§-Syllabus dot point

NSWAncient HistorySyllabus dot point

How did the institutions of radical democracy operate in Athens in the age of Pericles?

The social and political organisation of Athens in the age of Pericles, including the institutions of radical democracy (the ekklesia, the boule of 500, the dikasteria and jury pay, and magistrates chosen by lot), the ten elected strategoi, ostracism and the graphe paranomon, Pericles' leadership and his pay reforms, and the ancient critique of Athenian democracy

A focused answer to the HSC Ancient History Ancient Societies dot point on Athens under Pericles: the sovereign ekklesia, the boule of 500 and dikasteria (both filled by lot), jury pay, the elected strategoi, ostracism, the graphe paranomon, Pericles' reforms, and the critique of the Old Oligarch, Plato and Aristotle.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.814 min answerUpdated 2026-07-01

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Quick answer

Athenian radical democracy under Pericles combined a sovereign ekklesia open to all citizens with a boule of 500 and a dikasteria of 6,000 jurors, both filled by lot and (after Pericles' reform of the 450s BC) paid, so that poorer citizens could actually serve; almost all other magistracies were likewise filled by lot for a single year, while only the ten strategoi were elected and freely re-electable, a carve-out that let Pericles hold the generalship for fifteen consecutive years until his death in 429 BC. Ostracism and the graphe paranomon acted as checks, letting the citizen body exile a leading politician or a dikasterion annul an ekklesia decree. Ancient critics from the hostile Old Oligarch to Plato and the more measured Aristotle all grappled with the tension Thucydides named directly: a constitution "in name a democracy, but in fact government by its first citizen."

Jump to a section

What this dot point is asking
The answer
How to read a source on this topic
Historians on Athenian democracy

What this dot point is asking

NESA expects you to describe the institutions of Athenian radical democracy in the age of Pericles: the sovereign ekklesia, the boule of 500 and the dikasteria (both filled by lot), jury pay, magistrates chosen by lot, the ten elected strategoi, ostracism and the graphe paranomon, Pericles' leadership and his reforms, and the ancient critique of the whole system. A strong answer keeps two axes straight throughout: LOT versus ELECTION, and DESIGN versus PRACTICE (Pericles' personal dominance within a formally lot-and-pay-based system).

In plain English

Imagine a school where almost every committee job, the canteen roster, the yearbook committee, the disciplinary panel, is filled not by voting but by pulling names out of a hat each term, on purpose, so that literally any student gets a fair turn and no clique can grab permanent control. There is one big exception: the sports captains, who genuinely need proven skill, so those jobs are voted on properly and the best captains can be re-elected year after year. There is also a whole-school assembly where every student can turn up and vote on anything, and it outranks every committee. To make sure poorer students could actually afford to give up a day's work to sit on the discipline panel, the school starts paying a small daily allowance for it.

Now add two safety valves. Once a year the school can vote to "exile" its most talked-about student for a term, no trial needed, just to let off steam and stop one person getting too dominant. And any decision the whole-school assembly makes can still be challenged afterwards and cancelled by an independent student court, so even the biggest vote isn't automatically the last word. Athens under Pericles worked almost exactly like this: lot for nearly everything, election only for military command, pay so ordinary citizens could serve, an assembly on top, and both an "exile" button (ostracism) and a "court can cancel it" button (the graphe paranomon). The twist critics loved to point out: for fifteen years running, the sports-captain slot kept going to the very same man.

The answer

From Cleisthenes to Pericles: how radical democracy was built

Athenian democracy did not spring into being fully formed. Cleisthenes' reforms of 508/507 BC created the ten new tribes (replacing the old kinship-based groupings), the boule of 500, and, according to Aristotle, the procedure of ostracism, though it was not used until 487 BC.

The decisive shift toward "radical" democracy came with Ephialtes' reforms of 462/461 BC, which stripped the Areopagus, the ancient council of ex-archons, of most of its political oversight, transferring its powers to the boule, the ekklesia and the dikasteria. Ephialtes was assassinated soon afterward, and Pericles, his younger ally, emerged over the following decade as the dominant figure in Athenian politics, a position he held for roughly three decades until his death in 429 BC.

