APPENDIX. say, he is not capable of falling into such gross absurdities as the other frequently commits, nor of misunderstanding and confounding the sense of the authors whom he has read in an equal degree. It is not thoughtlessness or carelessness that prevents Diodorus from being a good historian, but his utter want of judgment, which is constantly apparent, and is only rendered the more glaring and offensive by the flimsy veil of his frivolous rhetoric. Plutarch has related an apocryphal story of a project formed by Themistocles to fire the united fleet of the Greek states in alliance with Athens while it lay at Pagase. The truth of this story has been justly questioned; but he would have been much more chargeable with credulity if he had adopted the version given by Cicero (De Off., iii., 11), who supposes that the plan of Themistocles was aimed against the Spartan navy at Gythium; an enterprise which would have been equally infamous and utterly useless to the Athemians. The one scheme might possibly have entered into It is the mind of Themistocles; the other could never have sug gested itself to him, or to any man of common sense. also due to Plutarch to observe, that he mentions the project without the slightest mark of approbation, though he has been ignorantly accused by Rollin, and by a later histonian, who echoes the Frenchman's blunder, of this breach of morality, which would have deserved a different name from that of thoughtlessness. Diodorus also gives an account of a project formed by Themistocles, which for some time he kept wrapped in mystery, just as that related by Plutarch. The two stories are so similar in this respect, that it seems evident they arose out of the same tradition; and the question is, whether Diodorus may not be better entitled to credit than Plutarch. According to Diodorus, the plan of Themistocles, instead of being both iniquitous and impolitic, and hence stifled in embryo, was perfectly consistent with wisdom and justice, and was carried into execution, for it was no other than that of improving and fortifying Piræus, a work, it must be remembered, which had been already begun. So far Diodorus has the concurrent testimony of all the ancient auBut the part of the story peculiar to himself is the account he gives of the manner in which Themistocles for a time concealed his project; and in this it may not be too much to say, that he has outdone even himself in the extravagance of his absurdity. thors on his side. was too simple to be now repeated. In its stead he chose If it had been the object of Themistocles first to excite It may seem that a modern historian who is capable of We think it must be evident to every one, on a moderately Themistocles, it appears, having experienced the jealousy inconsistent with the account of Thucydides, i., 93, and we of Sparta on the occasion of building the walls of Athens, attentive perusal, that the story told by Diodorus is utterly was afraid lest she might again interfere to prevent such an accession to her rival's naval power as was likely to result do not believe that Diodorus himself, uncritical as he was, from this new undertaking. His object, therefore, was to could have told such a story, if he had known or rememberHe manifestly supposes that the project was first conceived keep it as long as possible concealed from the Spartans, and ed that the buildings at Piraus had been already begun. by Themistocles after the retreat of the Persians; otherthe more effectually to ensure secrecy, he would not for a wise the absurdity of the tale would have been too glaring time disclose it to the Athenians themselves. But, as some preparations were to be made which rendered their consent necessary, he announced to the assembly that he had form- even for him. And this is equally clear, whatever may be ed a plan, which he deemed highly advantageous to the thought as to the degree of forwardness to which Thucydstate, but which could not safely be made public, and heides represents the works to have been carried in the artext of the words of Thucydides is undoubtedly liable to therefore desired them to select two persons in whom they chonship of Themistocles. The interpretation given in the could confide, to judge of the proposed measure, and to make a report of its character. The people selected Aristides and dispute; and it has been generally supposed (as by Boeckh, Xanthippus, not only as men of unimpeachable probity, but Staatsh., ii., 10, i., p. 215, where the name of