Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The

skilful stratagem one of their citizens succeeded in carrying the holy relics to Sparta. The tide of the war now turned. Tegeatans were constantly defeated, and were at length obliged to acknowledge the supremacy of Sparta. They were not, however, reduced to subjection, like the Messenians. They still continued masters of their own city and territory, and only became dependent allies of Sparta.

§ 5. The history of the early struggle between Argos and Sparta is quite unknown. We have already seen that the whole eastern coast of Peloponnesus had originally belonged to Argos, or the confederacy over which this city presided. The Lacedæmonians, however, succeeded not only in conquering all the eastern coast of Laconia, but also in annexing to their territory the district of Cynuria,* on their northern frontier, which had originally formed part of the dominions of Argos. It is uncertain at what time the Lacedæmonians obtained this important acquisition; but the attempt of the Argives to recover it in 547 B.C. led to one of the most celebrated combats in early Grecian history. It was agreed between the Lacedæmonians and Argives that the possession of the territory should be decided by a combat between three hundred chosen champions on either side. So fierce was the conflict that only one Spartan and two Argives survived. The latter, supposing that all their opponents had been slain, hastened home with the news of victory; but Othryades, the Spartan warrior, remained on the field, and spoiled the dead bodies of the enemy. Both sides claimed the victory, whereupon a general battle ensued, in which the Argives were defeated. The brave Othryades slew himself on the field of battle, being ashamed to return to Sparta as the one survivor of her three hundred champions. This victory secured the Spartans in the possession of Cynuria, and effectually humbled the power of Argos.

Sparta was now by far the most powerful of the Grecian states. Her own territory, as we have already seen, included the whole southern portion of Peloponnesus; the Arcadians were her subject allies; and Argos had suffered too much from her recent defeat to offer any further resistance to her formidable neighbour. North of the Isthmus of Corinth there was no state whose power could compete with that of Sparta. Athens was still suffering from the civil dissensions which had led to the usurpation of Pisistratus, and no one could have anticipated at this time the rapid and extraordinary growth of this state, which rendered her before long the rival of Sparta.

*The plain, called Thyreātis from the town of Thyrea, was the most important part of Cynuria.

[blocks in formation]

Leaden Sling-bullets and Arrow-heads, found at Athens, Marathon, and Leontini

CHAPTER IX.

THE AGE OF THE DESPOTS.

§ 1. Abolition of royalty throughout Greece, except in Sparta. § 2. Establishment of the oligarchical governments. § 2. Overthrow of the oligarchies by the despots. Character of the despots, and causes of their fall. § 4. Contest between oligarchy and democracy on the removal of the despots. § 5. Despots of Sicyon. History of Clisthenes. § 6. Despots of Corinth. History of Cypselus and Periander. § 7. Conflicts of the oligarchical and democratical parties at Megara. Despotism of Theagenes. The poet Theognis.

1. SPARTA was the only state in Greece which continued to retain the kingly form of government during the brilliant period of Grecian history. In all other parts of Greece royalty had been abolished at an early age, and various forms of republican government established in its stead. In all of these, though differing widely from each other in many of their institutions, hatred of monarchy was a universal feeling. This change in the popular mind deserves our consideration. In the Heroic age,

as we have already seen, monarchy was the only form of government known. At the head of every state stood a king, who had derived his authority from the gods, and whose commands were reverently obeyed by his people. The only check upon his authority was the council of the chiefs, and even they rarely ventured to interfere with his rule. But soon after the commencement of the first Olympiad this reverential feeling towards the king disappears, and his authority and his functions are transferred to the council of chiefs.

This important revolution was owing mainly to the smallness of the Grecian states. It must be constantly remembered that each political community consisted only of the inhabitants of a single city. Among so small a body the king could not surround himself with any pomp or mystery. He moved as a man among his fellow-men; his faults and his foibles became known to all; and as the Greek mind developed and enlarged itself, his subjects lost all belief in his divine right to their obedience. They had no extent of territory which rendered it advisable to maintain a king for the purpose of preserving their union; and, consequently, when they lost respect for his person, and faith in his divine right, they abolished the dignity altogether. This change appears to have been accomplished without any sudden or violent revolutions. Sometimes, on the death of a king, his son was acknowledged as ruler for life, or for a certain number of years, with the title of Archon ;* and sometimes the royal race was set aside altogether, and one of the nobles was elected to supply the place of the king, with the title of Prytanis or President. In all cases, however, the new magistrates became more or less responsible to the nobles; and in course of time they were elected for a brief period from the whole body of the nobles, and were accountable to the latter for the manner in which they discharged the duties of their office.

§ 2. The abolition of royalty was thus followed by an Oligarchy, or the government of the Few. This was the first form of republicanism in Greece. Democracy, or the government of the Many, was yet unknown; and the condition of the general mass of the freemen appears to have been unaffected by the revolution. But it paved the way to greater changes. It taught the Greeks the important principle that the political power was vested in the citizens of the state. It is true that these were at first only a small portion of the freemen; but their number might be enlarged; and the idea could not fail to occur that the power which had been transferred from the One to the Few might be still further extended from the Few to the Many.

