Since R. published the first edition of his monumental Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia in 1981 for Oxford University Press (reprinted with additions in 1993), several studies on different aspects of the Constitution of the Athenians as well as on fourth-century Athenian institutions have been produced (e.g. M. Piérart [ed.], Aristote et Athènes [1993]; G. Maddoli [ed.], L’Athenaion Politeia di Aristotele, 1891–1991. Per un bilancio di cento anni di studi [1994]). With these commentaries in Italian and in English, R. aims to provide a ‘more up-to-date but more modest’ commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Ath. Pol. hereafter). The two volumes are very welcome as they combine an accessible translation of the Greek text into Italian and into English with a scholarly accurate and updated introduction and commentary of Ath. Pol. within its social, cultural and political context.
R.’s Italian volume, elegantly published by the Fondazione Lorenzo Valla series La Democrazia in Grecia and reliably translated into Italian by Z. and G., is organised into a general introduction, the Greek text (including fragments of the lost beginning) with facing Italian translation and a commentary. The volume in English is based on the material for the Italian commentary and follows the same structure: an introduction followed by the Greek text edited by R. with a facing English translation and a commentary. The two volumes do not differ in content, but for the addition of two useful maps in the English commentary, one of the political organisation of Attica and one a topographical map of Classical Athens (pp. xi–xii). The English volume also includes a final general index. Because of the substantial conformity of the two volumes, for the purpose of this review, I will provide a single account of the two commentaries by giving the relevant page numbers of the Italian and the English commentary respectively.
The succinct but comprehensive introduction is divided into six sections (seven sections in the English edition). In Section 1, R. discusses the relationship between Ath. Pol. and Aristotle's corpus, in particular the Politics, and the issue of authorship of the constitutional treatise (pp. xi–xvi; pp. 1–6). R. convincingly argues that the Ath. Pol. was not written by Aristotle, but by one of his pupils. As for the influence of Aristotle's political thought on the Ath. Pol., R. has not changed his mind and confirms (albeit with more nuance) that ‘the work does not seem to be strongly influenced by Aristotelian theories’ (p. xiv; p. 4). R. rightly rejects the controversial claim by J. Day and M. Chambers (Aristotle's History of Athenian Democracy [1962]), who argued that the political theories of the Politics teleologically determined the Ath. Pol.’s account of the constitutional development of Athens. Yet, R. underestimates the role of Aristotle's Politics in shaping the organisation of the Ath. Pol., and this assumption affects many of his readings throughout the commentary. On this issue, the introduction would have benefited from engagement with more recent works showing that Ath. Pol. does interact with the Politics and tests the Politics’ theoretical framework against the Athenian model. This is shown, for example, by the summary in Ath. Pol. 41, which demonstrates that the constitutional history of Athens is understood according to the theory of metabole as conceptualised in the Politics (L. Bertelli, in G. Besso and F. Pezzoli [edd.], Politeia en logois. Studi sul pensiero politico greco [2017], pp. 551–76). In Section 2, R. deals with the account of the papyrological survival of the text (pp. xvi–xviii; pp. 6–7). In Sections 3 and 4, R. provides a clear summary of the structure of Ath. Pol., devoted respectively to the first historical part of the treatise (pp. xviii–xxvi; pp. 8–16), and to the second descriptive part of the fourth-century Athenian constitution (pp. xxvi–xxxi; pp. 16–20). R. carefully discusses the problem of the historical sources used in the first part of the treatise and the relevant scholarly debate, and concludes that the anonymous author of Ath. Pol. must have used a plurality of written sources (e.g. Herodotus, Thucydides, the Atthides, in particular Androtion's, as well as an alleged detailed work on Solon) and texts (e.g. the poems of Solon) in an attempt to reconcile different and occasionally contrasting pieces of evidence. Although R. does acknowledge the contribution of Aristotle's Politics as a source for the historical part of Ath. Pol., for instance in the account of the character of Solon, he plays down the importance of its influence (p. xxi; p. 11). It is, however, remarkable that the legislation of Solon, the only constitution in Athenian history fully endorsed by the author of Ath. Pol. and described as ‘the best legislation’ (Ath. Pol. 11.2), closely resembles passages from the Politics stressing the mesotes of Solon and the excellency of his constitutional arrangement (e.g. Pol. 1273b35; 1281b32; 1296a19).
