Hubbry Logo
EphialtesEphialtesMain
Open search
Ephialtes
Community hub
Ephialtes
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ephialtes
Ephialtes
Ephialtes
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Ephialtes (Ancient Greek: Ἐφιάλτης, Ephialtēs) was an ancient Athenian politician and an early leader of the democratic movement there. In the late 460s BC, he oversaw reforms that diminished the power of the Areopagus, a traditional bastion of conservatism, and which are considered by many modern historians to mark the beginning of the radical democracy for which Athens would become famous. These powers included the scrutiny and control of office holders, and the judicial functions in state trials. He reduced the property qualifications for holding a public office, and created a new definition of citizenship.[1] In 461 BCE, he was assassinated. Although it remains uncertain who exactly killed him, it is believed to likely be at the instigation of his oligarch opponents. In the wake of his death, the political leadership of Athens passed to his deputy, Pericles.

Early life and career

[edit]

The first mention we get of Ephialtes' ancestry is in Diodorus Library (11.77) when he presents Ephialtes as the son of Sophonides.[2] We are only told who his father is, and we do not have much information about him besides his name. Ephialtes first appears in the historical record as the strategos commanding an Athenian fleet in the Aegean Sea in 465 BC.[3] Then, in 464 BC, an earthquake hit Sparta, causing a great deal of damage and indirectly resulting in the revolt of the helots. When the Spartans failed to remove the rebel helots from their base on Mount Ithome, in Messenia, they called for help from cities that were still part of the Hellenic League, an alliance formed in 481 BC against the Persians. This spurred much debate among the Athenians as to how to respond. In August 463 BC, Ephialtes represented those who wished to refuse Sparta's request for military assistance.[4] Ephialtes argued that Sparta and Athens were natural rivals, and that Athens should rejoice at Sparta's misfortune — "let Sparta's pride be trampled underfoot."[5] On the pro-Spartan side, Cimon, the most influential Athenian politician and general of the time, advocated that Athenians "ought not to suffer Greece to be lamed, nor their own city to be deprived of her yoke-fellow."[6] Cimon was victorious in the debate, and set out for Sparta with 4,000 hoplites.[7] However, shortly after the Athenians arrived to help the Spartans, their assistance was turned down. Subsequently, harmony between Sparta and Athens was broken and Cimon was ostracized for his misjudgment. The end of Cimon's ascendancy resulted in the emergence of a more radical democratic movement led by Ephialtes.

Aerial view of Areopagus from the Acropolis in Athens
Areopagus from the Acropolis (Athens). The Council would meet on the stone hill in which it was named after.

Reforms of the Areopagus

[edit]

In about 461 BCE, Ephialtes and his political allies began attacking the Areopagus, a council composed of former archons which was a traditionally conservative force. According to Aristotle and some modern historians, Athens had, since about 470 BC, been governed under an informal "Areopagite constitution", under the leadership of Cimon.[8] The motives of Ephialtes to pass these reforms are debated amongst scholars. By 486 BCE, the Areopagus had transitioned from a council of elected archons to one's who were selected by a lottery system.[9] Some scholars argue Ephialtes powers passed reforms to reflect the change in selection because they were no longer distinguished individuals.[9] On the other hand, T.E. Rihll theorizes that Ephialtes transferred the powers of the dokimasia and the euthynai of magistrates to the boule, ekklessia, and dikasteria because the Areopagus had failed to carry out its responsibilities to criticize and question the actions of magistrates due to mismanagement or incompetence.[9]

Ephialtes accelerated this process by prosecuting certain members for maladministration.[10] Having thus weakened the prestige of the council, Ephialtes proposed and had passed in the popular assembly, a sweeping series of reforms which divided up the powers traditionally wielded by the Areopagus among the democratic council of the Boule, the ekklesia itself, and the popular courts. Ephialtes took away from the Areopagus its "added powers which made it the safeguard of the constitution."[11] It remains unknown what additional powers were taken away because it is not specified, but scholars have interpreted the reforms to have transferred the control of public offices such as the dokimasia and euthynai to other bodies.[12] The dokimasia was used as a way to examine the capabilities of people holding office.[13] Similarly, the euthynai was also an examination process all officials underwent which made officials recount the details of their administration as they were leaving office.[14]

