Aristotle and The Old Oligarch: Constitutional Sources

Two accounts of how Athens distributed power

A constitution is the arrangement of rules and institutions through which a state is governed. Constitutional sources therefore help us ask more than who ruled Athens: they explain who could participate, how officials were chosen and how the city tried to prevent power becoming concentrated in one person’s hands.

The Athenian Constitution, traditionally attributed to Aristotle, traces changes in Athenian government. It belongs to Aristotle’s school and was written in the fourth century BC, in the age of Alexander the Great, long after the events of 546–483 BC. It is a retrospective investigation, not an eyewitness account of the rise and fall of the Athenian tyrants.

The Constitution of the Athenians attributed to Pseudo-Xenophon is usually called the work of the Old Oligarch. This is a conventional label, not the author’s known name. Its prescribed sections, 1.2–1.3, explain the relationship between Athenian naval power and the political position of poorer citizens. Its elite viewpoint makes it especially useful for investigating attitudes towards democracy.

Aristotle: gaining power was different from governing cruelly

In chapter 14, Aristotle presents Peisistratus as a successful soldier against Megara who appeared sympathetic to the people. Peisistratus wounded himself and claimed that enemies had attacked him, persuading the people to grant him a bodyguard. Aristion proposed the measure. Popular trust and an apparently protective armed force thus became instruments for obtaining personal power.

Aristotle also reports Solon’s opposition. Solon recognised the attempted tyranny, but his warning failed. He displayed his weapons outside his house and urged others to defend their country. This creates a contrast between a perceptive individual and people who either failed to understand the danger or understood it but remained silent. The phrase ‘it is said’ introducing this episode matters: it identifies a reported tradition rather than direct observation by the writer.

Yet Aristotle says Peisistratus subsequently conducted public business ‘more as a citizen than a tyrant’. An ancient Greek tyrant was someone who acquired power unconstitutionally, not necessarily someone whose every action was brutal. The account therefore distinguishes the method of obtaining power from the character of government.

Marriage, religious theatre and a second exile

Peisistratus’ position was initially insecure. Megacles’ and Lycurgus’ followers combined to expel him. Megacles later sought an alliance when his own political position weakened, on condition that Peisistratus married his daughter. Aristotle’s narrative exposes competition among powerful leaders rather than a simple struggle between a united aristocracy and the people.

The alliance brought a carefully staged return. Megacles spread the claim that Athena was restoring Peisistratus. A tall woman named Phye was dressed as the goddess and stood beside Peisistratus as he entered Athens in a chariot. Aristotle describes an admiring reception. Religious symbolism helped present the restoration as divinely authorised, although this was a political performance, not evidence that Athena had intervened.

Aristotle records disagreement about Phye’s identity: Herodotus placed her in the deme of Paiania, while others called her a Thracian garland-seller from Kollytos. This is a useful example of the author preserving different traditions about an episode.

In chapter 15, the marriage alliance breaks down because Peisistratus did not wish to have intercourse with Megacles’ daughter. Fearing both political factions, he left Athens again. The personal relationship securing his restoration had failed to provide a lasting political settlement.

Returning by force and removing opposition

Peisistratus’ next return depended on resources and military support. He first stayed at Rhaecelus near the Thermaic Gulf, then moved to the region around Pangaeum, where he raised money and hired soldiers. From Eretria he prepared to recover power by force, supported particularly by the Thebans, Lygdamis of Naxos and the horsemen governing Eretria.

After winning the battle at Pallene, called Pallenis in the prescribed translation, he took Athens and firmly established his tyranny. His continuous rule began in 546 BC. He also captured Naxos and installed Lygdamis as its ruler, showing that his alliances and use of force extended beyond Athens.

Aristotle explains the disarming of the people through another deception. Peisistratus assembled them for an armed parade at the Theseum, then spoke too quietly for them to hear. He directed them towards the gateway of the Acropolis, supposedly so they could hear better. While he addressed them, appointed men collected their weapons and locked them in buildings near the Theseum.

Peisistratus then told the people to attend to their private affairs while he managed public matters. The episode makes the constitutional consequence concrete: citizens lost the means of armed resistance, while the tyrant claimed control over public decisions. Popular support and moderate administration did not amount to freely shared political power.

Moderate government could also protect the tyrant

Chapter 16 presents Peisistratus as compassionate, forgiving and moderate. He lent money to people in need so that they could support themselves as farmers. These loans could improve ordinary people’s livelihoods, but Aristotle also identifies their political purpose: prosperous farmers scattered through the countryside would have less desire and time to involve themselves in public affairs.

