60 HISTORY OF GREECE. (under some forms or other) to the mass of qualified citizens, either a Senate or an Ecclesia, or both. There were, of course, many and capital distinctions between one government and another, in respect to the qualification of the citizen, the attri- butes and efficiency of the general assembly, the admissibility to power, etc. ; and men might often be dissatisfied with the way in which these questions were determined in their own city. But in the mind of every man, some determining rule or system something like what in modern times is called a constitution was indispensable to any government entitled to be called legiti- mate, or capable of creating in the mind of a Greek a feeling of moral obligation to obey it. The functionaries who exercised authority under it might be more or less competent or popular ; but his personal feelings towards them were commonly lost in his attachment or aversion to the general system. If any energetic man could by audacity or craft break down the constitution, and render himself permanent ruler according to his own will and pleasure, even though he might govern well, he could never in- spire the people with any sentiment of duty towards him. His sceptre was illegitimate from the beginning, and even the taking of his life, far from being interdicted by that moral feeling which condemned the shedding of blood in other cases, was considered meritorious. Nor could he be mentioned in the language except by a name 1 (TVQavvog, despot,) which branded him as an object of mingled fear and dislike. If we carry our eyes back from historical to legendary Greece, we find a picture the reverse of what has been here sketched. We discern a government in which there is little or no scheme or system, still less any idea of responsibility to the governed, but in which the mainspring of obedience on the part of the peo- ple consists in their personal feeling and reverence towards the 1 The Greek name rvpavvof cannot be properly rendered tyrant ; for many of the Tvpavvoi by no means deserved to be s ) called, nor is it consistent with the use of language to speak of a mild and well-intentioned tyrant The word despot is the nearest approach which we can make to it, since it is understood to imply that a man has got more power than he ought to have, while it does not exclude a beneficent use of such power by some individuals. It is, however, very inadequate to express the full strength of Grecian fee} ing which the original word called forth.
