The Legal Regulation of Private Conduct at Athens: Two Controversies on Freedom
暂无分享,去创建一个
Despite the Athenians’ pronounced ideology of personal freedom (“living as you like”), many scholars deny that they enjoyed either positive freedoms (in particular to speak free of interruption in the Assembly) or negative freedoms, where the state could intervene as it wished, as against Sokrates for his religious views. The current essay argues that in their personal lives the Athenians were entirely free, except when speech or action materially harmed the community. A second ideology that community welfare superseded the wishes of any citizen was both universal and paramount – even for Plato’s Sokrates. How far did Athens’ laws permit Athenians to live their personal lives as they wished? Although it was a cardinal ideology of the democracy that people might “live as they liked” (see e.g. Arist. Pol. 1317a 40-b 14), many scholars have judged that various legal provisions in particular against “idleness”, homosexuality, prostitution, and marrying a non-citizen were inconsistent with personal freedom. They point out that the polis could make inroads against citizens’ personal freedoms whenever it wanted, as for example when it prosecuted Sokrates for his religious beliefs. In addition, the democracy imposed on citizens many burdensome civic obligations, such as military service through the age of 60. No contemporary state making such demands on its citizens could be considered liberal. How did the Athenians view the laws and obligations that constrained their personal lives? How extensively did the polis intervene in people’s lives? And do these con1 See also Lys. 26.5 and other passages cited in my essay, “Law, Freedom and the Concept of Citizens’ Rights in Democratic Athens”, in Demokratia: a Conversation on Democracies, Ancient and Modern, eds. J. Ober and C. Hedrick, Princeton 1996, p. 105. The locus classicus is Perikles’ Funeral Oration, Thuc. 2.37.2-3: “As for suspicion about each other in our day-to-day lives, we are not angry with our neighbor if he does something according to his pleasure, nor do we give him those black looks which, though they do no real harm, still are painful. In our private lives we live together in a tolerant way, while in public affairs we do not transgress the laws”.