The ekklesia: the sovereign assembly

The ekklesia was the sovereign decision-making body of the Athenian state. Any citizen (adult, free, Athenian-born male) could attend, speak and vote. It met roughly forty times a year on the Pnyx hill, voting ordinarily by a simple show of hands (cheirotonia), though a quorum of 6,000 was required for certain especially significant votes, such as an ostracism or the grant of citizenship.

The ekklesia decided on war and peace, foreign alliances, finance, and every major decree, but it could only vote on business the boule had already prepared as a probouleuma. It could not originate detailed legislation from the floor.

The boule of 500: preparing the agenda

The boule of 500, established under Cleisthenes and central to the classical system, comprised 500 citizens, fifty from each of the ten tribes, chosen by lot (klerosis) for a one-year term. Members had to be at least 30 years old and could serve no more than twice in a lifetime, never in consecutive years.

Each fifty-member tribal delegation served in turn as the prytaneis, the standing executive committee, for one-tenth of the year (a prytany). Each day a different member, chosen by lot, served as epistates, the presiding chairman, holding the state seal and the keys to the treasury and the archive for that single day, an office almost every citizen could expect to hold once in his life.

The boule's core function was probouleutic: it debated and issued the agenda that the ekklesia would vote on. It also supervised magistrates and, in the classical period, handled some judicial business itself.

The dikasteria and jury pay

The dikasteria were Athens's jury courts. Each year 6,000 citizens aged 30 or over, who volunteered, were selected by lot to serve as dikastai (jurors). Individual case panels were large, an odd number such as 201, 501 or 1,001, specifically to avoid a tied verdict. There was no judge: the jurors themselves decided both the verdict and, in many cases, the penalty, by secret ballot, with no possibility of appeal.

Pericles' most celebrated reform was the introduction of pay for jury service (the dikastikon), probably in the 450s BC, at 2 obols a day (Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians 27.3-4). Aristotle attributes the measure explicitly to Pericles, made, he suggests, partly to counter the popularity of his wealthy rival Cimon, who had been funding poorer citizens privately. The rate was later raised to 3 obols a day by the popular leader Cleon, after 425 BC. Jury pay mattered because it let citizens who needed a day's wage actually afford to serve, extending real, not merely formal, political participation to the poor.

Pericles is also associated with a stricter citizenship law of 451/450 BC, which for the first time required both parents, not just the father, to be Athenian for a child to hold citizenship, tightening the definition of who could share in these institutions even as participation within that group widened.

Ostracism and the graphe paranomon: the two checks

Radical democracy built in two distinctive safety valves.

Ostracism, attributed to Cleisthenes' reforms but first used in 487 BC (against Hipparchus son of Charmus), let the citizen body exile a prominent individual for ten years without trial, loss of property, or loss of citizenship. Each year, in the sixth prytany, the ekklesia decided by a show of hands whether to hold an ostracism at all; if it voted yes, citizens later wrote a name on an ostrakon (a broken pottery sherd), and a quorum of 6,000 votes cast was required for a result. Archaeologists have recovered large caches of ostraka, including many bearing Themistocles' name (exiled 471 BC) written in only a handful of different hands, evidence that political factions distributed pre-prepared ostraka to their supporters rather than leaving every voter to inscribe one unaided. Cimon was ostracised in 461 BC and Thucydides son of Melesias, Pericles' chief rival, in 443 BC. The practice fell out of use after a notorious 416 BC vote, engineered by an alliance of Alcibiades and Nicias, resulted in the relatively minor figure Hyperbolus being ostracised instead of either of them, an outcome ancient writers treat as having discredited the institution.

The graphe paranomon let any citizen indict the proposer of a decree passed in the ekklesia as unconstitutional (paranomon); the case was heard before a dikasterion, which could annul the decree and penalise the proposer. Historians commonly, though not with total certainty, connect its introduction to the years following Ephialtes' reforms of 462/461 BC, on the reasoning that once the Areopagus lost its old power to strike down unconstitutional measures, a replacement check on the sovereign ekklesia was needed; the earliest securely attested prosecution dates from 415 BC. Whatever its exact origin date, the procedure meant that even the "sovereign" assembly's decisions were not immune from later judicial review by ordinary jurors.

