Kleisthenic reforms

The 508/507 BC are considered the Kleisthenic reforms . Chr. By Kleisthenes of Athens in the political system of the Attic polis implemented fundamental reforms, which are seen in historical research as an important prerequisite for the subsequently developing Attic democracy .

After the Peisistratiden tyranny , which he had helped to overthrow as an exile, Kleisthenes took up the Solonic reform work by stimulating and promoting the participation of all full citizens in the spirit of isonomy in political decision-making processes through a fundamental reorganization of the citizens' association in Attica . The function of the founder of democracy therefore attested to him by Herodotus goes too far in recent historical research. The foundations for Attic democracy were not established until the 5th century BC. BC, as a result of Athens' self-assertion in the Persian Wars and the ensuing Attic League , which also gave the Thets as rowers a military-political significance and resulted in their equal political participation.

The Kleisthenic isonomy did not abolish the social structure characterized by the primacy of noble sexes, but with a new Phylenordnung ensured the political mixing of the different origins in the polis community. Striving for supremacy and struggles for hierarchy of the various noble families should be avoided in the future, as well as the return of tyranny, which was also sought to prevent with the introduction of the broken court .

Creation conditions and motives

Both over the course of time and the main focus of the Kleisthenian reforms, the focus was on coming to terms with and dealing with the consequences of the situation in the Attic polis association that had arisen through the overthrow of the Peisistratiden tyranny. The subsequent problems that needed to be reorganized included not only the reactivated power rivalries of large Attic gender associations and noble houses, but also the reorganization of the military and a new regulation of membership in the polis as full citizens. In the latter respect, the Peisistratides had made exclusions and integrations in their own rulership interests, which were now subject to revision. In addition, an express ban on torture was adopted with regard to Attic citizens. One reason for the hostility of the reformists around Kleisthenes on the one hand and the supporters of 509/508 BC. BC reigning Archon Isagoras on the other hand could be in the dispute over questions of civil rights.

Even before the escalation of this conflict, which with the help of Sparta in the meantime led to a renewed expulsion of Kleisthenes and his followers from Athens, his reform plans could have been presented and discussed. Above all, the military order urgently needed reorganization, as the tyrants had largely disarmed the citizens. Accordingly, it was now a matter of creating the conditions for the erection of a powerful hoplite phalanx , whose armament, as usual, had to be carried out by self-equipment. However, this could not be done overnight. In particular, when the community was reorganized after the end of tyranny, it was also important to achieve internal stability for the Athenian citizenship, which otherwise remained threatened by the ambitions for power of the important noble families. The Solonic laws and institutions were preserved during the tyrannical era and continued to apply; In addition, however, the forms of social organization that served certain aristocratic heads as a basis for particular development of power also continued to exist. Only the noble families had their own cults and thus exercised influence over the people, who here and there were among the religious clientele. The social associations of the phratries and phyls not only formed cult communities, but also formed joint military forces.

With his reform approach, Kleisthenes endeavored to weaken or replace these relationships of dependency and power agglomerations in favor of a balance of power within a new institutional structure. His own experience in the political arena of Athens may have induced him to do so. Because despite his services to the removal of tyranny, he was initially inferior to Isagoras and his supporters and ended up in exile again - not an unusual fate for an Alkmeonid .

Dementia and Phylene Reform

The core of the Kleisthenic reform work was the Demen and Phylen reform, which was on the one hand small-scale and complex, but at the same time holistic and coherent. The division of the Polisverband into 139 demes of 30 Trittyen and 10 Phylen resulted in a fundamentally changed, new participation structure in Attica with effects on the political, military and social level.

main features

As the structural and ideal basis of the Kleisthenic reforms, the reorganization of the demes as political units on a local, decentralized level is to be seen. Without such a reference to the local basic constellations, the people's commitment to Kleisthenes' draft reform, as it was done in 508 B.C. In the resistance against Isagoras and his Spartan auxiliary corps showed, hardly explainable.