Pericles is as rivals of Themistocles, who would therefore be sure to probably written by mistake for Themistocles) that the plan sons which induce us to refer értλioon to the same time as examine his project with jealous vigilance. They reported of Themistocles was never completely executed. The reathat what he advised was practicable, expedient, and most important to the commonwealth. Now, however, after such an assurance from his political adversaries, the popular jealousy was roused to a much greater height than before: he was suspected of aiming at the tyranny, and was called upon to reveal his plan. He again assured the people that their interest required it to be kept secret. This assurance, however, did not satisfy them; no doubt because they ima gined that, if they gave their consent, the plan would be executed before they knew what it was, and when it would Themistocles, it seems, be too late to revoke their sanction. never thought of quieting their fears by informing them that they would and must be fully apprized of the nature of his plan before the execution could be begun. Instead of mentioning this fact, which one would have thought would have been sufficient to remove all objections, he adopted an expedient which was suggested in the assembly, of laying his scheme before the council of Five Hundred, and abiding by their decision. The council made a report no less favourable than that of Aristides and Xanthippus, and the people now acquiesced; but public curiosity was raised to the high-actions, 1827-proposes to read 'Y6pixidov. Hybrilides was est pitch. So far, then, we do not find any very striking display of that extraordinary dexterity and ingenuity for which Themistocles was so renowned. But what follows in the description of Diodorus is a master stroke of policy. A vulgar mind, which had conceived such a design, would probably have thought that the best mode of ensuring its success was to communicate it to those who were to execute it, before it became known to those who might possibly endeavour Such had been the course which Themistocles to thwart it. imself had adopted on a former similar occasion. VOL. I-4 E But this pero, are that no cause is assigned, nor does any appear, why the design of Themistocles should not have been completed; that the words inge-rá λoiñà... olkodoμtiv seem most naturally to imply that it was carried into effect to its full extent; and that, since the axptórarot mentioned by VEÚTATO, 11., 13, the end which Themistocles had in view Thucydides, i., 93, are no other than the proburarot and appears to have been really accomplished. Mr. Clinton, Fasti, ii., p. xvi., assigns the archonship of Themistocles and the beginning of the work to B.C. 481. He takes no notice of the argument for an earlier date reas to the dedication of the Hermes, which was erected by sulting from the testimony of Philochorus (p. 48, 49, Siebelis) and bore the inscription 'Αρξάμενοι πρῶτον τειχίζειν οἶδ' the nine archons who had begun to build the walls of Pireus. ἀνέθηκαν Βουλῆς καὶ δήμου δόγμασε πειθόμενοι. According to Philochorus in Hesychius, this Hermes àpidpuro Kibpicos aptavros, where Boeckh-in a dissertation De Archontibus Atticis pseudeponymis, first published in the Berlin Transarchon B.C. 491. It is a question of less importance whether Themistocles was, as Mueller supposes in a note, p. 452, to Reinaecker's German translation of Leake's Topography of Athens, one of the nine archons who dedicated the statue, but not the eponymus; or whether, according to Boeckh's view, in his archonship the work was only proposed and apcessor Dioguetus, and it was not begun before the archonproved by the people, preparations made for it under his sucship of Hybrides, at the end of which the statue was dedicated. A List, a stier to place 3&ghtm Gone Die lae urned author tinged may Dot LaTe But we mig frit may a few words the pas mage of Pets, which we have truched un at the end ɗ chap. 17. Tabor tow „. Percentai suszended a mazaring trymen, Kurates a there made to serve that, wwards the de, they counted tum of pecs at se, Rad were bear onde ang tim ve death. it wond. A scurve, be pre te toon est Pati's own paym w to the founta tom of the charge from a565 5 on, but we think we are warranted in reject ng the fact itself which be 289 LIDER, and eleving that he has mare presented the nature of the charge on when Pere was conterised. rely the quence of Plutarch Per. 35,, or on the langu We do not d Decors (21, 45, pixpás Tibus dooppas