Hi folks! Here we’re seeing the transformations that beset Athens in the wake of two seismic events: the reforms that create radical democracy, and Athens stepping up to rival the hegemony of Sparta during the crisis of the Persian Wars. How does your document fit into that picture? What are the Athenians telling us about themselves?

I chose this excerpt from Plutarch's Life of Pericles because I wanted to learn more about what Athenian democracy was really like, beyond the idealized version we usually hear. What caught my attention in this text was the part where Plutarch describes how Pericles deliberately kept his distance from the people: he only walked down one street, declined invitations to dinner, and rarely spoke in public. This is in stark contrast to modern politicians, who strive to appear accessible and approachable, striking a balance between connecting with the people and maintaining authority. The detail that he prayed before each speech so that no swear words or inappropriate words would slip out shows how seriously he took public speaking: as an art and a responsibility, not as casual chatter.

I find it fascinating how this passage exposes the contradictions within Athenian democracy itself, something that has also come up in other readings. Plutarch portrays Pericles using populist tactics, such as paying for festivals, juries, and land distributions, as a way to gain power over other elites like Cimon. This challenges the idea of Athenian democracy as a pure form of civic participation and instead shows it as a system in which wealthy leaders competed for influence through material favors. The irony is that Pericles, despite coming from an aristocratic background, had to use these common strategies because the people held the real power in a democracy. I can’t but wonder what the common Athenians thought of all this: did they see it as a positive or negative thing?

What struck me was that Antiphon was so good in the way that he used all logical reasoning and legal principles in favor of his client. His emphasis on responsibility, error, and accident had indicated the reason that rational argumentation in law is significant, how rhetoric can deceive in complex moral situations, and a really complex one would be the account of the javelin incident, focused on personal responsibility, especially that the boy who moved into the javelin's path was actually guilty of his own death. It emphasizes the role of intent and causality in legal judgment; whereby fine distinctions affect verdicts in the different cases. Antiphon seems to be illustrating the careful structure of reasoning with respect to justice that is really dependent on liability and accident. For him, it would further emphasize that fault must not be put in blame at a random point and that one must understand what nuances, fault and intention are about. The grand point is said to indicate to the fact that rhetoric will shape how truth and justice are viewed, crucial to life in the legal as well as civic fields. The examination does mark a society that highly valued law, rational debate, and logical argumentation, characteristics of Classical Athens in the fifth century BCE. Indeed, marks how much was valued on legal processes, civic responsibility, and how persuasive discourse is in shaping legal outcomes. Justice and responsibility emphasized how that ideal fits in with Athenian democratic ideals as citizens participated in law courts in their own right. It lies well with the Athenian ideal of rhetoric as a way of attaining justice through rational debate. That close and detailed legal reasoning that deals with particular responsibilities is congruent with democratic Athens, in which most citizens were expected to participate in some law. However, it also raises the tension that exists within Athens- between persuasion and truth- by continuing to present the playful manipulation of the rhetoric that it indicates possible usage for rather devious purposes. This characterization depicts not only that rhetoric may be powerful but also that it possesses the potential of being manipulative.

The reading I chose is Documents on Greek Slavery because it provides different viewpoints on how slavery operated in ancient Greece. I found this topic interesting since it exposes the contradiction between Greek ideals of freedom and their dependence on enslaved labor to support daily life and the economy. What caught my eye was a passage from Aristotle’s Politics, he states that “some men are free by nature, and others slaves.” This grasped my attention because it shows how normalized slavery was in Greek thought, even among philosophers. Aristotle’s words display how intellectual reasoning was used to defend inequality and justify the belief that certain people were destined to serve others. In my opinion the reading reveals that slavery was deeply embedded into Athenian society and looked upon as a natural part of the social order. They highlight the divide between citizens who enjoyed political rights and those denied basic humanity. Athens, often praised as the birthplace of democracy, built its system on exclusion and forced labor. Differentiating from the other readings for example such as On the Athenian Constitutions, these texts show the hidden contradictions behind Athenian democracy. They remind us that freedom in Athens only applied to a select few. I’d like to learn more about the daily lives of enslaved people and how they have resisted or adapted within such an unequal system.