Institutions at a glance

Institution	Method	Term/scale	Core power
Ekklesia	Open to all citizens	~40 meetings/year	Sovereign vote on all major decrees
Boule of 500	Lot	500, 1 year	Prepares the agenda (probouleuma)
Dikasteria	Lot	6,000 jurors/year	Verdict and penalty, no appeal
Magistrates (e.g. archons)	Lot	~700 posts, 1 year, no repeat	Routine administration
Strategoi	Election	10, re-electable	Military command, major policy

How to read a source on this topic

Section II sources on Athenian democracy are typically drawn from Thucydides' History (especially Pericles' funeral oration, 2.34-2.46, and the "first citizen" verdict at 2.65), Aristotle's Constitution of the Athenians, the Old Oligarch's Constitution of the Athenians, Plutarch's Life of Pericles, and archaeological ostraka. Three reading habits.

First, separate INSTITUTIONAL fact from POLEMIC. Aristotle's Athenian Constitution mostly describes how things worked; the Old Oligarch and Plato mostly argue about whether the system should exist at all. Both are evidence, but of different things.

Second, watch the date relative to Pericles. Thucydides was a contemporary and eyewitness (he served as a strategos himself, in 424 BC); Plato wrote a generation later, shaped by the trauma of Socrates' execution in 399 BC; Aristotle wrote later still, with archival access but no personal memory of the events.

Third, treat archaeological evidence (ostraka, inscribed decrees, building accounts) as a check on the literary sources' claims: the multiple-hands pattern in ostraka caches, for instance, corrects a naive reading of ostracism as a spontaneous act of hundreds of individual citizens.

Historians on Athenian democracy

Ancient assessments split sharply by genre and date. The Old Oligarch (Pseudo-Xenophon, Constitution of the Athenians, probably 430s-420s BC) is hostile but analytically candid, conceding that pay-for-service "works" to keep power with the poor even as he condemns it. Plato (Republic Book 8; Gorgias), writing in the earlier 4th century BC and marked by Socrates' execution in 399 BC, presents democracy as prone to flattery and demagogic manipulation, sliding toward tyranny. Aristotle (Athenian Constitution; Politics) is the most measured ancient critic, combining the fullest surviving institutional description with a comparative, less polemical critique of unchecked popular power.

Modern historians divide on how to weigh institutional design against Pericles' personal authority. Mogens Herman Hansen (The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes, 1991) reconstructs the machinery of lot, pay and mass juries in detail and treats it as a genuinely working direct democracy. Josiah Ober (Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens, 1989) argues that even Athens's most dominant orators had to persuade a sovereign mass audience capable of rejecting them, so popular sovereignty was substantively real, not a facade over elite rule. P. J. Rhodes, the standard commentator on Aristotle's Athenian Constitution, treats the Old Oligarch as a uniquely valuable hostile witness precisely because his hostility is specific and analytical rather than merely abusive. Loren Samons II (What's Wrong with Ancient Democracy?, 2004) takes a more sceptical modern line, closer to Thucydides' own "first citizen" reading, crediting much of Periclean Athens's success to Pericles' individual judgement rather than to the democratic process as such.

Model exam responses

1. Source-analysis response (the ostraka cache). "This type of archaeological evidence, a cache of duplicate ostraka naming the same individual in only a handful of handwritings, is highly useful for a historian investigating how ostracism actually operated: it shows the vote was organised in advance by political factions distributing pre-written sherds to supporters, not a spontaneous act by hundreds of individual citizens each inscribing their own choice. This corrects a naive reading of the literary sources, which describe ostracism as an open popular vote without detailing its logistics. Its usefulness is limited to the mechanics of the vote itself; it cannot recover an individual voter's private motive, which is why the pattern must be read alongside Plutarch's and Thucydides' narrative accounts of named ostracisms such as Cimon (461 BC) and Thucydides son of Melesias (443 BC)."

Marker's note: markers reward decoding the archaeological pattern into a historical claim (organised, not spontaneous), a named example, and an explicit statement of the evidence's limit.

2. Essay paragraph (Pericles' pay reform as the mechanism of radical democracy). "Jury pay is the clearest evidence that Athenian democracy after 462/461 BC was radical in substance, not only in name. Aristotle records that Pericles introduced payment for the dikasteria, probably in the 450s BC, at 2 obols a day, a rate Cleon later raised to 3 obols after 425 BC. Without it, a citizen who needed a day's wage could never actually sit in judgement, however formally entitled he was to do so; with it, the 6,000-strong annual jury pool could be genuinely drawn from the whole citizen body rather than only its leisured members. The Old Oligarch's hostile Constitution of the Athenians confirms the reform's real effect from the opposite side, conceding that pay for naval and jury service is precisely what 'keeps the state' in the hands of the poor. Formal rights and the material means to exercise them are not the same thing, and Pericles' reform closed that gap."