tykkruaTWD GUYTEGI, but would merely ask whether Theyd des, if he had known that Peries was convicted of pec native, cond not only have put words into his mouth which impy that his integrity was above $285,000 [1, 60, XPRUCTU KPEOaway, but have spoken of tum as a person notonously most incorruptible (1, 65, xpnparwe infarõs aboporаTOS)- Nobody who is acquainted with the orary value of Plato's hatoneal ailssons can think that in the Gornas deserving even of the name of a test mony in opposition to such authority But as Perces had on forcer occasions been charged with peculation, it was natural enough that Pisto shot, d treat this as the ground of his list impeachment, the precise nature of which--as may be inferred from the stence of Thucydides, Plutarch, and Dhodorus-it was probably A very easy to collect. A 1 are the case of sweet of men zatia_NG NIC ROC ESTA Lite to cumpered of the rumer i was Beris an: S Atent of Perries is as firmly estalared 2 thentic test must as a fact aber fibe and from this fact we wind frost the the WAT med It seems strange that somal be at a to encerre bow the charre et pe #2 jecame current at Albenie nazy 3D mo wibist any sold prisud, and we have coitaroLINE text to point out how the other scanda suht have out of very nocent occas es question on this footing that reset to or make dec We wok DT MI tive about the supereminence of Pencies ki en n great, and benaming. Yet we may add that era w tested fact his fe strengthens our matinate c the gesera. parity of his character, and we thms the two charges are once admitted to be su we sannose them to be, few will hesitate in re The assemblies in the base of AMSLA WUTE enough to attract much attent n. at bite na: auss reports, but, on the other hand, they sum mach exaggeration has been admitted is the pre onurton about the strict seclusion in which the Azam, ines were kept Jacobs, 13 a roteresting way Greek women Vermischte Schrifta. much this orion requires to be used. democratical historian has assumed to ts t dit on and character of the women for the purpose of making it the graad of a sy on the infuence of the Athen's Constitution of To refute that Lop ess, it would be sufficient to observe, that, bơRENUT CON But it may be objected by some readers that Plato, who, as they have been informed, was himself so warm an ad-; lem.cal remarks which we would willingly hase ave mirer of Pericles as to assign to hun the praise of superem- though some readers may have expected and desired The subpect of this Appendix has drawn from us sma thence in what was worse, great, and becoming, would not, upon they should occur more frequently. It may, inden 5, he as a light surmise, have stated a fact so injurious to the repu! ful, and need not be disagreeat le, to point out mistak tation of this wise, great, and honourable man. jection would be natural enough; for there are some blun- plicity, so justly bestowed on Thucydides by the rhet ders so gross that they seem incredible until they are point-Aristides in the declamation already alluded to (Tip The ob- a history which can claim the praise of candour and s ed out. Any one who happens to have read the long declamation, in which the rhetorician Aristides labours to vindi- ove is dyŵvos xpeiar, ove" els îv û -portterO TASTE cate the character of Pericles from Plato's attacks, must be TETT, 11., p. 163, Dindorf., ob thoracias incres of surprised to find Plato called up to vouch for the character cous. But where that praise is illustrated by a careta of the man whom in the Gorgias he assailed with an almost antithesis; where a history is all polemical, where the bac** φέρων, ἀλλ' ἐν ἱστορία καὶ διηγήσει ταληθές ἁπλῶς παραλία APPENDIX. are constantly distorted for the sake of accommodating them to the one end which the writer has proposed to himself, so that the whole is thoroughly ingrained with falsehood, those who are best able to estinate its character will be most reluctant to descend to an exposure of its particular errors. X ON THE AUTHOR OF THE ORATION AGAINST ALCIB- dicere." But here it is Ruhnken himself who has commitrem, quam apeobcíav dicere debebat, invidiose ȧrodnμiav er from the context of Lysias (Andocid., p. 103) than that ted a most extraordinary oversight; for nothing can be clearhe is speaking of the travels of Andocides during his absence from Athens after the affair of the mysteries, whereas the embassy mentioned in our oration must have preceded that affair. Still it does not appear to agree with that of