The reading I chose was “Document of Greek Slavey. Since there were different civilizations within Ancient Greece like the Athenians and Spartans, it’s was reasonable to assume that each would have a different perspective on the enslaved, to which I wanted to explore. A detail that I saw throughout the passage was beliefs that sought to dehumanize those that were enslaved such as them being necessary property and slaves by nature. I think what these different authors were trying to communicate was that these were the justifications for their treatment of people they view and inferior, basing it on things such as livelihood for themselves, and seeing it as their right as people that are superior. In my opinion, these documents are coming from a time and place where people sought to value themselves first and people that were foreign to their lands second. This document seem support to other readings like the one on the Spartans that this was a time and place that by any means necessary, these civilizations did what they sought was good and just for their advancement. What I would like to find out more about is if the treatment of enslaved people had an influence in the downfall of any of these civilizations.

I picked Pericles and Cimon. What stood out to me was Pericles' desire to avoid politics because of his similar features to the tyrant Peisistratus yet he ends up in politics anyway. I think the author was trying to communicate how far a person is willing to go to be accepted by the people. I think this document tells us that even though Athens was creative, they still struggled to find a medium balance between the rich and poor within their democracy. I think this document shows that Pericles cared so much about the people's opinion, he was willing to release Cimon from exile. I would like to know why Idomeneus would think he would kill his friend and political partner who has done much good to see justice served.

I selected the reading on Documents on Greek slavery/Various because it caught my attention on the

ways they were treated as protperty and thought as they own possession during this time. Hesiod stated

that "First of all, get a house, and a woman and an ox for the plough—a slave woman and not a wife, to

follow the oxen as well and make everything ready at home, so that you may not have to ask of another,

and he refuse you, and so, because you are in lack, the season pass by and your work come to nothing.

" I do not agree with the way women were treated during this time as if they were property owned.

These women were not respected or given their liberty to express themselves as a normal human being.

Hesoid's described women as "oxen", considered animals as if they weren't appreciated. The slaves did

not have a say and had to obey their command and become who they wanted to

be during that time.

I chose On the Athenian Constitution by Pseudo-Xenophon. I picked it because I thought it was really interesting how it gives a totally different take on Athens than what we usually hear. Most of the time, we learn about how great Athenian democracy was, but this author clearly isn’t a fan. He sounds kind of frustrated with how the government gives power to the poor instead of the wealthy or “better educated” citizens.

One part that stood out to me was when he mentioned that the poor “have more power than the noble.” That line really caught my attention because it shows how controversial democracy actually was back then. It’s weirdly relatable too, since people still argue today about who should have the most say in politics.

I think the author was trying to show that the Athenian system, while admired by many, wasn’t perfect—especially from the point of view of the upper class. He saw democracy as something that flipped the usual order and let people without status or wealth make big decisions.

This document tells us that Athens wasn’t just this perfectly unified democracy like it’s sometimes described. There were real divisions between social classes and debates about what kind of government worked best. Compared to other readings, like Pericles speeches about equality and civic duty, this one feels like the opposite. Pericles celebrates democracy, while Pseudo-Xenophon points out its flaws. Reading both sides gives a fuller picture of how complex Athens actually was.

For this week’s discussion response, I selected the reading from Various Documents on Greek Slavery. This topic captured my attention primarily around my curiosity around the Greek forms of slavery and how these ‘practices’ may contrast or resemble those found in American culture. As the ‘overview’ highlights, Greek slaves were primarily “foreigners”; and the manner in which they were used “...varied from city to city and from century to century.”  

Some of the critical themes presented in this series of documents focused on the perspectives of what a slave really was. For example, Hesiod defined slaves as women who were, in a sense, ‘ranked’ alongside that of animals (oxen). Strabo stressed prostitutes as being slaves for the rich. In the case of Aristotle, his ‘politics on slavery’ denoted that slaves are just “property.” 

Aside from the aspect of how slaves are defined, the argument is presented on the ‘principles of slavery.’ Is there any ‘justice’ in how a slave should be viewed or treated. Even further is the notion that a slave is born; people are ‘slaves by law’ or ‘slaves by nature’; “the natural slave.”

All of these interpretations of what a slave is and how they should be ‘managed’ (treated), really opened my eyes in adjusting my attitude towards slavery and the Greek culture around slaves. With very little room for doubt, Greek slavery is portrayed as something not just accepted by society, but it is an adopted practice which has skewed the humanity of what a ‘human’ is. In reference to Aristotle, a question I have for this reading is: Why are humans viewed as nothing more than an “instrument?”