As a result, demenas were initially constituted with the registration of citizens in the demen registers, which could have happened without territorial delimitations and measurements, because these were not regionally defined administrative units, but rather local associations of persons. From then on, all citizens over the age of 18 were registered in the demes and formed the smallest Attic citizens 'association based on the citizens' list kept there. This formalization of the registration procedure was probably also associated with a strengthening of the citizens' awareness and a stronger demarcation from the outside: The previously relatively easy integration of newcomers could have been made more difficult and permanent non-citizens ( Metöken ) could have their own legal status introduced. The phratria, dominated by nobles, no longer exercised control over citizenship status. "By constituting the demes as self-governing units, the old gentilic-local relationships of dependency are destroyed."

The holistic approach of the Kleisthenian reform concept is revealed with a view to the Phylenreform, which was based on a division of Attica into three major regions:

1. Asty (the city center of Athens with a radius of about ten kilometers, including the coast);
2. Mesogeia (the interior with the northern border with Boeotia );
3. Paralia (the coastal regions excluding the Asty area).

These large regions were in turn subdivided into ten parts or units, from which a total of 30 Trittyes resulted. As Kleisthenes set up ten phyls instead of the four existing up to then, three Trittyes were created for each of the new phyls. The most important structural feature of the new order, however, was that each phyle from each of the three major regions was assigned a Trittys. The division of the demes to the Trittyes and Phylenes should again have taken into account that the number of defensive hoplites was almost evenly distributed.

The regional mix of the Attic citizens in the new Phylene associations thwarted the old relationships of dependency: “The nobles retained their social prestige, their economic power, their lead in political and military training and in education in general, their tradition; They therefore naturally continued to be the rulers in the sense that they alone contained all the prerequisites for political action, that they alone held all military and political leadership positions. [...] But the nobles lost their steadfast allegiances, that is, every nobleman had to acquire support for his political goals in the future. "

Division of the kleisthenic phylums

Plaque in the archaeological site of the Athens Agora . It shows the reconstruction of the Monument of the Eponymous Heroes . The monument represents the ten eponymous heroes of the Phylenes.

The exact number of demes is not known. Likewise, one does not know all the names of the Trittyes (presumed names are marked with a?, Presumed assignments with (?)).

