Greece from the Coming of the Hellenes to AD. 14/II

by Evelyn Shirley Shuckburgh

 

II

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK STATES

 

The Hellenes—Æolians, Ionians, and Dorians—Greek colonisation—The Oracles and great games—First Olympiad, B.C. 776—Objections raised to the games—The Amphicityonic League—The Peloponnesus from B.C. 776—The tyrants of Corinth, Sicyon, and Argos—Sparta—Lycurgus—Spartan education—The Spartan mode of life—First Messenian war, B.C. 745-720—Second Messenian war, B.C. 685-660—Arcadia, Elis, Achaia—Central Greece—Athens—The Synoikismos of Theseus—Draco—Solon—The Seisachtheia of Solon—Pisistratus—The reforms of Cleisthenes—Literary movement at Athens—Island Greece.

We cannot date the arrival of the Hellenes in Greece, nor the composition of the Homeric poems, the popularity of which did so much to fix the language and to secure unity. We can only say that about B.C. 800 they were there—in European Greece, the Islands, and Asia Minor—and were beginning to send out colonies east, west, and north; that the divisions of Greece had obtained the names which we know; and that among these Hellenes there were recognised three families or divisions distinguished by dialect, though of the same mother tongue, and by certain moral and political characteristics Æolians, Ionians, and Dorians.

Mythology accounted for this by tracing their descent from a common ancestor Hellen and his sons. The Æolians occupied Central and Northern Greece from Bœotia to Thessaly, some islands, and the northern part of the coast of Asia Minor. The Ionians made their way to the northern part of Peloponnese, to certain islands, to Attica, and to the part of Asia Minor between ^Eolis and Caria. The Dorians first seem to have settled in Central Greece (in which a small district long retained their name), and at some time between B.C. 1000 and 800 to have pushed southward, occupying on their way Megara, Corinth, and Sicyon, and eventually to have overrun the greater part of the Peloponnese, in which Argolis, Laconia, and Messenia became predominately Dorian. This immigration, whatever its nature, seems not to have been a solitary movement, for we find that in the Homeric times the Dorians had already found their way to Crete. Nor was their occupation of the Peloponnese complete. Arcadia and Elis retained their ancient inhabitants, and so many Achæans escaped to the north, or retained their position there, that the district on the Corinthian Gulf was called Achaia. Nor in the districts which they occupied did they destroy or remove the people which they found there. They reduced them to an inferior, or in some cases to a servile, condition instead, and thus created for themselves and posterity a long series of difficulties, but they allowed them for the most part to remain in their ancient homes.

The next great movement was an outburst of

Theseus wrestling with the Minotaur of Crete.

From a vase painting.

colonisation, which seems to have begun perhaps as early as B.C. cSoo, but to have been at its height between B.C. 700 and 600. To account for this we must remember that continental Greece was a small country with an extensive seaboard. Inland, though there are some extensive plains, as in Thessaly, it is generally mountainous and without great or navigable rivers. Most of the cities, therefore, which became important were near the coast, and their inhabitants, much shut off from the interior and from other cities, took to the sea and became bold and skilful mariners, finding their way from island to island, and from headland to headland, noting spots here and there which were uninhabited or so thinly inhabited as to invite settlers. From remote times trade with the countries round the Black Sea became important to the Greeks. One of the earliest legends is that o{ the Argo penetrating as far as the Crimea in search of the Golden Fleece! The Iliad itself is a record of an expedition to the southern shore of the Hellespont; and before the beginning of history the Thracian Chersonese, which forms its northern coast, had been occupied by Hellenic settlers. Above all things it was necessary to keep this channel free and open for the corn-ships, on which many of the Greek states depended for their food. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the shores of the Propontis and of the Black Sea studded with Greek colonies. But the pressure of want at home, or an adventurous disposition, led the Greeks in other directions as well—to Egypt, Sicily, and Italy, to the islands of the Ionian Sea, and the coasts of Epirus. The Greek cities in Asia Minor were not behind those of Europe. Miletus in Asia and Megara in Greece were perhaps the most prolific of all, but most of the chief cities both in Europe and Asia played a part in it.

Greek colonies had this common feature. Though they retained a certain union of religion and sentiment with their mother cities, they each became a separate and independent state. The tie between them was, indeed, one of sentiment, and was easily snapped by any opposition of interest. These colonies, therefore, though they extended the area of Hellenism, did not help to knit it together. Yet surviving treaties, legal and religious formulas, epitaphs, and the like, show how many things there were which made for unity.

