NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. brated in other parts of Greece, which never rose to the dignity of national festivals, by the nature of the prize, which, in the former, was a garland, in the latter, something of greater intrinsic value, but which, on that account, seems to have had less power of kindling emulation. To estimate the importance of the Olympic festival, which may be taken as the representative of all the rest, we must consider it in more than one point of view. Its value must depend, partly on the degree in which it answered the purpose of a bond of national union, and partly on the share it had in forming the national character. Viewed in the former light, it appears to have possessed so little efficacy that it can scarcely be looked upon as anything more than an opportunity, which, for want of a disposition to use it, was destined to lie forever barren. The short periodical interruption of hostilities hardly lessened the effusion of blood, and did not at all allay the animosity of warring tribes. The contrast, indeed, between Greeks and foreigners was placed in a stronger light by a scene in which the spectator saw himself surrounded with objects which recalled, more especially to the mind of those who came from the more distant regions, the most peculiar features of the religion, the arts, and manners of his countrymen. There was, perhaps, no other occasion on which the Greek was so forcibly impressed with the consciousness of the distinctions which separated him from the barbarians; none, therefore, which so much tended to strengthen the feelings which bound him to his race. All foreigners were excluded from competition at Olympia, and the kings of Macedonia were only admitted after strict proof of their Hellenic origin: it is even probable that the final prevalence of the name of Hellen was mainly determined by the use made of it there. But, on the other hand, there was no place where the Greek was less able to bury his local and domestic patriotism in a more comprehensive sentiment. The business of the festival itself ministered constant fuel to the selfish and malignant passions of rival cities, each of which felt its honour concerned in the success of the individual competitors. Among the indications of this spirit of emulation, which so easily degenerated among the Greeks into envy and jealousy, may be numbered the separate treasuries, built at Olympia, as at Delphi, by several states, for the reception of their offerings, which were often monuments of their mutual enmity. At every step there was as much to recall the political disunion of the Greeks to their remembrance as their national affinity. doubtful; but that literary works were not unfrequently thus published, is unquestionable. Such effects were independent of the declared object of the festival, and must have resulted parts of the world together in periodical meetfrom any occasion which drew Greeks from all ings. The impulse given to poetry and statuary by the events of the contest was more closely connected with the nature of the institution, though still only an accidental consequence, and one which did not depend on its particular form. The most material question, with a view to the effects which it produced on the national character, is whether the ardent emulation excited by the honours of an Olympic victory was wisely directed. It must be owned that the merit of such exertions as those which earned the prize at Olympia was greatly overrated in the popular opinion; and that no religious sanction, no charms of art, can ever really ennoble a mere display of man's animal powers. Some philosophical Greeks, however, not only refused their respect to the exhibitions which the vulgar admired, but condemned them as pernicious. It was observed that the training which enabled the competitors at the games to perform their extraordinary feats tended to unfit them for the common duties of a citizen.* This remark was perhaps more particularly applicable to the preparation for the pugilistic contests, and the pancratium, in which boxing and wrestling were combined; and it was probably on this account, more than on any other, that Sparta forbade her citizens to engage in either. For, though one or two instances of savage ferocity are recorded,+ and others may have occurred in these conflicts, this cannot have been the motive which caused them to be prohibited at Sparta, where battles of a like nature were among the habitual exercises of the young. On the other hand, there were intelligent and thoughtful observers among the Greeks who believed that the gymnastic games were intimately connected with the whole system of national education; and that, though the training of the competitors might be useless, or even mischievous, în other respects, still the honours conferred on them were well applied, as they encouraged the cultivation of the manly exercises to which the Greek youth devoted the greatest part of his time. And it cannot be denied that these exercises were not only an important part of education, where every citizen was a soldier, but that they contributed to the healthiness, freshBut, instead of holding that the alacrity with ness, and vigour of the Greek intellect itself. The remote and contingent effects produced which they were prosecuted in the private by the institution were probably much more schools was a result of the honours bestowed important than any which were contemplated on the victorious masters of the gymnastic art by its founders. The scene of the Olympic at the public games, we should be inclined to festival was, during the holy season, a mart of consider the former as the cause, the latter as busy commerce, where productions, not only of a natural, perhaps inevitable, but not very demanual, but of intellectual labour, were exhibit- sirable effect; which, however, may have reed and exchanged. In this respect it served acted on its cause, and have strengthened the many of the same purposes which in modern attachment of the Greeks to that part of their Viewed merely as a spectacle designed for times are, more effectually indeed, answered ancient