THE GREEK SOCIAL POLITY
_The Struggle for Greek Equality and Liberty_.--The greater part of the
activity of Western nations has been a struggle for social equality and
for political and religious liberty. These phases of European social
life are clearly discerned in the development of the Greek states. The
Greeks were recognized as having the highest intellectual culture and
the largest mental endowments of all the ancients, characteristics
which gave them great prestige in the development of political life and
social philosophy. The problem of how communities of people should
live together, their relations to one another, and their rights,
privileges, and duties, early concerned the philosophers of Greece; but
more potent than all the philosophies that have been uttered, than all
of the theories concerning man's social relation, is the vivid
portrayal of the actual struggle of men to live together in community
life, pictured in the course of Grecian history.
In the presentation of this life, writers have differed much in many
ways. Some have eulogized the Greeks as a liberty-loving people, who
sought to grant rights and duties to every one on an altruistic basis;
others have pictured them as entirely egoistic, with a morality of a
narrow nature, and with no sublime conception of the relation of the
rights of humanity as such. Without entering into a discussion of the
various views entertained by philosophers concerning the
characteristics of the Greeks, it may be said that, with all their
noble characteristics, the ideal pictures which are presented to us by
the poet, the philosopher, and the historian are too frequently of the
few, while the great mass of the people remained in a state of
ignorance, superstition, and slavery. With a due recognition of the
existence of the germs of democracy, {230} we find that Greece, after
all, was in spirit an aristocracy. There was an aristocracy of birth,
of wealth, of learning, and of hereditary power. While we must
recognize the greatness of the Greek life in comparison with that of
Oriental nations, it must still be evident to us that the best phases
of this life and the magnificent features of Greek learning have been
emphasized much by writers, while the wretched and debasing conditions
of the people of Greece have seldom been recounted.
_The Greek Government an Expanded Family_.--The original family was
ruled by the father, who acted as king, priest, and lawgiver. As long
as life lasted he had supreme control over all members of his family,
whether they were so by birth or adoption. All that they owned, all of
the products of their hands, all the wealth of the family, belonged to
him; even their lives were at his disposal.
As the family becomes stronger and is known as a gens, it represents a
close, compact organization, looking after its own interests, and with
definite customs concerning its own government. As the gentes are
multiplied they form tribes, and the oldest male member of the tribal
group acts as its leader and king, while the heads of the various
gentes thus united become his counsellors and advisers in later
development, and the senate after democratic government organization
takes place. As time passes the head of this family is called a king
or chief, and rules on the ground that he has descended from the gods,
is under the divine protection, and represents the oldest aristocratic
family in the tribe.
In the beginning this tribal chief holds unlimited sway over all of his
subjects. But to maintain his power well he must be a soldier who is
able to command the forces in war; he must be able to lead in the
councils with the chiefs and, when occasion requires, discuss matters
with the people. Gradually passing from the ancient hereditary power,
he reaches a stage when it becomes a custom to consult with all the
chiefs of the tribe in the management of the affairs. The earliest
picture of Greek government represents a king who is equal in birth
with {231} other heads of the gentes, presiding over a group of elders
deliberating upon the affairs of the state. The influence of the
nobles over whom he presided must have been great. It appears that the
king or chief must convince his associates in council before any
decision could be considered a success.
The second phase of Greek government represents this same king as
appearing in the assembly of all the people and presenting for their
consideration the affairs of the state. It is evident from this that,
although he was a hereditary monarch, deriving his power from
aristocratic lineage traced even to the gods themselves, he was
responsible to the people for his government, and this principle
extends all the way through the development of Greek social and
political life.
The right to free discussion of affairs in open council, the right to
object to methods of procedure, were cardinal principles in Greek
politics; but while the great mass of people were not taken into
account in the affairs of the government, there was an equality among
all those called citizens which had much to do with the establishment
of the civil polity of all nations. The whole Greek political life,
then, represents the slow evolution from aristocratic government of
hereditary chiefs toward a complete democracy, which unfortunately it
failed to reach before the decline of the Greek state.
