The union of the old Attic towns made Athens and Attica synonymous political expressions; but it was very far from abolishing all political distinctions between the several classes of their inhabitants. Eleusinians and Athenians no longer contended with each other upon the field of battle; but the poor Eleusinian and the poor Athenian were alike exposed to the oppressions, per being; they were merged into the higher the greatness of Athens, it was the deteraggregate of Athens. It is the utter disap- mining cause of the distinctive and permapearance of the Attic towns as political en- nent greatness of Hellas. As such, the tities, which forms the distinguishing pheno- vvoίkioiç of Attica becomes no other than menon of the case. Several of them retain- the commencement of the political history ed a large population and considerable of mankind. municipal importance; but they had given up all pretensions to separate sovereignty. Their relation to Athens was one neither of subjection nor of federation. A Laconian town, whatever municipal rights it might retain, was, politically, in utter bondage to Sparta. Its citizens had no share whatever in the general government of their country. A Boeotian town formed a distinct commonwealth, whose sovereign rights were some-sonal and political, of the oligarchy which what curtailed by its federal relations to its ruled over their common country. Such is fellow Boeotian towns, and still more so by the aspect of Athenian affairs, when we first the practical supremacy of Thebes over the begin to see them in anything like detail, at whole league. The burgher of Thespia or the time of the Solonian legislation. Theseus Orchomenos was a Boeotian; but he was in and Solon were the two great names in which no sense a Theban. The burgher of Eleusis the affectionate memory of Athens centred. or Marathon had well-nigh lost the name of Her orators and poets sometimes scrupled Attican in that of Athenian. By this for- not to attribute her full-grown democracy tunate diffusion of equal political rights over to Theseus the king, no less than to Solon the whole of Attica, Athens became the the archon. Of Theseus we can say nothing; greatest of Hellenic cities. Others ruled of the proceedings of Solon we can happily over wider domains and more numerous make out a good deal. If Theseus founded subjects; no other could marshal so great a a democracy, it was assuredly not a permsnumber of free and equal citizens. Whether nent one. Even of Solon, the utmost we this great event was owing to force or to can say is, that his reform took a decidedly persuasion, to some happy accident, or to democratical direction. The most distinclong-sighted political wisdom,-whether we tively democratical of Athenian institutions see in it the gradual result of predisposing were undoubtedly of later date. causes, or attribute it to the energetic genius The questions which have been so often of some nameless* statesman of an un-raised as to the so-called four Ionic tribes recorded age, in any case, it stands forth we shall pass by, as not directly connected as one of the capital events in the history of with our immediate subject. It is enough the world. As the determining cause of Court, "assumes the independence of Eleusis in earlier times." We think it does even more; it seems to imply (so far as we can trust it at all,) that the union of Eleusis and Athens was not then of very long standing. The tale certainly does not sound like an event of mythical antiquity, but rather like something of which Solon might have heard from his grandfather. Mr. Grote also infers, with much force, from the Homeric hymn to Demeter, that Eleusis formed an independent state at the time of its composition, possibly as late as the middle of the seventh century, B. C. If the union of the Attic towns was gradual, so important a place as Eleusis would probably be one of the last to coalesce, much like Orchomenos in Boeotia, or Akanthos in Chalkidike. It is even possible that the selection of Eleusis, rather than any other Attic town, to form a separate state under the oligarchy, after their expulsion from Athens, may point to some recollection of its ancient independence. * The legend attributes it to the mythical King Theseus. In this change, as in most others, some one man was probably the chief agent; several circumstances look as if it was at least commenced before royalty was abolished; the king concerned in it may as well have been called Theseus as anything else; but this is as much as we can say. for our purpose that they formed an oppressive oligarchy. The question which immediately concerns us is, how far did Solon break down the barriers of this oligarchy? We all know how he