§ 1. Constitutions of Argos. § 2. Epidaurus, Ægina, Cos. § 3.
Rhodes. § 4. Corinth. § 5. Corcyra. § 6. Ambracia, Leucadia,
Epidamnus, Apollonia. § 7. Syracuse. § 8. Gela, Agrigentum. § 9.
Sicyon, Phlius. § 10. Megara. § 11. Byzantium, Chalcedon, Heraclea
Pontica. § 12. Cnidos, Melos, Thera. § 13. Cyrene. § 14. Tarentum.
§ 15. Heraclea Sciritis. § 16. Croton. § 17. And Delphi. § 18.
Aristocratic character of the constitution of Sparta.
1. It is my intention in the present chapter to collect and arrange the
various accounts respecting the alterations in the constitution of those
Doric states, which deviated more from their original condition than Crete
and Sparta: having been more affected by the general revolutions of the
Greek governments, and drawn with greater violence into the strong current
of political change.
And first, with regard to ARGOS, I will extract the following particulars
from former parts of this work. There were in this state three classes of
persons; the inhabitants of the city, who were for the most part Dorians,
distributed into four tribes; a class of Periœci, and also a class of
bondslaves, named gymnesii.(623) The kings, who were at first of the
Heraclide family, and afterwards of another dynasty, reigned until the
time of the Persian war;(624) there were also officers named artynæ, and a
senate possessing extensive powers. All these are traces which seem to
prove a considerable resemblance between the constitutions of Argos and
Sparta, at least they show that there was no essential difference. But
this similarity was put an end to by the destruction of a large portion of
the citizens, in the battle with Cleomenes, and the consequent admission
of many Periœci to the rights of citizenship.(625) Soon after this period,
we find Argos flourishing in population, industry, and wealth;(626) and in
the enjoyment of a democratic constitution.(627) The latter, however, was
ill adapted to acquire the ascendency in Peloponnesus, which Argos
endeavoured to obtain after the peace of Nicias. Hence the people
appointed a board of twelve men, with full powers to conclude treaties
with any Greek state that was willing to join their party; but in case of
Sparta or Athens proposing any such alliance, the question was to be first
referred to the whole people.(628) The state also, in order to form the
nucleus of an army, levied a body of well-armed men,(629) who were
selected from the higher ranks.(630) It was natural that these should
endanger the democracy; and after the battle of Mantinea (B.C. 418.) they
overthrew it, in concert with the Lacedæmonians, after having put the
demagogues to death.(631) Their dominion, however, only lasted for eight
months, as an insurrection and battle within the city deprived them of
their power, and reinstated the democracy.(632) Alcibiades the Athenian
completed this change by the expulsion of many oligarchs, who were still
remaining in the city;(633) afterwards he wished to overthrow the
democracy by means of his friends,(634) in consequence of which they were
all killed. Two parties, however, must have still continued to exist in
this state. Æneas the Tactician relates, that the rich purposing to attack
the people for the second time, and on a certain night having introduced
many soldiers into the city, the leaders of the people hastily summoned an
assembly, and ordered that every armed man should that night pass muster
in his tribe,(635) by which means the rich were prevented from uniting
themselves in a body. The _leaders of the people_ (δήμου προστάται(636))
are here manifestly democratic magistrates, who rose to power during the
contests between the opposite factions, and differed chiefly from the
demagogues of Athens, in that their authority was official, without which
they would not have been able to convene an assembly of the people. For
although the appellation of δήμου προστάτης in the Doric states, as well
as at Athens, sometimes denotes merely a person who by his character and
eloquence had placed himself at the head of the people; we shall produce
hereafter certain proofs, when we speak of Gela and Calymna, that it was
also the title of a public officer.(637)
When, during the peace of Artaxerxes, the Lacedæmonians had ceased to
possess any extensive share in the direction of public affairs in
Peloponnesus, a spirit of ungovernable licentiousness and ochlocracy arose
in those cities which had hitherto been under an oligarchical rule;
everywhere there were vexatious accusations, banishments, and
confiscations of property, especially of the property of such persons as
had filled public offices under the guidance of Sparta, though, even
during that period, (B.C. 374.) Argos had been a place of refuge for
banished democrats.(638) But after the battle of Leuctra, when the power
of Lacedæmon was completely broken, and Peloponnesus had for a certain
time lost its leader, the greatest anarchy began to prevail in Argos.
Demagogues stirred up the people so violently against all privileged or
distinguished persons, that the latter thought themselves driven to plot
the overthrow of the democracy.(639) The scheme was discovered, and the
people raged with the greatest ferocity against the real or supposed
conspirators. On this occasion, more than 1200 of the chief persons (many
upon mere suspicion) were put to death;(640) and at length the demagogues,
fearing to carry through the measures which themselves had originated,
suffered the same fate. This state of things was called by the name of
σκυταλισμὸς, or _club-law_; it appears to have been a time when the
strongest man was the most powerful. When the Athenians heard of these
transactions, they purified their market-place, thinking that the whole of
Greece was polluted by such atrocities:(641) it was probably at the same
time that the Argives themselves offered an expiatory sacrifice to the
mild Zeus (Ζεὺς Μειλίχιος), for the free blood which had been shed.(642)
Notwithstanding these proceedings, the rich and distinguished continued to
be persecuted at Argos with the greatest violence;(643) for which the
ostracism, a custom introduced from Athens,(644) together with other
democratic institutions,(645) was the chief instrument. In times such as
these, the chief and most noble features of the Doric character
necessarily disappeared; the unfortunate termination of nearly all
military undertakings(646) proves the decline of bravery. In so unsettled
a state of public affairs, sycophancy and violence became prevalent:(647)
notwithstanding which, their eagerness and attention to public speaking
produced no orator, whose fame was sufficient to descend to
posterity.(648)
2. In EPIDAURUS, on the other hand, the aristocracy continued in force,
and accordingly this city was as much attached to the Spartans, as Argos
was disinclined to them. Of the artynæ in this state, and of the senate of
180, as well as of the class of cultivators, and of the tribes, we have
spoken in former parts of this work.(649)
As long as ÆGINA remained an independent state, the government was held by
the hereditary aristocracy, whose titular dignity was probably increased
by the power derived from the possession of great wealth. The insurrection
of a democratic party remained fruitless. Ægina and Corinth are decisive
proofs, that under an aristocratical government an active and enterprising
spirit of commerce may arise and flourish.
The Epidaurian colony, Cos, without doubt, originally adopted the
constitution of its mother-state. Before the 75th (probably about the 73rd
or 74th) Olympiad, we find a tyrant appointed by the king of Persia
reigning in this island, Cadmus, the son of Scythes of Zancle;(650) after
some time, however, he quitted Cos, having established a senate, and given
back the state its freedom; yet the island appears to have immediately
afterwards fallen under the dominion of Artemisia.(651) At a later period,
the influence of Athens opened the way to democracy, but it was overthrown
by violent demagogues, who compelled the chief persons in self-defence to
combine against it.(652) The senate (βουλὴ or γερουσία) of the Coans, as
well as their prytanes, have been mentioned above;(653) the nominal
magistrates under the Roman dominion need not be here treated of.