As before related, the Greeks had established a large number of
independent communities which developed into small states. These small
states were mostly isolated from one another, hence they developed an
independent social and political existence. This was of great
consequence in the establishing of the character of the Greek
government. In the first place, the kings, chiefs, and rulers were
brought closely in contact with the people. Everybody knew them,
understood the character of the men, realizing that they had passions
and prejudices similar to other men, and that, notwithstanding they
were elevated to positions of power, they nevertheless were human
beings like the people themselves. This led to a democratic feeling.
{232}
Again, the development of these separate small states led to great
diversity of government. All kinds of government were exercised in
Greece, from the democracy to the hereditary monarchy. Many of these
governments passed in their history through all stages of government to
be conceived of--the monarchy, absolute and constitutional, the
aristocracy, the oligarchy, the tyranny, the democracy, and the polity.
All phases of politics had their representation in the development of
the Greek life.
In a far larger way the development of these isolated communities made
local self-government the primary basis of the state. When the Greek
had developed his own small state he had done his duty so far as
government was concerned. He might be on friendly terms with the
neighboring states, especially as they might use the same language as
his own and belonged to the same race, but he could in no way be
responsible for the success or the failure of men outside of his
community. This was many times a detriment to the development of the
Greek race, as the time arrived when it should stand as a unit against
the encroachments of foreign nations. No unity of national life found
expression in the repulsion of the Persians, no unity in the
Peloponnesian war, no unity in the defense against the Romans; indeed,
the Macedonians found a divided people, which made conquering easy.
There was another phase of this Greek life worthy of notice: the fact
that it developed extreme selfishness and egoism respecting government.
We shall find in this development, in spite of the pretensions for the
interests of the many, that government existed for the few;
notwithstanding the professions of an enlarged social life, we shall
find a narrowness almost beyond belief in the treatment of Greeks by
one another in the social life. It is true that the recognition of
citizenship was much wider than in the Orient, and that the individual
life of man received more marked attention than in any ancient
despotism; yet, after all, when we recognize the multitudes of slaves,
who were considered not worthy to take part in {233} government
affairs, the numbers of the freedmen and non-citizens, and realize that
the few who had power or privilege of government looked with disdain
upon all others, it gives us no great enthusiasm for Greek democracy
when compared with the modern conception of that term.
As Mr. Freeman says in his _Federal Government_, the citizen "looked
down upon the vulgar herd of slaves, the freedmen and unqualified
residents, as his own plebeian fathers had been looked down upon by the
old Eupatrides in the days of Cleisthenes and Solon." Whatever phase
of this Greek society we discuss, we must not forget that there was a
large class excluded from rights of government, and that the few sought
always to maintain their own rights and privileges supported by the
many, and the pretensions of an enlarged privilege of citizenship had
little effect in changing the actual conditions of the aristocratic
government.
_The Athenian Government a Type of Grecian Democracy_.--Indeed, it was
the only completed government in Greece. The civilization of Athens
shows the character of the Greek race in its richest and most beautiful
development. Here art, learning, culture, and government reached their
highest development. It was a small territory that surrounded the city
of Athens, containing a little over 850 English square miles, possibly
less, as some authorities say. The soil was poor, but the climate was
superb. It was impossible for the Athenian to support a high
civilization from the soil of Attica, hence trade sprang up and Athens
grew wealthy on account of its great maritime commerce.
The population of all Attica in the most flourishing times was about
500,000 people, 150,000 of whom were slaves, 45,000 settlers, or
unqualified people, while the free citizens did not exceed 90,000--so
that the equality so much spoken of in Grecian democracies belonged to
only 90,000 out of 500,000, leaving 410,000 disfranchised. The
district was thickly populous for Greece, and the stock of the Athenian
had little mixture of foreign blood in it. The city itself was formed
of {234} villages or cantons, united into one central government.
These appear to be survivals of the old village communities united
under the title of city-state. It was the perfection of this
city-state that occupied the chief thought of the Athenian political
philosophers.