instituted a division into classes according to property, and how the rich alone were eligible to the great offices of the state. But here an important question arises, who were the persons thus classified? According to one answer Solon could hardly have even looked in the direc tion of democracy. Niebuhr, at one time at least, represented the Solonian timocracy *If we may trust the sage Diodorus, democracy could look still higher for its founder. Zeus himself established that form of government, not only at Athens but throughout the world. ἐπελθεῖν δ αὐτὸν [Δία] καὶ τὴν οἰκουμένην σχεδὸν ἅπασαν, τοὺς μὲν λῃστὼς καὶ ἀσεβεῖς ἀναιροῦντα, τὴν δ' ισότητα kai Thν dηuoкgaríaν elonyovuevov. Diod. v. 71. One would certainly never have found this out from the Prometheus of Eschylus. + History of Rome, vol. ii. p. 404, 5. In his Lectures on Ancient History, vol. i. p. 288, he seems to take a different, but less intelligible, view. 1856. Grote's History of Greece." as a mere change within the patrician order character. A hundred patricians from each itself; the poor noble was to be excluded tribe constituted an Annual Senate. The from office, while the rich plebeian was not chief executive and judicial powers-those admitted. Surely such a change would have which had been vested in the ancient kings, been merely to make the oligarchy still and in their successors, the Archons for life, Surely it is for ten years, for one year-Solon found and narrower than it was before. inconsistent with the well-known saying* of left in the hands of nine annual Archons. Solon himself, which, whatever its exact These, by his legislation, were to be chosen meaning, clearly implies that he gave the from the first class of the census, so that their mass of the people some power. It would qualification implied both noble birth and be easier to suppose that the timocracy the possession of the highest degree of wealth simply took the place of the oligarchy; that in the community. What then did the people wealth was substituted as a qualification in- gain by the Solonian reform? Very little, stead of birth; that the rich plebeian was as compared with their power in after times; qualified no less than the rich patrician, and but very much, as compared with their prethe poor patrican disqualified no less than vious state of entire political nonenity. the poor plebeian. But this view seems They shared in nothing, but they had the inconsistent with the fact, allowed on all disposal of everything. They still had mashands, that the Four Tribes, existed as real ters, but they were masters of their own Athenian political divisions, down to the legislation choosing. The Public Assembly, the famous Here the poor of Kleisthenes. We are therefore driven, Ekklesia, now arose, in which though not without some doubt and difficulty, citizen had an equal vote. to the conclusion that the timocracy extended or ignoble citizen, himself excluded from only to the patrician order, and that the whole office, chose and sat in judgment upon those body of the plebeians, rich and poor, were who ruled him. Here the Annual Senate placed, together with the poorest patricians, and the Annual Archons were chosen by the in the fourth or lowest class. This seems to common suffrage of the people. Here the be the view taken both by Dr. Thirlwallt same Archons, after their year of office were subjected to the euthyne or examination, and Mr. Grote. without honourably passing through which they could not take their seats in the permanent Senate of Areiopagus. Athens, then, after the Solonian reform, remained a modified oligarchy. Solong preserved the old Senate of Areiopagus, consisting of all who had served the office of Archon with credit. But he instituted alongside of it another senate of somewhat more popular * Sńμw μèv yàg ědwka тóσov kgúтog čσσov ¿яagкεi. every The constitution of Solon had hardly time to show itself in practical operation, before the tyranny of Peisistratus practically set it aside. Peisistratus, as is acknowledged on all hands, respected the forms of the constitution. Senate, Assembly, and Archonsall, doubtless, continued to exist; but their practical efficiency was probably about as But the great as when, centuries after, Athens was enrolled as a favoured ally of Nero. rule of the tyrants, by reducing nobles and Mr. Grote seems decidedly to assert this, when formally describing the Solonian constitution. He there (vol. iii. p. 176) speaks of persons not included in the Four Tribes, who still were citizens with votes in the Assembly, and adds, "It seems, therefore that all persons not included in the Four Tribes, whatever their grade or fortune might be, were on the same level in respect to political