Among them we may reckon the Oracles. The oldest, perhaps, was that at Dodona, connected with the earliest settlers of Hellenic or Pelasgic stock. But about the time of this wave of colonisation Delphi became the most important of all. Private persons from all parts, and deputies from all states, visited this place to consult the god by his priestess or Pythia on every kind of question, personal or public. Delphi became the great religious centre of Greece, the independence and impartiality of which, and the free access to its shrine, concerned all the Greek world. It became also the national banking-house, in which most of the leading states had treasure-houses, the safety of which depended on the inviolability of the temple and its precincts, which accordingly were of the highest importance to all alike. Another element of union was furnished by

Photo]	[Mansell.

CONSULTING THE ORACLE OF DELPHI.

From a terra-cotta in the British Museum.

the four great national festivals—at Olympia in Elis, at Nemea in Argolis, on the Isthmus of Corinth, and the Pythian near Delphi. Though they probably existed long before, they began about this time to be important. By enforcing the rule that only men of Hellenic birth might compete in the contests, they too did something for the unity of Hellas. Men from all states met at them, and during the Olympic festival at any rate a kind of Truce of God was observed in the quarrels and petty wars so frequently raging between the states. The fact of the rewards being merely wreaths of olive or other trees, of no intrinsic value, was at least on the side of a disinterested quest of honour; while the general belief in the impartiality of the judges was not without its use in a country where the venality of officials was notorious. The pride which the states took in the success of their citizens, and the general admiration felt for the winners, tended to encourage a friendly rivalry in which all were at one.

On the other hand, the exaltation of physical prowess above intellectual and moral qualities was early remarked upon as mischievous in Greece as it has been among ourselves. Xenophanes of Colophon (fl. circ. B.C., 510) complains that higher honours were paid to victories at Olympia than to wisdom, which was so much more valuable than bodily strength or fleetness of foot. During the next century Euripides wrote with greater vehemence or petulance, declaring that the trained athlete was unfitted for all the duties of citizenship, civil and military alike, and that the honour paid to him was one of the worst abuses in Greece. These very criticisms illustrate the importance attached to success in the games, and help us to understand the fact of a poet like Pindar devoting his splendid genius to celebrate these victories—a fact that Macaulay regarded with wondering contempt.

A certain unity was also encouraged in Greece by the system of Amphictyonies. An Amphictyony was a league of states, generally near neighbours, for a special purpose—primarily for the maintenance of some temple as a place of common worship. Such a league might at times amount almost to a political federation, though that was not its professed purpose. There were several Amphictyonies in Greece; but the one which came nearest to being political, and exercised the greatest influence, was that of which the delegates met once a year at Delphi and once at Thermopylae Its main object was to protect the temple of Delphi and prevent the cultivation of its sacred territory, and that in itself gave it a certain importance for all Greeks alike. Its members also (called Pylagorae) did not come from closely contiguous states, but represented the great branches of the Greek race, so many being sent by Dorian, Ionian, and Æolian states respectively. It had the right to summon all states belonging to it to undertake a sacred war against any people violating the territory of the temple, or breaking any of the rules which the league laid down as to the conduct of war between members of the league—not to destroy any league city, not to cut off its water, or refuse the burial of the dead.

Photo]	[Alinari.

ATHLETE USING THE STRIGIL (Ἀποξυόμενος).

From the statue in the Vatican Museum.

About the period of the first Olympiad (B.C. 776) the general settlement in the Peloponnese had become that of later times, at any rate as regards the territories occupied by the several nations. But in many of the states themselves there were for many years after this date a regular cycle of changes in government. In Dorian states, such as Argos, Corinth, and Sicyon, the government was first in the hands of a royal caste, or clan, who selected the king from their own number. These kings, however, were not autocratic, and the government was, in fact, a kind of oligarchy. But in them all alike there came a time when some one man, generally acting as a champion of the people, seized on the government and became a despot or tyrant. Thus in Corinth about B.C. 655 the power of the royal clan of the Bacchiadae was overthrown by Cypselus, whose descendants held the tyranny till B.C. 580. In Sicyon about B.C. 676 a certain Orthagoras separated his city from the oligarchic government of Argos, and he and his descendants ruled it for about a hundred years. In Argos for many generations a family claiming to be descended from the original king Temenus had the monopoly of power, till they, too, were overthrown by Pheidon.