Pheax, unless we should suppose that, after having ended his neAs we have had occasion frequently to refer to this ora- gotiations in Sicily and Italy, he received orders which intion, we are tempted to make a few remarks on the disputed duced him to cross over to Macedonia, through Epirus, and question as to its author, on which, it is well known, Tay- to return by the way of Thessaly to Athens, where Thucydlor (Lectiones Lystiace, c. vi.) and Ruhnken (Historia ides observes he arrived xpóry ucтepov, v., 5. But the emCritica Oratorum Græcorum, p. liii., fol.) are at variance.bassy to Epirus, Macedonia, and Thessaly might also have On the whole, we are inclined to think that the weight Our object is chiefly to show that, though Ruhnken has suc- been undertaken on some other occasion. of external evidence preponderates on Taylor's side; and cessfully disposed of many of Taylor's arguments, his own are by no means conclusive. Taylor contends that the orawhich he pronounces to be clearly Andocidean, we cannot tion belongs, not to Andocides, but to Phoax. His main ar- high as Ruhnken's authority is with regard to the style, gument is, that it appears from the oration itself, that on the occasion to which it relates three persons were threat- rely upon this kind of proof. That the oration was attribuened with ostracism; that Phrax is known to have been ted to Andocides so early as it appears to have been from one of the three, and Nicias and Alcibiades the two others, the quotations of the grammarians, is not so much an obNeither Taylor nor Ruhnken has noticed a passage in the while the name of Andocides is nowhere mentioned ainong jection as a point on which we must confess our ignorance. oration, which seems to raise at least a strong presumption them; Pheax, therefore, must have been the author of this oration; and this conclusion is, he conceives, decisively to which it refers. The contest which was terminated by confirmed by Plutarch, who (Alcib., 13) quotes an oration of that it was not delivered in its present form on the occasion the ostracism of Hyperbolus of course preceded the appointPhax against Alcibiades for a fact (the abuse of the sacred ment of Nicias and Alcibiades to the command of the Sicilvessels of the state) which is likewise mentioned in ours. To this Ruhnken replies that the oration of Phenx which Plutarch read cannot have been the same as ours, because, ian expedition. This appointment took place early in 415 if it had, Plutarch could not have felt the doubt which he (apa pt, Thuc., vi., 8). Melos had been reduced in the expresses (Nic., 11) as to the parties who contended with preceding winter; at the utmost, we should suppose, not But there are two pos- above three or four months before. Yet Alcibiades is reeach other to avoid the ostracism. sible cases, either of which would meet this objection: proached in the oration with having had a son by a Melian ed to slavery by his own decree (περὶ τῶν Μηλίων γνώμην Plutarch might not himself have seen the oration of Phaax, woman, whom he bought from among the captives condemnbut have quoted it at second hand. This, however, is certainly not very probable. The other case is, that Plutarch ἀποφηνάμενος ἐξανδραποδίζεσθαι, πριάμενος γυναῖκα τῶν may not have meant, either in Alcib., 13, or in Nic., 11, to alxatúrov vidv εl avrns neñoinrai). These words could express a doubt whether Phaax was one of the persons in scarcely have been written before Alcibiades was on his danger of ostracism, but only whether it was he who caball-voyage to Sicily. ed with Alcibiades to cause the ostracism to fall on Hyberbolus. His words, Alcib., 13, are, ús d'ivoi pacir, où pòs XI. A COMPARISON OF THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY THUΝικίαν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς Φαίακα διαλεχθεὶς, καὶ τὴν ἐκείνου προστ λαβῶν ἑταιρίαν, ἐξήλασε τὸν Ὑπερβολον. By the ἔνιοι he means Theophrastus, as appears from the other passage, Nic., 11. Οὐκ ἀγνοῶ ὅτι Θεόφραστος ἐξοστρακισθήναί φησι τὸν Ὑπέρβολον, Φαίακος, οὐ Νικίου. πρὸς Αλκιβιάδην ἐρίcavros. A comparison of these passages leads us to conclude that Theophrastus attributed the machinations by which Hyberbolus was ostracized to Alcibiades and Phæax. But we can hardly believe that Theophrastus denied a fact which seems to be so well attested, and from the circumstances of the case so clear, as that Nicias was one of the parties in appear to be clearly inconsistent with Thucydides. There danger. It did not follow that