentlessly. For example,
this emerges in the section dedicated to political praxis, in which the
stress falls on the role played by local notables, whose actions and
benefactions, he believes, were made possible only by the final
approval of local democratic organs. Important is the discussion of the
homopoliteia with Kalymnos, which along with the weight given to the
institution of foreign judges, goes to prove the affection that Cos had
for her democratic institutions. Coans were often requested as judges,
probably because of the stability of the island and the renowned laws
that Antigonos wanted to use ad interim for the polis that should have
come out of the sympoliteia between Teos and Lebedos. According to
Grieb, Cos, like Athens, saw its democratic forms decline with the
establishment of Roman power. Although they never underwent drastic
changes, their role and function came progressively to an end.

The third chapter deals with Miletus with the usual precision in
scrutinizing the available sources.[[2]] The reader knows the drill by
now: the first section is dedicated to the demos, then come the
institutions, political praxis and the historical sections. In regard
to institutions, it must be noted that Grieb assumes a critical tone
towards a few of the results reached by Mueller in 1976,[[3]] although
the sources still offer no conclusive evidence for determining the
exact role and status of a few key offices. Grieb also rejects the
hypothesis of a political role for the Molpoi, as suggested by Graf and
more recently held by Herda. Their hypothesis is worth discussing, even
if to be rejected, since it takes into account important aspects of the
political and cultural life of a polis.[[4]] The analysis of the
political practice in Miletus and the conclusive historical sections
reach a result that is identical to that presented for Athens and Cos.
This section on Miletus is the least convincing, at least for this
reviewer. The documents analyzed are all too well known and their
difficult interpretation appears all too univocal, even telic at times.
Decisive proofs on many points are lacking, and institutions, as
portrayed by official texts (which have their own set of problems),
fail to support the radical conclusions offered by the author who tries
to read either too much or too little into these sources. A good
example is his remark on the first few lines of one of Miletus'
eponyms' list, I. Milet 3. 123, which separate the three concepts of
demokratia, eleutheria, and autonomia for linguistic reasons; Grib goes
on to assert and see a somewhat hidden meaning in this.[[5]] On the
other hand, the standard enactment formulae are read literally, so that
in a way a democratic procedure is warranted by their very presence.
Miletus' political, institutional and constitutional history requires a
more nuanced interpretation. Simply put, between black and white there
are many shades of grey.

Rhodes is the last stop in this overview of Hellenistic democracies.
The usual descriptive pattern is used here too. The point of view with
which the author battles, is that which assumes the presence of an
oligarchic kernel in the democratic shape of Rhodes, whose presence is
sensed in the high society of the island whose notables are often
defined as a naval aristocracy. These would have influenced the
political form and direction of the polis, but that a well-off part of
the citizen body was meant to support the expenses of a strong fleet,
for example, does not mean that the polis was not ruled with democratic
institutions. That Rhodes was a democratic polis, according to ancient
standards and approaches, hardly needs heated debate. Even for the
democracy in this community, the author envisions a parabola whose
descending line starts with Roman influence.

A summary and general overview end the book and a couple of the
author's observations are worthy of a short note. Grieb reserves a few
pages to the concepts of eleutheria, autonomia, and demokratia, but he
discusses them mainly by opposing Ma's thesis that considered these
concepts as interchangeable.[[6]] As Grieb rightly states, they were so
only up to a point. This leads to new observations on autonomy and the
people's participation in the life of city-states, but the renewed
pessimism on the actual chances that citizens were given, once the
Romans made their presence felt, should be toned down. The coming of
Rome certainly defined new boundaries, but citizens of poleis, and
especially, as always, prominent ones, found different stages where
they could act. One last point that deserves attention is Grieb's
discussion of the concept of a constitutional koine as once offered by
Busolt. In order to prove his point, Grieb compares democratic
communities with poleis that were knowingly under the direct influence
or control of kings,[[7]] thus showing that the presence of certain
widespread institutions did not always equal a democratic modus
regendi.

In his work, Grieb collects and studies an imposing amount of evidence
very carefully. It is no new thesis, however, that Hellenistic
democracy -- or better: democracies -- were a reality with which
historians have to come to terms. The new aspect that the author brings
out concerns the foreign policy, specifically the active role that
these communities could have, in comparison to dependent poleis, on the
international scene. As said, the book contains a huge amount of
information that has been certainly scrutinized attentively, but it
suffers from the unconditional belief of the author in his thesis,
which leads to a univocal interpretation of the sources, whose nature
is often disregarded.

------------------
Notes:


1.   The author is radically opposed to the translation of demos as
People, Volk, Popolo, et alia because of its potential ambiguity. Given
the specific context of his discussion, however, I fail to see the
danger of misinterpreting this term. For example, on p. 319 the author
quotes Berthold R.M., Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age, London 1984 and
adds a "[sic!]" by the word people: I believe Berthold's statement is
crystal clear and there is no doubt on my mind on the significance to
attribute to the word in that specific citation. This constant polemic
overreaches its scope.

2.   On p. 211 Insch. von Milet I.3.150 is called sympoliteia instead
of isopoliteia.

3.   Mueller H., Milesische Volksbeschluesse. Eine Untersuchung zur
Verfassungsgeschichte der Stadt Milet in hellenistischer Zeit,
Goettingen 1974.

4.   Graf F., "Apollon Delphinios", MH 36, 1979, pp. 2-22; Herda A.,
Der Apollon-Delphinios-Kult in Milet und die Neujahrsprozession nach
Didyma, Milesische Forschungen Band 4, Mainz 2006.

5.   See p. 239 and especially n. 243.

6.   Ma J., Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford
1999. Grieb refers to Carlsson S., Hellenistic Democracies, Uppsala
2005 for a longer discussion of these points.

7.   Here, it must be signaled that in Pergamon the strategoi were not
royal appointees and did not supervise the city, as an old, long-held
opinion stated. Instead, Mueller and Woerrle have relatively recently
shown that the official in charge of supervising the polis was the so
called <greek>e)pi\ th=s po/lews</greek>. See H. Mueller -M. Woerrle,
"Ein Verein im Hinterland Pergamons zur Zeit Eumenes' II", Chiron 32,
2002, pp. 191-235.