The nobles possessed the greater part of the land of the state, and were hence frequently distinguished by the name of Geomori or Gamori. Their estates were cultivated by a rural and dependent population; whilst they themselves lived in the city, and appear to have formed an exclusive order, transmitting their privileges to their sons alone. But besides this governing body and their rustic dependents, there existed two other classes, consisting of small landed proprietors, who cultivated their fields * *Αρχων. † Πρύτανις. Tewuópot (Ionic), Tauópoι (Doric), landowners.

with their own hands, and of artisans and traders residing in the town. These two classes were constantly increasing in numbers, wealth, and intelligence, and, consequently, began to demand a share in the government, from which they had hitherto been excluded. The ruling body meantime had remained stationary, or had even declined in numbers and in wealth; and they had excited, moreover, the discontent of the people by the arbitrary and oppressive manner in which they had exercised their authority. But it was not from the people that the oligarchies received their first and greatest blow. They were generally overthrown by the usurpers, to whom the Greeks gave the name of Tyrants.*

§3. The Greek word Tyrant does not correspond in meaning to the same word in the English language. It signifies simply an irresponsible ruler, and may therefore be more correctly rendered by the term Despot. The rise of the Despots seems to have taken place about the same time in a large number of the Greek cities. They begin to appear in the middle of the seventh century B.C.; and in the course of the next hundred and fifty years (from B.c. 650 to 500) there were few cities in the Grecian world which escaped this revolution in their government. The growing discontent of the general body of the people afforded facilities to an ambitious citizen to overthrow the existing oligarchy, and to make himself supreme ruler of the state. In most cases the despots belonged to the nobles, but they acquired their power in various ways. The most frequent manner in which they became masters of the state was by espousing the cause of the commonalty, and making use of the strength of the latter to put down the oligarchy by force. Sometimes, but more rarely, one of the nobles, who had been raised to the chief magistracy for a temporary period, availed himself of his position to retain his dignity permanently, in spite of his brother nobles. There was another class of irresponsible rulers to whom the name of Esymnetes, or Dictator, was given. The supreme power was voluntarily entrusted to him by the citizens, but only for a limited period, and in order to accomplish some important object, such as reconciling the various factions in the state.

The government of most of the despots was oppressive and cruel. In many states they were at first popular with the general body of the citizens, who had raised them to power and were glad to see the humiliation of their former masters. But discontent soon began to arise; the despot had recourse to violence to put down disaffection, and thus became an object of hatred to his fellow-citizens. In order to protect himself he called in the * Τύραννοι. † Αἰσυμνήτης.

E*

aid of foreign troops, and took up his residence in the Acropolis, surrounded by his mercenaries. The most illustrious citizens were now exiled or put to death, and the government became in reality a tyranny in the modern sense of the word. Some of these despots erected magnificent public works, either to gratify their own love of splendour and display, or with the express view of impoverishing their subjects. Others were patrons of literature and art, and sought to gain popularity by inviting literary men to their court. But even those who exercised their sovereignty with moderation were never able to retain their popularity. The assumption of irresponsible power by one man had become abhorrent to the Greek mind. A person thus raising himself above the law was considered to have forfeited all title to the protection of the law. He was regarded as the greatest of criminals, and his assassination was viewed as a righteous and holy act. Hence few despots grew old in their government; still fewer bequeathed their power to their sons; and very rarely did the dynasty continue as long as the third generation.

§ 4. Many of the despots in Greece were put down by the Lacedæmonians. The Spartan government, as we have already seen, was essentially an oligarchy; and the Spartans were always ready to lend their powerful aid to the support or the establishment of the government of the Few. Hence they took an active part in the overthrow of the despots, with the intention of establishing the ancient oligarchy in their place. But this rarely happened; and they thus became unintentional instruments in promoting the principles of the popular party. The rule of the despot had broken down the distinction between the nobles and the general body of freemen; and upon the removal of the despot it was found impossible in most cases to reinstate the former body of nobles in their ancient privileges. The latter, it is true, attempted to regain them, and were supported in their attempts by Sparta. Hence arose a new struggle. The first contest after the abolition of royalty was between oligarchy and the despot; the next which now ensued was between oligarchy and democracy..

The history of Athens will afford the most striking illustration of the different revolutions of which we have been speaking; but there are some examples in the other Greek states which must not be passed over entirely.

§ 5. The city of Sicyon, situated to the west of the Corinthian isthmus, was governed by a race of despots for a longer period than any other Greek state. Their dynasty lasted for a hundred years, and is said to have been founded by Orthagoras, about B.c. 676. This revolution is worthy of notice, because Ortha

« AnteriorContinuar »