The ancient kingship of Athens passed, on deposition of the last of the
Medoutidae, about 712 B.C., into the hands of the nobles. This was the
first step in the passage from monarchy toward democracy; it was the
beginning of the foundation of the republican constitution. In 682
B.C. the government passed into the hands of nine archons, chosen from
all the rest of the nobles. It was a movement on the part of the
nobles to obtain a partition of the government, while the common people
were not improved at all by the process. The kings, indeed, in the
ancient time made a better government for the people than did the
nobles. The people at this period were in great trouble. The nobles
had loaned money to their wretched neighbors and, as the law was very
strict, the creditor might take possession of the property and even of
the person of the debtor, making of him a slave.
In this way the small proprietors had become serfs, and the masters
took from them five-sixths of the products of the soil, and would, no
doubt, have taken their lands had these not been inalienable.
Sometimes the debtors were sold into foreign countries as slaves, and
at other times their children were taken as slaves according to the
law. On account of the oppression of the poor by the nobility, there
sprang up a hatred between these two classes.
A few changes were made by the laws of Draco and others, but nothing
gave decided relief to the people. The nine archons, representing the
power of the state, managed nearly all of its affairs, and retained
likewise their seats in the council of nobles. The old national
council formed by the aristocratic members of the community still
retained its hold, and the council of archons, though it divided the
country into administrative districts and sought to secure more
specific {235} management of the several districts, failed to keep down
internal disorders or to satisfy the people. The people were formed
into three classes: the wealthy nobility, or land-owners of the plain,
the peasants of the mountains districts, and the people of the coast
country, the so-called middle classes. The hatred of the nobility by
the peasants of the mountains was intense. The nobles demanded their
complete suppression and subordination to the rule of their own class.
The people of the coast would have been contented with moderate
concessions from the nobility, which would give them a part in the
government and leave them unmolested.
_Constitution of Solon Seeks a Remedy_.--Such was the condition of
affairs when Solon proposed his reforms. He sought to remove the
burdens of the people, first, by remitting all fines which had been
imposed; second, by preventing the people from offering their persons
as security against debt; and third, by depreciating the coin so as to
make payment of debt easy. He replaced the Pheidonian talent by that
of the Euboic coinage, thus increasing the debt-paying capacity of
money twenty-seven per cent, or, in other words, reduced the debt about
that amount. It was further provided that all debts could be paid in
three annual instalments, thus allowing poor farmers with mortgages
upon their farms an opportunity to pay their debts. There was also
granted an amnesty to all persons who had been condemned to payment of
money penalties. By further measures the exclusive privileges of the
old nobility were broken down, and a new government established on the
basis of wealth. People were divided into classes according to their
property, and their privileges in government, as well as their taxes,
were based upon these classes.
Revising the old council of 401, Solon established a council (Boule) of
400, 100 from each district. These were probably elected at first, but
later were chosen by lot. The duties of this council were to prepare
all business for passage in the popular assembly. No business could
come before the assembly of the people except by decree of the council,
and in nearly {236} every case the council could decide what measures
should be brought before the assembly. While in some instances the law
made it obligatory for certain cases to be brought before the assembly,
there were some measures which could be disposed of by the council
without reference to the assembly.
The administration of justice was distributed among the nine archons,
each one of whom administered some particular department. The archon
as judge could dispose of matters or refer them to an arbitrator for
decision. In every case the dissatisfied party had a right to appeal
to the court made up of a collective body of 6,000 citizens, called the
Heliaea. This body was annually chosen from the whole body of
citizens, and acted as jurors and judges. In civil matters the
services of the Heliaea were slight. They consisted in holding open
court on certain matters appealed to them from the archons. In
criminal matters the Heliaea frequently acted immediately as a sole
tribunal, whose decision was final.
It is one of the remarkable things in the Greek polity that the supreme
court or court of appeals should be elected from the common people,
while in other courts judges should hold their offices on account of
position. Solon also recognized what is known as the Council of the
Areopagus. The functions of this body had formerly belonged to the old
council included in the Draconian code. The Council of the Areopagus
was formed from the ex-archons who had held the office without blame.
