"Public Honours for Panhellenic Sporting Victors in Democratic Athens"

The treatment of Panhellenic victors by democratic Athens requires careful explanation. This city gave citizens who were victorious at the Olympics or one of the other three Panhellenic games for life free public dining and free front-row seats at its own local games. These honours were otherwise only given to victorious generals and other significant benefactors. Leslie Kurke argued that the granting of such honours to Panhellenic victors was part of the so-called economy of kudos, which, she believed, was a magical power which a sportsman gained forever in his victory. For Kurke a city honoured a victor as generously as it did because of his willingness to use his kudos in support of its military campaigns and other risky ventures. But in the last several years her theory has been largely refuted. Kudos was not a power which a victor had forever. It was the fleeting aid which a deity had given him during his agōn or contest. Alternative explanations making better sense of the evidence can be advanced for the roles of victors in the ventures which Kurke highlighted. The extraordinary honours which classical Athens gave a Panhellenic victory can instead be explained in terms of his victory’s political value. Thomas Heine Nielsen has put beyond doubt that each Panhellenic sportsman competed as a representative of his polis. Thus the Olympic victory of one of its citizens gave a city of no importance rare international prominence and one which was a regional power proof of its superiority over its rivals. The only other way which it had to raise its standing was to defeat a rival in battle. Like other Greek cities, then, classical Athens judged a Panhellenic victor worthy of its highest honours, because he had raised its standing without the need for it to take the field

War minus the shooting: sport and democracy in classical Athens

The dēmos of classical Athens authorized the spending of public money on sport, discouraged attacks on sportsmen by the poets of Old Comedy, and awarded sporting victors lavishly. Such public support and high estimation occurred in spite of athletics remaining an exclusive pastime of the wealthy under the democracy. Sport of course was not the only preserve of elite Athenians. But in contrast to their other pursuits, such as the mannered drinking-party, pederasty, horsemanship and political leadership, it escaped the otherwise persistent criticism of exclusively upper-class activities in Athenian popular culture. The major reason for its exceptional treatment – and one which scholars have not explored fully – is the close relationship between athletics and the new democratic style of warfare that classical Athens developed and waged. Classical Athenians conceived of athletic contests and battles in identical terms: they were agōnes involving ponoi, with victory in both depending on the aretē of the competitors. Although Athenian warfare, in the sixth century, was a predominantly elite activity, in the next it was subject to a profound democratization practically and ideologically. With the creation of a city-based army of hoplites and a huge navy and the introduction of military pay, soldiering – like politics – was opened to every class of Athenian. Under the democracy the power non-elite citizens had to shape the city’s culture ensured that every hoplite or sailor was now recognized for his aretē and ponoi in battle and considered equally responsible for victory. As a result lower-class citizens came to believe that upper-class athletes exhibited the same moral qualities and experienced the same ordeals as they did when fighting battles. This non-elite affinity with the values of sport ruled out public criticism of athletes and underwrote the exceptionally high standing of athletics under the democracy. Thus the democratic style of warfare in classical Athens legitimized and supported elite sport

The Public Payment of Magistrates in Fourth-Century Athens

M. H. Hansen has long argued that the Athenian democracy did not give magistrates misthos (‘pay’) in the fourth century BC. This article questions his argument and makes the opposite case that fourth-century Athenians paid their officials with public funds as their forebears had certainly done from the late 430s. Hansen bases his argument on the silence of our ancient sources. In 411/10 the oligarchic regime of the Four Hundred made Athenian magistrates, excepting the 9 archons, amisthoi or unsalaried ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 29.5; cf. Thuc. 8.65.3, 67.3). If, after they were ousted, this form of remuneration was restored, it was once more taken away by the oligarchic regime of 405/4. For Hansen there is simply no evidence that the democracy in the following year, that is, immediately after its second restoration, or at any point in the fourth century started to pay all of its magistrates again. In his account of the Athenian constitution of the 320s Aristotle’s pupil noted the remuneration of only a fraction of the 329 arkhontes (‘magistrates’) which he got around to describing. They were the 9 archons, 5 overseas magistrates and 10 others who managed the new training program for ephebes (42.3; 62.2). On misthos, at least, Hansen thinks that this Constitution of the Athenians is not ‘ridiculously incomplete’ and is corroborated by the silence of the century’s inscriptions on misthophoria (‘receipt of pay’) for magistrates. Thus this treatise’s short list of salaried officials suggests that the Athenians never reversed what the oligarchs had done. For Hansen the democracy which they restored was more conservative than the fifth-century one. He concludes: ‘Considerable concessions were made to the oligarchic criticism of radical democracy and the principle ‘no misthos for archai’ may well have been one of those concessions.’ In almost all cases fourth-century magistrates may have no longer received misthos but Hansen argues that many of them still found other forms of compensation. Certainly the state gave some of its religious officials a share of sacrificed animals, produce from a sanctuary’s lands or free meals in the lead up to a festival. Hansen argues that magistrates also relied on their own initiative to get compensation: some demanded cash-gifts from those requiring their help, while others held onto public funds and used them privately for years. Generals too, he argues, pocketed large gifts from foreigners and most of the booty which they captured. Hansen holds that a magistrate’s taking of such benefits was common and was generally accepted by the dēmos (‘people’). But if his requests or acts went beyond ‘the accepted limits’, he could be prosecuted for taking bribes or misappropriating funds. In three of his treatises Isocrates discussed the money which Athenians apparently earned as magistrates (7.24-7; 12.145; 15.145-52). Hansen asserts that in two of these treatises Isocrates only had in mind these benefits which arkhontes secured independently, while in the third the reference is instead to pay for another form of political participation. The initial reception of Hansen’s argument about the lack of pay for postwar magistrates was actually mixed. P. J. Rhodes rejected it immediately. V. Gabrielsen published a critique of it as a book. Admittedly some did quickly back up Hansen but just as many did not. To this day ancient historians take different sides in this debate. Settling it one way or another is important for our understanding of the development of Athenian democracy. Hansen and others argue that the democracy which was restored for a second time in 404/3 curtailed the power of the dēmos. But E. M. Harris and J. Ober make the opposite case: the fourth-century democracy increased their power to change nomoi (‘laws’) and the jurisdiction of their law-courts. Certainly fifth-century Athenians were seriously committed to the poor’s participation in the law-courts and in politics. From the 450s they introduced different forms of public remuneration to make it easier for non-elite citizens to do so. In view of them the claim of Pericles that poverty was no barrier to political participation appears to be fully justified (Thuc. 2.37.1). Therefore the failure of fourth-century Athenians to restore misthos for magistrates would be a lessening of this commitment. It would indeed support the argument that the restored democracy was more conservative than its fifth-century predecessor. I believe there to be three reasons why Hansen’s argument must be called into question. The first reason is that the dēmos simply did not tolerate the misuse of an archonship for personal gain. This makes unlikely the common accepting of bribes and stealing of funds which Hansen proposes. The second reason is that poor Athenians served as magistrates. Citizens of this social class had to earn a living. Since many of the arkhai (‘magistracies’) which they filled were full time, they could not have done so unless they received compensation for lost earnings. This could come only as misthos from the state. The third reason is evidence. Hansen’s treatment of the treatise of Aristotle’s pupil is inconsistent. On public pay for magistrates he argues that it is not seriously incomplete. But, when it comes to their number, he argues just the opposite. Indeed Hansen himself puts beyond doubt that Athens of the 330s had twice as many magistrates than the 329 which Aristotle’s pupil mentioned. Much more serious is that we do in fact have evidence for the state’s payment of fourth-century officials and lack evidence for what we should see if Hansen were right. Thus we have no reason to doubt that misthos for magistrates was re-introduced at the same time as it was for councillors and jurors: immediately after the democracy’s second restoration in 404/3