usages out of which it arose. by the press, in the communication of thoughts, inventions, and discoveries, and the more equa-public amusement, and indicating the taste of ble diffusion of knowledge. The story that Herodotus read his history at Olympia has been disputed on grounds which certainly render it *Aristot., Pol., vii., 14, 8. Athen., x.. p. 413. + Lucian, Anacharsis. the people, the Olympic games might justly + Paus., viii., 40. claim to be ranked far above all similar exhibitions of other nations. It could only be for the sake of a contrast, by which their general purity, innocence, and humanity would be placed in the strongest light, that they could be compared with the bloody sports of a Roman or a Spanish amphitheatre. And the tournaments of our chivalrous ancestors, examined by their side, would appear little better than barbarous shows, widely removed from the simplicity of nature, and yet immeasurably inferior to the Greek spectacle in the genuine refinement of art, if this comparison did not remind us of the law by which women were forbidden, under pain of death, to be seen at Olympia during the games, and did not thus present the most unfavourable aspect in which they can be viewed. The institutions thus described, though, under other circumstances, any one of them might perhaps have become an instrument for uniting the Greeks-those, at least, who were seated between the Egean and the Adriatic-in a confederacy strong enough to prevent internal wars, yet so tempered as not to encroach on their domestic liberty, were so far from effecting this object that they do not seem even to have suggested the idea of it. The mutual jealousy which stifled this natural thought was very early heightened by the great diversity of the forms of government which rose up in the several Greek states. The same cause, indeed, at a later period, mainly contributed to the formation of alliances, by which parts of the nation were intimately united together under one head. But these partial combinations, as they were perpetually widening the breach out of which they arose, only served to render a general union more hopeless, and war the habitual state of Greece. A minute account of all the forms of government adopted in the Greek cities, both of the mother-country and the colonies, would be inconsistent with our plan and limits; but the present seems a fit place for a description of the general outlines under which these forms, notwithstanding the infinite variety of their particular features, may be classed; and this we shall illustrate both by occasional examples and by a sketch of the internal history of some of the states next in importance to Sparta and Athens, down to the Persian wars. In most general state of things was such, that the influ- It seems to have been seldom, if ever, that royalty was abolished by a sudden and violent revolution; the title often long survived the substance, and this was extinguished only by slow successive steps. These consisted in dividing it among several persons, in destroying its inheritable quality, and making it elective, first in one family, then in more; first for life, then for a certain term; in separating its funcWe have already seen that the Constitution, tions, and distributing them into several hands. which, so far as we can collect from Homer, In the course of these changes it became more was universally prevalent in the heroic states, and more responsible to the nobles, and frewas a monarchy, limited both by ancient cus- quently, at a very early stage, the name itself tom and by a body of powerful chiefs, who were was exchanged for one simply equivalent to rueverywhere raised much higher above the level ler or chief magistrate.* The form of governof the people than they were below that of the ment which thus ensued might, with equal prokings. It was, in fact, to use a term which we priety, be termed either aristocracy or oligarshall hereafter more exactly explain, an aris- chy; but, in the use of the terms to which these tocracy with a hereditary prince at its head. correspond, the Greek political writers made a Many of the learned men who hold that the distinction, which may at first sight appear Odyssey belongs to a later period than the Iliad, more arbitrary than it really is. They taught think that it represents the monarchical power-not a very recondite truth-that the three as on the decline, and already sunk below the position in which it appears in the earlier poem. Without relying much on this opinion, we may observe, that in the first two or three centuries following the Trojan war, causes were at work which tended to reduce the power and to abolish the title of royalty throughout Greece. The * Paus., v., 6, 7. Compare Elian, V. H., x., 1 forms of government, that of one, that of a few, and that of the many, are all alike right and good, so long as they are rightly administered, with a view, that is, to the welfare of the state, and not to the interest of an individual or of a particular class. But, when any of the three loses sight of its legitimate object, it degener • Αρχων, Πρύτανις (connected with πρῶτος). it. ates into a vicious species, which requires to be marked by a peculiar name. Thus a monarchy, in which selfish aims predominate, becomes a tyranny. The government of a few, conducted on like principles, is properly called an oligarchy. But, to constitute an aristocracy, it is not sufficient that the ruling few should be animated by a desire to promote the public good they must also be distinguished by a certain character; for aristocracy signifies the rule of the best men. If, however, this epithet is referred to an absolute ideal standard of excellence, it is manifest that an aristocratical government is a mere abstract notion, which has nothing in history or in nature to correspond to But if we content ourselves with taking the same terms in a relative sense, we shall, perhaps, be able to assign a definite, intelligible value to them, and to fix, with sufficient precision, the place which belongs to aristocracy in the order of the Greek constitutions, and the line by which it is separated from