Phyle	Surname	Trittys	Demes	Number of representatives
1. Phyle	Erechtheis	Euonymeis (city)	Ober-Agryle	3
			Sub-Agryle	2
			Euonymon	10
		Kephisia? (Inland)	Kephisia	6th
			Upper Pergase	2
			Sub-pergase	2
			Phegous (?)	1
			Themakos (?)	1
		Lamptrai? (Coast)	Anagyrus	6th
			Ober-Lamptrai	5
			Unter-Lamptrai	9
			Pambotadai (?)	1/2
			Sybridai (?)	1/2
		unknown assignment	Kedoi	2
2. Phyle	Aigeis	Kollytus? (City)	Upper Ankyle	1
			Under-Ankyle	1
			Bate (?)	1 (2)
			Erikeia (?)	1
			Hestiaia	1
			Kollytos	3
			Colonos	2
			Myrrhinutta (?)	1
			Otryne (?)	1
			Plotheia	1
		Epakria? (Inland)	Gargettos	4th
			Erchia	7 (6)
			Icarion	5
			Ionidai	2
			Kydantidai (?)	1 (2)
			Philaidai	3
		Araphs? (Coast)	Halai Araphenides	5
			Araphs	2
			Diomeia (?)	1
			Phegaia	3 (4)
			Teithras (?)	4th
3. Phyle	Pandionis	Kydathenaion (city)	Kydathenaion	11 (12)
		Paiania (inland)	Konthyle	1
			Oa	4th
			Upper Paiania	1
			Sub-Paiania	11
		Myrrhinus (coast)	Angele	2 (3)
			Kytheros (?)	2
			Myrrhinus	6 (8)
			Prasiai	3
			Probalinthos	5
			Steiria	3
4. Phyle	Leontis	Skambonidai (city)	Cholleidai (?)	2
			Halimus	3
			Leuconea	?
			Upper Potamos	2
			Lower Potamos	1
			Skambonidai	3 (4)
		Hekale (inland)	Aithalidai	2
			Eupyridai	2
			Hekale	1
			Hybadai (?)	2 (1)
			Kolonai	2
			Kropidai	1
			Oion Kerameikon	1
			Paionidai	3
			Pelekes	2
		Phrearrhioi (coast)	Deiradiotai	1
			Potamos Deiradiotai	2
			Phrearrhioi	9 (10)
			Sounion	4 (6)
		unknown assignment	Kettos	?
5. Phyle	Akamantis	Cholargos (city)	Cholargos	4 (6)
			Eiresidai	1 (2)
			Eitea (?)	2
			Hermos	2
			Iphistiadai	1
		Kerame ice cream	6th
		Sphettos (inland)	Hagnus	5
			Kikynna	2 (3)
			Prospalta	5
			Sphettos	5 (7)
		Thorikos (coast)	Cephale	9 (12)
			Poros (?)	?
			Thoricus	5 (6)
6. Phyle	Oineis	Lakiadai (city)	Boutadai	1
			Epikephisia	1 (2)
			Hippotomadai (?)	1
			Lakiadai	2 (3)
			Lousia	1
			Perithoidai	3
			Ptelea	1
		Pedieis (inland)	Acharnai	22nd
			Tyrmeidai (?)	1 (2)
		Thria (coast)	Kothokidai	2
			Oe	6 (7)
			Phyle	2
			Thria	7 (8)
7. Phyle	Kekropis	Melite? (City)	Daidalidai	1
			Melite	7th
			Xypete	7th
		Athmonon (inland)	Athmonon	5 (6?)
			Phlya	5? (6?)
			Pithos	3 (4 or 5)
			Sypalettos	2
			Trinemeia	2
		Aixone? (Coast)	Aixone	8th
			Halai Aixonides	6 (10)
		unknown assignment	Epieikidai	?
8. Phyle	Hippoth (e) ontis	Peiraeus (city)	Eroiadai	1
			Keiriadai	2
			Koile	3
			Korydallos	1
			Peiraieus	8th
			Thymaitadai	2
		Dekeleia? (Inland)	Dekeleia	4th
			Oion Dekeleikon	3
		Eleusis (coast)	Acherdous (?)	1
			Auridai (?)	1
			Azenia (?)	2
			Elaious (?)	2
			Eleusis	11?
			Hamaxanteia (?)	1
			Copros	2
			Oinoe to the west	4th
		unknown assignment	Anakaia	3
9. Phyle	Aiantis	Phaleron? (City)	Phaleron	9 (13)
		Aphidna? (Inland)	Aphidna	16
		Tetrapolis (coast)	marathon	10?
			Oinoe in the east	4th
			Rhamnous	8 (12)
			Trikory (n) thos	3 (6)
10. Phyle	Antiochis	Alopeke (city)	Alopecia	10 (12)
			Eitea (?)	2
			Eroiadai (?)	1 (2)
			Kolonai (?)	2
			Krioa (?)	1 (2)
			Semachidai (?)	1
		Pallene (inland)	Pallene	6th
		Anaphlystos (coast)	Aigilia	6th
			Amphitrope	2
			Anaphlystos	10
			Atene	3
			Besa	2
			Thorai	4th

Council of 500

The institutional center of the Kleisthenische Reformwerk was the newly created Council of 500, whose composition and function were closely related to the fundamentally changed Phylenordnung. Most recent research indicates that this Council of 500 was a further development of the Solonic Council of 400 adapted to the new basic political order: Each of the now 10 Phyls delegated 50 members to the Council of 500.

This meant that the individual regions of Attica were represented as evenly as possible and that the unity of urban and rural populations was systematically promoted. The regular appointment and dispatch of council members tied the various regions of Attica more closely to the political events in the center of Athens: “In the end, it also became clear to the citizens far from the center that the unity and community of the general association of the polis represented a higher level and community than the local or regional areas and that every citizen was part of a community that had to make final decisions in the Ekklesia . "

The number of full citizens represented in the Council of 500 was comparatively high: there was one councilor for every 60 politicians. This caused an intensive feedback between the outskirts of Attica and the Athens political center. The concerns of those absent were also addressed in this way.