privilege as the people to one common servitude, indirectly "Yet advanced the cause of democracy. fourth and lowest class of the Solonian census.' When the tyranny was overpassed, it was found impossible to recall the old distinctions into practical life. But, as the constitutional forms had been respected, there was an established system to fall back upon and to reform. Under the involuntary guidance of Peisistratus and Hippias, the Athens of Solon had become ripe for transformation into the Athens of Kleisthenes. Democracy has now afterwards, (vol. iv. p. 169,) when describing the § Mr. Grote has, we think, clearly made out that the Senate of Areiopagus was the original one, older than Solon, and that the Annual Senate was of his foundation. custom. 5 82. Grote's History of Greece. fairly begun its course, though it is still far from having reached the goal. From Kleisthenes to Perikles, the constitution was so steadily advancing in a democratic direction, that it is not easy to fix the exact date of each change. But three great First stages may clearly be discerned. come the reforms of Kleisthenes himself, after the expulsion of the tyrants: Secondly, the changes which were effected immediately after the Persian war, some of which are attributed to Aristeides: Thirdly, those which brought about the perfect consummation of democracy under Ephialtes and .Perikles. What Kleisthenes himself did seems to have been entirely to abolish all distinctions founded on birth, and greatly to diminish the rigour of those founded on property. The Four Tribes, as a political institution, ceased to exist. The gentes and phratries of which they consisted, remained as religious and social unions, but they no longer The determined a man's political status. whole people-patricians, commoners, together with many slaves and foreigners who now received the franchise for the first time -were divided into Ten Tribes. These tribes were, again, subdivided into Demoi or Parishes. These last were essentially local divisions, each demos forming a larger or smaller municipality. Full scope was thus given for the exercise of those local feelings which were very strong in the Attic bosom. But a wise arrangement, whereby the demoi forming each tribe were not contiguous, hindered these local feelings from producing any pernicious political effect, such as they had produced during the interval between Solon and Peisistratus. The ten tribes were the immediate constituent members of the body politic. On them all the arrangements of the state, both military and civil, depended. The citizens of each tribe were marshalled together in battle, while a board of Ten Generals, one from each tribe, was placed at the head of military affairs. The Annual Senate now consisted of five hundred members, fifty from each tribe; and the senators of each tribe in turn enjoyed the presidency in the Public Assembly. The aristocracy of birth was thus legally annihilated, but the Solonian timocracy was only modified. The Archonship, confined by Solon to the first class of his census, was now opened to the first three, into which all citizens of the requisite wealth were now admitted. The fourth and poorest class alone remained excluded. Between Kleisthenes and Perikles three great changes were gradually effected, which, May, ! ther. All citizens became eligible for all But if the lot implies universal admissi- * Τὸ κληρωτὰς εἶναι τάς ἀρχὲς ἢ πάσας ἢ ὅσαι as Mr. Grote clearly shows, all hang toge-μì kμжεiρías déоvтaι kai réxvns.-Aris. Pol. vi. 2, 5. * troduced after the archons had been reduced |lowed; till at last the fully developed deto mere routine duties, which it was supposed mocracy appeared under Ephialtes and Perithat any respectable citizen was qualified to kles. What the Athenian constitution beperform. Notoriously discreditable persons came under them, that it remained-with would be excluded by the Dokimasia, or the short interruptions of the Four Hundred examination before admission, or else pun- and the Thirty-during the whole remaining ished by the Euthyne, or examination after period of Athenian independence. It was retirement from office. only by the Macedonian Antipater-Philip and Alexander had spared her thus muchthat Athens was compelled once more to institute a pecuniary qualification for the exercise of her now diminished and dishonoured citizenship. The following then must have been the order of the three changes. First, All citizens were rendered admissible to the archonship. Secondly, The powers of the archonship were so reduced as to be within the competence of any respectable citizen. Thirdly, The archons were appointed by lot. But it is allowed on all hands that all citizens were not