Marker's note: this paragraph scores because it sustains an argument (pay as the mechanism, not a footnote), deploys precise attributed figures (2 then 3 obols, named sources), and integrates a hostile ancient source as corroboration rather than mere colour.

3. Short-answer response (lot versus election). "Athenian officeholding split cleanly along one line: almost every post, the boule of 500, the dikasteria's jury pool, and roughly 700 further magistracies, was filled by lot for a single year with no repeat, spreading office as widely as possible across the citizen body. The one major exception was the ten strategoi, elected annually because military command required demonstrated skill, and elected officials alone could be re-appointed without limit. That single carve-out explains how Pericles could dominate a system built almost entirely on rotation and chance: he was re-elected strategos for fifteen consecutive years, from 443 to 429 BC, entirely within the rules of a constitution designed, everywhere else, to prevent exactly that kind of permanence."

Marker's note: markers reward the explicit lot/election contrast, the correct scale (~700 posts, 500-member boule, 6,000 jurors), and the link from the exception to Pericles' own career.

Command words and technique

Match the verb. "Outline" wants sequenced, named features (the boule's membership, the dikasteria's scale) with no evaluation; "explain" wants the mechanism (how jury pay changed WHO could serve, how the graphe paranomon checks the ekklesia); "assess" / "evaluate" / "to what extent" demand a sustained JUDGEMENT, stated early and defended in every paragraph. For any source, real or an ExamExplained-owned reconstruction, work through four steps: CONTENT (what it actually shows), ORIGIN (who produced it, and when, relative to the events), USEFULNESS AND RELIABILITY (what it can and cannot prove; label a reconstructed "type" of source as illustrative, never as a transcription), PERSPECTIVE (an oligarchic pamphlet, a philosopher writing after Socrates' trial, and an eyewitness general each see radical democracy differently). Weave historiography as argument, "Ober's reading of a genuinely sovereign demos qualifies Thucydides' 'first citizen' verdict," rather than naming a historian only at the end of a paragraph.

Common exam traps

Confusing the boule and the ekklesia: The boule (500, by lot) prepares business; the ekklesia (all citizens) has the sovereign vote.
Treating all magistrates as elected: Only the strategoi (and a few skill-based posts) were elected; the great majority, including the archons, were chosen by lot.
Misdating jury pay: Pericles introduced it at 2 obols in the 450s BC; Cleon raised it to 3 obols only after 425 BC, well after Pericles' death in 429 BC. Do not merge the two reforms.
Describing ostracism as a trial: It required no charge, no defence and no verdict of guilt; it was a preventive political vote, not a judicial punishment.
Forgetting the "check" on the ekklesia: The graphe paranomon meant a passed ekklesia decree could still be annulled by a dikasterion; the assembly's vote was sovereign but not immune from later review.

Practice questions

Original practice questions graded from foundation to exam level, each with a full worked solution. Try them before revealing the solution.

foundation4 marksOutline the membership and function of the boule of 500.

Show worked solution →

A 4-mark "outline" rewards several correct, briefly developed points.

Membership: Five hundred citizens, fifty from each of the ten Cleisthenic tribes, chosen by lot (klerosis) for a one-year term. A citizen could serve twice in his lifetime, but not in consecutive years.
Age: Members had to be at least 30 years old, the same minimum age as jury service.
The prytany system: Each of the ten fifty-member tribal groups served as the standing executive (the prytaneis) for one-tenth of the year in rotation, with a chairman (the epistates) chosen by lot each day, who held the state seal and treasury keys for that single day only.
Function: The boule was probouleutic: it prepared and issued the agenda (the probouleuma) for every meeting of the ekklesia, so nothing reached the sovereign assembly without first passing through the council.

Markers reward the correct total (500, fifty per tribe), the one-year lot-based term, and the probouleutic function.

foundation3 marksOutline how magistrates other than the ten strategoi were chosen in Periclean Athens.

Show worked solution →

A 3-mark "outline" wants brief, sequenced points, not evaluation.