Follow-up regulations in political and military terms

In addition to the direct effects on the political structures in Attica, the Kleisthenische Phylenreform also had follow-up consequences, which underlined their importance and were suitable to consolidate them. In the period 503 - 501 BC The introduction of the oath of buleutic oath is to be set, which had to be performed by members of the council of 500 in view of the exercise of their functions. In doing so, they must have undertaken to exercise their activity lawfully and in accordance with the polis for the benefit of the Athenians.

Another important innovation in the organization of the Attic military was the creation of the office of strategist. The connection with the Kleisthenic phylene order is very clear; because this military leadership function was assigned to ten elected office holders at the same time: to one representative each from the 10 newly formed Phyls. “The election in the people's assembly was supposed to guarantee that every strategist also had the confidence of the entire demo. Therefore, every strategos could not only command the "regiment" (taxis) of his phyle, but also an armed force consisting of several phyle. "

Also the ostracism (ostracism), which was only introduced in the 80s of the 5th century BC. BC is attested by archaeological finds, reflected the spirit of the Kleisthenian reforms: prevention of tyranny and aristocratic power rivalries in the form of stasis . The ostracization of a potential usurper of power by the majority of the full citizens who voted counteracted individual ambitions for power without permanently disenfranchising or expropriating those affected; nothing, then, that touched upon social hierarchy or property relations. Regardless of whether or not the introduction of ostracism actually goes back to Kleisthenes, two things become clear in the application of the fragmentation court: The nobles had and apparently continued to have a great influence on political events in Athens. In the event of escalation, however, their arguments came before the people's assembly.

Historical classification

The reform work of Kleisthenes can be outlined relatively clearly on the basis of the tradition; Not much is known about the author himself. The more recent research seems to agree that the Kleisthenian reform approach was based on the central demand for isonomy directed against the tyrannical rule and was supposed to guarantee equal political participation rights among the aristocratic houses that still shape the social structure of Athens. It is also emphasized that this did not yet mean a transition to democracy, but made the way there possible.

Eminent statesman - in sparse source light

What Herodotus in the 5th and the Athenaion Politeia in the 4th century BC BC to the Kleisthenischen reforms, allows a reconstruction of the main features. Information on the person and life story of Kleisthenes himself is, in contrast to Solon, for example, extremely sparse and contains little more than the mention of his archonate (525/524 B.C.), his exile activities to overthrow the Peisistratiden tyranny and his conflict with Isagoras for political leadership in Athens. Nevertheless, according to these sources, he was held in high regard as a pioneering political reformer, with Herodotus even as the one who had established democracy in Athens.

Recent research also emphasizes the important role that Kleisthenes played in the political development of Athens. Konrad Kinzl judges: “Kleisthenes does not represent the statesmanlike giants towering above all standing statesmanlike giants who, obsessed with the vision of a democratically governed Athens, undauntedly implements it, regardless of the political circumstances. Rather, it is symbolic for the practical everyday politician, who therefore succeeded in simply looking for and finding consensus in politics against the background of the experiences and mistakes of the past as well as the urgent requirements of the present, but completely aristocrat in an aristocratic landscape. "

Kurt Raaflaub extends his assessment of ostracism, which he sees as a brilliant idea, to include Kleisthenes' entire reform program: “It was complex and rational, without violating the established units into which the citizenship and the territory of the polis were naturally divided. It took into account the needs of the nobility and the people, the villages, regions and the entire polis. [...] As a political theorist and at the same time a pragmatist of the highest caliber, Kleisthenes stands worthily alongside Solon and Pericles . "

Guiding principle eunomy

Kleisthenes for Raaflaub invented an almost perfect form of isonomy . Around the middle of the 6th century BC The term appeared in Athens - in other polis possibly even earlier - in connection with the aristocratic opposition to the tyranny, which for its part had already improved the social and economic conditions for equal rights for broader strata and for the integration of the polis . "The intellectual prerequisites for the realization of isonomic polis orders were finally created in a long process that was based on many factors that were largely common to the Greeks and was supported by numerous personalities in different parts of Greece."