Now these tyrants who held power in the Peloponnese, roughly between B.C. 700 and B.C. 600, were often men of remarkable character, who did much for the prosperity and power of their states. Corinth and Sicyon both rose to importance under them, in wealth as well as in naval strength. In Argos, especially, Pheidon did great things. He extended the influence of his country in the Peloponnese, and promoted its commercial importance by the introduction of a new coinage, for which he first set up a mint in the island of Ægina. We must not be led astray by the modern meaning of tyrant and tyranny. A Greek tyrannus did not necessarily mean an oppressive ruler, but one who obtained power contrary to the laws.

COINS OF ÆGINA.

Still, though he did not always rule badly, the rule of a single man supported by force is certain sooner or later to offend large classes of citizens. Sometimes this came about because the man himself, or more often his son and successor, was corrupted by the possession of absolute power, and became a tyrant in the modern sense. Sometimes it was even because he aimed too high, and tried to enforce good laws more strictly than the people would bear. Resistance or discontent made the ruler suspicions, and he defended himself by acts of severity. From one reason or another a Greek tyranny rarely lasted beyond the second generation. By B.C. 500 these tyrannies had disappeared almost entirely in European Greece, and the political contests which were always frequent in the states were between oligarchy and democracy.

But one state in the Peloponnese went through none of these changes. As far as we know anything of the history of Sparta, its constitution had scarcely varied at all. And this stability is one of the reasons of its commanding influence. Sparta never governed the whole of the Peloponnese; Elis, Arcadia, Achaia, Sicyon, and Corinth remained independent. It was only Messenia that was annexed as a conquered country. But the Spartans gained such a reputation for military discipline and prowess that they were looked upon as the natural leaders in joint expeditions, and obvious referees in cases of dispute. Sparta set a standard in physical training, in hardihood and abstemiousness, in loyalty and devotion to duty, which other states admired rather than imitated.

These characteristics were promoted by a body of laws and customs, of a curious and interesting nature, usually ascribed to Lycurgus about the era of the first Olympiad (B.C. 776). The personality and the very existence of Lycurgus were very early questioned, and it is quite possible that the institutions ascribed to him were not the work of any one man, but were gradually developed. Still it is improbable that a character so unique should have been wholly an invention, and at any rate the constitution ascribed to him was actually in existence for four or five centuries. The purely political constitution was of the type common in Dorian states. There were two chief magistrates, or kings, a small council, or gerousia of elders—thirty including the kings—and an assembly or apella, which could only answer aye or no to propositions brought before it, and decided elections, it is said, by shouting. A modification of this constitution peculiar to Sparta was the yearly election of five Ephors, or overseers. Their duties, it seems, were originally to oversee the markets and the proper administration of the laws. But either because their powers were not clearly defined, or because the kings and council were weakened by divisions, they eventually obtained practical control of the government. They could reprimand or punish the kings no less than other officers or citizens, and when a king was commanding a military expedition one of their number accompanied him and controlled his actions or secured his recall. It is to them that the external policy of Sparta is in most cases to be ascribed, though the kings were nominally heads of the state, and in dignity and ceremonial observances always occupied the chief place.

In all Greek states it is to be remembered that freedom and democracy mean, after all, the rule of the few over the many; for in all the slaves were more numerous than the free. This was peculiarly true of Sparta. The Dorian conquerors had remained a class apart. The ancient inhabitants of the country, whatever their origin, had been either allowed to remain on their lands as farmers who, though not slaves, had yet no share in the Spartan citizenship, and were called perioikoi; or they had been reduced to serfdom under the name of helots, who were bound to the soil, of which they paid half the products to its lord, besides doing him personal service in war and elsewhere. It was only true Spartans of the conquering race that were citizens. They lived like a garrison in a conquered country, bound to be always ready against a rising of their serfs, always engaged in martial exercises or actual war, and regarding all other employments as either un- important or undignified. Trade and commerce were left to the unenfranchised farmers (perioikoi) or the helots. Only to them was the use of coined money allowed, and all intercourse with men of other states, except on the field of battle, was discouraged. There were no written laws, in accordance with a maxim or rhetra of Lycurgus; but each question of public importance, whether of peace or war, or the distribution of land, was determined nominally by the king and council, really by the Ephors. The chief danger to the governing class arose from the helots, especially those in Messenia, whose loss of freedom was more recent than that of the helots in Laconia. Their frequent revolts were the more formidable because Sparta was not loved by her neighbours. Argos was her jealous rival, and the highlanders of Arcadia were always on the watch to maintain their independence. Both were ready to assist revolting helots if it suited their interests. It was necessary, therefore, for the Spartans to be a nation of soldiers, ready for a call to arms, and convinced that their supreme duty was to conquer or die on the field.

