¹ See for example the discussions in Jones, A.H.M.Athenian Democracy (Oxford 1957), 35–7,109-10,130-3Google Scholar, Harrison, A.R.W.CR 9 (1959), 60–1Google Scholar, Mossé, C., La fin de la democratie athénienne (Paris 1962), 265–6, 283–6,Google ScholarPerlman, S., Parola del Passato 114 (1967), 162–6,Google ScholarAdkins, A.W.H.Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece (London 1972), 119–26,Google ScholarKroll, J.H., Athenian Bronze Allotment Plates (Cambridge, Mass. 1972), 78–83,CrossRefGoogle ScholarDover, K.J., Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford 1974), 23–5, 34–45,Google ScholarKluwe, E.kiio 58 (1976), 295–333Google Scholar and 59 (1977), 45–81, Davies, J.K., Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens (Salem, New Hampshire 1981), 10–14,Google Scholar and Maride, M.M., in Crux (= History of Political Thought 6 [1985]), 265–97.Google Scholar Subsequent citations of these works will be by author’s name.

On the socio-economic composition of the Boule, see Sundwall, J.Epigraphische Beitrüge zur sozialpolitischen Geschichte Athens (Leipzig 1906), 1–18,Google Scholar Jones 106, Rhodes, P.J.The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972), 4–6,Google Scholarde Laix, R.A.Probouleusis at Athens (Berkeley 1973), 148–53,Google ScholarRuschenbusch, E., ZPE 35 (1979), 177–80 and Rhodes, ZPE 38 (1980), 191–201.Google Scholar

² Jones 35–7.

³ Arist. Pol. 1292b23-1293al 1; cf. 1291b25–7; cf. Stocks, J.L, CQ 30 (1936), 177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Xen. Oik. 11–14; cf. Arist. Pol. 1255b35–7.

⁵ Pol. 1292b25–9, 1318b7–18; Eur. Or. 918–22, Supp. 420–2; cf. Kluwe(n.l, 1976), 300–13. On the extent of agricultural slavery, see Jones 13–14, de Ste Croix, G.E.M.The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London 1981), 505–6Google Scholar and Jameson, M.H.CJ 73 (1977–8), 122–45.Google Scholar

⁶ Pol. 1293al–ll.

⁷ Lys. 6.48, 27.9–10 (re nouveaux riches), Dem. 21.98, 213, 20.18; see below atn.52 and contrast below at n.62 on the problem of introducing a ‘poor’ man as a witness.

⁸ Davies 10; see also Markle 267–70. For Aristotle’s enthusiasm for and their influence in the polis, see Pol. 1295b26–1296b2 and 1296b35–1297a8; cf. de Ste Croix (n.5), 71–6.

⁹ Pol. 1291a33–4.

¹⁰ For example, Dem. 21.208; Davies 11–14.

¹¹ Davies, J.K.Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 B.C. (Oxford 1971), 23–24;Google Scholarcf. Ruschenbusch, E.ZPE 31 (1978), 278–9.Google Scholar

¹² Is. 11.42 (8% rent on land; 18% interest on money lent; almost 10% overall in this case). For interest rates on money, see [Dem.] 53.13 (16%), [Dem.] 59.52 (18% on money lent to repay a dowry), Dem. 27.23 (12% represented as a very reasonable rate) and 30.7 (10% represented as very low), and Is. fr. 23 (33⅓%).

¹³ IG II² 1672–3; Jones 135 n.l.

¹⁴ Davies 24–8. On the population of Attike, see Gomme, A.W.The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. (Oxford 1933),Google Scholar Jones 8–10, 76–9, 161–5, Ehrenberg, V.The Greek State (Oxford 1960), 32–4,Google Scholar and Hansen, M.H.Demography and Democracy: The Number of Athenian Citizens in the Fourth Century B.C. (Herning 1986), 26–69.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Rhodes, P.J., AJAH 7 (1982), 2–5, 11.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Rhodes(n.l, 1972), 5–6; Perlman, S.Athenaeum 41 (1963), 333–40.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Pol. 1291a34–8.

¹⁸ Ruschenbusch, , ZPE 31 (1978), 275–84.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Dem. 14.16.

²⁰ Rhodes (n. 15), 8.

²¹ de Ste Croix, G.E.M.C & M 14 (1953), 30–70,Google Scholar Jones 28–9; cf. Thomsen, R.Eisphora: A Study of Direct Taxation in Ancient Athens (Copenhagen 1964), 96–202.Google Scholar

²² See Thuc. 8.72.1 on the oligarchs' claim that attendances in the assembly had been less than five thousand . See n.45.

²³ Ar. Pol. 1319a24–38; see Hansen, M.H.GRBS 24 (1983), 151–80 and 227–38, who acknowledges a considerable migration from country to city, but does not give this sufficient weight in his analysis.Google Scholar

²⁴ Isok. 8.124, 130; 7.54 (many citizens seek the necessities of life through jury service and leave mercenaries to row the triremes — contrast 8.48); 15.152; cf. Dem. 21.182,24.123.

²⁵ Dem. 18.168–73.