Nicias conspired with Alcib-which he states ought to be rejected, unless they should indes against Hyperbolus, though this was generally sus pected, and Plutarch, adopting the common statement, is, however, as every one knows who has examined the subtakes little notice of Phæax, but may have been aware that ject, great difficulty in inserting the details of Andocides, he was one of the persons concerned. But Ruhnken objects even where they are least liable to suspicion, in the outthat Pheax, if he was the author of this bitter attack on line of Thucydides. The chief difficulties arise about the smuth, in an appendix (i., 2, p. 444), has arranged the sucAlcibiades, cannot have conspired with him against Hyper- beginning and the concluding scenes of the affair. Wachcessive informations in their chronological order; and he bolus. And we do not know that he did; but the oration itself, if we suppose it to be his, would not prove the conand Andocides as to Androcles and Pythonicus, but he has trary, for it might not have been delivered or published till has noticed the apparent contradiction between Thucydides a later period. The argument which it suggests against the opinion of Theophrastus might not occur to Plutarch, though not shown quite satisfactorily how it is to be cleared up. he had read it as the work of Phaax when he was writing It must, however, be observed, that it is Plutarch who his life of Nicias; and certainly he is not so accurate in his makes the contradiction appear greater than it is. Accordquotations that we should lay any stress on the slight vari-ing to him (Alc., 19), the information alluded to by Thucydwere those collected by Androcles (δούλους τινὰς καὶ μετοί ance between the statement which he quotes from Phrax ides, vi., 28 (unviεrai and μETоíkov té rivwv kaì ȧkoλovlwr), as to the abuse of the sacred vessels, and the account given that Alcibiades was first charged with the profanation of the of the same transaction in our oration. On the side of Tay-Kous pohyayev 'Avěpokλñs); and it was by these witnesses This would directly contradict Andocides, aclor's opinion there still remains the weighty testimony of Theophrastus to the fact that Phrax was one of the per- mysteries. Buns threatened with ostracism on the same occasion with cording to whom it was Pythonicus who brought forward Alcibiades; and it is easier to suppose Plutarch thoughtless the first evidence against Alcibiades. It must therefore be nesses of Pythonicus, not of Androcles, though Andocides or forgetful, almost to any degree, than to reject this testi- supposed either that these peTo(Koi and dkóλovbou were witWhether Theophrastus had read our oration is another matter, which, however, does not concern the present has only mentioned Andromachus as the most important, or question, for it must be remembered that, whether he read else that they include the witnesses both of Pythonicus and Alcibiades, though he afterward procured such testimony it as the work of Phax or of Andocides, it must have ap- of Androcles, but that those of Androcles did not implicate peared equally to contradict his opinion. Among Taylor's secondary arguments, one is derived from that he was able to accuse Alcibiades publicly before his the embassy mentioned towards the end of our oration, which departure; for it is probably Androcles that Thucydides he thinks may have been the same with that of Phaax, re- principally alludes to, vi., 28, among of pádioтa тÿ 'AλkibBut it seems clear lated by Thucydides, v., 4. But Ruhnken objects that our τάξῃ ἀχθόμενοι ἐμποδὼν ὄντι σφίσι μὴ αὐτοῖς του δήμου βετ orator was sent to Thessaly, Macedonia, Molossia, Thes- 6aiws pocoτával. We have not ventured in the text to deprotia, Italy, and Sicily, whereas Pheax was ambassador cide between these two suppositions. On the other hand, Lysias from the contest mentioned by Andocides between Pythononly to the last two countries. mentions the travels of Andocides in Sicily, Italy, Peloponicus and Androcles about the reward of the informers, that ever, he did not produce before the departure of Alcibiades. ness, Thessaly, the Hellespont, lonia, and Cyprus. But Teucer was one of the witnesses of Androcles, whom, howTaylor thinks that these cannot be the same which are alluded to in our oration, because Lysias treats them, not as an embassy, but as a private journey (dronuía). To this Ruhnken replies, that the language of Lysias is that of an "Tarius sit qui non videat Lysiam, ut accusato enemy, mony. CYDIDES