Spartan training, therefore, was entirely directed to this end. It began from childhood. If an infant seemed weak and unpromising at its birth it was exposed on Mount Taygetus to perish. If it was decided to rear a male child, from his seventh year he was removed from his mother and brought up with other boys under the care of public officers. He was trained to endure every kind of hardship, to live on the plainest food, to dress in a single garment, to sleep on a mat of rushes, to walk barefooted, to bear the severest punishment without flinching, and to submit to his elders and officers with unquestioning obedience. At twenty the youths began regular military service, and were called eirenes, but had no part in civil business till thirty, and meanwhile were under a discipline as severe as that of their boyhood. Every citizen was bound to marry, but was allowed neither free choice nor unrestricted intercourse with his wife. The women were trained with almost equal severity, engaged in athletic exercises with the youths, and were taught to regard sons and husbands as belonging to the State rather than to themselves. Their death on the field was not to be lamented, but rather their survival of defeat.

Simplicity of life was promoted by all taking meals in common. These sussitia had nothing to tempt the appetite or to debilitate the frame, but were supplied with the plainest and homeliest food. All citizens, including the kings, were obliged to attend unless they had some valid excuse, such as illness or absence on public service, or (in the case of the kings) attendance on a state sacrifice. Still further to emphasise the fact that Spartans were born to be soldiers, they were excluded from commerce, and forbidden the use of silver or gold coins. They were supported by their share in the produce of their lands, and had no need of money. Iron tokens, or "cakes," served them as a medium of exchange at home; if they had to go abroad on public service they were supplied with money raised from the perioikoi. Whether this system was rightly attributed to Lycurgus, or to any single law-giver or not, for a long while it attained its object to a remarkable degree. The Spartan soldiers had the highest reputation in Greece for fighting in the open field. They were believed to prefer death to quitting ground once occupied, and they certainly showed dogged perseverance in the face of difficulty and disaster.

Yet they had their limitations. They did not shine in sieges or assaults upon fortified places. It was only after nearly a century of war that they subdued Messenia. In each of the two early wars (b.c. 743-660) the enemy defied them for years upon the two heights of Mount Eira and Mount Ithome, and in the rebellion of b.c. 464-454 they proved equally unable to capture Ithome, again occupied by the Messenians, for ten weary years. Nor were the results of their stern discipline in other respects wholly satisfactory. As always happens with close corporations, the number of true Spartans tended to diminish, and the lands fell into the hands of too few. The jealous exclusion of strangers made the Spartans narrow, and unfit to govern others or work with other states. The prohibition of the use of money was evaded in various ways, and Spartans abroad on state missions gained a bad reputation for corruption. Their slowness of movement and rigid adherence to local customs often made their alliance of little use. But continuity of institutions was at any rate attained. There were none of the fluctuations between tyranny oligarchy, and democracy which we have seen in Corinth, Sicyon, and Argos.

The three remaining districts of the Peloponnese—Arcadia, Elis, and Achaia—were not reduced to dependence upon Sparta, though they were decisively influenced by her. The question which principally divided the Eleians concerned the management of the Olympic festival, which was claimed exclusively by the people of Pisa, while the rest of the Eleians demanded a share in it. In this demand the Eleians were supported by Sparta, and the dispute ended in the demolition of Pisa about B.C. 572, after which the Eleians generally acted in close alliance with Sparta. The cities of Arcadia, on the other hand, long contended against Spartan supremacy, and it was not till the conquest of Tegea in B.C. 560 that the country generally was compelled to follow the Spartan lead in matters of international importance. Achaia consisted of a league of twelve cities, each apparently with a more or less democratic constitution, but its importance belongs to a later period. At this time it was independent, but generally disposed to rank itself among the allies of Sparta.