3. In the Argive colony of RHODES, it may be supposed that an ancient
Doric constitution existed; for there were kings of the Heraclide family,
and probably also a council with the same powers as the Spartan gerusia.
The royalty expired after the 30th Olympiad (660 B.C.); but the ancient
family of the Eratidæ at Ialysus, retained a considerable share in the
government; probably exercising nearly the powers of a prytanis. Pindar
shows that the frame of justice belonged to this once royal family,(654)
when he says, “_Give, O father Zeus, to Diagoras favour both with citizens
and with strangers, since he walks constantly in the way opposed to
violence, knowing well what the just minds of noble ancestors have
inspired in him. Destroy not the common progeny of Callianax. At the
solemnities for the victory of the Eratidæ, the whole city rejoices in
banquets. Yet in a moment of time many winds meet from many quarters._”
Pindar thus early (464 B.C.) predicts the dangers that then awaited the
ancient family, to which Rhodes owed so much, from the growing influence
of Athens;(655) throughout the whole ode he cautions the citizens against
precipitate innovation, and prays for the continuance of the ancient
firmly-seated constitution.(656) Both prophecies were fulfilled. The sons
of Diagoras were condemned to death, and banished by the Athenians, as
heads of the aristocracy; but the hero Dorieus returned to his country
from Thurii, with Thurian ships, and fought with them against the enemies
of his family, as a faithful partisan of the Spartans. He was taken by the
Athenians in the year 405 B.C., who, when about to condemn him, were moved
by the appearance of the noble son of Diagoras (whose boldness of spirit
corresponded with the size and beauty peculiar to his family), to release
him from imprisonment and death.(657) The ancient fortune of the Rhodians,
which was owing to their strict adherence to the Doric customs, and to
their great commercial activity, was interrupted by the troubles of the
Peloponnesian war, in which the alternation of the Athenian and
Lacedæmonian influence by turns introduced democracy and aristocracy. At
the time of the Sicilian expedition, Rhodes was under the power of
Athens;(658) but the Spartans having in 412 B.C. obtained the superiority
in this island,(659) and Dorieus having been recalled by them (413 B.C.)
in order to suppress internal dissensions, the governing power again
reverted to the nobles: these latter having been compelled to unite
against the people by the demagogues, who, while they distributed the
public money among the people in the shape of salaries, had not repaid the
sums due to the trierarchs, and at the same time vexed them by continual
lawsuits.(660) Soon after this period (408 B.C.),(661) the large city of
Rhodes was founded, by collecting to one spot the inhabitants of the three
small cities of the island, Lindus, Ialysus, and Camirus. But in 396 B.C.
Rhodes was again recovered by Conon to Athens, and became
democratical;(662) yet in five years (391 B.C.) the Spartan party was
again victorious;(663) and the Social War finally put an end to the
influence of the Athenians. From this time the interference of the Carian
rulers, Mausolus and Artemisia, commenced, by which the oligarchy was
greatly raised, and the democratical party driven out; to restore which,
and to regard rather the cause of popular freedom in Greece, than the
injuries received from the Rhodians, was the advice of Demosthenes to the
Athenians.(664) At that time a Carian garrison was in the Acropolis of
Rhodes. Out of these troubles and dissensions a constitution arose, in
which, as far as we are able to ascertain, democracy prevailed, although
the small number and extensive powers of the prytanes prove that it was
not unmixed with aristocratical elements. According to the description
which Cicero puts in the mouth of the younger Scipio, at this time all the
members of the senate belonged (in the same year) to the public assembly,
and sat in alternate months (probably periods of six months, like the
prytanes) in the senate and among the people; in both capacities they
received pay (_conventicium_): the same persons also sometimes sat as
judges among the people in the theatre, sometimes in the senate in
criminal and other cases.(665) These statements cannot be easily
reconciled with Strabo’s view of the constitution, and yet there can be no
doubt that he, as well as Cicero, speaks of the time preceding Cassius’
conquest of Rhodes. “The Rhodians,” he says, “though not under a
democratic government, took great care of the people; in order to support
the number of poor in the state, they provided them with corn, and the
rich maintained the poor according to an ancient custom; there were also
liturgies, by which the people were furnished with meat, &c.”(666)
Notwithstanding the democratic institution of the senate, many offices,
those perhaps in particular which were connected with the administration,
such for example as the superintendence of the marine, were managed on
oligarchical principles; the internal quiet of Rhodes at this period is
also a proof against the existence of an unmixed democracy. Accordingly,
the true Doric characteristics were here retained for a longer time than
in most other Doric states; viz., courage, constancy, patriotism, with a
haughty sternness of manners, and a certain temperance, which was indeed
in some manner contrasted with their magnificence in meals, buildings, and
all arts.(667)
4. CORINTH, delivered by Sparta from its tyrants, had again reverted to
its former constitution, which however was not so oligarchical as the
hereditary aristocracy of the Bacchiadæ. Some noble families, as the
Oligæthidæ,(668) had a priority, probably the gerusia was composed of
them; and the public assembly was restricted in a manner similar to that
of Sparta. But at the same time Pindar celebrates Corinth as “_the city in
which Eunomia_ (or good government) _dwells, and her sisters, the firm
supports of cities, Justice and Peace, the bestowers of riches, who know
how to keep off Violence, the bold mother of Arrogance_.” From these words
it may also be conjectured, that the aristocratical party was compelled to
resist the endeavours made by the people to extend their power: it
remained, however, unshaken up to the date of the Peloponnesian war, and
Corinth, with the exception of a short time, continued the faithful ally
of Sparta, and foe of Athens.(669) At a later period, a democratic party,
which relied upon Argos, rose in Corinth, by the assistance of Persian
money: this at first obtained the supreme power, and afterwards attacked
the Lacedæmonian party, consisting of the noble families, at the festival
of the Euclea; and at last proceeded so far, as to wish to abolish the
independence of Corinth, and to incorporate it completely with Argos (B.C.