AND ANDOCIDES OF CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE PROSECUTION OF ALCIBIADES. THUCYDIDES has given a general outline of the occurrences connected with the prosecution of Alcibiades, but without names or particulars. Andocides, in an oration composed in his own defence, and after a considerable interval of time, professes to relate all the most important details of the transaction. The outline of Thucydides may be received with great caution; but still, none of the facts safely relied on; the account of Andocides must indeed be There is another apparent contradiction between Thucydides and Andocides as to the movements of the enemy, which, by the alarm they caused at Athens, contributed to the passing of the decree for the recall of Alcibiades. Ac eonding to Thucydides, after the aspitation exmited by the af- I ner in which the Spartan tribes were formed and ya, houses as spring from the Henceli Anas-x XII. ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPARTAN CONSTI-monalty the Spartans reduced the rest of the Heist TUTION. SINCE the publication of the first part of this History, in which (Appendix I.) several works relating to the Spartan Constitution were mentioned, another has appeared in Germany which may be classed with the most valuable on the subject. Its title is, Die Spartanische Staatsverfassung in shrer Entwickelung und threm Verfalle von Dr. Karl Hein-ence should be independent of all industrious occupat rich Lachmann, Breslau, 1836. Though it was published early in the year, it came into my hands too late to be noticed in the preceding pages. But several readers may be interested in an account of the author's views on some of the more difficult and important questions which have been already discussed in the course of this work. The foundation of his theory is laid in an Introduction on the origin of the Greek religions, and on the early history of the lonians, whom he conceives to have been closely allied to the Minyans, and of the Achæans, including an inquiry into the legends of the Pelopids, and of the Trojan war. (With respect to the historical substance of the latter legend, he adopts an hypothesis proposed by Voelcker in a German periodical, which seems not to differ very widely in its leading features from the view taken of the same subject in this history.) The main object of these preliminary investigations is to ascertain the state of Laconia before the Dorian invasion; and the result to which he conducts the reader is, that the population was at that time composed of Pelasgians (Leleges), Minyans, and Achæans. Rejecting the story of the Minyan colony from Lemnos as a fiction invented to connect two independent facts, he considers the Minyans as the people which preceded the Achæans in the possession of Laconia, where they had reduced the aboriginal Pelasgians to bondage. The Achæans, on the other hand, he conceives to have been settled there but a few generations before the arrival of the Dorians, and in comparatively small numbers. They were never masters of the whole land, in the same sense as the Dorians became so, but only exercised a kind of hegemony over the Minyan cities. Their seat of government was Amycle, which at an earlier epoch had sent out a Minyan colony to Sparta. This state of things rendered it easy for the Dorians, not withstanding their numerical weakness, to dislodge the Achaeans, who were almost entirely expelled. The conquerors occupied Sparta (the pois properly so called, in contradistinction to the four Kopa), and were supported by the tribute which they received from the Helots, the cultivators of the Aos, or level tract on the banks of the Eurotas from Sparta down to the sea, who for some time were permitted to enjoy their personal freedom, and the possession and property of their lands subject to this charge, and may, therefore, be compared with the Attic yewpopot before Solon. With regard to the other Lacoman cities, the Dorians merely stepped into the place which had been previously occupied by the Achæans. Dr. Lachmann's view of the development of the Spartan Constitution mainly depends on his conception of the man The weakness of the invaders radered it necessary, very soon after their settlement at Sparta, to cofor a kitrả franchise on a commonsity composed of the natives, who were gathered round them in the four boroughs or vazute, Pitana, Mesoa, Cynosura, and Limna, to which L. einen ver the name of Lacedæmon was properly applied. The se of Spartans