The two states which in the seventh century had attained considerable commercial importance, though never great political power, were the island of Ægina, and Chalcis in Euboea. But on the mainland Thebes and Athens were beginning to overshadow the rest. Of the more northern districts, Phocis was chiefly important as containing Delphi, and Thessaly was a loose confederacy of towns in which usually some great family held the supremacy. For certain purposes they were supposed to act together under a federal general, or tagus, but it seldom happened that such a combination proved possible. Constant border warfare with the Phocians tended to induce both to insignificance. In Boeotia, Thebes had by this time supplanted Orchomenus in the supremacy among the twelve cities which made up the Boeotian confederation. But this supremacy was not always or unanimously acknowledged, Plataea especially being always inclined to join the Athenian alliance. For certain purposes there were federal officers called Boeotarchs, who were supposed to preside over federal councils and to direct combined expeditions. But the federation was loose, and the Boeotians were much weakened by internal feuds, and never exercised much influence except for that short time during which the Theban supremacy was decisive.

The most important and interesting history of all the Greek states is that of Athens. Attica had certain advantages that saved it from much of the changes which affected other districts. Lying out of the direct route from Northern to Southern Greece, and being itself rugged and mountainous, it had not attracted invasion. The main stock of the people seems to have been Pelasgan, though there had been at some period so large an admixture of Ionian Hellenes that Athens came to be regarded as the mother city of the Ionians. The people prided themselves on their antiquity and purity of descent, boasting of being autochthones, or natives of the soil. As a symbol of this a favourite ornament of Athenian women was a cicada, or lizard, which was fabled to be born from the earth. So mythology represented the earliest Attic king as half snake, while Erechtheus, among the earliest heroes, was a babe born of Gaia, the earth goddess.

There were once, it was believed, twelve independent cities in Attica, each with a separate council chamber and magistrates. These were combined as one state by Theseus, who was therefore regarded as Oekist, or hero-founder of Athens. All kinds of heroic deeds and services were attributed to him. Among other things, he freed the state from the annual tribute of maidens and boys to the lord of Crete, killing the Minotaur to whom they were sacrificed. The tradition of this tribute contains a truth as to the naval supremacy of Crete in ancient times, and the emancipation of the Greek states from it. In the case of a mythological hero like Theseus—whose name may nevertheless represent a real person—we cannot pretend to give dates. But it seems certain that this Synoikismos, or combination of Attic towns under

The Theseion (Doric).

Athens, however accomplished, had taken place at least by B.C. 800. Another traditional change cannot have taken place much later. Athens had been ruled by kings till the death of Codrus. Tradition said that he devoted himself to death in obedience to an oracle which had announced that in a certain war that side would win whose king was slain, and that the people in gratitude would elect no king to succeed him, though for certain religious purposes the title was still retained. We only know the semimythical account of this change, which is one, however, that took place in many other states at about the same period, and we may accept the fact of the change itself. In place of the king, or basileus, an archon was appointed, at first for life and after B.C. 753 for ten years. At first the office was con- fined to one clan, the Medontidae, but afterwards was opened to all men of .noble birth, or Eupatrids. After B.C. 684 nine archons were appointed annually. The year was named after the first, who was called archon Eponymous; the second was called King Archon (Archon basileus). and had jurisdiction in cases concerned with religion and the care of orphans. The third was called Polemarchos. His duties were originally connected with the armed levy, and till some time after B.C. 490 he took command in the field. Eventually his duty was to prepare cases connected with aliens for the courts. The remaining six archons were called Thesmothetae, "givers of dooms," whose duties were always judicial: but these duties were afterwards confined to preliminary investigations,—they prepared cases for the courts. The council, or boule, met in the open upon the Areopagus, and was of immemorial antiquity. Most of its functions were afterwards performed, as we shall see, by another council established by Solon, and remodelled by Cleisthenes. The archons from very early times were appointed by lot either directly from the four primitive tribes, or from a number of names selected by them (ἐκ προκρίτων). At first only the Eupatrids were eligible for the office, but this distinction gradually disappeared. Ability to furnish a man's own arms, and later on inclusion in the first assessment of Solon, took the place of birth, and later still it was thrown open to all citizens alike. Military commanders were from the first elected, and not chosen by lot. No doubt there were always some means of assembling and consulting the citizens, but we know nothing of the working of an assembly before the time of Solon, or of the internal state of the city. It was built round a fortified hill or Acropolis, but was not itself enclosed by walls, and the habits of the inhabitants seem to have been pastoral and agricultural rather than urban. An early division of the people into military men, or hoplites, labourers, or ergadeis, and a third class called Teleontes (the meaning of whose name is not clear), seems to show this, as does also another local division into "the men of the heights," "the men of the plain," and "the men of the sea-coast."