395 and 394.)(670) The banished aristocrats, supported by some
Lacedæmonians who were quartered at Sicyon, continued nevertheless to keep
up a contest, and maintained themselves at Lechæum;(671) after this they
must have returned and restored the ancient constitution: for we find
Corinth again true to the Lacedæmonian alliance.(672) In the time of Dion
(356 B.C.) Corinth was under a government nearly oligarchical, little
business being transacted in the popular assembly:(673) and although this
body sent Timoleon as general of the state to Sicily (B.C. 345.), there
was then in existence a gerusia (a name completely aristocratic), which
not only treated with foreign ambassadors, but also, which is very
remarkable, exercised a criminal jurisdiction.(674) The tyranny of
Timophanes, who was slain by Timoleon, was, according to Aristotle, a
short interruption of the oligarchy.(675)
5. From the moderate and well-balanced constitution, which Corinth had
upon the whole the good fortune to possess, its colony CORCYRA had at an
early period departed. Founded under the guidance of Chersicrates, a
Bacchiad, it was for a time governed by the Corinthian families, which had
first taken possession of the colony. At the same time, however, a popular
party was formed, which obtained a greater power by the violent disruption
of Corcyra from its mother-country, and the hostile relation in which the
two states were thus placed. In addition to these differences, the
connexion between Corcyra and the Peloponnesian league had been relaxed,
and was replaced by a closer intimacy with Athens; so that while the
aristocratic party had lost its hold, the democratic influence had taken a
deep root. The people also strengthened themselves by the union of a
numerous class of slaves.(676) By means of this combined force, the
aristocratical party was overthrown, whose expulsion was attended with
such scenes of blood and atrocity, as were hardly known in any other state
of Greece.(677) But even before these occurrences the constitution had
been democratical.(678) The popular assembly had the supreme power; and
although the senate had perhaps a greater authority than at Athens,(679)
it was manifestly only a part of the _demus_:(680) leaders of the people
appear to have been in this, as well as in other states, a regular
office.(681) From this time the most unbounded freedom prevailed at
Corcyra, of which the Greek proverb says coarsely indeed, but
expressively, Ἑλευθέρα Κόρκυρα, χέζ᾽ ὅπου θέλεις.(682) The Corcyreans were
active, industrious, and enterprising, good sailors, and active merchants;
but they had entirely lost the stability and noble features of the Doric
character. In absence of all modesty they even exceeded the Athenians,
among whom the very dogs, as a certain philosopher said, were more
impudent than in any other place: fabulous reports were circulated in
Greece, respecting the excessive luxury of the successors of the
Phæacians.(683) Yet even in this state an antidemocratic party, inclined
to the Lacedæmonians, was never entirely expelled; and it frequently rose
against the people without success,(684) but in the time of Chares with a
fortunate result,(685) The four or five(686) prytanes, who were at a later
period the chief magistrates of Corcyra, seem not to have been entirely
democratic magistrates, although the government was democratical; besides
these officers, there occur in an important monument,(687) πρόδικοι
βουλᾶς, who appear as accusers in a lawsuit which has reference to the
administration; also πρόβουλοι(688) with a προστάτης, who brings a lawsuit
of the same description before the courts; besides which we learn, that
from time to time revisions (διορθώσεις) of the laws took place, for which
certain persons named διορθωτῆρες were appointed; and that a ταμίας and a
διοικητὴς were among the financial authorities.
6. Another colony of Corinth, AMBRACIA, had been ruled by a tyrant of the
family of the Cypselidæ, named Gorgus (Gorgias), who was succeeded by
Periander, evidently a member of the same house:(689) this latter tyrant,
having insulted one of the subjects of his illicit pleasures, was put to
death by the relations of the latter.(690) The people had taken a share in
the insurrection, and obtained the supreme power:(691) the first change
having, however, been into a government founded on property, which
insensibly passed into a democracy, on account of the low rate of property
which qualified a person for public offices.(692)
In the Corinthian colony of LEUCADIA, the large estates were originally
inalienable, and in the possession of the nobles: when the inalienability
was abolished, a certain amount of property was no longer required for the
holding of public offices, by which the government became democratic.(693)
EPIDAMNUS was founded by Corinthians and Corcyæeans, and a Heraclide,
Phalias, from the mother-country, was leader of the colony. It cannot be
doubted that the founders took possession of the best lands, and assumed
the powers of government, only admitting persons of the same race to a
share. A single magistrate, similar to the cosmopolis at Opus, was at the
head of the administration;(694) the phylarchs composed a species of
council. But in the second period of the constitution, the phylarchs were
replaced by a senate (βουλὴ), chosen on democratic principles: a remnant,
however, of the early constitution was preserved, in the regulation that
all magistrates, who were chosen from the ancient citizens (the proper
πολίτευμα), were compelled to be present in the public assembly, if a
magistrate required it;(695) the highest archon also alone remained.(696)
The Peloponnesian war was occasioned by a contest between the popular
party at Epidamnus, and the nobles, in which the Corinthians, from
jealousy against Corcyra, unmindful of their true interests, supported the
former: of the issue of this contest we are not informed. The number of
resident and industrious foreigners was very great:(697) besides this
class of persons, none but public slaves were employed in mechanical
labour, and never any citizen.(698)
Of all the Corinthian settlements, APOLLONIA kept the nearest to the
original colonial constitution,(699) upon which its fame for justice is
probably founded.(700) The government remained almost exclusively in the
hands of the noble families and descendants of the first colonists, to
whom the large estates doubtless belonged.(701) Perhaps Apollonia was
indebted for the stability of its government to the Xenelasia;(702) an
institution which was of the first importance for the preservation of
ancient Greek customs, to a state closely bordering on barbarous nations.
7. That we may not disturb the order of the Corinthian colonies, we will
immediately proceed to consider the state of SYRACUSE. In the Syracusan
constitution the following were the chief epochs. In the _first_, the
government was in the hands of the gamori,(703) originally together with a
king,(704) whose office was afterwards abolished. These we have already
stated(705) to have been the original colonists, who took possession of
the large estates cultivated by native bondslaves, and exercised the chief
governing power. It is probable that the magistrates, and the members of
the council,(706) who were leaders of the people in the assembly (ἁλία),
were chosen from this body; in the same manner as the geomori of Samos
formed a council, which after the subversion of the royalty governed the
state.(707) Against these authorities, the people, having gradually become
more pressing in their demands, at length rebelled, and expelled them, by
combining with their slaves the Cyllyrii (before B.C. 492.(708)); but the
democracy which succeeded was so irregular and lawless, that it was of
very short duration;(709) the people therefore voluntarily opened the
gates to Gelon, when he came to restore the gamori, and gave themselves
entirely into his power,(710) in 485 B.C. The rule of Gelon, and of his
successor, was, although monarchical, yet not oppressive, and upon the
whole beneficial to the state: as the former allowed an extraordinary
assembly of the people to decide concerning his public
administration,(711) it may be perhaps supposed that he wished to be
considered an Æsymnetes, to whom the city, overcome by difficulties,
intrusted the unlimited disposal of its welfare. With the overthrow of
this dynasty, the _second_ period begins, during which there was upon the
whole a moderate constitution, called by most writers democracy,(712) and
by Aristotle distinguished from democracy as a _politeia_, in his peculiar
sense of the word.(713) Immediately after the downfall of Thrasybulus an
assembly was convened, in which it was debated concerning the
constitution. The public offices were only to be filled by the ancient
citizens; while those who had been admitted by Gelon from other cities,
together with the naturalized mercenaries,(714) were not to enjoy the
complete rights of citizenship:(715) measures which occasioned a war
within the walls of Syracuse. Lastly, in this, as well as in the other
states of Sicily, peace was re-established by the restoration of the
ancient citizens, a separation of the foreigners, who found a settlement
at Messana, and a new allotment of the lands,(716) in which the estates of
