Response to Spencer Weart
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343301038005005 |
| Published date | 01 September 2001 |
| Date | 01 September 2001 |
| Author | Eric Robinson |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
615
I am glad to have the response from Spencer
Weart (2001) to my views (Robinson, 2001a)
and elaboration of his own (Weart, 1998). I
offer here a brief rejoinder.
Weart notes my failure to discuss Thucy-
dides 6.32–41 with regard to government in
Syracuse, and considers that the text here
gives a mixed message: while the open debate
suggests democracy, the actions of the gener-
als at the end signal elite dominance. I submit
that the text is much less equivocal. First of
all, during the debate one of the participants
explicitly labels the constitution a democ-
racy! Athenagoras, after accusing disgruntled
young aristocrats of plotting against the mass
of Syracusan citizens (to plethos, 38.2),
defends the government as follows:
Some will say that democracy is neither wise
nor fair, and that the ones with the money are
also better suited to rule the best. But I say first
that the people [demos] is a name for everyone
together, and oligarchy only for a part; and
next that while perhaps the wealthy are the
best guardians of money and the wise take the
best counsel, the many [tous pollous] when in
audience judge the best, and in democracy
these groups both separately and all together
have an equally fair share. (39.1)
It would be difficult to interpret this passage
and Athenagoras’ speech as a whole as any-
thing but confirmation of democracy at Syra-
cuse. As for the actions of the general at the
close of the meeting – he abruptly ends the
discussion with the promise that he and his
colleagues will take appropriate measures and
report back to the assembly when more news
becomes available – they hardly demonstrate
‘control by an elite’. As commentators have
remarked, the Greek here describing the
cutoff of debate (allon men oudena eti eiase
parelthein, 6.41.1) need not imply consti-
tutional or presiding authority for the gener-
als (Gomme, Andrewes & Dover, 1945–81:
4.307). Generals in Syracuse did not repre-
sent a ruling aristocracy, but were regularly
elected officials, part of the democratic
government itself and fully subject to its con-
straints. Indeed, more than once we hear of
unsuccessful generals being recalled from
office or more harshly punished by the Syra-
cusan people (Diodorus 11.88, 11.91;
Thucydides 6.103). Furthermore, it must be
remembered that the assembly meeting here
described was occasioned by rumors of an
impending massive attack from Athens. In
© 2001 Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 38, no. 5, 2001, pp. 615–617
Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks,
CA and New Delhi)
[0022-3433(200109)38:5; 615–617; 019472]
Response to Spencer Weart
ERIC ROBINSON
Department of History & Department of the Classics, Harvard University
Three points are discussed in response to Spencer Weart’s remarks. First, Thucydides 6.32–41, which
Weart considers damaging to the case for democracy in Syracuse, instead strongly supports it. Second,
Weart’s contention that Athenians did not perceive the Syracusans as democratic lacks any supporting
ancient testimony; indeed, the fact that Thucydides was an Athenian and was fully aware of the Syra-
cusan democracy implies the reverse. Finally, Weart’s claim that ancient oligarchic republics also main-
tained peaceful relations with each other requires far more demonstration than has been offered, and
in any case would seem to be contradicted by a number of historical examples.
05robinson (ds) 10/8/01 12:28 pm Page 615
at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jpr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
To continue reading
Request your trial