There must always have been the occasional necessity of defending themselves in arms, and the Athenians appear very early to have found their way upon the sea, either as fishermen or as merchants.

THE AREOPAGUS.

The poorness of the Attic soil made the importation of corn and timber a necessity from early times. Thus we find that before we have much definite information about the Athenians they had secured possession of Sigeium in the Troad, and had some connection with the Greek settlers in the Thracian Chersonese. They must, therefore, have early seen the necessity of keeping the Hellespont open for the passage of corn-ships. They did not, however, possess ships of war, and were still content with the harbour at Phalerum, which was neither as convenient nor as safe as that of the Piraeus. Nor had they in the seventh century shown signs of taking the intellectual primacy among the Greeks which was afterwards so conspicuous. The earliest literary activity after Homer was in other parts of Hellas. Attica, however, had within its borders a source of wealth which afterwards was of material assistance in strengthening her position. This was the district of Laurium, in the southern part of the country, the silver mines in which appear to have been known from very early times, but not to have been systematically worked until towards the end of the sixth century B.C.

The great constitutional changes in the direction of democracy were those introduced by Draco (circ. B.C. 621), by Solon (circ. B.C. 594), and by Cleisthenes (B.C. 507). Between the last two there was a period of unconstitutional government, or "tyranny," under Peisistratus and his sons (B.C. 560-510). The significance of the Draconian reform was chiefly that it was the beginning of written laws, taking the place of an administration of justice by magistrates according to unwritten customs or traditions. How far he anticipated Solon in modelling the constitution was always uncertain. The laws engraved on stelae were sometimes attributed to him and sometimes to Solon. What remained in the popular imagination was the severity of the punishment for breaches of the law, which was always death. "Draco's laws were written in blood," it was said, and there was an end of the matter.

The beginning of better things was attributed to Solon, though as a constitutional reformer he does not seem to have made violent changes. The council of 401, which prepared matters for the assembly, and was elected by lot from the four original tribes, does not seem to have originated with him. But he attempted a kind of compromise between pure oligarchy and pure democracy by neglecting distinctions of birth and dividing the people into classes or assessments (τιμήματα), according to their wealth, the first class, consisting of those who possessed wealth equal to 500 medimni of corn, being alone eligible to the archonship. He also established popular courts, in which the office of dicast, or juryman, was open to all classes, even the lowest, or Thetes. The details of his constitutional measures will be better seen in connection with the reforms of Cleisthenes. The constitution as he left it was still oligarchical in that certain offices were not open to all; but all men were on an equal footing as far as the power of obtaining redress in the law courts was concerned, of voting in the assembly, and of serving on juries. Solon had had before his mind the problem which continually presented itself in Greek States, how to restrain the selfishness of a noble class and grant the largest liberty to the people, while still keeping up the safeguards against tyranny; for the tyrannus constantly took advantage of popular anger against the nobles to establish his power.

But it was as the champion of the rights of the state, and still more as a benefactor of the poorer citizens, that Solon was best remembered. He had come to the aid of the state on three occasions. First, in prosecuting successfully the Athenian claim to the island of Salamis against Megara. Secondly, in promoting a sacred war which secured freedom of access to Delphi; and, thirdly, in suggesting a means to relieve the people from a curse (ἄγος) brought upon them by the family called Alcmaeonidae in suppressing the conspiracy of Gylon (B.C. 612). The conspirators—whatever their object—had occupied the Acropolis, and being in danger of starvation had come down under promise of their lives, but had been put to death by the archon Megacles, who was one o( this family. Solon suggested the constitution of a court, by whose decision the whole family were exiled. These achievements, and, perhaps, the absence of the Alcmaeonidae, gave Solon the first place in the regard of his fellow-citizens, and he was able to crown his public services by a measure of relief for the impoverished farmers of Attica. They were overburdened with debt, their lands were mortgaged, and if the produce was insufficient for the discharge of their liabilities they might be forced to sell their families into slavery and eventually to become slaves themselves. The debts which Solon wished to wipe out were these land mortgages. His Seisachtheia, or "shaking off of burdens," either entirely removed them or so lightened them by deducting the interest already paid that they quickly disappeared; and, at any rate, the power of the creditor to enslave his debtor was abolished.