the nobles were probably divided anew. At the same time, by the violence
of these proceedings, the states of Sicily were reduced to a feeble
condition, which occasioned numerous attempts to set up a tyranny. As a
security against this danger, the people (in 454 B.C.) established the
institution called _petalism_, in imitation of the ostracism of Athens;
but they had sufficient discernment soon to abolish this new form of
tyranny, as all distinguished and well educated men(717) were deterred by
it from taking a part in public affairs. Syracuse suffered at that time,
as well as Athens, by the intrigues of demagogues and cabals of
sycophants.(718) In this city, at an early period, a talent for the
subtleties of oratory had begun to develope itself; which owed its origin
to Corax, a man employed by Hieron as a secret spy and confidant, and
celebrated among the people as a powerful orator and sagacious
councillor.(719) The naturally refined, acute, and lively temperament of
the Sicilian Greeks(720) had already turned towards cunning and deceit;
and in particular the young, eager after all novelty, ran counter to the
temperance and severity of the ancient customs and mode of life.(721) As
to the constitution at the time of the Sicilian war, we know that all
public affairs of importance were decided in the popular assembly,(722)
and the management of them was in great part confided to the leaders of
the people (δήμου προστάται), who seem to have been regular public
officers.(723) In what manner the people was led, is shown by the instance
of Athenagoras, who represents the expedition of the Athenians, when
already approaching the shores of Sicily, as a story invented by the
oligarchs to terrify the people. To what extent a complete freedom of
speaking before the people existed, is not altogether clear.(724) That
persons of an aristocratic disposition still continued to possess
political power, is evident from the speech of Athenagoras;(725) and it is
probable from Aristotle, that they had an exclusive right to certain
offices. The _third_ period begins with the victory over the Athenian
armament. As this was decided by the fleet of the Syracusans, the men of
inferior rank, who served as sailors, obtained a large increase of
importance in their own sight, and were loud in their demands for
admission to the highest offices; in the very same manner as at Athens,
after the battle of Salamis. In 412 B.C., upon the proposal of Diocles the
demagogue,(726) a commission was appointed for the arrangement of a new
constitution, in which the original contriver of the plan had himself the
first place. The government was thus converted into a complete democracy,
of which the first principle was, that the public offices should be filled
not by election, but by lot.(727) There was formed at the same time a
collection of written laws, which were very precise and explicit in the
determination of punishments, and were doubtless intended, by their
severity, to keep off those troubles, which the new constitution could not
fail to produce. This code, which was also adopted by other Sicilian
states, was written in an ancient native dialect, which seventy years
afterwards (in the time of Timoleon) required an interpreter.(728)
Notwithstanding these precautions, we find the democracy an Olympiad and a
half later fallen into such contempt,(729) that the people, utterly
incapable of protecting the city in the dangers of the time, appointed a
general with unlimited power: which measure, though always attended with
bad success, they repeatedly had recourse to. Dionysius, a man powerful as
well from his talents, as from the means which his situation as demagogue
afforded him of keeping the people in continual dread of the nobles,(730)
soon became tyrant;(731) but he still allowed an appearance of freedom to
remain in public assemblies, which he summoned, conducted, and
dismissed.(732) Dion restored the democracy for a short time, and only
partially;(733) for it was his real intention to introduce a Doric
aristocracy upon the model of those in Sparta and Crete.(734) Timoleon
with more decision abolished the democracy, and restored the former
constitution,(735) as may be supposed, not without sycophants and
demagogues, who were not slow to turn their arms against the founder of
the new liberty.(736) A mixture of aristocracy is discernible in the
office of amphipolus of the Olympian Zeus, which lasted three centuries
from 343 B.C. and probably combined political influence with the highest
dignity; the person who filled it gave his name to the year. Three
candidates were chosen for this office from three families by vote, and
one of the three was selected by lot.(737)
It may be observed, that Timoleon caused a revision of the laws to be made
by Cephalus, a Corinthian, who, however, was only called an interpreter of
the code of Diocles, although, as it appears, he entirely remodelled the
civil law.(738) We must pass hastily over the later times, remarking in
general, that a feeble democracy continued to exist, frequently contending
with clubs of oligarchs,(739) and afterwards falling into the hand of
tyrants who had risen from demagogues; such, for instance, as Agathocles,
who undertook to bring about a redivision of the lands, and an abolition
of all claims of debt.(740) Hiero II. did not suppress the council of the
city, which Hieronymus never consulted; but as it again returned into
existence immediately after the death of the latter prince, it appears
that it could not have been a body chosen annually, but a board appointed
for a considerable period.(741) The generals had at all times very large
powers, especially in the popular assembly, in which, however, persons of
the lowest condition had liberty to speak.(742) Another military office
also, that of the hipparchs, exercised a superintendence over the internal
affairs of the state, in order to guard against disturbances.(743)
8. After this account of the constitution of Syracuse, we may proceed to
notice those of GELA, and its colony AGRIGENTUM; as these cities, though
deriving their origin from Rhodes, perhaps took Syracuse for their model
in the formation of their government. In both states the noble and wealthy
first held the ruling power; which was afterwards for a long time
possessed by tyrants.(744) Agrigentum, after the overthrow of Thrasydæus
in 473 B.C., received a democratic constitution:(745) we know, however,
that at that time an assembly of a thousand, appointed for three years,
governed the state. This assembly was suppressed by Empedocles the
philosopher;(746) who obtained so large a share of popular favour that he
was even offered the office of king.(747) The assembly of a thousand also
occurs in Rhegium and Croton, in speaking of which city we will again
mention this subject. Further than this all information fails us. Scipio
established anew the senate of Agrigentum, and ordered that the number of
the new colonists of Manlius should never exceed that of the ancient
citizens.(748) The same senate, in an inscription of the Roman time,(749)
is called σύγκλητος, συνέδριον, and βουλὴ, and appears to have consisted
of 110 members; the day of meeting is stated: it appears that the senate
then alternated every two months;(750) the decree of the senate is
referred to the popular assembly (ἁλία); over which a προάγορος
presided(751) (which was also the name of the supreme magistrate at Catana
in the time of Cicero);(752) the Hyllean tribe has the precedency on the
day of this assembly. A hierothytes gives his name to the year,
corresponding to the amphipolus at Syracuse; in whose place a
hierapolus(753) is mentioned in a similar decree of Gela,(754) together
with whom a κατενιαύσιος, an annual magistrate (perhaps archon), is
mentioned. In this state the senate (βουλὴ) appears to have been changed
every half year,(755) their decrees being also confirmed by the assembly
(ἁλία);(756) the assembly is led by a προστάτης, the same magistrate whom
we have already met with in nearly all the democratic states of the
Dorians, in Argos, Corcyra, and Syracuse.(757)
9. We now return to Peloponnesus. In SICYON the tyrants had, as in other
states, been the leaders of a democratic party;(758) but their dominion
put an end to the times of disturbance and irregularity, which had
occasioned the Pythian priestess to say, that “Sicyon needed a
disciplinarian.”(759) After their overthrow an early constitution was
restored, which remained unshaken during the Peloponnesian war. We are
only informed that in 418 B.C. the Lacedæmonians made the constitution
more oligarchical;(760) that it had not previously been entirely
democratical, is shown by the fidelity with which Sicyon adhered to the
head of the Peloponnesian league. After the battle of Leuctra we find that
Sicyon possessed an Achæan constitution, _i.e._, one founded on property,
in which the rich were supreme;(761) Euphron, in 369 B.C., undertook to
change this into a democracy, and thus obtained the tyranny, until the
party of the nobles, whom he persecuted, overthrew him.(762) Plutarch
states most clearly the changes in this constitution; “after the unmixed
and Doric aristocracy(763) had been destroyed, Sicyon fell from one
sedition, from one tyranny into another;” until, at the time of Aratus, it
adopted the almost purely democratical institutions of the Achæans.