oligarchy. Aristocracy, in this sense, will be that form of government in which the ruling few are distinguished from the multitude by illustrious birth, hereditary wealth, and personal merit. But the kind of merit required in our notion of the ancient Greek aristocracies is not to be tried by any ideal, or any very high practical standard. It included only such a superiority as commonly resulted from the advantages of fortune enjoyed by the wealthy nobles: excellence in arms, and in all warlike exercises; the possession of some kinds of knowledge, more especially of that relating to sacred things, which could not be acquired without leisure; together with such a degree of mildness and justice as was necessary to prevent the government from degenerating, which could not be very rare in an age of simple manners, when wants were few, and neither the cupidity nor the jealousy of the rulers was often provoked by the governed. Whenever such a change took place in the character or the relative position of the ruling body, that it no longer commanded the respect of its subjects, but found itself opposed to them, and compelled to direct its measures chiefly to the preservation of its power, it ceased to be, in the Greek sense, an aristocracy; it became a faction, an oligarchy. But, more distinctly to understand the peculiar nature of the Greek oligarchies, it is necessary to consider the variety of circumstances under which they arose. By the migrations which took place in the century following the Trojan war, most parts of Greece were occupied by a new race of conquerors. Everywhere their first object was to secure a large portion of the conquered land; but the footing on which they placed themselves with regard to the ancient inhabitants was not everywhere the same: it varied according to the temper of the invaders or of their chiefs, to their relative strength, means, and opportunities. In Sparta, and in most of the Dorian states, the invaders shunned all intermixture with the conquered, and deprived them, if not of personal freedom, of all political rights. But elsewhere, as in Elis, and probably in Boeotia, no such distinction appears to have been made; the old and the new people gradually melted into one. Where this was the case, the conquest scarcely produced any other effect on the internal relations of the state than an extensive transfer of property, and the introduction of a new body of nobles, and, perhaps, a new royal dynasty: the nature of the government might continue the same, and might be liable to no other changes than it would otherwise have passed through. But where a rigid separation was made between the new and the old inhabitants, so that the former only were citizens, or, in the highest sense, freemen, the latter subjects or slaves, there the Constitution assumed an ambiguous aspect: it might appear from one point of view an oligarchy, while from another it might be considered as a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy. The freemen were equally raised above their inferiors, but they might, or might not, be all on a level with one another: they might form an aristocracy, or an oligarchy within an oligarchy; and, indeed, this was the natural tendency of things in a state where one class was in continual jealousy and apprehension of the other. An oligarchy, in the sense which we have assigned to the word, could only exist where there was an inferior body which felt itself aggrieved by being excluded from the political rights which were reserved to the privileged few. Such a feeling of discontent might be roused by the rapacity or insolence of the dominant order, as we shall find to have happened at Athens, and as was the case at Mitylene, where some members of the ruling house of the Penthalids went about with clubs, committing outrages like those which Nero practised for a short time in the streets of Rome. But, without any such provocation, disaffection might arise from the cause which we shall see producing a revolution at Corinth, where the aristocracy was originally established on a basis too narrow to be durable; as Aristotle relates of the Basilids at Erythræ that, though they exercised their power well, they could not retain it, because the people would no longer endure that it should be lodged in so few hands. In general, however, it was a gradual, inevitable change in the relative position of the higher and lower orders which converted the aristocracy into an oligarchical faction, and awakened an opposition which usually ended in its overthrow. In the natural progress of society, while the ruling body remained stationary, or was even losing a part of its strength, the commonalty, the class which, though personally free, was at first excluded from all share in the government, was constantly growing in numbers and wealth, was becoming more united in itself, more conscious of its resources, and more disposed to put forward new claims. One of the steps which led to this result was the increase which took place in the population of the cities when the inhabitants of several scattered hamlets were collected within the same walls. This continued at all times to be considered as one of the most effectual methods of shaking the power of an oligarchy, and the most fatal blow which could be inflicted on the interests of the commonalty was to disperse it again over the country in open villages. In the maritime towns the class which drew its subsistence from manufactures, trade, and commerce, made still more rapid strides than in the inland districts, and, though more despised by the nobles, was less inclined to reverence their hereditary privileges than the cultivators of the land. the standard adopted. When this was high, and especially if it was fixed in the produce of land, the constitution differed little in effect from the aristocratical oligarchy, except as it opened a prospect to those who were excluded of raising themselves to a higher rank. But when the standard was placed within reach of the middling class, the form of government was commonly termed a polity, and was considered as one of the best tempered and most durable modifications of