It became a sort of supreme advisory council, watching over the whole
collective administration. It took account of the behavior of the
magistrates in office and of the proceedings of the public assembly,
and could interpose in other cases when, in its judgment, it thought it
necessary. It could advise as to the proper conducting of affairs and
criticise the process of administration. It could also administer
private discipline and call citizens to account for their individual
acts. In this respect it somewhat resembled the Ephors of Sparta.
{237}
The popular assembly would meet and consider the questions put before
it by the council, voting yes or no, but the subject was not open for
discussion. However, it was possible for the assembly to bring other
subjects up for discussion and, through motion, refer them to the
consideration of the council. It was also possible to attach to the
proposition of the council a motion, called in modern terms "a rider,"
and thus enlarge upon the work of the council; but it was so arranged
that the preponderance of all the offices went to the nobility and that
the council be made up of this class, and hence there was no danger
that the government would fall into the hands of the people. Solon
claimed to have put into the hands of the people all the power that
they deserved, and to have established numerous checks on government
which made it possible for each group of people to be well represented.
Thus the council limited the power of the assembly, the Areopagus
supervised the council, while the courts of the people had the final
decision in cases of appeal. As is well known, Solon could not carry
out his own reforms, but was forced to leave the country. Had he been
of a different nature and at once seized the government, or appealed to
the people, as did his successor, Pisistratus, he might have made his
measures of reform more effective. As it was, he was obliged to leave
their execution to others.
_Cleisthenes Continues the Reforms of Solon_.--Some years later (509
B.C.) Cleisthenes instituted other reforms, increasing the council to
500, the members of which might be drawn from the first three classes
rather than the first, limiting the archonship to the first class, and
breaking up the four ancient tribes formed from the nobility. He
formed ten new tribes of religious and political unions, thus intending
to break down the influence of the nobility. Although the popular
assembly was composed of all citizens of the four classes, the
functions of this body in the early period were very meagre. It gave
them the privilege of voting on the principal affairs of the nation
when the council desired them to assume the responsibility. The {238}
time for holding it was in the beginning indefinite, it being only
occasionally convened, but in later times there were ten[1] assemblies
in each year, when business was regularly placed before it. Meetings
were held in the market-place at first; later a special building was
erected for this purpose. Sometimes, however, special assemblies were
held elsewhere.
The assembly was convoked by the prytanes, while the right of convoking
extraordinary assemblies fell to the lot of the strategi. There were
various means for the compulsion of the attendance of the crowd. There
was a fine for non-attendance, and police kept out people who ought not
to appear. Each assembly opened with religious service. Usually
sucking pigs were sacrificed, which were carried around to purify the
place, and their blood was sprinkled over the floor. This ceremony was
followed by the offering of incense. This having been done, the
president stated the question to be considered and summoned the people
to vote.
As the assembly developed in the advanced stage of Athenian life, every
member in good standing had a right to speak. The old men were called
upon first and then the younger men. This discussion was generally
upon open questions, and not upon resolutions prepared by the council,
though amendments to these resolutions were sometimes allowed. No
speaker could be interrupted except by the presiding officer, and no
member could speak more than once. As each speaker arose, he mounted
the rostrum and placed a wreath of myrtle upon his head, which
signified that he was performing a duty to the state. The Greeks
appear to have developed considerable parliamentary usage and to have
practised a system of voting similar to our ballot reform. Each
individual entered an enclosure and voted by means of pebbles.
Subsequently the functions of the assembly grew quite large. The
demagogues found it to their interests to extend its powers. They
tried to establish the principle in Athens that the people were the
rulers of everything by right.
{239}
The powers of the assembly were generally divided into four groups, the
first including the confirmation of appointments, the accusation of
offenders against the state, the confiscation of goods, and claims to
succession of property. The second group considered petitions of the
people, the third acted upon motions for the remission of sentences,
and the fourth had charge of dealings with foreign states and religious
matters in general.
It is observed that the Athenians represented the highest class of the
Greeks and that government received its highest development among them.
But the only real political liberty in Greece may be summed up in the
principle of hearing both sides of a question and of obtaining a
decision on the merits of the case presented. Far different is this
from the old methods of despotic rule, under which kings were looked
upon as authority in themselves, whose will must be carried out without
question. The democracy of Athens, too, was the first instance of the
substitution of law for force.