These various measures seem to have been established from about B.C. 594 onward, and he made the mistake common to reformers of thinking that he had arrived at finality. Causing magistrates and dicasts to take an oath not to introduce changes for ten years, he went upon his travels to avoid appeals for explanations or new measures. But in fact the contest between the classes was not ended, and Pisistratus, son of Hippocrates—a relation of Solon—about twenty years later took advantage of these quarrels to establish himself as tyrant. He began with the common device of asking for a bodyguard to protect him from the enemies of himself and the people. He was twice expelled—once for five years (B.C. 553-549), and again for ten years (B.C. 547-537). But with these intervals he and his son maintained their government from B.C. 560 to B.C. 510. It is true that he showed himself a reasonable and just ruler, allowing the laws and customs of the city to remain in force, doing much to adorn it, to foster literature, and to strengthen the State. Still it was "tyranny," which the nobles hated worse than a democracy; and though after his second restoration

Temple of Olympian Zeus, begun by Pisistratus.

Pisistratus retained power till his death in B.C. 527, he found it necessary to disarm the citizens. His son, Hippias, carried on for some years the tradition of good government. But his brother, Hipparchus, who seems to have acted as his second in command, was assassinated as he was marshalling the Panathenaic procession by Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Owing to a private grievance Hipparchus, who seems to have been haughty as well as dissolute, had inflicted a public insult on Harmodius by rejecting his sister from the chorus of maidens who formed part of the procession. Aristogeiton adopted his friend's quarrel, and both joined in the assassination (B.C. 514). Both lost their lives, but were regarded throughout Athenian history as the martyrs of liberty. Their statues stood in the agora among those of the national heroes, and their descendants enjoyed perpetual exemption from State burdens. This event changed the character of Hippias. He grew suspicious of all around him, and not only put many of the citizens to death on various pretexts, but surrounded himself with armed guards, and looked out for support from abroad, hiring mercenary troops, and making personal alliances with other tyrants, and probably with the Persian Satraps in Asia. He regarded Sigeium—the one Asiatic possession of Athens—as the private property of his family, and placed one of his brothers in command of it. These measures, and especially the hiring of troops, must have involved fresh taxation and confiscations, which added to the resentment of the people, who had al reach' been annoyed by the insolence of Hipparchus and other members of the family. The banished Alcmaeonidae seized the opportunity. They had secured the support of the oracle at Delphi by their liberality in rebuilding the temple, which they had faced with marble, though they had only contracted to use the cheaper stone of the neighbourhood. This helped them to obtain aid from Sparta, always closely connected with Delphi and opposed to tyrannies. The Alcmaeonidae, with their Spartan allies, entered Athens and besieged Hippias, who had taken refuge on the Acropolis, and after a time compelled him to consent to go into exile with all his family (B.C. 510).

The Athenians were thus left at peace to reconstitute their government. Cleisthenes, one of the Alcmaeonidae, became head of the reforming party, and having at length overcome his opponent Isagoras—who had obtained help from Cleomenes, of Sparta, and for a time held the chief power—he at length succeeded in carrying his measures. They went a long way towards securing an absolute democracy. The assembly, or ecclesia, in which every citizen of eighteen years of age could vote, had always been nominally supreme, but under the tyrants had no doubt been seldom summoned, and had exercised little practical control. It was henceforth called at stated times and business of all kinds, having first been prepared by the Boulè, was brought before it. The cardinal point of Solon's constitution had been the division of the citizens into classes, according to the amount of their rateable property. The Archons and Strategi could only be selected from the first or Pentacosiomedimni. Lower offices were open to the next two classes, the Hippeis and Zeugitae, while the lowest class, the Thetes, could hold no office at all. For sixteen years after Cleisthenes the rule as to the Archonship remained in force, but for every other purpose the assessments were neglected. For selection of officials by lot or merit, for payment of taxes or performance of military duty, the whole people were divided into ten tribes, each containing a certain number of domes, or townships, not necessarily contiguous. Each tribe furnished (whether by lot or election) one of the nine archons or their secretary, one of the ten strategi, fifty members of the Boulè (which was thus raised to five hundred), and its quota of soldiers when an army was required—all this (except for a time in the case of the archons) without distinction as to wealth or position. The one thing a man had to show before exercising civil rights was citizenship. This was secured by the council of each deme registering every boy when he came to the age of sixteen. It was the duty of the demesmen to see that he was properly a citizen by birth, and they were liable to be fined by the Boule if they made a wrong entry. Once entered On this register a man's name could only be. removed by a "suit of alienation" (δίκη ξενίας). The only restrictions as to eligibility to office were age (thirty years) and the necessity of passing a preliminary examination, or dokimasia, at which any one was at liberty to allege against a man any disqualification, either of birth, neglect of duties, or dishonourable conduct. Every holder of an office was also subject to an audit (εὐθύνη) at the end of his year, at which any one was entitled to allege against him a breach of the laws. From the tribes also were selected six thousand dicasts each year—five thousand to serve in the law courts, as established by Solon, and one thousand kept in reserve to review the laws from time to time. The Boulè acted as a restraint upon hasty legislation. The representatives sent by the several tribes took their turn for a month in acting as presidents of the assembly, and properly no measure could be presented to it until it had been first passed by the Boulè, which saw that it was correct in form and did not contradict existing laws. It was then called a proboleuma, and when passed by the ecclesia became a binding decree or law.

