130 HISTORY OF GREECE. not only all their value but all thsir charm, had come to be of little public estimation, and were probably attended only by a few partisans ; and thus the difference between qualified citizens and men not so qualified, between members of the four old tribes, and men not members, became during this period prac- tizally effaced. This, in fact, was the only species of good which a Grecian despotism ever seems to have done : it confounded the privileged and the non-privileged under one coercive authority common to both, so that the distinction between the two was not easy to revive when the despotism passed away. As soon as Hippias was expelled, the senate and the public assembly re- gained their efficiency. But had they been continued on the old footing, including none except members of the four tribes, these tribes would have been reinvested with a privilege which in re? ality they had so long lost, that its revival would have seemed an odious novelty, and the remaining population would probably not have submitted to it. If, in addition, we consider the political excitement of the moment, the restoration of one body of men from exile, and the departure of another body into exile, the outpouring of long-suppressed hatred, partly against these very forms, by the corruption of which the despot had reigned, we shall see that prudence as well as patriotism dictated the adop- tion of an enlarged scheme of government. Kleisthenes had learned some wisdom during his long exile ; and as he probably continued, for some time after the introduction of his new consti- tution, to be the chief adviser of his countrymen, we may con- sider their extraordinary success as a testimony to his prudence and skill not less than to their courage and unanimity. Nor does it seem unreasonable to give him credit for a more generous forward movement than what is implied in the literal account of Herodotus. Instead of being forced against his will to purchase popular support by proposing this new constitution, Kleisthenes may have proposed it before, during the discussions which immediately followed the retirement of Hippias ; so that the rejection of it formed the ground of quarrel and no other ground is mentioned between him and Isagoras. The lattei doubtless found sufficient support, in the existing senate and pub- lic assembly, to prevent it from being carried without an actual uppeal to the people, and his opposition to it is not difficult to