As PHLIUS during the whole Peloponnesian war remained faithful to the
interest of Sparta and hostile to Argos, it is evident that the state was
under an aristocratic government.(764) In a revolution which took place
before 383 B.C. the Lacedæmonian party had been expelled, but were in the
same year again received by the people; the government, however, did not
become democratical, until Agesilaus, introduced by the former party,
conquered the city, and remodelled the constitution(765) (379 B.C.).
Before this period the democratic assembly consisted of more than 5000
members, those who were inclined to the Lacedæmonians furnished above 1000
heavy-armed soldiers. A very regular system of government is proved to
have existed, by the patience and heroism with which the Phliasians, in
372-376 B.C., defended their city and country against the attacks of the
Argives, Arcadians, Eleans, and Thebans, until, without breaking their
fidelity to Sparta, they concluded a peace with Thebes and Argos (366
B.C.).
10. In MEGARA the tyranny of Theagenes, to which he rose from a demagogue,
was overthrown by Sparta, and the early constitution restored, which for a
time was administered with moderation,(766) but even during the Persian
war it had already been rendered more democratical by the admission of
Periœci.(767) The elegiac poet Theognis shows himself about this time the
zealous friend of aristocracy;(768) he dreads in particular men who stir
up the populace to evil, and, as leaders of parties, cause disorder and
dissension in the peaceful city; he laments the disappearance of the pride
of nobility, the general eagerness for riches, and the increase of a
crafty and deceitful disposition.(769) These struggles after popular
liberty, promoted by demagogues, soon produced the greatest disturbance;
the people no longer paid the interest of their debts, and even required a
cession of that which had been already paid (παλιντοκία); the houses of
the rich, and the very temples, were plundered; many persons were banished
for the purpose of confiscating their property.(770) It was perhaps at
this time that the Megarians adopted the democratic institution of
ostracism.(771) The nobles, however, soon returned, conquered the people
in a battle, and restored an oligarchy, which was the more oppressive, as
the public offices were for a time exclusively filled by persons who had
fought against the people.(772) It is probable that the consequence of
this return was the revolt of Megara from Athens, in 446 B.C.;(773) in the
beginning of the Peloponnesian war the Lacedæmonian party was predominant.
But in the eighth year of the war the aristocratic party of Megara was in
banishment at Pegæ; and when they were about to be recalled, and restored
to their city, the leaders of the people preferred to have the Athenians
in the town rather than the citizens whom they had driven from their
walls. By the influence of Brasidas, however, they returned, upon a
promise of amnesty, which they did not long observe. For having first
obtained the supreme offices (to which they must therefore have had a
particular claim), they brought a hundred of their chief enemies before
the people, and forced them to pass sentence upon the accused with open
votes. The people, terrified by this measure, condemned them to death. At
the same time the dominant party established a close and strict
oligarchy,(774) which remained in existence for a very long period.(775)
In 375 B.C., we again find that democracy was the established
constitution, and that the attempts of the oligarchs to change it were
defeated.(776) Demosthenes(777) mentions a court of three hundred in this
state, sitting in judgment on public offences; and at this time nobility
and wealth were frequently united in the same persons. Of the Megarian
magistrates we have already mentioned a king,(778) to which may now be
added the hieromnamon, an office always held by the priest of
Poseidon,(779) and probably having the same duties and privileges as the
amphipolus, hierapolus, and hierothytes in the Sicilian states. The
antiquity of this office is evident from its occurrence in the colonies of
Megara, Byzantium and Chalcedon. In the former a hieromnamon is mentioned
in a decree quoted by Demosthenes,(780) who gives his name to the year; in
the latter, a decree now extant(781) mentions first a king, then a
hieromnamon, then a prophet, together with three nomophylaces, all
administering the public affairs (αἰσυμνῶντες) for the appointed term of a
month. The two first we have already seen united in the very same manner
at Megara; the third refers to the worship of Apollo, of the transfer of
which from the mother-state to Chalcedon we have already spoken, and
pointed out an oracle of Apollo which was delivered there;(782) the
nomophylaces also occur at Sparta. The hieromnamon was probably priest
also of Poseidon in the colonies, the worship of which god, deriving its
origin from the Isthmus of Corinth, was at least more prevalent than any
other.(783)
11. The constitution of BYZANTIUM was at first royal,(784) afterwards
aristocratical,(785) and the oligarchy, which soon succeeded, was, in 390
B.C., changed by Thrasybulus the Athenian into democracy.(786) Equal
privileges were at the same time probably granted to the new citizens,
who, on account of their demands, had been driven from the city by the
ancient colonists.(787) After this, the democracy appears to have
continued for a long time;(788) but on account of the duration of this
form of government, and the habit of passing their time in the
market-place and the harbour, which the people had contracted from the
situation of the town, a great dissoluteness of manners existed; and this
was also transferred to the neighbouring city of Chalcedon, which had
adopted the Byzantine democracy, and, together with its ancient
constitution, had lost the temperance and regularity for which it had been
distinguished. In these times the Byzantians were frequently in great
financial difficulties, from which they often endeavoured to extricate
themselves by violent measures.(789) In the document quoted by
Demosthenes, the senate (βωλὰ) transfers a decree in its first stage,
called ῥήτρα,(790) to an individual, in order to bring it before the
people in the assembly (ἁλία), nearly in the same manner as was customary
at Athens; the existing constitution is called in this document ἁ πάτριος
πολιτεία. The office of archon was perhaps introduced together with the
democracy;(791) the civil authority of the generals existed in many states
in later times. The hundreds (ἑκατοστῦς) occur apparently as a subdivision
of the tribes,(792) and therefore as a species of phratriæ;(793) they were
probably common to all the colonies of Megara, since we find them in
Heraclea on the Pontus. In this city we know to a certainty that the
hundreds were divisions of the tribes, of which there were three;(794) the
rich (_i.e._, the possessors of the original lots) were all in the same
hundred; but the demagogues, intending to destroy the aristocracy, divided
the people into sixty new hundreds, independent of the tribes, in which
rich and poor were entered without distinction: nearly the same measure as
that by which Cleisthenes had so greatly raised the democracy at Athens.