The Areopagus remained merely a high court, in control of judging charges of murder and some religious matters. Some historians have argued that Cimon and his hoplites were still in the Peloponnese at the time of this proposal,[15] while others have argued that the proposal followed his return.[16] Those who place the proposals during Cimon's absence suggest that he attempted to overturn them on his return, while those who believe he was present at the proposal believe that he opposed them in the initial debate. All agree that his resistance was doomed to failure by the fact that his hoplite force had just been dismissed by the Spartans, an action which demolished the political standing of Cimon and other pro-Spartan Athenians.[17]

Death

[edit]

The success of Ephialtes' reforms was rapidly followed by the ostracism of Cimon, which left Ephialtes and his faction firmly in control of the state, although the fully fledged Athenian democracy of later years was not yet fully established; Ephialtes' reforms appear to have been only the first step in the democratic faction's programme.[18] Ephialtes, however, would not live to see the further development of this new form of government: he was assassinated in 461 BC. The earliest source we have on Ephialtes himself and his death is Antiphon (5.68), writing in 420 BC, who states that the identity of the murderer was unknown. “Thus those who murdered Ephialtes, one of your citizens, have never been discovered to this day, and if someone expected his [Ephialtes'] associates to conjecture who were his murderers, and if not, to be implicated in the murder, it would not have been fair to the associates. In addition, the murderers of Ephialtes did not desire to hide the body so there would be no danger of betraying the deed.”[19]

There are varying beliefs on who murdered him. Aristotle, writing c. 325 BCE in his Constitution of the Athenians (25.4) states that Aristodikos of Tanagra was the culprit.[20] According to Plutarch, Idomeneus of Lampsacus accused Ephialtes' political ally, Pericles of murdering him out of jealousy and envy for his reputation among the people.[21] However, Plutarch references Aristotle's Constitution of Athens to argue against this theory.[21]Scholar Robert W. Wallace reasons that had Ephialtes been murdered by somebody outside the radical faction, the radicals would have made Ephialtes a martyr and led a crusade to find the perpetrator. This didn't happen, so the murderer likely came from within Ephialtes' own faction.[22]

Legacy

[edit]

Overall, Ephialtes' reforms transformed how the political system in Athenian democracy worked. His reforms gave more power to other bodies than they had before, specifically the courts.[23] As a result of this increase in power in the courts, we see other recorded problems that start to arise such as secret balloting in the courts where jurors are able to be bribed.[23] Ephialtes' reforms change the power dynamics in Athenian democratic institutions.

We also know that Epialtes bloodline lived on from ancient sources. Demosthenes references Ephialtes in his speech Against Aristocrates which he wrote between 355 and 351 BCE. He is mentioned as the father of Philocrates. [24]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ephialtes

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Ephialtes (Ancient Greek: Ἐφιάλτης; died c. 461 BC) was an Athenian statesman active in the mid-fifth century BC, renowned for initiating reforms that fundamentally reshaped the political structure of by diminishing the authority of the council. Son of Sophonides, he emerged as a leading advocate for expanding popular participation in governance, collaborating with the young to challenge the entrenched powers of the traditional . In 462 BC, Ephialtes successfully prosecuted the before the assembly, resulting in the transfer of its extensive judicial and oversight functions—including trials for homicide, wounding, and religious offenses—to democratic institutions like the popular courts () and the boule, while retaining only its role as guardian of the laws. These measures marked a pivotal shift toward , empowering the ecclesia and reducing aristocratic checks on the popular will, though they provoked fierce opposition from conservative elites who viewed the as a bulwark against mob rule. Ephialtes' career ended abruptly when he was assassinated shortly after the reforms, reportedly by Aristodicus of Tanagra, amid the political turbulence his actions unleashed; the murder underscored the deep divisions his policies exacerbated between democratic reformers and their adversaries. His legacy lies in laying the groundwork for ' subsequent expansions of democratic participation, transforming into a more direct and inclusive polity, albeit one whose vulnerabilities would later contribute to internal strife and imperial overreach.

Early Life and Political Rise

Origins and Family Background

Ephialtes, an Athenian statesman active in the mid-fifth century BCE, was the son of Sophonides, as attested in multiple ancient accounts. No additional details about Sophonides' occupation, status, or lineage survive, suggesting Ephialtes did not descend from prominent aristocratic families like the Alcmaeonids or Philaids, which dominated earlier Athenian politics. His emergence as a popular leader implies origins among the citizenry rather than the elite, aligning with his role in advocating reforms that empowered the broader demos. Little is known of Ephialtes' early life or upbringing, with ancient historians focusing instead on his political actions in the 460s BCE. He likely grew up in during the post-Persian Wars era, a period of expanding democratic participation following ' tribal reforms around 508 BCE, though his precise or tribal affiliation remains unrecorded in extant sources. This paucity of personal detail contrasts with better-documented contemporaries like or , underscoring Ephialtes' reliance on rhetorical skill and popular support rather than inherited prestige.