²⁶ Cf. Mitchel, F.W.Greece and Rome 12 (1965), 192–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lykourgan Athens: 338–322 (Semple Lecture, 1970), 11–12, 26–7, 40–2.

²⁷ Hignett, C.A History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford 1952), 260–2Google Scholar and Kluwe (n.l, 1976), 308–9.

²⁸ Xen.HelL 1.7.8.

²⁹ Cf. Mikalson, J.D.The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year (Princeton 1975), 137, 182–90Google Scholar and Lewis, D.M.CR 27 (1977), 216.Google Scholar

³⁰ Dem. 14.24–8 (cf. 19.291); Jones 36, 109–10, cf. Markle 289–90.

³¹ Lys. 29.2.

³² Lys. 29.11–14; Cohen, D.Theft in Athenian Law (München 1983), 31–3.Google Scholar

³³ .& (§ 1).

³⁴ .& (§ 4). For a nearcontemporary example of the contrast frequently drawn between the attitudes of the rich and the poor to war and naval activity, see Ar. Ekkl. 197–8.

³⁵ Dem. 1.6, 2.24, 27; Jones 28–9, 35–6.

³⁶ D.H. 1.8, 9, 17, 24; Jebb, R.C.The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos 1 (London 1876), 173–6, 222,Google ScholarUsher, S., Eranos 63 (1965), 99–119,Google ScholarDover, K.J., Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (Berkeley 1968), 76–83.Google Scholar

³⁷ Lys. 29.2.

³⁸ Lys. 13.10, Is. 4.17, Dem. 22.10, Aiskh. 1.176; cf. Aiskh. 3.8, Dein. 1.3. Cf. Hansen, , GRBS 19 (1978), 129–36Google Scholar (= The Athenian Ecclesia [Copenhagen 1983], 141–8, 159–60).

³⁹ Lys. 29.2–4.

⁴⁰ Similarly, [Dem.] 50. Contrast the rather rhetorical flourish of Deinarkhos (1.42) in asking if any of those included in the Three Hundred when Demosthenes introduced his trierarchic law (in 340 limiting trierarchic obligations to them) were present in court (in 323) and urging them to tell their neighbours about Demosthenes’ malpractices.

⁴¹ Lys. 29.5.

⁴² … (Lys.29.9). Contius’ emendation though it makes good sense, is difficult on palaeographic grounds and unnecessary. makes equally good sense. Failure to pay tax might be due to unwillingness or to temporary inability — see Dem. 22.62, 65 for a similar argument to that advanced here and for reasons why frugal farmers might be unable to pay the tax and might fall into arrears.

The position of (repeated in §11) is listed by Dover (n.36), 134 among numerous examples in the Corpus Lysiacum of the position of ăμ different from its predominant position in 12 (Against Eratosthenes). The latter speech is a useful yardstick in so far as it is the only speech which on Dover’s criteria may confidently be regarded as being entirely the work of Lysias. But Dover’s interpretation of and his estimate of the extent of clients’ contributions to the speeches as ‘published’ are open to challenge and his overallviews are unduly minimalist; see for example Usher, JHS 91 (1971), 147–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the specific question of the usage of , it is to be noted that 28 (at § 13) is another of the fifteen speeches which Dover 131–4 suggests provide interesting differences from 12 in respect of av. See also Dover 124–6 who identifies no ‘non-forensic’ words in 29, but rightly observes that short speeches do not afford a firm basis of comparison with 12 and does not include 29 among the speeches which differ significantly from 12 in this respect. See also Dover 144; 57, 72, 88–90.

⁴³ Lys. 27.9.

⁴⁴ Lys. 27.10–11; cf. 29.2–4.

⁴⁵ The diversity of views on the vexed question of the levels of attendance in the Ekklesia may be exemplified by Staveley, E.S.Greek and Roman Voting and Elections (London 1972), 78Google Scholar (suggesting 2,000 to 3,000 as normal for ordinary meetings), Jones 109 (well over 5,000 as normal in peace-time) and Hansen, GRBS 17 (1976), 115–34 (= The Athenian Ecclesia, 1–23) (noting, as do Staveley and Jones, the quorum required for certain measures and in particular grants of citizenship in the fourth century, but arguing for 6,000 as the normal attendance in the fourth century and even more for the principal meetings). See above at n.22.

⁴⁶ Apart from extreme circumstances such as at Kolonos in 411, the taxpayers, in my view (pace Markle 281–2), would rarely, if ever, have constituted a majority in the assembly.

⁴⁷ Lys. 28.12–13, as noted by Markle 281–2.

⁴⁸ For arguments supporting the view that the poor constituted the majority in the juries and the assemblies see Markle 281–92, and on the different character of the Ekklesia and the Dikasteria and Athenians’ perceptions of the two bodies see Sinclair, R.K.Democracy and Participation in Athens (Cambridge 1988), 127–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

An earlier draft of this paper was presented to a conference of the Australian Society for Classical Studies held at the Australian National University in September 1983 (see AULLA XXII Papers and Synopses [1984] 33–4). I wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions and comments of those who participated in the ensuing discussion, including Dr R. Develin who made further suggestions by letter, and also of Professor N.G.L. Hammond, Professor D.M. Lewis and Mr A.M. Stone.