belonged originally and properly to the Dens of the Old Town (the opstot); but they were inciɔënda the appellation of Lacedæmonians, which was the Ề i description of the whole people. With the aid of this ca vitude, and deprived them of their property in the which they tilled, and established theirton in the rest of Laconia. But the newly enfranchised rates (vtočaμúčtis) were not all immediately provided with landed property, and therefore could not, for a long time, ett cise their political rights, which required that their samg Their wants were supplied by the conquest of Messella, and were the real motive of the Messenian wan. Bat, in the mean while, they took an active part in the contests of the Spartan tribes, and thus contributed to aggravate the de orders of that period of discord and anarchy which wat length terminated by the legislation of Lycurgus. The ut ject of his institutions was to unite the two orders-the Lacedæmonian commonalty and the Spartan peers-> closely together, and to abolish the distinctions by which the peers of the three tribes were separated from one a other. For this purpose he formed one common senato of the three bodies, which had before deliberated sparthough the tradition preserved by Hermippus in Plutarch. Lyc., 5, that Lycurgus communicated his plans to renty persons, leads L. to the conclusion that the senates of the two elder tribes had previously been assembled together for public consultations-and made the kings, who before had presided each over the senate of his own tribe, members of the common one. The origin of the ephoralty, which was peculiar to Sparta and her colonies, belongs to the pend before Lycurgus. The name ephor is connected, not with the verb opáw, but with popia, which is explained in Bei ker's Anecd., p. 204, as equivalent to dropa, heúvodos à -pås τοῖς ὅροις γινομένη τῶν ἀστυγειτόνων οὗ οι όμοροι ὁμοῦ συνιών τες περὶ τῶν κοινῶν ἐβουλεύοντο, as in Rome the forums between the two most ancient settlements on the Palatine and the Capitol. In Sparta there were five such isla, which were the places where civil justice was administered. This was one of the royal functions; but when the kings ceased to be considered merely as chiefs each of a tribe, and belonged equally to the whole Lacedæmonian people, they appointed five magistrates-hence called ephors-s their substitutes in this part of their office, only perhaps reserving the more important causes and appeals in all caus es for their own cognizance. Lycurgus united the ephets in one college, transferred the right of appointment to the people, and made all the electors eligible, while the seate remained open only to the peers. L. totally rejects the story of the partition of land made by Lycurgus, which he supposes arose from that which took place after the ea quest of Messenia. This conquest, as it afforded the means of assgatog s piece of land for every freeman, raised the number of se active citizens (the dapibus) who shared the Spartan ele cation, and had a place at the public tables, to 9000 familes : so that the commoners, who were equally distributed among the three tribes, forming twenty houses out of the thirty in APPENDIX. each obe, doubled the number of the nobles. To guard against the effects of this preponderance in the numbers of the inferior order, the nobles introduced a measure which so limited the powers of the popular assembly as to reduce its deliberative capacity to a mere shadow. It was only permitted to listen and assent to the proposals of the senate, which was not even bound to obtain this sanction for its decrees. These proceedings having thus sunk into an empty form, must be supposed soon to have fallen into disuse; and the election of magistrates became the only kind of business for which the assembly met. That the nobles were able to carry such a measure, and, as it seems, without a struggle, is to be ascribed partly to their own hereditary ascendency, partly to the influence of the victorious and popular king Polydorus, to whom so many citizens were indebted for the estates which enabled them to exercise their dormant franchise, and partly to the compensation which the lower order received in the growing power of the ephors, who began to be considered as its representatives. From these premises our author deduces a new and important proposition: that the ikincia of Sparta, mentioned by Thucydides and other historians, is not the assembly of the people, but only that of the magistrates, the senate, the