It is true that in the beginning all of the Greek communities rested
upon a military basis. Their foundations were laid in military
exploits, and they maintained their position by the force of arms for a
long period. But this is true of nearly all states and nations when
they make their first attempt at permanent civilization. But after
they were once established they sought to rule their subjects by the
introduction of well-regulated laws and not by the force of arms. The
military discipline, no doubt, was the best foundation for a state of
primitive people, but as this passed away the newer life was regulated
best by law and civil power. Under this the military became
subordinate.
To Greece must be given the credit of founding the city, and, indeed,
this is one of the chief characteristics of the Greek people. They
established the city-state, or polis. It represented a full and
complete sovereignty in itself. When they had accomplished this idea
of sovereignty the political organization had reached its highest aim.
{240}
_Athenian Democracy Failed in Obtaining Its Best and Highest
Development_.--It is a disappointment to the reader that Athens, when
in the height of power, when the possibilities for extending and
promoting the best interests of humanity in social capacity were
greatest, should end in decline and failure. In the first place,
extreme democracy in that early period was more open than now to
excessive dangers. It was in danger of control by mobs, who were
ignorant of their own real interests and the interests of popular
government; it was in danger of falling into the hands of tyrants, who
would rule for their own private interests; it was in danger of falling
into the hands of a few, which frequently happened. And this democracy
in the ancient time was a rule of class--class subordination was the
essence of its constitution. There was no universal rule by the
majority. The franchise was an exclusive privilege extended to a
minority, hence it differed little from aristocracy, being a government
of class with a rather wider extension.
The ancient democracies were pure in form, in which the people governed
immediately. For every citizen had a right to appear in the assembly
and vote, and he could sit in the assembly, which acted as an open
court. Indeed, the elective officers of the democracy were not
considered as representatives of the people. They were the state and
not subject to impeachment, though they should break over all law.
After they returned among the citizens and were no longer the state
they could be tried for their misdemeanors in office.
Now, a state of this nature and form must of necessity be small, and as
government expanded and its functions increased, the representative
principle should have been introduced as a mainstay to the public
system. The individual in the ancient democracy lived for the state,
being subordinate to its existence as the highest form of life. We
find this entirely different from the modern democracy, in which
slavery and class subordination are both excluded, as opposed to its
theory and antagonistic to its very being. Its citizenship is wide,
extending to its native population, and its suffrage is universal to
all who qualify as citizens. The citizens, too, in {241} modern
democracies, live for themselves, and believe that the state is made by
them for themselves.
The decline of the Athenian democracy was hastened, also, by the
Peloponnesian war, caused first by the domineering attitude of Athens,
which posed as an empire, and the jealousy of Sparta. This struggle
between Athens and Sparta amounted almost to civil war. And although
it brought Sparta to the front as the most powerful state in all
Greece, she was unable to advance the higher civilization, but really
exercised a depressing influence upon it. It might be mentioned
briefly, too, that the overthrow of Athens somewhat later, and the
establishment of the 400 as rulers, soon led to political
disintegration. It was the beginning of the founding of Athenian
clubs, or political factions, which attempted to control the elections
by fear or force. These, by their power, forced the decrees of the
assembly to suit themselves, and thus gave the death-blow to liberty.
There was the reaction from this to the establishment of 5,000 citizens
as a controlling body, and restricting the constitution, which
attempted to unite all classes into one body and approximated the
modern democracy, or that which is represented in the "polity" of
Aristotle.
After the domination of Sparta, Lysander and the thirty tyrants rose to
oppress the citizens, and deposed a previous council of ten made for
the ruling of the city. But once more after this domination democracy
was restored, and under the Theban and Macedonian supremacies the old
spirit of "equality of equals" was once more established. But Athens
could no longer maintain her ancient position; her warlike ambitions
had passed away, her national intelligence had declined; the dangers of
the populace, too, threatened her at every turn, and the selfishness of
the nobility in respect to the other classes, as well as the
selfishness of the Spartan state outside, soon led to her downfall. At
first, too, all the officers were not paid, it being considered a
misdemeanor to take pay for office; but finally regular salaries were
paid, and this forced the leaders to establish free theatres for the
people.