Another safeguard established by Cleisthenes was the institution of ostracism, which was meant to prevent dangers arising from fierce party contests or rivalries between statesmen. If there appeared to be such a danger any one might move in the Assembly that there should be an ostracism. If the answer was in the affirmative, a day was fixed on which each citizen might write on a shell or piece of a pottery (ὄσρακον) the name of the statesman whom he thought ought to leave the city. If six thousand voted, the man whose name appeared the oftenest had to leave Attica for ten years, though he did not forfeit his citizenship or his property. It was an institution which, under other names, is found elsewhere. Cleisthenes is said to have suffered under this law himself. We know hardly anything else about his life or the time of his death, though he was looked back to as the real founder of Athenian democracy. He crosses the page of Greek history in this transaction and disappears.

OSTRAKA, USED IN A VOTE OF OSTRACISM.

Under this changed constitution Athens rapidly increased in activity and importance. Though as yet she was inferior as a sea-power to both Ægina or Corinth, we find her appealed to a few years later by the Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor as, next to Sparta, the strongest and most authoritative state in Greece. She had not shown as yet many signs of that literary and artistic supremacy which afterwards marked her out above all other states. As yet the art of oratory was undeveloped, and those who desired to persuade the people resorted rather to poetry, as we have seen that Solon did. Her supremacy in the dramatic art, indeed, was foreshadowed by the improvements of Thespis, Phrynichus, and Æschylus, dating from the time of the Peisistratidæ; but it was not till after the Persian invasions that the heightened position of Athens began to attract men of letters and philosophers to her as the natural home of literature and art, while the beauty of her buildings and the wealth of ornament which glorified them roused the admiration of foreigners, and made a marked impression on the character of her own citizens. Her great period in literature and art corresponded with the growth of her material power; and though they declined with it also, she remained still the chosen home of philosophy and humanism long after the disasters which wrecked her political importance.

Meanwhile, the islands of the Ægean had been thoroughly Hellenised (B.C. 800-700), and had developed in their own way. Eubœa had in Chalcis one city at least which had risen to high importance as a commercial and colonising state; but its constant quarrels with Eretria had weakened it, and it was soon to find itself united to Athens. The Cyclades for the most part were as yet thinly inhabited and poor, though the islands nearer the Asiatic coast—as Samos, Chios, and Lesbos—were the seats of a considerable trade in wine and pottery, and were beginning to acquire importance from their naval strength. Delos was the central place of the worship of Apollo and the common assembly of Ionians, and Thera was a stepping-stone between Crete and the mainland, just as Crete itself had helped to facilitate the passage of Phoenician and Egyptian influence into Greece. But by this time Crete was no longer

Photo]	[Mansell.

Restored view of the Acropolis, showing the Propylæa.

the powerful state which excavations have proved her once to have been, and the constant quarrels between the independent cities of the island were rapidly making it a byword for lawlessness and misery. The Greek cities of Asia had attained to considerable prosperity, and it was in them and the adjacent islands, as we have seen, that the earliest post-Homeric literature flourished. But this progress was checked by the loss of political independence, without which nothing ever seemed to flourish among Greeks. How this came about will be the subject of the next chapter. In the fifth century B.C. the real life of Greece was in Europe, and it was there that she entered upon her glorious inheritance of genius.

A WOMAN'S GOLD TIARA, MYCENÆ.