Initial Career and Alignment with Democratic Factions

Ephialtes emerged in the historical record around 465 BC as a who commanded an Athenian fleet operating in the , demonstrating early military involvement in the operations of the . This role positioned him within the broader context of ' expanding naval power, though details of his prior activities remain sparse in surviving ancient accounts. In 463 BC, Ephialtes aligned himself with the democratic faction by participating in the prosecution of during the latter's euthynai, or accountability proceedings following his command at , reflecting a push for greater oversight of aristocratic generals. He opposed 's pro-Spartan policies, notably advocating against sending Athenian aid to after its 464 BC and helot , a stance that highlighted tensions between democratic populists favoring anti-oligarchic priorities and conservative elements supportive of Peloponnesian alliances. This opposition underscored Ephialtes' commitment to curbing the influence of traditional elites, including the council. Ephialtes formed a close political partnership with the younger , collaborating as fellow strategoi on expeditions beyond the Chelidon Islands shortly before 462 BC, which facilitated their joint advocacy for redistributing powers from aristocratic bodies to popular institutions. As a leader of the radical democrats, he targeted Areopagites for maladministration through prosecutions, aiming to transfer judicial and supervisory functions to the people's courts and assembly, thereby aligning with a faction intent on expanding citizen participation at the expense of inherited privilege. His not-insignificant personal background—son of Sophonides and lacking great wealth—further distanced him from the landed , reinforcing his appeal to lower-class Athenians seeking institutional equalization.

Reforms of Athenian Institutions

Pre-Reform Context: The Role of the Areopagus

The Areopagus council, convening on the rocky outcrop west of the Acropolis, originated as Athens' primary deliberative body in the archaic period, evolving from a Homeric-style council of elders. Prior to Draco's laws around 621 BC, it served as the sole council, handling both advisory and judicial functions for the community. Its membership consisted exclusively of former archons, who joined for life after their one-year terms, ensuring an aristocratic composition drawn from the wealthier classes eligible for the office. Under Solon's reforms circa 594 BC, the retained and expanded its authority, gaining explicit guardianship over the laws, which empowered it to oversee compliance, punish violations, and examine officials post-tenure through processes like euthyna audits. This role positioned it as a conservative bulwark, supervising magistrates and potentially intervening in constitutional matters to preserve the established order. ' tribal reforms around 508 BC introduced the Council of 500 (Boule), yet the preserved its oversight functions, including moral and religious supervision, alongside its longstanding jurisdiction over homicide, wounding, and cases—powers traceable to Draco's era. By the mid-fifth century BC, following Athens' victories in the Persian Wars (490–479 BC), the wielded considerable influence as a counterweight to emerging democratic elements, controlling aspects of legislation, auditing generals and other officials, and exercising discretionary powers over public conduct and fiscal integrity. notes in the Constitution of the Athenians that it functioned as the "superintendent of the state," encompassing supervision of the Boule, (Ecclesia), and key magistrates, though its dominance in daily politics remained limited compared to its symbolic and judicial prestige. This broad remit, rooted in aristocratic exclusivity, fostered tensions with radical democrats who viewed it as an obstacle to , setting the stage for Ephialtes' curtailment of its powers in 462/1 BC.

Key Reforms of 462/1 BC and Their Mechanisms

In 462/1 BC, during the archonship of Konon, Ephialtes orchestrated a series of legislative measures that dismantled the council's extensive political authority, transferring key functions to more democratic institutions such as the (Boule) and the popular courts (dikasteria). The primary mechanism involved initial prosecutions against Areopagite members for maladministration and misconduct in office, which discredited and fined several ex-archons, thereby weakening the council's prestige and cohesion before formal power redistribution. These trials, conducted in popular courts, exploited accusations of arbitrary or overly punitive decisions under the council's prior guardianship role, paving the way for Ephialtes to propose and pass assembly decrees reallocating competencies. The core reforms stripped the of its supervision over the laws (nomophylakia), the post-term audits and trials of magistrates (euthynai), and its general guardianship of the constitution, functions it had accumulated since the early fifth century as a conservative check on . These powers were explicitly reassigned: oversight of laws to the Boule, judicial scrutiny of officials to the dikasteria, and constitutional guardianship diffused across democratic bodies, leaving the with residual jurisdiction limited to deliberate , wounding, , and offenses against sacred olive trees. corroborates this diminishment, noting Ephialtes deprived the council of its role as guardian of the laws while its aristocratic defender, , was absent on , emphasizing the opportunistic timing enabled by ostracism's aftermath and shifting alliances. Implementation relied on the ecclesia's (assembly's) sovereignty to enact psephismata (decrees), bypassing the Areopagus's veto capacity through prior member intimidation and popular mobilization against perceived oligarchic overreach. This process, while abrupt, built on incremental democratic precedents like ' council expansions, but Ephialtes' innovations marked a decisive causal break, causal realism dictating that weakened elite cohesion—via fines disqualifying figures like Archons—directly facilitated the legislative pivot without requiring wholesale council abolition. Scholarly consensus, drawing from Aristotelian analysis, views these transfers as enhancing to the demos rather than mere power grabs, though debates persist on whether financial oversight (e.g., over treasuries) was fully excised or partially retained initially.