And finally, it may be said, that the power for good or evil {242} in
the democracy lacking in permanent foundations is so great that it can
never lead on to perfect success. It will prosper to-day and decline
to-morrow. So the attempt of the Athenians to found a democracy led
not to permanent success; nevertheless, it gave to the world for the
first time the principles of government founded upon equality and
justice, and these principles have remained unchanged in the practice
of the more perfect republics of modern times.
_The Spartan State Differs from All Others_.--If we turn our attention
to Sparta we shall find an entirely different state--a state which may
be represented by calling it an aristocratic republic. Not only was it
founded on a military basis, but its very existence was perpetuated by
military form. The Dorian conquest brought these people in from the
north to settle in the Peloponnesus, and by degrees they obtained a
foothold and conquered their surrounding neighbors. Having established
themselves on a small portion of the land, the Dorians, or Spartans,
possessed themselves of superior military skill in order to obtain the
overlordship of the surrounding territory. Soon they had control of
nearly all of the Peloponnesus. Although Argos was at first the ruling
city of the conquerors, Sparta soon obtained the supremacy, and the
Spartan state became noted as the great military state of the Greeks.
The population of Sparta was composed of the Dorians, or citizens, who
were the conquerors, and the independent subjects, who had been
conquered but who had no part in the government, and the serfs or
helots, who were the lower class of the conquered ones. The total
population is estimated at about 380,000 to 400,000, while the serfs
numbered at least 175,000 to 224,000. These serfs were always a cause
of fear and anxiety to the conquerors, and they were watched over by
night and day by spies who kept them from rising. The helots were
employed in peace as well as in war, and in all occupations where
excessive toil was needed. The middle class (Perioeci) were subjects
dependent upon the citizens. They had no share in the Spartan state
except to obey its {243} administration. They were obliged to accept
the obligations of military service, to pay taxes and dues when
required. Their occupations were largely the promotion of agriculture
and the various trades and industries. Their proportion to the
citizens was about thirty to nine, or, as is commonly given, there was
one citizen to four of the middle class and twelve of the helots,
making the ratio of citizens to the entire population about
one-seventeenth, or every seventeenth man was a citizen.
Attempts were made to divide the lands of the rich among the poor, and
this redistribution of lands occurred from time to time. There were
other semblances of pure democracy of communistic nature. It was a
pure military state, and all were treated as soldiers. There was a
common table, or "mess," for a group, called the social union. There
all the men were obliged to assemble at meal-time, the women remaining
at home. The male children were taken at the age of seven years and
trained as soldiers. These were then in charge of the state, and the
home was relieved of its responsibility concerning them.
The state also adopted many sumptuary laws regulating what should be
eaten and what should be used, and what not. All male persons were
subjected to severe physical training, for Sparta, in her education,
always dwelt upon physical development and military training. The
development of language and literature, art and sculpture, was not
observed here as it was in Athens. The ideal of aristocracy was the
rule of the nobler elements of the nation and the subordination of the
mass. This was supposed to be the best that could be done for the
state and hence the best for the people. There was no opportunity for
subjects to rise to citizenship--nor, indeed, was this true in Athens,
except by the gradual widening force of legal privilege. Individual
life in Sparta was completely subordinate to the state life, and here
the citizen existed more fully for the state than in Athens in her
worst days.
Finally abuses grew. It was the old story of the few rich {244}
dominating and oppressing the many poor. The minority had grown
insolent and overbearing, and attempted to rule a hopeless and
discontented majority. The reforms of Lycurgus led to some
improvements, by the institution of new divisions of citizens and
territory and the division of the land, not only among citizens but the
half-citizens and dependents. Nevertheless, it appears that in spite
of these attempted reforms, in spite of the establishment of the
council, the public assembly, and the judicial process, Sparta still
remained an arbitrary military power. Yet the government continued to
expand in form and function until it had obtained a complex existence.