By lot: The great majority of Athenian magistracies, including the nine archons, were filled by lot (klerosis) from the pool of eligible citizens.
One year, no repetition: A magistrate held office for a single year and could not hold the same office twice, spreading public office across a wide body of citizens rather than a professional class.
The exception: Only a small number of posts requiring specialist military or financial skill, above all the ten strategoi, were filled by election (cheirotonia) instead, and these alone could be held repeatedly.

Markers reward "by lot," the one-year/no-repeat rule, and the contrast with the elected strategoi.

foundation4 marksExplain what ostracism was and how the annual procedure worked.

Show worked solution →

A 4-mark "explain" needs the mechanism, not just a definition.

What it was: Ostracism was a procedure by which the Athenian citizen body could vote to exile a prominent individual, without trial or loss of property or citizenship, for ten years.
The annual vote: In the sixth prytany of each year the ekklesia decided by a simple show of hands whether to hold an ostracism at all.
The vote itself: If the assembly voted yes, citizens later wrote a name on a broken piece of pottery (an ostrakon) in the agora; a quorum of 6,000 votes cast was required for the result to stand, and the individual named on the most ostraka was exiled.
Introduced by Cleisthenes, first used 487 BC: The procedure is attributed to Cleisthenes' reforms of 508/507 BC but was first actually used in 487 BC, against Hipparchus son of Charmus.

Markers reward the annual preliminary vote, the 6,000-vote quorum, and the correct first use.

core5 marksSource A (an ExamExplained reconstruction, describing the type of evidence excavators recovered from a well near the Athenian agora): a cache of pottery ostraka naming Themistocles, prepared before the ostracism vote and, on close inspection, written by only a handful of different hands rather than by hundreds of separate individuals. Using Source A and your own knowledge, explain what this type of archaeological evidence reveals about how ostracism actually operated.

Show worked solution →

A 5-mark "explain" with a source needs the evidence USED, the inference it supports, and own knowledge beyond the source.

Use the source: Source A describes exactly the pattern real excavated ostraka caches show: large numbers of pottery fragments naming the same individual, inscribed in only a small number of handwritings, not by each individual voter.
The inference: This is strong evidence that political factions prepared and distributed pre-written ostraka to their own supporters ahead of the vote, rather than relying on every citizen to scratch a name unaided. Ostracism was therefore not a spontaneous, purely individual judgement but an organised political contest between rival leaders and their followings.
Own knowledge: This matters for understanding named 5th-century BC ostracisms: Themistocles (471 BC), Cimon (461 BC) and Thucydides son of Melesias (443 BC, Pericles' chief political rival) were all removed at moments of sharp factional rivalry, consistent with a mobilised, organised vote rather than a spontaneous popular judgement.
A caution: As archaeological evidence, ostraka fix WHO was targeted and roughly WHEN, but not the individual voter's private reasoning, so historians pair them with the narrative sources (Plutarch, Thucydides) for motive.

Markers reward decoding the source's implication (organised, not spontaneous), a named example, and the evidentiary caution.

core6 marksSOURCE ANALYSIS. Source B (an ExamExplained reconstruction, in the style of a mid-5th-century BC pamphlet critical of the Athenian constitution): 'The common people know their own interest better than any aristocrat could tell them: by manning the fleet and filling the jury-benches for pay, the poor keep the state in their own hands, and this, however distasteful, is precisely why the constitution endures.' Assess the usefulness and reliability of this type of source for a historian investigating attitudes to jury pay in Periclean Athens.

Show worked solution →

A 6-mark source-analysis task needs balanced usefulness AND reliability, anchored in origin/motive/audience, plus own knowledge and a historian.

Origin, motive, audience: This type of source represents the "Old Oligarch" (Pseudo-Xenophon), Constitution of the Athenians, an anonymous pamphlet probably written in the 430s-420s BC by an oligarchic-minded Athenian addressing a like-minded aristocratic readership hostile to the democracy.
Usefulness: The source is genuinely useful for showing that contemporaries linked naval service and jury pay directly to the poor's political power: it names the precise mechanism (misthos for the dikasteria) that Pericles introduced, probably in the 450s BC, at 2 obols a day (Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians 27.3-4), later raised to 3 obols by Cleon after 425 BC.
Reliability: Reliability is limited by open hostility: the writer disapproves of the very system he describes, so his account is polemical rather than neutral, yet his grudging admission that the system "works" for its own purposes is unusually candid for a hostile source and corroborates, from an unfriendly angle, that jury pay achieved its intended effect.
Own knowledge and historian: P. J. Rhodes reads the Old Oligarch as valuable precisely because its hostility is analytically sharp rather than merely abusive, making it a useful check on the more sympathetic tradition in Thucydides and Aristotle.