Moving to the second part of Ath. Pol., R. offers a subdivision of the text into three major sections dealing with citizenship (42), elective and sortitive officials (42–62) and the lawcourts (63–9) (pp. xxvi–xxix; pp. 16–19). Yet, such a tripartition is problematic. R.’s interpretation is based on the assumption that the Ath. Pol. followed the categories reported in the document at Dem. 24.20–3, which grouped the laws by the relevant official in charge of enforcing them (πρῶτον μὲν περὶ τῶν βουλευτικῶν, δεύτερον δὲ τῶν κοινῶν, εἶτα οἳ κεῖνται τοῖς ἐννέα ἄρχουσιν, εἶτα τῶν ἄλλων ἀρχῶν). According to R., this approach also explains the striking absence of the institution of nomothesia from Ath. Pol., as this could not fit this pattern. This document is, however, a forgery (cf. M. Canevaro, The Documents in the Attic Orators [2013], pp. 94–102), and is the only piece of evidence providing procedural criteria for classifying the laws of Athens, whereas all the other Athenian sources are consistent in grouping the laws according to their substantive content (E.M. Harris, The Rule of Law in Action in Democratic Athens [2013], pp. 138–74). By contrast, the organisation of the second part of Ath. Pol. fits better the traditional Greek division of the politeia (cf. Hdt. 3.81) into the deliberative part (in the case of Ath. Pol. with emphasis on the role of Council), the magistrates and the lawcourts (cf. Arist. Pol. 1298a–9a; M.H. Hansen, The Sovereignty of the People's Court in Athens in the Fourth Century b.c. and the Public Action against Unconstitutional Proposals [1974], pp. 10–12; E.M. Harris, Democracy and Rule of Law in Classical Athens: Essays on Law, Politics and Society [2006], p. 32). The omission of the nomothetai has less to do with the organisation of the Athenian laws and more with Ath. Pol.’s ideological bias against the restored democracy, where ‘the demos administers everything through decrees and lawcourts’ (Ath. Pol. 41.2). R. concludes his introduction with an analysis of the linguistic and stylistic features of Ath. Pol., showing the differences with the rest of the Aristotelian corpus (pp. xxxi–xxxix; pp. 21–8), and with a thorough discussion of the date of composition, which he convincingly dates to the late 330s bc, with a revision in the first half of the 320s resulting in the text preserved in the London papyrus (pp. xxxix–xli; pp. 28–31). The English commentary also includes a seventh section, in which R. explains his criteria for the edition of the text, and provides a list of the editors he cites the most (pp. 31–2). This last section corresponds to the section ‘Sigla’ in the Italian edition.
The Greek text is edited by R. according to papyrological conventions, and provides a critical apparatus in English and in Latin (in the Italian volume) reporting the choices of the main editors of Ath. Pol. In both editions the facing translation is meticulous and readable, and shows the attempt to be precise and effective even in the more technical passages. A minor difference between the two volumes is in the translation of Greek legal and constitutional terminology. While the Italian commentary consistently translates Greek terms for officials, institutions and legal procedures, in the English volume R. opts most of the time for a transliteration of the relevant word with an explanatory note in the commentary (e.g. Ath. Pol. 50.1: apodektai is translated into Italian as ‘cassieri’).
The commentary follows the structure outlined in the introduction and is divided into nineteen sections (A–K for the historical part and L–S for the descriptive part of the treatise). Each section includes a short introductive summary followed by the individual lemmata of the commentary. R. discusses a great amount of ancient material without ever pushing the evidence too far, and his interpretation of the text is cautious, and occasionally conservative especially in the historical part of Ath. Pol. R.’s comments are particularly useful for the systematic part of Ath. Pol., where his thorough knowledge of Athenian institutions helps to clarify several aspects of the description of the fourth-century constitutional machinery. R. is aware of the shortcomings of the systematic part of Ath. Pol., and his comments are effective in pointing out omissions and complex digressions (e.g. 64.2–5 on the allocation of judges). Old and new scholarship is abundantly cited and summarised with clarity, even though sometimes one would have expected wider engagement with recent scholarship in an updated commentary. For example, at Ath. Pol. 12.4, when commenting on the word thesmos (‘statute’) used in Solon's poems (p. 197; p. 217), R. endorses M. Ostwald's view (Nomos and the Beginnings of the Athenian Democracy [1969], pp. 9–59) that thesmos was replaced by the more democratic term nomos after Cleisthenes, although K.J. Hölkeskamp has more recently shown that the two terms are used interchangeably (in ‘Nomos, Thesmos, und Verwandtes. Vergleichende Überlegungen zur Konzeptualisierung geschriebenen Rechts im klassischen Griechenland’, in D. Cohen [ed.], Demokratie, Recht und soziale Kontrolle im klassischen Athen [2002], pp. 123–6). Within the scope of this review, I select only a few passages for comment.