But there was a non-progressive element in it all. The denial of
rights of marriage between citizens and other groups limited the
increase of the number of citizens, and while powers were gradually
extended to those outside of the pale of citizenship, they were given
so niggardly, and in such a manner, as to fail to establish the great
principle of civil government on the basis of a free democracy.
The military regime was non-progressive in its nature. It could lead
to conquest of enemies, but could not lead to the perpetuation of the
rights and privileges of citizens; it could lead to domination of
others, but could not bring about the subordination of universal
citizenship to law and order, nor permit the expansion and growth of
individual life under benevolent institutions of government.
So the Greek government, the democracy with all of its great promises
and glorious prospects, declined certainly from the height which was
great in contrast to the Oriental despotisms. It declined at a time
when, as we look back from the present, it ought apparently to have
gone on to the completion of the modern representative government.
Probably, had the Greeks adopted the representative principle and
enlarged their citizenship, their government would have been more
lasting. It is quite evident, also, that had they adopted the
principle of federation and, instead of allowing the operation of
government to cease when one small state had been perfected, united
{245} these small states into a great nation throbbing with patriotism
for the entire country, Greece might have withstood the warlike shocks
of foreign nations. But, thus unprepared alike to resist internal
dissension and foreign oppression, the Greek states, notwithstanding
all of their valuable contributions to government and society, were
forced to yield their position of establishing a permanent government
for the people.
Some attempts were made to unify and organize Greek national life, not
entirely without good results. The first instance of this arose out of
temple worship, where members of different states met about a common
shrine erected to a special deity. This led to temporary organization
and mutual aid. Important among these centres was the shrine of Apollo
at Delphi. This assemblage was governed by a council of general
representation. Important customs were established, such as the
keeping of roads in repair which led to the shrine, and providing that
pilgrims should have safe conduct and be free from tolls and taxes on
their way to and from the shrine. The members of the league were sworn
not to destroy a city member or to cut off running water from the city.
This latter rule was the foundation of the law of riparian rights--one
of the oldest and most continuous in Western civilization. The
inspiration for the great national Olympic Games came from these early
assemblages about shrines.[2]
Also the Aetolian and Achaean leagues, which occurred in the later
development of Greece, after the Macedonian conquest, were serious
attempts for federal unity. Although they were meritorious and
partially successful, they came too late to make a unified nation of
Greece. In form and purpose these federal leagues are suggestive of
the early federation of the colonies of America.
_Greek Colonization Spreads Knowledge_.--The colonies of Greece,
established on the different islands and along the shores of the
Mediterranean, were among the important {246} civilizers of this early
period. Its colonies were established for the purpose of relieving the
population of congested districts, on the one hand, and for the purpose
of increasing trade, on the other. They were always independent in
government of the mother country, but were in sympathy with her in
language, in customs, and in laws and religion. As the ships plied
their trade between the central government and these distant colonies,
they carried with them the fundamentals of civilization--the language,
the laws, the customs, the art, the architecture, the philosophy and
thought of the Greeks.
There was a tendency, then, to spread abroad over a large territory the
Grecian philosophy and life. More potent, indeed, than war is the
civilizing influence of maritime trade. It brings with it exchange of
ideas, inspiration, and new life; it enables the planting of new
countries with the best products. No better evidence of this can be
seen than in the planting of modern English colonies, which has spread
the civilization of England around the world. This was begun by the
Greeks in that early period, and in the dissemination of knowledge it
represents a wide influence.
_The Conquests of Alexander_.--Another means of the dissemination of
Greek thought, philosophy, and learning was the Alexandrian conquest
and domination. The ambitious Alexander, extending the plan of Philip
of Macedon, who attempted to conquer the Greeks and the surrounding
countries, desired to master the whole known world. And so into Egypt
and Asia Minor, into Central Asia, and even to the banks of the Ganges,
he carried his conquests, and with them the products of Greek learning
and literature. And most potent of all these influences was the
founding of Alexandria in Egypt, which he hoped to make the central
city of the world. Into this place flowed the products of learning,
not only of Greece but of the Orient, and developed a mighty city with
its schools and libraries, with its philosophy and doctrines and
strange religious influences. And for many years the learning of the
world centred about Alexandria, forming a great rival to Athens, which,
{247} though never losing its prominence in certain lines of culture,
was dominated by the greater Alexandria.