This HERACLEA PONTICA, a settlement in part of Bœotians, but chiefly from
Megara,(795) had doubtless originally possessed the same constitution as
other Doric colonies; and the different classes were, first, the
possessors of the original lots; secondly, a _demus_, or popular party,
who had settled either at the same time or subsequently; and, thirdly, the
bondslaves, the Mariandynians.(796) Although we are not able to give any
detailed account of the changes in the government of this state, it may be
observed, that for a time the citizens alone had political power (the
πολίτευμα); but that the people had the privilege of judging (that is,
probably in civil cases), which occasioned a change in the
constitution.(797) Before 364 B.C. the popular party demanded with
violence an abolition of debts, and a new division of the territory; the
senate, which at that time was not a body selected from the people, but
from the aristocracy,(798) at length, being unable to act for itself, knew
no other means than to call in the assistance of Clearchus, an exile, who
immediately marched with a body of soldiers into the city. But, instead of
protecting the dignity of those who had called him in, he became a leader
of the people, and, what in fact he is already, who sets the blind fury
and physical force of the multitude in action against justice and good
order—a tyrant.(799) Clearchus put to death sixty of the members of the
senate, whom he had seized,(800) liberated their slaves, _i.e._, the
Mariandynians; and compelled their wives and daughters to marry these
bondsmen, unquestionably the best means of extirpating an hereditary
aristocracy; but the pride of noble descent was so strong in the breasts
of these women, that the greater number freed themselves from the disgrace
by suicide. It must be supposed, that a tyranny administered in so violent
a spirit, and continued through several generations, destroyed every
vestige of the ancient constitution.(801)
12. In the Spartan colony of CNIDOS the government was a close
aristocracy. At the head of the state was a council of sixty members, who
were chosen from among the nobles. Its powers were precisely the same as
those of the Spartan gerusia, from which its number is also copied. It
debated concerning all public affairs, previously to their being laid
before the assembly of the people, and had the superintendence of manners.
The office lasted for life, and was subject to no responsibility.(802) The
members were styled ἀμνήμονες, and the president was called ἀφεστὴρ, who
inquired the opinion of each councillor. Only one person from each family
was eligible to the council and public offices, younger brothers being
excluded. This occasioned dissensions between members of the same family;
those who were not admitted joined the popular party, and the oligarchy
was overthrown.(803) This event probably took place a short time before
the life of Aristotle. Eudoxus the philosopher, and Archias, a person of
whom little is known, are mentioned as legislators of the Cnidians.(804)
In the Spartan island of MELOS we find nothing remarkable, except that the
power of the magistrates was at least greater than at Athens,(805) Of the
ancient constitution of THERA, and of its ephors, we have already
spoken.(806)
13. The changes in the government of CYRENE we pointed out when speaking
of the Periœci. Originally the constitution was perhaps nearly similar to
that of Sparta. Afterwards the ancient rights of the colonists came into
collision with the claims of the later settlers, and at the same time the
kings obtained an unconstitutional and nearly tyrannical power. It appears
that they were stimulated by their connexion, both by friendship and
marriage, with the sovereigns of Egypt, to change the ancient royalty into
an oriental despotism. Hence, in the reign of Battus III., Demonax the
Mantinean, who was called in to frame a constitution for this city,
restored the supremacy of the community; he likewise gave to the new
colonists equal rights of citizenship with the ancient citizens, although
the latter doubtless still retained many privileges. The power of the
kings was limited within the narrowest bounds; and they were only
permitted to enjoy the revenues flowing from the sacerdotal office and
their own lands,(807) whereas they had before claimed possession of the
whole property of the state;(808) they had, like the Spartan kings, a seat
and vote in the council, and probably presided over it, which duties were
performed by Pheretime, the mother of Arcesilaus III., during the absence
of her son.(809) These restrictions were, however, violently opposed by
the princes just mentioned, as well as by their successors, who thus drew
upon themselves their own ruin. Arcesilaus also, to whom Pindar addressed
an ode, the fourth of the name, ruled with harshness, and protected his
power by foreign mercenaries:(810) and the poet doubtless advised him with
good reason, although without success, “_not to destroy with sharp axe the
branches of the great oak_ (the nobles of the state), _and disfigure its
beautiful form; for that, even when deprived of its vigour, it gives proof
of its power, when the destructive __ fire of winter_ (of insurrection)
_snatches it; or, having left its own place desolate, serves a wretched
servitude, supporting with the other columns the roof of the royal
palace_” (_i.e._, if the people in despair throws itself under the
dominion of a foreign king).(811) But the soothing hand with which the
poet advises that the wounds of the state should be treated was not that
of Arcesilaus, celebrated only for his boldness and valour. For these
reasons he was the last in the line of the princes of Cyrene (after 457
B.C.), and a democratical government succeeded. His son Battus took refuge
in the islands of the Hesperides, where he died; and the head of his
corpse was thrown by these republicans into the sea.(812) The new form of
government obtained stability and duration by an entire change; the number
of the tribes and phratrias was increased, the political union of the
houses destroyed, the family rites were incorporated in the public
worship,(813) &c. Some element of disturbance and revolution must,
however, have been still left in the constitution,(814) if the Cyrenæans
requested Plato to contrive for them a temperate and well-ordered
government, which the philosopher is said to have declined, on the ground
that they seemed too prosperous to themselves. At a later period, Lucullus
the Roman is said to have restored the city to tranquillity, after many
wars and tyrannies.(815)
14. In the constitution of the Lacedæmonian colony of TARENTUM there were
two chief periods. In the first we must infer, from the analogy of the
other Doric colonies, that there was the same division of ranks, viz.,
noble citizens, governing the state under a king;(816) the people, to whom
few and limited powers were allowed; and aboriginal bondsmen, chiefly
residing upon the lands of the highest class.(817) This constitution must,
however, have been gradually relaxed; for Aristotle calls it a _politeia_
in the limited sense, which, as he informs us, lasted over the Persian
war, and did not pass into a democracy until a large part of the nobles
had been slain in a bloody battle against the Iapygians (474 B.C.)(818)
The transition was introduced without any violent revolution, by some
measures, in which the aristocracy submitted to the claims of the people.