Markers reward origin/motive/audience analysis, BALANCED usefulness and limitation, and a named historian.

core6 marksExplain why the graphe paranomon has been described by historians as a check on the sovereignty of the ekklesia.

Show worked solution →

A 6-mark "explain" needs the mechanism and its constitutional significance, not narration.

The procedure: The graphe paranomon allowed any citizen to indict the proposer of a decree passed (or merely put) in the ekklesia as "against the laws" (paranomon). The case was tried before a dikasterion, not the assembly.
The consequence for the ekklesia's sovereignty: In principle the ekklesia's vote was final and supreme, yet the graphe paranomon subjected even a passed decree, and its proposer, to after-the-fact judicial review by ordinary jurors. A successful prosecution could annul the decree and penalise the proposer (a fine, loss of rights, or worse on a third conviction).
Why it matters: This means Athenian "radical democracy" built a formal check into its own most sovereign body: a popular vote could be overturned by a popular jury court, so power was distributed between two different expressions of the citizen body rather than concentrated in the assembly's show of hands alone.
A caution for historians: The exact date the graphe paranomon was introduced is not certain; many historians link it to the years after Ephialtes' reforms of 462/461 BC stripped the Areopagus of its old power to annul unconstitutional measures, on the reasoning that a replacement check was needed, though the earliest securely attested prosecution dates from 415 BC.

Markers reward the mechanism, the "check on sovereignty" argument, and the flagged uncertainty over the date.

exam25 marksESSAY. To what extent was Periclean Athens a genuine democracy rather than, in Thucydides' words, 'in name a democracy, but in fact government by its first citizen'?

Show worked solution →

A band-6 essay sustains a judgement on "to what extent," marshals precise dated institutional evidence, and weaves historiography. This is a PLAN plus a model paragraph.

Thesis: The formal institutions of Periclean Athens were genuinely and radically democratic, distributing power by lot and pay across the whole citizen body; but Pericles' unmatched personal authority, built on fifteen consecutive strategoi and sustained popular trust, meant the sovereign demos consistently chose to be led by one man, so Thucydides' paradox is a true description of political PRACTICE without contradicting the DEMOCRATIC FORM of the constitution.
Argument line 1: the institutions were genuinely radical: The ekklesia was sovereign and open to any citizen; the boule of 500 and the great majority of magistracies, some 700 posts, were filled by lot for a single year; the dikasteria's 6,000 annually empanelled jurors decided verdict and penalty with no judge to overrule them; and Pericles' introduction of jury pay (2 obols a day, Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 27.3-4) let poorer citizens actually exercise these rights rather than merely hold them on paper. Lot, rotation and pay together diffused power far more widely than any earlier Greek constitution.
Argument line 2: Pericles' personal dominance was real and exceptional: Pericles was elected strategos for fifteen consecutive years, from 443 to his death in 429 BC, an unbroken run no rival matched. He used ostracism against his chief opponent, Thucydides son of Melesias, in 443 BC, clearing the field of organised resistance for over a decade. Thucydides (2.65.9) states directly that Athens "became, in name, a democracy, but, in fact, government by the first man."
Argument line 3: the two claims are compatible, not contradictory: The demos retained the sovereign right to remove Pericles at any of his roughly annual strategoi elections or through the ekklesia's ordinary business, and did in fact fine him in 430/429 BC over the conduct of the Peloponnesian War, before re-electing him within the year. Personal dominance by consent, renewed and briefly withdrawn by a sovereign vote, is different in kind from the "tyranny" the Old Oligarch and Plato feared democracy might produce.
Historiography: Mogens Herman Hansen argues the formal machinery of lot, pay and mass juries made 5th-century Athens a working direct democracy regardless of any one leader's prestige. Josiah Ober contends that even a dominant orator like Pericles had to persuade a mass audience that could reject him, so popular sovereignty, not elite manipulation, remained the real source of power. Loren Samons II takes the more critical, Old-Oligarch-adjacent view that Periclean Athens' successes owed more to Pericles' judgement than to the democratic process itself, closer to Thucydides' own reading.
Model paragraph (argument line 3): The clearest test of Thucydides' paradox is what happened when Pericles' judgement and the demos's patience diverged. In 430/429 BC, with the plague ravaging the city and the war going badly, the ekklesia removed Pericles from the strategia and fined him, exactly the sovereign sanction the constitution provided for any magistrate. Yet within the year the same assembly re-elected him, evidently persuaded once more by the reasoning Thucydides (2.60-2.64) attributes to him in the funeral oration and its aftermath. A single leader can dominate a democracy's politics for a decade and still remain answerable to it; Pericles' brief eclipse and swift restoration in 430/429 BC shows the demos, not the man, held the final word, even while it chose, again and again, to give that word to Pericles.
Conclusion: Genuinely democratic in form, personally dominated in practice, and reconciled by the fact that the demos's sovereignty included the sovereign choice to keep re-electing the same man. Judgement sustained.