Better cultivation also increased the tyrant’s revenue. Aristotle states that Peisistratus took a tenth of agricultural income as tax—a tithe. He appointed judges throughout the demes and travelled into the countryside to settle disputes. Farmers could obtain decisions without abandoning their work to visit the city. Economic assistance, local justice, taxation and political control therefore reinforced one another.

The story of the farmer on a rocky plot illustrates Aristotle’s favourable portrayal. Asked what his land produced, the farmer answered that it yielded only misery and pain, of which Peisistratus took a tenth. He did not recognise the tyrant. Rather than punishing him, Peisistratus admired his frankness and hard work and exempted him from tax. This anecdote supports a picture of personal generosity, but it does not prove that every taxpayer received such treatment.

Aristotle says the peace of Peisistratus’ rule was remembered as the ‘Age of Cronos’, suggesting an idealised golden age. He also describes Peisistratus appearing before the Areopagus to answer a murder charge, although the accuser became frightened and withdrew. The story presents respect for legal procedure alongside the intimidating reality of personal power.

Aristotle explains Peisistratus’ support across social groups: aristocrats were won over by companionship, ordinary people by help with their personal affairs. Important offices nevertheless remained controlled by the ruling family and its associates. Institutions could survive without political power being freely distributed. Aristotle also quotes a law depriving anyone who established or assisted a tyranny, and their family, of their rights; he regards the contemporary penalties as mild.

Succession and Aristotle’s tests of chronology

Peisistratus died after an illness in 527 BC, during the archonship of Philoneos. In chapter 17, Aristotle counts thirty-three years between his first establishment of tyranny and his death, nineteen spent in power and the remainder in exile. These figures distinguish his interrupted earlier rule from his final continuous period in government.

His sons initially continued to govern in the same manner. Aristotle names Hippias and Hipparchus, and two sons of the Argive woman Timonassa: Iophon and Hegesistratus, also called Thessalus. The marriage to Timonassa explains another political connection. It created friendship with the Argives, and Hegesistratus brought Argive troops to support Peisistratus at Pallene. Family relationships were therefore part of the network sustaining the tyranny.

Aristotle rejects stories that Peisistratus had been Solon’s lover or a general in the earlier war against Megara for control of Salamis. His objection is chronological: their ages and the archonships in which they died do not fit these claims. This does not contradict his earlier reference to Peisistratus’ fame in warfare against Megara; the rejected claim concerns the particular earlier campaign for Salamis.

He also records uncertainty over whether Peisistratus married Timonassa during his first exile or when he first established his rule. The combination of chronological criticism and acknowledged disagreement shows an author attempting to assess inherited traditions rather than merely repeat them.

Aristotle: the assassination did not end the tyranny

Chapter 18 identifies Hippias as the older, prudent brother who directed the government. Hipparchus is characterised instead by his love affairs and interest in the arts, including his invitation of Anacreon, Simonides and other poets to Athens. These character judgements are part of Aristotle’s explanation, not neutral descriptions that must automatically be accepted.

Aristotle attributes the quarrel leading to the assassination to Thessalus. After Harmodios rejected him, Thessalus prevented Harmodios’ sister from serving as a basket-bearer at the Panathenaia and insulted Harmodios. Personal rejection and public humiliation therefore help explain the conspiracy involving Harmodios and Aristogeiton.

The conspirators intended to attack Hippias. Seeing a fellow conspirator talking amicably to him, they feared betrayal and hurriedly killed Hipparchus instead, disrupting their wider plan. Harmodios was killed immediately; Aristogeiton was captured and tortured. Aristotle describes Aristogeiton provoking Hippias into killing him by obtaining a handshake and then taunting him for giving his hand to his brother’s murderer. The assassination in 514 BC did not overthrow the tyranny.

Aristotle: Spartan intervention and the fall of Hippias

Chapter 19 connects Hipparchus’ death with a change in government: Hippias became suspicious and bitter, killing and exiling many men in revenge. Aristotle then explains the importance of external intervention. Alcmaeonid-led exiles had failed to secure their return by themselves, including a failed attempt at fortified Lipsydrium beneath Mount Parnes. They subsequently obtained the contract to build the temple at Delphi, giving them resources to seek Spartan help.

Aristotle reports that the Pythian priestess repeatedly instructed the Spartans to free Athens. These oracles eventually persuaded them to act despite their guest-friendship with the Peisistratids. He gives a political motive as well: the Peisistratids’ growing friendship with Argos contributed no less to Sparta’s decision. Religious pressure and concern over the tyrants’ alliances therefore work together in his explanation.