Associated Political Actions, Including Opposition to Cimon

Ephialtes positioned himself as the primary antagonist to in Athenian politics during the late 460s BC, leveraging foreign policy divergences to undermine his rival's influence. In 462 BC, amid the Third Messenian War and the helot uprising at Mount Ithome, Sparta requested military aid from ; Ephialtes vehemently opposed the intervention, contending that Sparta posed a strategic threat as a hegemonic rival and that should prioritize its own imperial interests over assisting a Peloponnesian power. Despite Ephialtes' resistance, the ecclesia voted to send approximately 4,000 Athenian hoplites under 's command, reflecting the latter's longstanding philolaconism and commitment to pan-Hellenic alliances forged during the Persian Wars. The expedition proved disastrous for Cimon's prestige: after contributing to the siege of Ithome, the Athenians were abruptly dismissed by Spartan authorities, who feared the democratic of the Athenian troops might incite rebellion among their own —a decision rooted in oligarchic rather than . This humiliation exacerbated anti-Spartan sentiment in and exposed Cimon's policy to democratic critique, with Ephialtes portraying it as evidence of misplaced loyalty that endangered Athenian autonomy. Plutarch recounts that the dismissal occurred without formal charges, yet it fueled Ephialtes' narrative of Spartan unreliability, drawing on ' earlier account of the incident as a pivotal fracture in Greco-Dorian relations. Upon Cimon's return, Ephialtes orchestrated a broader campaign against him, aligning with to mobilize lower-class support through oratory decrying aristocratic favoritism toward . This culminated in Cimon's in 461 BC, where citizens voted via ostraka to exile him for a decade, effectively neutralizing his veto power in and clearing the path for Ephialtes' institutional reforms. Ancient sources attribute the vote's success to Ephialtes' exploitation of the Ithome debacle, though notes the procedure's role in curbing perceived tyrants without bloodshed; modern analyses confirm the 's timing as a direct backlash against Cimon's failed , with Ephialtes' faction framing it as essential for safeguarding democratic against pro-oligarchic leanings.

Assassination

Events Surrounding the Death

Ephialtes was assassinated in 461 BC, soon after the of his political rival and the enactment of reforms that diminished the council's supervisory powers over Athenian magistrates and laws. The killing stemmed from backlash among aristocratic opponents, who regarded the measures as a radical erosion of elite influence and a shift toward broader . Aristotle's Constitution of the Athenians records that Ephialtes was "craftily murdered" by Aristodicus of Tanagra, a figure from , though no ancient account details the precise method or location of the act. Plutarch, drawing on , echoes this attribution while noting the secrecy of the plot, which evaded immediate retribution amid the polarized climate. The absence of further elaboration in primary sources like suggests the event's circumstances remained opaque even contemporaneously, possibly due to the involvement of non-Athenian actors or protected perpetrators. In the immediate aftermath, the democratic reforms endured without reversal, with emerging as Ephialtes' successor to steer the faction. No trial or is attested for Aristodicus, reflecting the era's tolerance for politically motivated violence against reformers, though later orators invoked Ephialtes' death to underscore threats to democratic leaders. Scholarly analyses, reliant on Aristotle's fourth-century BC compilation, debate whether the assassination was definitively political or involved personal motives, but the timing aligns it causally with the upheaval.