I chose to read “On the Athenian Constitution”. The author, while unknown, gives us a great deal of information about Athenian democracy while sharing their own personal critiques on Athenian culture and society as a whole. The author criticizes Athenian democracy for its preference towards the common and low-born citizen over the wealthy class. Although the author also admits that the system itself is highly effective. The common citizen made up both the Athenian navy and the economy, allowing them to have political control while delegating the actual leadership positions to members of the elite class. The elites in power held the public offices, but all of their power came from the support of average citizens, much like how many democratic governments around the world function today. While the author does disapprove of Athens’ constitutional values, it is important to keep in mind that under this ancient constitution, Athens maintained its democracy for years and helped to inspire many of the world's current democratically run countries.

The reading that I went with was “On the Athenian Constitution” and the reason I went with it is that I’m interested in a document like this. Around 424 BCE, someone called “The Old Oligarch” penned a piece questioning Athens’ government. Though he disliked it, he conceded it worked well, namely, protecting the strength also liberty of ordinary people. His account depicts a city split by class warfare; however, those without means had seized dominance through naval power, the bedrock of Athens itself. He perceived what others might call chaos or even criminality as intentional moves designed to uphold democracy. He noticed something unsettling: slaves alongside outsiders seemed to get away with quite a lot. His take? Regular folks barely had nicer clothes than those enslaved, so hitting a slave could easily mean accidentally punching a citizen, a risk nobody wanted. It’s a harsh view, especially when stacked against speeches like Pericles’, which practically sang the praises of that democracy while this writer found fault with it.

From what I could gather from my document: Documents on Greek Slavery, Athens presented itself as the defender of freedom, the defender of equality in the face of Spartan rigidity and Persian despotism. But when we look closer, we discover that this entire democratic structure, this entire discourse of freedom, rests on slave labor. The Athenian economy functioned thanks to it, and daily life depended on it. And this is where the problem arises: the “freedom” they celebrated so much was, in reality, a privilege reserved exclusively for male citizens. Slaves, women, foreigners, all of them were left out of this common sense of democracy that Athens presented as its greatest achievement of civilization.

While citizens took pride in having constructed a society based on political participation and the use of reason, they accepted without question that other human beings were treated as “living instruments,” to use Aristotle's words. What the Athenians tell us about themselves, then, is that their freedom was defined not only by political independence from external powers, but also by the consistent subordination of those who were not part of their community.

The texts presented by Hesiod, Strabo, and Aristotle reveal how slavery was not simply an economical practice or a social convention: it was a normalized idea, legitimized even by philosophy. Aristotle takes this view to its most uncomfortable extreme by arguing that some human beings are “slaves by nature,” a context that, according to him, served to reinforce the existing political and social order. At the same time, the distinction between “Greeks” and “barbarians” shows us how the Athenians built their identity on the exclusion of the other: being free, being rational, was a cultural privilege, not a universal human condition. Being Athenian meant, in a sense, not being a woman, not being a slave, not being a barbarian or a foreigner. If you met all the requirements, you were an Athenian.

I chose Euripides’ "Medea" (lines 1175–1275) because the emotions in this part of the play really stood out to me. The moment when Medea kisses her children and describes their “smiling eyes” before reminding herself that the poisoned crown is already killing the princess was both tender and horrifying. It showed how deeply torn she was between love and anger. I think Euripides wanted to show how powerful emotions like betrayal, heartbreak, and revenge can cloud judgment. Even though Medea knows what she’s about to do is wrong, she feels trapped by her pain and pride. What made this interesting to me is how real her conflict feel, she’s not just a villain, she’s a person who’s been hurt and pushed too far.

This passage also gives us insight into ancient Greek society. Medea’s situation reflects how little control women, especially foreign women, had over their lives. She doesn’t have the same rights as men, so her only power comes through desperate actions. This connects to what we’ve read about Greek value, like how important reputation and honor were, but it also challenges them by showing what happens when those values destroy someone instead of protecting them. I’d like to learn more about how audiences in 431 BCE viewed Medea. Did they feel sympathy for her, or see her as completely in the wrong? It would be interesting to understand how her story reflected real attitudes toward women and outsiders in that time.