R. argues that Chapter 4 of Ath. Pol. dealing with the constitution of Draco is a later insertion introduced by the reviser of the text (pp. 163–75; pp. 183–95). R. believes that aspects of this constitution, such as the Council of 401, might have been invented in ‘circles which debated the patrios politeia’ (p. 174; p. 194). This might be true, but once again one cannot underestimate the strong Aristotelian influence. The account of Draco's aristocratic constitution (ἀριστίνδην καὶ πλουτίνδην), as described in Ath. Pol., seems to be modelled according to patterns found in Politics 3, 1285b15, as well as Politics 4. In particular, the fine introduced by Draco for those who do not attend the meetings of the assembly is reminiscent of Aristotle's proposal in Pol. 1298b15–20, where the same measure is envisaged in order to improve the working of deliberative bodies.
Moving to the mid-fifth century, section H of the commentary, dealing with Chapters 23–8 of Ath. Pol., also proves problematic (pp. 234–57; pp. 256–82). This part of Ath. Pol. recounts the period of Areopagite supremacy, the reforms of Ephialtes and the relevant changes that Athenian politics underwent after these reforms. R.’s introduction to this section rightly points out that it contains ‘little solid material’ (p. 234; p. 256). Yet, despite this healthy acknowledgement, R. seems to accept without question Ath. Pol.’s version of the reforms of Ephialtes, which stripped the Areopagus of its epitheta (‘additional powers’) such as the dokimasia and euthynai of officials, and allocated them to the Boule, the Assembly and the lawcourts (pp. 243–5; pp. 266–8). Yet, when commenting on the rise of the Council of the Areopagus after the Athenian victory in the battle of Salamis at Ath. Pol. 23.1, R. does note that this section is preparatory to introducing the reforms of Ephialtes ‘on the assumption that if the Areopagus had to be deprived of powers by Ephialtes it must somehow have increased its powers since the democratic advance of Cleisthenes’ (p. 235; p. 257). Since R. believes that the notion of Areopagite supremacy is built on an ‘assumption’, one wonders if Ath. Pol.’s account of the reforms of Ephialtes may also, possibly, be ideological and unhistorical (cf. M. Zaccarini, The Lame Hegemony. Cimon of Athens and the Failure of Panhellenism, ca. 478–450 bc [2017], pp. 199–203). Moreover, R.’s own assumption (pp. 243–4; p. 267) that the Areopagus heard cases of euthynai or eisangeliai before the reforms of Ephialtes does not seem to be supported by the evidence (A. Sommerstein, Aeschylus: Eumenides [2008], p. 14).
The text of Ath. Pol. 42.1–2 provides a clear account of the procedure for the admission of new members in the citizen body. According to Ath. Pol., the demesmen assessed whether a new citizen possessed the legal requirements of age and free status. If a candidate was rejected, he could appeal to a lawcourt, and the Boule checked at the central level if the age requirement was respected. R., however, finds the Ath. Pol. account ‘haphazard’, and rejects it by claiming without strong evidence in his support that excluded candidates could appeal ‘on any criterion’ to the lawcourts, and the Council reviewed all criteria of the accepted candidates (p. 311; p. 340). R.’s interpretation, however, is arbitrary and Ath. Pol.’s account not particularly problematic, as recently argued in detail by J. Kierstead (‘Associations and Institutions in Athenian Citizenship Procedure’, CQ 67 [2017], 444–59). Admission as an Athenian citizen was achieved through a complex interaction between local authorities (the demes) and the central institutions, each one contributing to the process with their own institutional expertise: the lawcourts were in charge of applying the laws, and the Council of supervising the administration of ephebeia.
Different readers will disagree with different aspects of these commentaries. Yet, whatever the possible disagreements, there can be no doubt these are two very valuable commentaries, which should reinvigorate the debate on (and the interest in) Athenian institutions. R.’s commentaries succeed in being at the same time sound pieces of scholarship, useful to all scholars working in the field of Athenian history, and helpful and affordable tools for students approaching for the first time the study of Athenian democracy.