Nor was there a new division and organization of the citizenship due to a territorial reorganization only to be found in Attica. Other poleis were also subjected to such a reorganization, not least for the purpose of recruiting a numerically strong hoplite force. For Athens itself, the innovations in the military organization that came about as a result of the Kleisthenian reforms, according to Karl-Wilhelm Welwei , were an important prerequisite for the success of the Athenian hoplite contingent at Marathon .

The intermingling of the citizenry associated with the Phylenreform was recognized as a reform goal of Kleisthenes in antiquity. In particular, the newly created Council of 500 is for Raaflaub the place of balancing interests in the topographically highly structured and economically differentiated Attic polis: “By dividing citizens from different parts of Attica into each phyle, they got to know each other and their different situations and needs. Familiarity and solidarity developed. From the events of the Phylen, the council and the army, these were also transferred to other organs of the overall polis: the assembly and the Heliaia (people's court). The citizens of Attica grew together like this: Despite their large territory, an integrated polis was created. "

Kinzl sees the Kleisthenian reforms also strengthening the principle of legal certainty and equal rights for all. “The work of Kleisthenes and his colleagues, followers and successors turned out to be a complete success - if success in politics is possible at all. Stasis as a 'legitimate' means of gaining political power had been eliminated as successfully as tyranny as a form of government. "

Gateway to democracy

According to Raaflaub, the most recent research on ancient history largely refuses to regard the Kleisthenian new order as a democracy. At that time, the concept and concept of democracy were still beyond the imaginable. Only in the last third of the 5th century BC. The term democracy is attested at all.

However, the Kleisthenic order represents "a decisive preliminary stage and basis on which democracy was finally able to develop." However, this required the extraordinary conditions after the Persian Wars and the supremacy of Athens in the Attic League . Raaflaub outlines the preparatory contribution of Kleisthenes to the later Attic democracy : “He introduced a system that made the integration of all citizens and interests possible and thus stabilized the polis after a period of crisis, conflict and tyranny. Its order created the prerequisites for the citizens to grow into their political responsibility, for a new and high-quality concept of the citizen to emerge, and for the Athenians to appear in mutual trust and solidarity with the outside world and thus become the leading political and cultural power in Greece. "

See also

• Lottery procedure

literature

• Konrad H. Kinzl (Ed.): Demokratie. The way to democracy among the Greeks. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1995
• Karl-Wilhelm Welwei : Athens. From the beginning to Hellenism. One-volume special edition; second, bibliographically updated edition with a new foreword of volumes 1. Athens. From Neolithic Settlements to Archaic Greater Polis (1992) and 2. Classical Athens. Democracy and Power Politics in the 5th and 4th Centuries (1999). Primus, Darmstadt 2011, ISBN 978-3-89678-731-6 .