admissible to the archonship till after the battle of Platææ. It follows, therefore, that, at least up to that time, the Achæan League. Its essence is the union archons were elected,* and that they still retained functions requiring special qualifications. As for the annual senate, where the same special qualifications were not required in each individual member,† it is possible, though by no means certain, that the lot may have been applied to their appointment as early as the time of Kleisthenes. The most distinguishing characteristics of the full-grown Athenian constitution, we endeavoured to set forth in a former article,* when contrasting the pure democracy of Athens with the modified democracy of the of all power, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the assembly of the people. The senate and the courts of justicef were merely committees, the various magistrates were merely agents of this sovereign body. Demos was, and did not object to be called, tyrant. The question is, did he use his despotic powers well or ill? Did he render himself amenable to the censure of a recent historian, who lays down the rule that an assembly of even five or six hundred persons has "a tendency to become a mob;" and that "a country of which the supreme executive council is a mob is surely in a perilous situation?" This is doubtless very good constitutional doctrine for an age of cabinet councils and diplomatic conferences; but a Greek of the fourth or fifth century B.C., might well have doubted it. The supreme executive council of his most illustrious city was a mob not merely of five or six hundred, but of five or six thousand, conceivably of from twenty to thirty thousand. This mob restrained itself just where a modern Parliament gives itself full liberty, and gave itself full liberty just where a modern Parliament restrains itself. Its legislative powers were considerably restrained by one of its own thon, ὁ τῷ κυάμῳ λαχὼν πολέμαρχος. Now Herodotus directly testifies to the fact that the Polemarch committees; but its executive powers were then retained high military command. This is essen- unbounded. This mob made peace and war; tial to the story, and is a point on which he could it appointed generals and gave them instruchardly be mistaken. But the allusion to the lot is a tions; it gave audience to foreign ambassamere obiter dictum, in which Herodotus might easily The reforms of Kleisthenes and the reforms of Aristeides, mark two great stages in the democratic march. Under the Peis istratidæ, patrician and plebeian are confounded in one common servitude, which probably pressed more heavily upon the patrician. Liberty is restored, and the legal distinction between patrician and plebeian is abolished by the legislation of Kleisthenes. During the Persian invasion, rich and poor are equalized in suffering and in heroism; the Thês does and suffers side by side with the Pentakosiomedimnos. Their country is recovered; and the legal distinction between rich and poor is abolished by the legislation of Aristeides. The lot and the diminished powers of the Archons must soon have fol *The only objection to this view is the expression of Herodotus with regard to Kallimachus at Mara *North British Review, August 1854, p. 442. transfer the language of his own day to an earlier dors, and discussed their proposals; it apperiod. Herodotus shows that in B.C. 490, the Pole-pointed its own ambassadors, and gave them march acted as a general. Now the generals were always elected; surely then in B.C. 490, the Polemarch must have been elected. There is also the direct testimony of Issokrates, and of Idomeneus of Lampsakos quoted by Plutarch. Their direct authority is very inferior to that of Herodotus; but their positive statement on a point to which they are specially referring, may counterbalance his mere casual allusion. See Grote, vol. iv. p. 197. See Lysias c. Evan. § 14. The whole speech should be studied as illustrative of the Dokimasia. + Every student of the orators knows how completely the courts are identified with the assembly, and are supposed to be actuated by its feelings. † Τὴν ἐκκλησίαν κυρίαν εἶναι πάντων, ἀρχήν δὲ μηδεμίαν μηθενὸς ἢ ὅτι ὀλιγίστων ἢ τῶν μεγίστων Kvpíav.-Arist. Pol. iv. 2, 5. § Macaulay's History of England, vol. iv. p. 434. The sworn Nomothetai. See Grote, vol. v. p. 500. instructions for foreign powers.