Suspected Perpetrators and Underlying Motives

The assassin of Ephialtes was identified by in his Constitution of the Athenians (ca. 350 BC) as Aristodicus of Tanagra, a resident of the Boeotian city of Tanagra, with the killing occurring "not long afterwards" following the reforms of 462/1 BC. This account, preserved in a fourth-century BC drawing on earlier traditions, portrays the as a direct consequence of Ephialtes' political actions, though no details on the method or precise date—likely 461 BC—are provided. Modern scholarship has scrutinized this attribution, noting Tanagra's lack of evident enmity toward Athens at the time (prior to Boeotian hostilities in 457 BC) and suggesting Aristodicus may represent a symbolic or fabricated to deflect blame from Athenian actors; alternative ancient traditions, such as those in and later historians like Ephorus, imply domestic involvement but name no specific culprit. A separate, less credible rumor preserved in Plutarch's Life of Pericles (ca. 100 AD), derived from the third-century BC historian Idomeneus of Lampsacus, alleged that treacherously orchestrated the murder to eliminate a rival within the democratic camp. Plutarch rejects this as implausible, citing ' close collaboration with Ephialtes on the reforms and absence of motive amid shared opposition to conservatives; no contemporary evidence supports ' complicity, and the claim likely reflects later Hellenistic-era sensationalism or anti- bias in Idomeneus' lost works./Life_of_Pericles) No Athenian trial, conviction, or public retribution for the killers is attested in primary sources, indicating the assassination may have evaded formal justice, possibly due to the perpetrator's non-Athenian status or influence of elite networks. The underlying motives stemmed from vehement opposition among aristocratic and oligarchic elements to Ephialtes' stripping of the council's supervisory powers over magistrates and laws, which they regarded as a foundational aristocratic safeguard against mob rule and lower-class encroachment. These reforms, enacted amid Ephialtes' alliance with to advance , alienated traditional elites who had dominated the as a co-opted body of former archons, prompting fears of irreversible erosion of their privileges and influence in favor of assembly-driven . Ephialtes' concurrent antagonism toward —through support for investigations into his pro-Spartan leanings and pushes toward —further galvanized conservative backlash, as Cimon's faction viewed the democrat's agenda as destabilizing ' alliances and internal hierarchy; the murder thus served as retaliatory violence to halt , though it ultimately accelerated ' ascendancy rather than restoring oligarchic control.

Assessments and Legacy

Contemporary Reactions from Democratic and Oligarchic Viewpoints

Democratic supporters, primarily the and lower-class citizens, acclaimed Ephialtes' reforms as a corrective to the 's post-Persian War aggrandizement of powers, which had positioned the council as an undemocratic overseer of magistrates and laws, stifling . The assembly's ratification of the transfer of supervisory, probative, and punitive functions from the to bodies like the council of 500 and popular courts reflected this endorsement, framing the changes as empowerment of the demos against maladministration. This perspective aligned with broader democratic ideology, viewing the 's residual role—limited to trials—as sufficient without broader political interference. Oligarchic opponents, including figures like and Areopagite sympathizers, decried the reforms as a perilous erosion of constitutional safeguards, transforming from a balanced toward unbridled rule by the masses prone to demagogic manipulation. They perceived the council's oversight as essential for stability and moral guardianship, and Ephialtes' of its members for alleged as partisan vengeance rather than . This hostility manifested in advocacy for the and culminated in Ephialtes' assassination in 461 BC by Aristodikides of Tanagra, reportedly motivated by a reward from aggrieved parties, underscoring the faction's resolve to halt further radicalization. The subsequent of in the same year highlighted the temporary triumph of democratic forces amid polarized reactions.

Long-Term Impact on Athenian Democracy

Ephialtes' reforms of 462/1 BC fundamentally altered the balance of power in Athens by depriving the of its supervisory roles over officials' accountability (euthynai) and scrutiny (dokimasiai), as well as other accrued political functions, and redistributing these to democratic institutions such as the boule, assembly, and popular courts (dikasteria). This structural shift diminished aristocratic oversight, empowering the demos and enabling the rise of strategoi like as untrammeled leaders post-461 BC, thereby accelerating the transition to characterized by direct citizen participation in governance and justice. In the ensuing decades, these changes facilitated ' imperial expansion and cultural zenith during the (c. 461–429 BC), with broader access to political office and judicial processes allowing lower-class citizens, bolstered by naval service and tribute, to influence policy and hold elites accountable. ' innovations, such as jury pay introduced around 461 BC, built directly on Ephialtes' framework, entrenching mass involvement and fostering a system where ordinary Athenians adjudicated major cases, thereby reinforcing as the core of the . This empowerment of courts as a "demotic element" theoretically stabilized by curbing potential oligarchic overreach through judicial control. However, the long-term consequences included heightened vulnerability to demagoguery and factionalism, as unchecked assembly decisions contributed to strategic miscalculations like the Sicilian Expedition of 413 BC, which decimated Athenian forces and exposed internal divisions. Aristocratic resentment fueled oligarchic revolts, notably the 411 BC and the ' regime in 404 BC following the defeat, where democratic institutions were dismantled amid civil strife and the execution of up to 1,500 citizens. Later critics like in his Areopagiticus (c. 355 BC) attributed a perceived moral and political degeneration to the post-Ephialtes order, contrasting it with the Areopagus-supervised restraint of earlier decades, highlighting how the reforms' emphasis on popular courts eroded traditional checks and amplified risks of impulsive rule.