ephors, and others, who, he supposes, may have amounted in all to about seventy persons; for (with Tittmann) he interprets Xenophon's ús TECσapákovта, Hell., iii., 3, 5, not as the whole sum, but as the remaining part, and considers this enumeration as the description of an ikkλneia, which was the same body as the ἐκκλητοί, the τέλη άρχοντες, or αρχαί, who are some times named in its stead. The pixpà ikkλnoia mentioned by Xenophon, Hell., iii., 3, 8, was composed of the senate and ephors only. As the power of the ephors depended upon this aristocratical assembly, it was constantly exercised in support of the aristocratical interests, even when a majority of the college was taken from the lower order. Thus the ephoralty, notwithstanding its democratical origin, became the firmest pillar of the aristocratical institutions. This short abstract is of course not designed to put the reader in complete possession of the author's views, much less to give any notion of his proofs and illustrations, which must be sought for in the work itself. His investigation is conducted throughout in a spirit of sober and sagacious criticism, which renders it highly instructive and interesting, even where it may fail to convince. The reader, however, may expect to be informed how far this new view of the subject has modified that which has been taken in this history, and the following observations are chiefly intended to gratify this curiosity. jecture, which, under the circumstances in which Sparta Still less can we be satisfied with his view of the Spartan Beginning with this last remark, we would observe, on the other side, that the deliberations of the Athenian counthat the Spartans pointed out by Cinadon in the marketcil were public; and, if Lachmann's conjecture be right, One strong place constituted an ikkλnoia, the case would seem to have been the same at Sparta; for there were 4000 persons of inferior rank present there at the same time. objection to his hypothesis arises out of the very passages of Aristotle which he cites to prove the narrow limits within Aristotle mentions as one of the points in which the constiwhich the powers of the Spartan assembly were confined. tutions of Crete and of Sparta resembled each other, that in Crete all the citizens were admitted to the assembly, but lutions of the senate and the cosmi. (Εκκλησίας μετέχουσι it had no power except that of ratifying the previous resoπάντες· κυρία δ' οὐδενός ἐστιν, ἀλλ ̓ ἢ συνεπιψηφίσαι τὰ seems clear from this that Aristotle knew of no ikkλnoia dolavra Tois yĺpovoi Kai Tois Kóσμois, Pol., ii., 7, 4.) It Lachmann's account of the institutions of Lycurgus, though in itself highly probable, and consistent with historical analogy, especially with that of Roman history, which apparently suggested it, seems to assume too many propositions which rest on very slight or ambiguous evidence, and to reject too much of the opinion commonly received amung the ancients as to the nature of the changes effected by the Spartan lawgiver. The traces to which he refers, of those conflicts which he supposes to have taken place among the three tribes, are too faint to satisfy us of their existence; and the testimony of Isocrates as to the number of the Donan invaders is the less to be relied on, as it omits the third tribe. Yet this is the main foundation of the hypothesis about the rise of the Lacedæmonian commonalty, which would be unnecessary if the force of the original settlers is raised but a little higher. Whatever were the means which enabled them to overpower the Acheans on their first arrival, might have sufficed for the gradual subjugation of the whole country, without any communication of the fran-either in Crete or at Sparta, except an assembly of all the chise. The mode of this communication also raises some difficulties for which we find no explanation provided. It would seem as if the same principle which led the Dorians to form, first their Macedonian allies, and then the adventurers who joined them in their expedition against Peloponnesus, into a distinct tribe, should have prevented them from admitting the Lacedæmonians into any of the three. But it is especially improbable that these new citizens should have been equally distributed among tribes so jealous of each other, and differing so widely in rank. And, again, if with respect to the Lacedemonian commonality the three tribes were considered as all on one level, then we should citizens; and if it could be doubted whether he considered |