democracy. The first stage, however, often afforded the means of an easy transition to the second, or might be reduced to it by a change in the value of the standard. Another expedient, which seems to have been tried not unfrequently in early times, for preserving or restoring tranquillity, was to invest an individual with absolute power, under a peculiar title, which soon became obsolete: that of asymnete. At Cuma, indeed, and in other cities, this was the title of an ordinary magistracy, probably of that which succeeded the hereditary monarchy; but when applied to an ex But, notwithstanding the growing strength of this formidable adversary, an oligarchy, if not excessively narrow, might be able, by prudence and moderation, long to maintain its ground, unless it was weakened by unforeseen disasters, or divided in itself, and betrayed by its own members. The precautions which were used by the ruling class, when it began to perceive its danger, were of various kinds. The most simple and congenial to its spirit were those by which it provided against inward decay, and preserved the original foundation of its power, as much as possible, unimpaired. This was the object of the laws by which, in several oligarchical states, restraints were laid on the alienation of landed property, tending to prevent any change in the number of the estates into which the country had been once parcelled, and to keep the same estates always in the same families; and these regulations were com-traordinary office, it was equivalent to the title monly coupled with others, designed to guard against any material increase or diminution in the numbers of the privileged body. Of the last two the former was the most dangerous change, since it burdened the state with citizens who were unable to maintain their hereditary rank, and might, therefore, easily become hostile to the government. So long as means could be found to preserve the established proportion between the property and the numbers of the ruling freemen, the oligarchy might be said to be in the fulness of its natural vigour, which was often farther secured by an exclusive right to the use of a certain kind of armour, and by the possession of numerous strongholds, more especially of a citadel in the capital itself. These, together with the actual exercise of the powers which were the main object of contention between the two parties, formed its natural defences. of protector or dictator. It did not indicate any disposition to revive the heroic royalty, but only the need which was felt, either by the commonalty of protection against the nobles, or by all parties of a temporary compromise, which induced the adverse factions to acquiesce in a neutral government. The office was conferred sometimes for life, sometimes only for a limited term, or for the accomplishment of a specific object, as the sage Pittacus was chosen by universal consent* at Mitylene, when the city was threatened by a band of exiles, headed by the poet Alcæus and his brother Antimenidas. Other persons, who are said to have been elsewhere armed with like powers, as Phobias at Samos, Chæremon at Apollonia on the Adriatic, though otherwise unknown, are described as men qualified by their eminent virtue to calm the rage of civil discord. They were surrounded with a body of guards for the maintenance of their authority; but it is expressly observed that this force was always cautiously limited to the number which seemed to be required for the public safety. As the choice was always grounded on the extraordinary merit of the individual, which probably, in all cases, suggested the expedient, so we do not hear that it was ever abused for the foundation of a permanent dynasty; and it never proved more than a palliative of the evils against which it was directed, though Pittacus, and perhaps other æsymnetes, was the author of some laws which were lasting monu But the utmost which it could effect in this way, by the highest degree of energy and prudence, was to keep itself stationary. It could neither prevent the growth of the commonalty, nor meet it by a corresponding expansion of its own frame. Hence, when the ancient relation between the two classes had been so far altered that even the least discerning could not but perceive the necessity of some change of system, other expedients were resorted to for averting an open struggle. The extreme rigour of the exclusive principle was relaxed by concessions, which were calculated to appease discontentments of his administration. with the smallest possible sacrifice on the part of the powerful. It was perhaps sometimes sufficient for this purpose to impart certain political rights to the mass of the commonalty, as a share in the election of magistrates and the enactment of laws. But it was more frequently found necessary to widen the oligarchy itself by the admission of new families, and to change the principle of its constitution by substituting wealth for birth as the qualification of its members. The form of government in which the possession of a certain amount of property was the condition of all, or, at least, of the highest political privileges, was sometimes called a timccracy, and its character varied according to The fall of an oligarchy was sometimes accelerated by accidental and inevitable disasters, as by a protracted war, which at once exhausted its wealth and reduced its numbers; or by the loss of a battle, in which the flower of its youth might sometimes be cut off at one blow, and leave it to the mercy of its subjects; a case of which we shall find a signal instance in the history of Argos. But much more frequently Welcker (Jahn's Jahrbücher, xii.. p. 16) observes that the the revolutions which overthrew the oligarchi- | might be converted into a tyranny by an illegal cal governments arose out of the imprudence forcible extension of its powers or of its duraor misconduct, or the internal dissensions of tion; and we are informed by Aristotle that the ruling body, or out of the ambition of some this was frequently the case in early times, beof its members. The commonalty, even when fore the regal title was abolished, or while