Modern Scholarly Debates and Criticisms

Scholars debate the precise extent of powers Ephialtes stripped from the in 462/1 BC, with Aristotle's Athenaion Politeia (25.2) claiming the removal of oversight over magistrates' (euthynai), guardianship of the laws, and other supervisory functions, redistributing them to democratic bodies like the Boule and popular courts (dikasteria). However, interpretations vary: Robert W. Wallace argues for a broad transfer of judicial powers to enhance democratic participation, while P.J. Rhodes contests the Boule's pre-existing judicial competence, suggesting more limited changes. Raphael Sealey posits that only supervision of euthynai was primarily affected, questioning Aristotle's account for lacking corroboration in earlier sources like . Motivations for the attack remain contested, with some viewing it as a targeted response to the Areopagus's on democratic measures, such as citizenship laws or pay for officials, amid declining Areopagite prestige due to sortition-based selection post-487/6 BC. Others, including Alan Sommerstein, link it to personal risks like potential assassination by Areopagites opposed to reforms, tying into broader political rivalries with figures like . Critics note ancient oligarchic biases in sources like the Athenaion Politeia, which portray the reforms as destructive to aristocratic stability, potentially exaggerating their radicalism to fuel fourth-century anti-democratic rhetoric. The historicity of the reforms faces skepticism, as Konstantinos Vlassopoulos argues they were partly "invented" in fourth-century traditions to construct an idealized patrios politeia (ancestral constitution), with inconsistencies in attributions and contexts reflecting oligarchic critiques rather than fifth-century events. This view highlights how democratic innovations were retroactively framed by opponents, though most scholars affirm a core historical kernel of power redistribution ending the Areopagite constitution's dominance. Debates also question Ephialtes' independence, with some attributing the reforms' design to collaboration with or viewing him as a moderate reformer rather than a radical democrat, countering later charges of . Overall, while the reforms catalyzed Athens's shift toward , modern analyses emphasize source biases and contextual pressures over ideological purity.

References

  1. https://topostext.org/people/3128
  2. https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/8791/4645
  3. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/athe3.asp
  4. https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/421546-j198-01-athens-in-the-age-of-pericles-462-429-bc-prescribed-sources-booklet.pdf
  5. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0074%3Achapter%3D13%3Asection%3D5
  6. https://grbs.library.duke.edu/index.php/grbs/article/download/8791/4645
  7. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0182%3Achapter%3D10%3Asection%3D8
  8. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plut.+Cim.+16.8
  9. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0056%3Achapter%3D25%3Asection%3D2
  10. http://www.mmdtkw.org/GR2--Unit13-Pericles-readings.html
  11. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/360861
  12. https://chs.harvard.edu/discussion-series-athenian-law-lectures-8/
  13. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4445&context=buffalolawreview
  14. https://grbs.library.duke.edu/index.php/grbs/article/download/16194/7209/19867
  15. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-2426
  16. https://grbs.library.duke.edu/index.php/grbs/article/download/8731/4663/14509
  17. https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/uploads/media/hesperia/147043.pdf
  18. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.2.2.html
  19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436111
  20. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC128289
  21. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-quarterly/article/death-of-ephialtes/4AEA65EB0AF945DD45E8F79B9DA59C48
  22. https://mythosnoir.substack.com/p/the-murder-of-ephialtes
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/643214
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-quarterly/article/ephialtes-the-areopagus-and-the-thirty1/F595ACA894F24B3DE47B487411B33CBD
  25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25010858
  26. https://dc.ewu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=theses
  27. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dlcammack/files/democracy_and_decay.pdf
  28. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-hellenic-studies/article/democracy-denied-why-ephialtes-attacked-the-areiopagus/379AED49023A4F2841A30034262B909A
  29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45019304
  30. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/ephialtes-athens
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.