First of all, according to Aristotle,(819) they divided the public
property among the poorer classes; but only gave them the use of it;
_i.e._, apparently the public lands were apportioned out to them; but at
the payment of a small rent, in token that they had not the absolute
property in the soil. Besides this popular measure, the number of all the
public offices was doubled; and one half was filled by election, the other
by lot; in order, by the latter mode of nomination, to open a way to their
attainment by the lower orders. This democracy at first promoted to a
great degree the prosperity and power of the state,(820) while persons of
character and dignity were at the head of the government; for example, one
of the first men of the time, Archytas the Pythagorean, a man of singular
vigour and wisdom, who, as well as all adherents of the Pythagorean league
(of which he could not then have been a member), was of an aristocratical
disposition.(821) He was general seven times, although it was prohibited
by law that the same person should hold this office more than once,(822)
and never suffered a defeat:(823) the people with a noble confidence
entrusted to him for a considerable time the entire management of public
affairs.(824) At a subsequent period, however, as there were no longer any
men of this stamp to carry on the government, and the corruption of
manners, caused by the natural fruitfulness of the country, and restrained
by no strict laws, was continually on the increase, the state of Tarentum
was so entirely changed, that every trace of the ancient Doric character,
and particularly of the mother-country, disappeared; hence, although
externally powerful and wealthy, it was from its real internal debility,
in the end, necessarily overthrown, particularly when the insolent
violence of the people became a fresh source of weakness.(825)
15. On the constitution of the Tarentine colony HERACLEA (433 B.C.) the
monuments extant, although important in other respects, afford little
information. In the well-known inscription of this city, an ephor gives
his name to the year, five chosen surveyors (ὁρισταὶ) are to value the
sacred lands of Bacchus, and to measure it according to the rules of
Etruscan _agrimensores_, upon the decree of the public assembly,(826) in
order to ascertain what had been lost in the course of time, and to secure
the remainder. After this, the state, two polianomi, and the horistæ, let
the sacred land according to a decree of the Heracleans, and state the
conditions; in which certain officers named σιταγερταὶ are mentioned as
inspectors of the public corn-magazine. The annual polianomi are bound to
take care that the contracts of lease shall be observed; they carry on
inquiries upon this subject jointly with ten sworn colleagues, elected by
the people, in case of any breach of contract, collect the appointed
fines, and refer, in cases of singular importance, to the public assembly,
they themselves being subject to the responsibility.
16. To these we may add CROTON, since this city, founded under the
authority of Sparta by a Heraclide, and therefore revering Hercules
himself as its founder,(827) must be considered as belonging to the Doric
race, although at a later period the more numerous Achæan portion of the
population appears to have preponderated. Croton was the soil upon which
Pythagoras endeavoured to realise his notions of a true aristocracy, an
endeavour in which he succeeded. This, however, we cannot comprehend,
unless we consider his ideal state as no airy project or phantom of the
brain, but rather as founded upon national feelings, and as being even the
foundation of the governments of Sparta, Crete, and the cities of Lower
Italy, in which Pythagoras first appeared: and for this reason he is
described as in part merely to have restored and renewed; for example, to
have destroyed tyrannies, quieted the claims of the people, and
re-established ancient rights,(828) &c. Croton, however, he selected as
the centre of his operations, as being under the protection of Apollo, his
household god;(829) and, secondly, as being the “city of the healthy,” an
advantage which it owed to its climate, to gymnastic exercises, and to
purer morals than were prevalent at least in the neighbouring cities of
Tarentum and Sybaris. The government of this city was, when the
philosopher came forward, in the hands of the senate of a thousand,(830)
which formed a synedrion; the Crotoniats are reported to have offered to
Pythagoras the presidency of this senate,(831) probably as prytanis.(832)
A similar senate of a thousand existed at Agrigentum in the time of
Empedocles; the same number of persons, elected according to their
property, were sole governors at Rhegium.(833) This council of a thousand
members also existed at Locri.(834) From this we may infer that the
thousand of Croton were the most wealthy citizens: who in states of which
the power is derived from the possession of land are, before the
government is disturbed by revolutions, generally identical with the noble
families. At Croton they had power to decide in most affairs without the
ratification of the popular assembly,(835) and also possessed a judicial
authority.(836) Now the council instituted by Pythagoras (which appears
not to have been formed of members elected according to property, but to
have been chosen on purely aristocratical principles) only contained three
hundred members,(837) a number which frequently occurs under similar
circumstances;(838) at the head of this council was Pythagoras himself.
One of the most remarkable phenomena in the political history of the
Greeks is, that the philosophy of order, of unison, of κόσμος, expressing,
and consequently enlisting on its side, the combined endeavours of the
better part of the people, obtained the management of public affairs, and
held possession of it for a considerable time; so that the nature and
destination of the political elements in existence being understood, and
each having assigned to it its proper place, those who were qualified both
by their rank and talents were placed at the head of the state; a strict
self-education having in the first place been made one of their chief
obligations (as it was of the φύλακες of Plato), in order by this means to
prepare the way for the education of the other members of the community.
At present it is generally acknowledged that the Pythagorean league was in
great part of a political nature, that its object was to obtain a formal
share in the administration of states, and that its influence upon them
was of the most beneficial kind, which continued for many generations in
Magna Græcia after the dissolution of the league itself.(839) This
dissolution was caused by the natural opposers of an aristocracy of this
description, the popular party and its leaders; for in this character
alone could Cylon have been the author of the catastrophe which he
occasioned; it is recorded, that the opposition of this order to an
agrarian law, which referred to the division of the territory of the
conquered Sybaris among the people, served to inflame their minds.(840)
The opposite party demanded that the whole people should have admittance
to the public assemblies and to public offices, that all magistrates at
the expiration of their offices should render an account to a tribunal
composed of members elected by lot,(841) that all existing debts should be
cancelled, and that the lands should be newly divided:(842) from which we
must infer, that the highest officers of the Pythagoreans were, according
to the Spartan and Cretan principle, irresponsible, and that they
considered election by vote as necessary for all such situations. How
fatal to the quiet of Lower Italy were the convulsions which followed the
destruction of this league (about 500 B.C.), is proved by the large share
which the whole of Greece took in their pacification. This was at length
effected by the Italian cities entirely giving up the Doric customs, and
adopting an Achæan government and institutions;(843) which they were
afterwards, first by the power of Dionysius of Syracuse, and then of the
neighbouring Barbarians, compelled to surrender. Now the Achæan
constitution, according to Polybius,(844) had become a democracy
immediately after the overthrow of the last king Ogyges; and retained the
same general character, though some subordinate parts experienced very
great alterations: we also know that it was very unlike the Spartan
government.(845) I cannot, however, refrain from doubting whether it could
properly be termed democracy at so early a period, since Xenophon states,
that in Sicyon, in 368-365 B.C., timocracy was the prevailing form of
government, “_according to the laws of the Achæans_,”(846) which words
cannot be referred to a mere transitory condition of that race. There also
was always among the Achæans an equestrian order (ἱππεῖς), of greater
consideration and influence on the government than can be reconciled with
complete democracy.(847) So also at Croton, in the year of the city 637
(117 B.C.), there was a complete democracy; but (as in all the cities of
the Italian Greeks at this period) a senate of nobles existed, which was
frequently at open war with the people.(848)
17. Lastly, it is proper to mention the constitution of DELPHI, if our
supposition is admitted to be correct, that the most distinguished
Delphian families were of Doric origin.(849) It was also shown that these
families composed at an early period a close aristocracy; the priests were
chosen from among the nobles, to whom the management of the oracle
belonged; from their body was taken the Pythian court of justice (which
may be compared with the Spartan gerusia, and the Athenian court of the
ephetæ), as well as the chief magistrates, among whom in early times a
king,(850) and afterwards a prytanis, was supreme.(851) At a later period
we find mention of archons who gave their name to the year.(852) At the
same time a popular party was formed (perhaps from the subjects of the
temple), which in a later age at least exercised its authority in a public
assembly.(853) The senate (βουλὴ) of Delphi was at this period, as in Gela
and Rhodes (according to the hypothesis before advanced), renewed every
half year; but it appears to have consisted of very few members, for only
one senator (βουλεύων), or at most a few, in addition to the archon, are
named in the donatory decrees of Delphi.(854) Many particulars which
belong to a later date we pass over, as our only object is to point out
the characteristic points of the ancient constitution.