the really superior in strength, could not all at once chief magistrate, who succeeded under a differshake off the awe with which it was impressed ent name to the functions of royalty, was still by ages of subjection. It needed a leader to invested with prerogatives dangerous to liberty. animate, unite, and direct it; and it was sel- Such was the basis on which one of the ancient dom that one capable of inspiring it with confi- tyrants, most infamous for his cruelty, Phalaris dence could be found in its own ranks. But if of Agrigentum, established his despotism. the oligarchy had unwisely narrowed its pale, But most of the tyrannies which sprang up and shut out some who felt themselves the nat-before the Persian wars owed their existence ural equals of those who enjoyed its privileges; to the cause above described, and derived their or if, while its form remained the same, the peculiar character from the occasion which gave substance of power was engrossed by a few them birth. It was usually by a mixture of vioverbearing families; or if, as is said to have olence and artifice that the demagogue accomhappened at Chios and Cnidus, it excited the plished his ends. A hackneyed stratagem indignation of the more moderate among its which, however, seems always to have been members by its insolence or injustice; or if successful-was to feign that his life was feuds arose within it, in which the weaker par- threatened, or had even been attacked, by the ty was unable to obtain redress for its wrongs, fury of the nobles, and on this pretext to proor either thought itself aggrieved by a legal sen- cure a guard for his person from the people. tence; or if the heir of a noble house had lost This band, though composed of citizens, he or wasted his patrimony, and was unable either found it easy to attach to his interests, and to endure poverty, or to repair his fortunes by with its aid made the first step towards absoany legitimate means; or, finally, if among the lute power by seizing the citadel: an act which oligarchs there were restless spirits, impatient might be considered as a formal assumption of of equality even in the highest rank, or desirous the tyranny, and as declaring a resolution to of a new field of action-in all these cases a maintain it by force. But in other respects chief could not long be wanted to espouse the the more politic tyrants set an example which cause of the commonalty; and the ablest cham- Augustus might have studied with advantage. pion of popular rights was he who asserted them Like him, they as carefully avoided the ostenagainst the interests of his own order. But as tation of power as they guarded its substance. the motives by which this new ally was impell- They suffered the ancient forms of the governed were generally very distinct from patriotic ment to remain in apparent vigour, and even in zeal, it frequently happened that the defeat of real operation, so far as they did not come into the oligarchy, achieved with such aid, was not conflict with their own authority. They assuimmediately a triumph of the commonalty, but med no title, and were not distinguished from only a step by which the popular leader exalted private citizens by any ensigns of superior rank. himself, above both parties, to supreme power. But they did not the less keep a jealous eye In many cases, indeed, it is probable that the on all whom wealth, or character, or influence bulk of the people was not merely passive, but might render dangerous rivals, and commonly hailed with pleasure a revolution which placed either forced them into exile or removed them the helm of the state in the hands of a man in by the stroke of an assassin. They exerted whose character they confided, and who, per- still greater vigilance in suppressing every kind haps, by his birth as well as by his personal of combination which might cover the germ of qualities, revived the welcome image of the he-a conspiracy. The lowest class of the commonroic royalty, which was hallowed by long-cher-alty they restrained from license, and provided ished tradition and by epic song. Such was with employment. For this purpose, no less the origin of most of the governments which than to gratify their taste or display their magthe Greeks described by the term tyranny-anificence, they frequently adorned their cities term to which a notion has been attached, in with costly buildings, which required years of modern languages, which did not enter into its labour from numerous hands; and, where this original definition. A tyranny, in the Greek expedient did not suffice, they scrupled not to sense of the word, was the irresponsible do- force a part of the population to quit the capital, minion of a single person, not founded on he- and seek subsistence in rural occupations. On reditary right, like the monarchies of the heroic the same ground, they were not reluctant to enages and of many barbarian nations, nor on a gage in wars which afforded them opportunifree election, like that of a dictator or æsym-ties of relieving themselves, in a less invidious nete, but on force. It did not change its character when transmitted through several generations, nor was any other name invented to describe it when power, which had been acqui- Such was the ordinary policy of the best tyred by violence, was used for the public good; rants; and by these arts they were frequently though Aristotle makes it an element in the def- able to reign in peace, and to transmit their inition of tyranny, that it is exercised for self-power to their children. But the maxims and ish ends. But, according to the ordinary Greek notions, and the usage of the Greek historians, a mild and beneficent tyranny is an expression which involves no contradiction. On the other hand, a government legitimate ia its origin manner, both from troublesome friends and from dangerous foes, as well as of strengthening and extending their dominion by conquest. character of the tyranny generally underwent a change under their successors, and scarcely an instance was known of a tyrannical dynasty that lasted beyond the third generation. The youth who was bred up to enjoy the power |