Remarks

1. ^ Konrad H. Kinzl : Between Tyrannis and Democracy (1977); in ders. (Ed.) 1995, pp. 214-217.
2. ^ Karl-Wilhelm Welwei 2011, The Classical Athens. Democracy and Power Politics in the 5th and 4th Centuries (1999), p. 7.
3. ↑ In Jochen Martin says: "The political fighting took place alongside the political institutions instead, in other words, the rule of Athens remained in spite of Solon reforms precarious." ( From Kleisthenes to Ephialtes On the origin of the Athenian democracy.. (1974); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 170.)
4. ↑ Jochen Martin: From Kleisthenes to Ephialtes. On the emergence of Athenian democracy. (1974); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 164 f.
5. ↑ “The Alkmeonids, although they were one of the most prominent families of Athens, were never able to prevail in all disputes of the 6th century with their followers alone. Megakles lost to Peisistratos [...]; the defeat of Kleisthenes fits completely into this line. ”(Jochen Martin: Von Kleisthenes zu Ephialtes. On the emergence of Athenian democracy. (1974); in Kinzl (ed.) 1995, p. 170 f.)
6. ↑ The number corresponds to a later recording time; it may have been somewhat smaller on the occasion of the kleisthenic reforms. (Karl-Wilhelm Welwei 2011, The Classical Athens. Democracy and Power Politics in the 5th and 4th Centuries (1999), p. 11 f.)
7. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub : Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 21 f.
8. ^ Karl-Wilhelm Welwei 2011, The Classical Athens. Democracy and Power Politics in the 5th and 4th Centuries (1999), p. 9.
9. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 22 f.
10. ↑ Jochen Martin: From Kleisthenes to Ephialtes. On the emergence of Athenian democracy. (1974); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 178.
11. ↑ In the Athenaion politeia it is said that the Trittyen were assigned to the individual Phylenes by lot. The more recent research doubts this statement as well as the assumption that Kleisthenes designed the Trittyen according to his own family interests, as this would run counter to the overall concept of the Kleisthenian Phylenreform. (Cf. Robin Osborne , Greece in the making 1200-479 BC, 2nd Edition, London / New York 2009, pp. 284 f.)
12. ^ Karl-Wilhelm Welwei 2011, The Classical Athens. Democracy and Power Politics in the 5th and 4th Centuries (1999), p. 11.
13. ↑ Jochen Martin: From Kleisthenes to Ephialtes. On the emergence of Athenian democracy. (1974); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 178.
14. ^ Names and assignments according to John S. Traill: Demos and Trittys: Epigraphical and Topographical Studies in the Organization of Attica. Athenians, Toronto 1986, compared with the contributions in The New Pauly .
15. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 19.
16. ^ Karl-Wilhelm Welwei 2011, The Classical Athens. Democracy and Power Politics in the 5th and 4th Centuries (1999), p. 19.
17. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Hrsg.) 1995, p. 24. Raaflaub points out that a lot is still unclear regarding the Kleisthenic period with regard to the Council of 500 for ancient historical research, for example whether the later reported mode of appointment of the Bouleutes, their competencies and the limitation of their term of office already applied in these early stages. (ibid., p. 19 f.)
18. ^ Karl-Wilhelm Welwei 2011, The Classical Athens. Democracy and Power Politics in the 5th and 4th Centuries (1999), p. 21 f.
19. ^ Karl-Wilhelm Welwei 2011, The Classical Athens. Democracy and Power Politics in the 5th and 4th Centuries (1999), p. 22.
20. ^ Konrad H. Kinzl: Between Tyrannis and Democracy (1977); in ders. (Ed.) 1995, p. 227 f.
21. ↑ Jochen Martin: From Kleisthenes to Ephialtes. On the emergence of Athenian democracy. (1974); in Kinzl (Hrsg.) 1995, p. 190. Welwei says in this context: “Since he [Kleisthenes] undoubtedly tried to prevent influential representatives of the upper class from preparing to establish a personal position of power, he himself could Initiated ostracism. Ultimate security cannot be gained here, however. ”(Karl-Wilhelm Welwei 2011, The classic Athens. Democracy and power politics in the 5th and 4th centuries (1999), p. 21.)
22. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 2.
23. ^ Konrad H. Kinzl: Between Tyrannis and Democracy (1977); in the same (ed.) 1995, p. 218.
24. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 29 f.
25. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 52.
26. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 32 f.
27. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 31.
28. ^ Karl-Wilhelm Welwei 2011, The Classical Athens. Democracy and Power Politics in the 5th and 4th Centuries (1999), p. 15.
29. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, pp. 25-27.
30. ^ Konrad H. Kinzl: Between Tyrannis and Democracy (1977); in the same (Ed.) 1995, p. 234.
31. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 30 f. and 46.
32. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 31.
33. ↑ Kurt Raaflaub: Introduction and balance sheet: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes and the foundation of democracy. (1992); in Kinzl (Ed.) 1995, p. 52.