18. From these various accounts it follows, that although there was no one
form of government common to the Doric race in historic times, yet in many
of these states we find a constitution of nearly the same character, which
preceded and caused the subsequent changes and developments; and was of
unequal duration in different states. This constitution, which we, with
Pindar, consider as most strongly marked in the _Spartan_ form of
government, was of a strictly aristocratic character;(855) hence Sparta
was the basis and corner-stone of the Greek aristocracies, and in this
country alone the nobility ever retained their original dignity and power.
Hence also Sparta, during the flourishing period of her history, never had
a large number of exiles on political grounds, while in the other Grecian
states the constant revolutions to which they were subject generally kept
one party or other of the citizens in banishment; nor did she ever
experience any violent disturbances or changes in her constitution,(856)
until the number of the genuine Spartans had nearly become extinct, and
the conditions necessary for the permanence of the ancient government had
in part been removed. Now I call the Spartan constitution an
_aristocracy_, without the least hesitation, on account of its continued
and predominant tendency towards governing the community by a few, who
were presumed to be the best, and as it inculcated in the citizens far
less independent confidence than obedience and fear of those persons whose
worth was guaranteed by their family, their education, and the public
voice which had called them to the offices of state. The ancients,(857)
however, remark, that it might also be called a _democracy_, since the
supreme power was always considered as residing in the people, and an
entire equality of manners prevailed; that it might be called a _monarchy_
on account of the kings;(858) and that in the power of the ephors there
was even an appearance of _tyranny_: so that in this one constitution all
forms of government were united.(859) But the animating soul of all these
forms was the Doric spirit of fear and respect for ancient and established
laws, and the judgment of older men, the spirit of implicit obedience
towards the state and the constituted authorities (πειθαρχία);(860) and,
lastly, the conviction that strict discipline and a wise restriction of
actions are surer guides to safety, than a superabundance of strength and
activity directed to no certain end.
The relation which, according to these Doric principles, existed between
an inferior and a superior, between the private citizen and the
magistrate, also extended to the Spartans and other states, as the former
were for a long time considered as aristocrats when compared with the
other Greeks. This superiority was not caused by external preponderance
and compulsion, but by the internal acknowledgment that strict laws and a
well-ordered discipline belonged to them above all. It is often curious to
remark how great was the power of a Lacedæmonian cloak and stick (σκυτάλη
καὶ τρίβων, as Plutarch says) among the other races of the Greeks:(861)
how, as it were by magic, the single Gylippus, although by no means the
best of his nation, brings union and stability into the people at
Syracuse, and first gives all their undertakings force and effect; on more
than one occasion a single Spartan was enough to unite squadrons of
Æolians and Ionians of Asia, and make them act in common; and even at the
times of the dissolution of the Grecian name, we see Spartans acting as
the generals of mercenaries bound by no other law than the firm and
decided will of their leaders.
Many of the noblest and best of the Athenians always considered the
Spartan state nearly as an ideal theory realised in practice; and, like
Cimon and Xenophon (whose decided preference for Sparta, though perhaps
sometimes prejudicial to his own country, must not be called folly),
joined themselves to this state with zeal and eagerness, even to the
prejudice of their own interests. The preference of all the followers of
Socrates for Sparta is well known;(862) and Lycurgus, the most just of
financiers, united to an aristocratical disposition an admiration for the
laws of Lacedæmon.(863) It is singular that men of such eminence, both in
a practical and theoretical view, should express their admiration of a
state,(864) which modern writers(865) have often represented to us as a
horde of half savages. Nor must the judgment of the persons above
mentioned, who were without doubt sufficiently acquainted with the object
of it, be attributed to a morbid craving after a state of nature which the
Athenians had for ever lost.
We moderns, on the other hand, on account of our preconceived notions with
respect to the advancement of civilization, do not read without partiality
the lessons which history affords us; we refuse to recognise the most
profound political wisdom in an age which we believe to have been occupied
in rude attempts after the formation of a settled form of government. Far
otherwise the political speculators of antiquity, such as the Pythagoreans
and Plato, who considered the Spartan and Cretan form of government,
_i.e._, the ancient Dorian, as a general model of all governments; and, in
fact, the ideal constitution which was realized in Sparta approaches most
nearly to that which Pythagoras attempted to establish in Lower Italy, and
which Plato brought forward as capable of being put in practice, viz., a
close communion, nearly similar to that of a family, having for its object
mutual instruction. For the regulations of Pythagoras have many things
besides their aristocratic spirit in common with the Spartan form of
government, such as the public tables, and in general the perpetual living
in public, with the number of laws for the maintenance of public morality
(_disciplina morum_); and the community of goods, which existed among the
Pythagoreans, is nearly allied to the Doric system of equalizing the
landed estates. And Plato, although he at times criticises the Spartan and
Cretan constitution in a somewhat unfair manner, has evidently derived his
political notions, mediately or immediately, from the consideration of
that form of government:(866) for it is hardly possible that any person
should speculate upon government, without proceeding upon some chosen
historical basis, however he may endeavour to conceal it. But the Athenian
and Ionic democracy he altogether despises, because that appeared on his
principles to be an annihilation of government rather than a government,
in which every person, striving to act as much as possible for himself,
destroyed that unison and harmony in which each individual exists only as
a part of the whole.
It would be interesting to know what were the opinions and judgments of
Spartans of the better time concerning these relaxed forms of government.
We may well suppose that they did not view them in a favourable light. The
people of Athens must indeed have appeared to them in general, as a
Lacedæmonian in Aristophanes(867) expresses himself, as a lawless and
turbulent rabble. For this reason they refused in the Peloponnesian war to
negociate with the whole community; and would only treat with a few
selected individuals.(868) Upon the whole, the state of Sparta, being, in
comparison with the general mutability of the Greeks after the Persian
war, like the magnet, which always pointed to the pole of ancient national
customs, became dissimilar, both in political and domestic usages, to the
rest of Greece;(869) and for this reason the Spartans who were sent into
foreign parts either gave affront by their strangeness and peculiarity,
or, by their want of consistency and firmness, forfeited that confidence
with which they were everywhere met.