_The Age of Pericles_.--In considering all phases of life the splendors
of Greece culminated in a period of 50 years immediately following the
close of the Persian wars. This period is known as the Age of
Pericles. Although the rule of Pericles was about thirty years
(466-429), his influence extended long after. The important part
Athens performed in the Persian wars gave her the political ascendancy
in Greece and enabled her to assume the beginning of the states; in
fact, enabled her to establish an empire. Pericles rebuilt Athens
after the destructive work of the Persians. The public buildings, the
Parthenon and the Acropolis, were among the noted structures of the
world. A symmetrical city was planned on a magnificent scale hitherto
unknown. Pericles gathered about him architects, sculptors, poets,
dramatists, teachers, and philosophers.
The age represents a galaxy of great men: Aeschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides, Herodotus, Socrates, Thucydides, Phidias, Ictinus, and
others. Greek government reached its culmination and society had its
fullest life in this age. The glory of the period extended on through
the Peloponnesian war, and after the Macedonian conquest it gradually
waned and the splendor gradually passed from Athens to Alexandria.
_Contributions of Greece to Civilization_.--It is difficult to
enumerate all of the influences of Greece on modern civilization.
First of all, we might mention the language of Greece, which became so
powerful in the development of the Roman literature and Roman
civilization and, in the later Renaissance, a powerful engine of
progress. Associated with the language is the literature of the
Greeks. The epic poems of Homer, the later lyrics, the drama, the
history, and the polemic, all had their highest types presented in the
Greek literature. Latin and modern German, English and French owe to
these great originators a debt of gratitude for every form of modern
literature. The architecture of Greece was broad enough to lay the
foundation of the future, and so we find, even in our {248} modern
life, the Grecian elements combined in all of our great buildings.
Painting and frescoing were well established in principle, though not
carried to a high state until the mediaeval period; but in sculpture
nothing yet has exceeded the perfection of the Greek art. It stands a
monument of the love of the beauty of the human form and the power to
represent it in marble.
The Greek philosophy finds its best results not only in developing the
human mind to a high state but in giving to us the freedom of thought
which belongs by right to every individual. An attempt to find out
things as they are, to rest all philosophy upon observation, and to
determine by the human reason the real essence of truth, is of such
stupendous magnitude in the development of the human mind that it has
entered into the philosophy of every educational system presented since
by any people or any individual. The philosophers of modern times,
while they may not adopt the principles of the ancient philosophy,
still recognize their power, their forms of thought, and their
activities, and their great influence on the intellectual development
of the world.
Last, but not least, are the great lessons recounted of the foundations
of civil liberty. Incomplete as the ancient democracies were, they
pointed to the world the great lessons of the duties of man to man and
the relations of mankind in social life. When we consider the
greatness of the social function and the prominence of social
organization in modern life, we shall see how essential it is that,
though the development of the individual may be the highest aim of
civilization, the social organization must be established upon a right
basis to promote individual interests. Freedom, liberty,
righteousness, justice, free discussion, all these were given to us by
the Greeks, and more--the forms of government, the assembly, the
senate, the judiciary, the constitutional government, although in their
imperfect forms, are represented in the Greek government. These
represent the chief contributions of the Greeks to civilization.
{249}
SUBJECTS FOR FURTHER STUDY
1. What were the achievements of the Age of Pericles?
2. Which are more important to civilization, Greek ideals or Greek
practice?
3. The ownership of land in Greece.
4. The characteristics of the city-state of Athens.
5. Alexandria as an educational centre.
6. Why did the Greeks fail to make a strong central nation?
7. The causes of the decline of Greek civilization.
8. Give a summary of the most important contributions of Greece to
modern civilization.
[1] Some authorities state forty assemblies were held each year.
[2] The Confederation of Delos, the Athenian Empire, and the
Peloponnesian League were attempts to federalize Greece. They were
successful only in part.
{250}