Marker's note: band 6 answers ANSWER the "to what extent," cite the Thucydides quotation precisely, deploy dated institutional detail (jury pay, the 443 BC ostracism, the 430/429 BC fine and re-election), and integrate at least two named historians as argument rather than decoration. A chronological retelling of Pericles' career without engaging the "first citizen" claim caps the response at mid-band.

exam20 marksESSAY. Evaluate the ancient critique of Athenian radical democracy, with reference to the Old Oligarch, Plato and Aristotle.

Show worked solution →

A band-6 source-and-historiography essay ranks and cross-examines the ancient critics rather than summarising each in turn. This is a PLAN plus a model paragraph.

Thesis: The three major ancient critiques of Athenian democracy differ sharply in date, motive and target: the Old Oligarch attacks the system from open contemporary hostility to its social effects, Plato attacks it philosophically from the trauma of Socrates' trial and execution, and Aristotle offers the most analytically useful account because he combines documented institutional description with a more measured, comparative critique of demagogy.
Argument line 1: the Old Oligarch, hostile but candid: The pamphlet conventionally called the Constitution of the Athenians, probably written in the 430s-420s BC by an anonymous oligarchic-minded Athenian, condemns naval-based radical democracy for handing power to the poor through pay for jury service, yet its very hostility makes it valuable: it confirms jury pay's intended political effect from an unsympathetic witness who had no motive to flatter the system.
Argument line 2: Plato, the philosophical indictment: Writing in the early 4th century BC, a generation after Pericles and after the democratic court had condemned his teacher Socrates to death in 399 BC, Plato's Republic (Book 8) and Gorgias present democracy as prone to flattery, demagogy and mob rule, sliding by its own internal logic toward tyranny. Plato's critique is philosophically powerful but chronologically and emotionally distant from the Periclean institutions this dot point examines.
Argument line 3: Aristotle, description and measured critique: Aristotle's Athenian Constitution (mid-to-late 4th century BC) is our fullest surviving institutional account, confirming details such as the rise of jury pay from 2 to 3 obols (27.3-4) and the workings of allotted magistracies; his Politics criticises unchecked direct democracy's vulnerability to demagogues more cautiously than Plato, while still valuing a "mixed" constitution over a pure one.
Model paragraph (argument line 3): Aristotle is the single most useful ancient critic precisely because he is not only a critic. His Athenian Constitution supplies the institutional skeleton this topic depends on: the annual rotation of magistrates by lot, the operation of the dikasteria, and the specific figures for jury pay under Pericles and Cleon. His separate critique in the Politics of unchecked democratic power sliding toward demagogic manipulation is offered as one option within a comparative survey of constitutions, not, like Plato's, as an argument driven by a personal and philosophical grievance against the system that killed his teacher's teacher. A historian therefore uses Aristotle for structure and calibrated critique, and reads the Old Oligarch and Plato as valuable evidence of contemporary and near-contemporary hostility rather than as neutral description.
Conclusion: No single ancient critic is sufficient alone: the Old Oligarch supplies hostile contemporary testimony, Plato supplies the philosophical extreme, and Aristotle supplies both institutional detail and measured critique, and a strong answer ranks them rather than treating all three as equally reliable.

Marker's note: band 6 answers RANK the three critiques against each other by date, motive and reliability, cite specific chapters or figures (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 27.3-4; Plato, Republic Book 8), and reach an explicit judgement about which source is most useful and why.