The first Spartan expedition failed. Anchimolius was sent by sea with an army, but was defeated and killed because Cineas the Thessalian supported Hippias with a thousand cavalry. Sparta then sent King Cleomenes by land with a larger force. He defeated the Thessalian cavalry blocking entry into Attica and, with Athenian assistance, besieged Hippias inside the Pelasgic Wall on the Acropolis.

During the siege, Cleomenes happened to capture the Peisistratids’ sons as they were being sent away to safety. Aristotle himself reports this capture: it is not a detail found only in Herodotus. The children gave Cleomenes bargaining power. To secure their safety, the Peisistratids agreed to leave, removing their possessions within five days and handing over the Acropolis to the Athenians. Hippias’ attempt to fortify Mounichia as an alternative base had not saved him; the tyranny ended in 510 BC.

Aristotle counts about seventeen years of rule by the sons after their father’s death and thirty-six years in power for the family altogether. His sequence explains why the earlier assassination was not liberation: the final overthrow required exiled opponents, Spartan military intervention and the leverage created by the children’s capture.

How Aristotle handles conflicting traditions

Aristotle does not simply present every story as equally credible. In chapter 18 he rejects the claim that Hippias discovered the conspirators by separating members of the procession from their weapons. His reason is chronological: participants did not carry arms in the procession at that time; the practice developed later. Testing a story against the customs of its supposed period is a recognisable historical method.

He also records disagreement over Aristogeiton’s accusations under torture. Democratic writers claimed that Aristogeiton deliberately named innocent friends of the tyrants to weaken and morally disgrace the regime. Others said those accused were genuine conspirators. Recording both versions reveals uncertainty and the influence of political allegiance on remembered events. It does not prove which version was correct.

Similarly, the drinking-song mourning the defeated men at Lipsydrium praises them as brave and well-born. It is evidence of how supporters remembered their defeat, rather than an independent demonstration of the virtues it celebrates.

Cleisthenes: competition opened the way to popular power

Chapter 20 begins with rivalry between Isagoras and Cleisthenes after the tyranny’s overthrow. Losing ground against political clubs, Cleisthenes turned to the people and promised political rights. Aristotle therefore connects democratic change with an aristocrat’s immediate struggle for support: the reformer’s political advantage and wider participation could develop together.

Isagoras called on Cleomenes, with whom he had guest-friendship ties. He used the alleged religious curse on the Alcmaeonids to justify demanding their removal. Cleisthenes withdrew, and Cleomenes expelled 700 Athenian households. He then tried to dissolve the boule and establish Isagoras with 300 supporters as rulers. The council resisted and the people mobilised. Cleomenes and Isagoras retreated to the Acropolis, where they were blockaded; Cleomenes departed under a truce on the third day. Cleisthenes and the other exiles were recalled.

This sequence gives the council and people an active role. Democracy was not simply a gift bestowed on passive Athenians. Nevertheless, Aristotle’s description of Cleisthenes as the people’s ‘leader and protector’, and his suggestion that the Alcmaeonids were perhaps most responsible for overthrowing the tyrants, should be recognised as interpretations of political credit. His quotation of a drinking-song honouring the earlier opponent Cedon also shows how praise of the family circulated in remembered traditions.

Reorganising citizens rather than simply adding offices

Chapter 21 explains how Cleisthenes replaced four tribes with ten to mix citizens together and widen participation. He grouped demes into thirty trittyes: ten from the city region, ten from the coast and ten from inland. Each tribe contained one trittys from each region.

The new boule contained 500 members, fifty from each tribe, rather than 400 members, one hundred from each of four tribes. The regional mixture mattered because it created political groupings that crossed older local connections. Aristotle specifically explains why twelve tribes would not have achieved the intended break: they could have reproduced the existing divisions.

Deme identity also changed how citizens were identified. Using a deme name rather than a father’s name helped avoid revealing who the new citizens were. Cleisthenes established demarchs as local officials, taking over the duties of the earlier officials called naukraroi, while clans, brotherhoods and priesthoods retained their traditions. This is an important distinction between political change and religious and social continuity. The new tribes received founding heroes, with the Delphic priestess choosing ten names from a list of one hundred.

Protecting the constitution after reform

In chapter 22, Aristotle judges the new constitution ‘far more democratic’ than Solon’s. He argues that Solon’s laws had been suppressed through disuse under the tyranny. He also records an oath for the Council of 500 and the choice of one general from each tribe, with the polemarch initially commanding the whole army. These details show constitutional development continuing beyond the initial reorganisation.