* If com-tions, rebellions, and massacres. Blood is parative secrecy was ever required in a shed without mercy to decide which of two diplomatic transaction, the larger mob which rival men shall be the despot. In too many counted its thousands, deputed its powers to Greek republics, blood was shed with hardly the smaller mob of five hundred, which less scruple to decide which of two political formed the senate of the republic. Gene- parties should be predominant. But even rals, ambassadors, and other ministers, were here, as the aim of the Greek is one degree of course allowed a certain liberty and nobler, so are his means one degree more authority, but so are the generals and am- merciful. The barbarian mutilates, impales, bassadors of the most absolute despot. But crucifies: the Greek simply slays. Again, the control which Demos exercised over what the Greek of Argos or Korkyra is to generals and ambassadors was that of a the barbarian, the Greek of Athens is to the "Government," not merely that of a par- Greek of Argos or Korkyra. The Athenliament. The Athenian system admitted of ian, at least the democratic Athenian, does individual ministers, but it admitted of not even slay. Demos put some men to nothing in the shape of a ministry. Even death unjustly, some illegally: the generals the probouleutic senate did not assume the at Arginusæ perished by a bill of attainder functions of a cabinet. It was by the sove- worthy of a Tudor Parliament; but Demos reign assembly that all public servants were was never guilty of massacre or assassinadirectly appointed; it was to the sovereign tion in any civil conflict. The dagger of assembly that they were directly responsible. the assassin, the hemlock administered withNow a fair examination of Grecian history out trial, were the weapons only of his enwill assuredly lead us to the conclusion, that emies. Their use was confined to the boastthis mob invested with executive functions ed βέλτιστοι and καλοκαγαθοί, who shared constituted one of the best governments the power, and abetted the crimes, of the which the world ever saw. It did not effect Four Hundred and the Thirty. Never did impossibilities; it did not convert earth into the history of the world display nobler inparadise, nor men into angels; it did not forestall every improvement which has subsequently appeared in the world; still less did it forestall all the improvements which we may trust are yet in store for the human race. But that government cannot be called a bad one, which is better than any with which it comes in contact. And surely that government must be called a good one, which is a marked improvement upon every government which has preceded it. The Athenian democracy is entitled to both these commendations. Demos was guilty of some follies and some crimes; but he was guilty of fewer follies and fewer crimes, and he performed more wise and noble actions, than any government of his own or any preceding age. stances of moderation and good faith, than the conduct of the Athenian people on each occasion of its restoration. In no other city could such a triumph have been effected without wholesale massacres and confiscations. The victorious Demos is satisfied with the legal trial and execution of a few notorious traitors. For the rest an amnesty is proclaimed, oaths are sworn, and, as even the oligarchical historian pointedly observes, the people abode by its oaths.* Such was the result of a form of government in which every citizen partook, where every question was fairly argued on both sides, and where the minority peaceably submitted to an adverse vote. But we are told that the Athenian people were jealous and suspicious of their most First, then, the democracy of Athens was distinguished citizens. Aristeides was osthe first great instance which the world ex tracized; Perikles was fined; Sokrates was hibited of the substitution of law for force. put to death; Iphikrates and Chabrias dared Here, as usual, we find in Athens the highest not live at home on account of popular instance of a tendency common to all Greece. jealousy. No rich man had a moment's The rudest Greek community had a far more quiet between liturgies on the one hand and advanced idea of law than any barbarian sycophants on the other. Base and selfish state with which it came in contact. The demagogues enjoyed the confidence from Athenian democracy carried the conception which high-born and virtuous aristocrats into more perfect working than any other state in Greece. The history of an oriental despotism is commonly a history of usurpa * Ο γὰρ τὴν χεῖρα ὑμῶν μέλλων αἴρειν, οὗτος ὁ πρεσβεύων ἐστίν, ὁπότερ ̓ ἂν αὐτῷ δοκῇ, καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην καὶ τὸν πόλεμον ποιεῖν. Andok. Περὶ Εἰρ. p. 41. See Grote, vol. xi. p. 332. were debarred. Such is the picture commonly drawn of the practical working of Athenian freedom. Let us divide all these accusations into two or three. First, then, what was the general condition of a rich man at Athens ? * Τοῖς ὅρκοις ἐμμένει ὁ Δήμος. Xen. Hell. ii. 4, 43. |