Athletics in satyric drama

Satyric drama introduced athletics much more regularly as an activity than either comedy or tragedy. Many of its villains defeated hapless travellers in a boxing or wrestling bout before murdering them. Satyr-plays were often set at athletic contests where the satyrs of the chorus encountered athletes or tried to be competitors themselves. In one of his plays Euripides provided the most detailed critique of athletes in any genre of classical Athenian literature

War, democracy and popular culture in fifth-century Athens

Classical Athens is famous for creating what is the most fully developed democracy of pre-modern times and for its related cultural revolution that laid the foundations for the historiography, theatre, philosophy and visual arts of the antique and modern worlds. Little known (and certainly never hymned) is the city’s contemporaneous military revolution. Athens of the fifth century intensified and transformed the waging of war, killed tens of thousands of fellow Greeks, attacked other democracies, and ignored some of the traditional customs of battle. By the time its democracy was fully elaborated, in the 450s, war had come to dominate the politics and popular culture of the city and the lives of its citizens. War consumed more money than all other public activities combined, was waged more frequently than ever before, and was the main topic of debate in the democratic council and assembly. Certainly this military revolution was made possible by the unrivalled size of Attica and its citizen population and the unprecedented supply of money from the Athenian maritime empire. However, the practical innovations Athens made to the waging of war, the efficiency of its military operations, and the disturbing willingness of its non-elite citizens to fight and die in battle were direct consequences of the new practices of the democracy. To a large extent the twin revolutions of Athenian culture and warfare can be understood as flipsides of each other

Thermometry and Refrigeration in a Two-Component Mott Insulator of Ultracold Atoms

Interesting spin Hamiltonians can be realized with ultracold atoms in a two-component Mott insulator (2CMI). It was recently demonstrated that the application of a magnetic field gradient to the 2CMI enables new techniques of thermometry and adiabatic cooling. Here we present a theoretical description which provides quantitative analysis of these two new techniques. We show that adiabatic reduction of the field gradient is capable of cooling below the Curie or N\'eel temperature of certain spin ordered phases.Comment: 5 pages, 5 figures (v4): Added journal referenc

Spin gradient thermometry for ultracold atoms in optical lattices

We demonstrate spin gradient thermometry, a new general method of measuring the temperature of ultracold atoms in optical lattices. We realize a mixture of spins separated by a magnetic field gradient. Measurement of the width of the transition layer between the two spin domains serves as a new method of thermometry which is observed to work over a broad range of lattice depths and temperatures, including in the Mott insulator regime. We demonstrate the thermometry in a system of ultracold rubidium atoms, and suggest that interesting spin physics can be realized in this system. The lowest measured temperature is 1 nK, indicating that the system has reached the quantum regime, where insulating shells are separated by superfluid layers.Comment: 5 pages, 3 figures, minor edits for clarit

Spin gradient demagnetization cooling of ultracold atoms

A major goal of ultracold atomic physics is quantum simulation of spin Hamiltonians in optical lattices. Progress towards this goal requires the attainment of extremely low temperatures. Here we demonstrate a new cooling method which consists of applying a time-varying magnetic field gradient to a spin mixture of ultracold atoms. We have used this method to prepare isolated spin distributions at positive and negative spin temperatures of +/-50 picokelvin. The spin system can also be used to cool other degrees of freedom, and we have used this coupling to reduce the temperature of an apparently equilibrated sample of rubidium atoms in a Mott insulating state to 350 picokelvin. These are the lowest temperatures ever measured in any system.Comment: 4 pages, 4 figures; (v4) Shortened, added journal re