Aristotle links Cleisthenes with the law of ostracism, but distinguishes its establishment from its first use, two years after the victory at Marathon. The stated concern was that a powerful popular leader might repeat Peisistratus’ route to tyranny.

The first man ostracised was Hipparchus of Kollytos, son of Charmos, a relative of Peisistratus—not the murdered brother of Hippias. Aristotle also gives Cleisthenes a particular motive: removing this leader of the tyrants’ remaining friends. Ostracism therefore appears both as constitutional protection and as a weapon against a political opponent. Megacles of Alopece, son of Hippocrates, was subsequently ostracised. Its use later widened to men thought too dominant even without connections to the tyrants, including Xanthippos.

Aristotle records another important change: the nine archons, previously elected, came to be selected by lot from five hundred candidates previously chosen by the demes. Selection by lot reduced dependence on winning an election, although it still operated within a nominated group.

The account extends to public finance. In chapter 22.7, Themistocles prevents the distribution of a mining profit of one hundred talents and arranges for one hundred wealthy Athenians to receive one talent each, each building a trireme. If the expenditure was accepted, the city would bear the cost; otherwise, the recipients would have to repay the money. Aristotle’s figure is one hundred ships. His later reference to their use at Salamis looks beyond the study’s endpoint: it is a retrospective explanation of the decision’s significance.

Aristotle also records that Aristides, son of Lysimachus, was ostracised during these events. In chapter 22.8, he then describes the recall of all ostracised men because of Xerxes’ expedition. The external threat prompted Athens to bring back citizens previously removed as potential dangers: constitutional protection could be adjusted when the city’s priorities changed.

He adds a restriction for future ostracised citizens: they were to live between Geraistos and Skyllaion, or lose their citizenship completely. Temporary removal from Athens was therefore distinguished from complete loss of civic status, but preserving that status depended on obeying the stated geographical restriction. These concluding events extend beyond 483 BC, yet complete Aristotle’s account of how ostracism operated and changed.

The Old Oligarch: why naval workers mattered politically

In 1.2, the Old Oligarch argues that poorer citizens deserve a greater political share because they supply Athens’ naval strength. He names helmsmen, men who keep time for rowers, officers, look-outs and ship-builders. His explanation encompasses the wider workforce needed to operate a fleet, not rowers alone.

He contrasts their contribution with that of hoplites, aristocrats and ‘the good’. Hoplites were heavily armed infantry soldiers. Calling an elite group ‘the good’ reveals a social judgement: the term associates high status with superior worth. Nevertheless, the author recognises a practical connection between the people’s military importance and their participation in offices and public speaking.

The argument is striking because an oligarchic viewpoint can acknowledge that democracy has an internal logic. Athens depends on the people’s work; their political importance follows from that dependence. Recognising how a system works is not the same as endorsing all its values. His reference to citizens being allowed to speak concerns the citizen body, not every inhabitant of Athens.

The Old Oligarch: participation and self-interest

Section 1.3 qualifies the apparent claim that everyone shares equally in everything. The people, he argues, do not seek random allocation of generalships or cavalry commands. They benefit by leaving dangerous, demanding military responsibilities to powerful men who can manage them effectively.

By contrast, he claims that the people eagerly seek offices offering pay or household benefit. This can be read as a criticism of their self-interest. It is useful evidence of elite attitudes towards paid participation, but it does not establish that personal gain was every poorer citizen’s motive. An alternative interpretation is that payment could make service more accessible to people who needed to earn a living.

Nor does the passage prove that paid offices existed in exactly this form throughout 546–483 BC. It describes the system the author is discussing. When using it to explain earlier developments, distinguish the connection it identifies—naval service and popular power—from the date at which every particular practice began.

Combining the sources without flattening their differences

Aristotle chiefly explains constitutional development through political struggles, institutional reforms and responses to powerful individuals. The Old Oligarch explains the distribution of power through naval dependence and competing social interests. Together they offer different routes into the same historical problem: why did ordinary citizens gain influence, and how could institutions both widen participation and retain an important role for elites?

A useful judgement identifies what each passage actually establishes. Aristotle’s tribal numbers are evidence for his account of institutional organisation; his praise of leaders requires separate scrutiny. The Old Oligarch’s named naval occupations support an argument about the foundations of popular power; his claims about selfish motives reveal his perspective more directly than they reveal every citizen’s intentions.