Problems in Greek history Part 8

[75:1] C. I. G. 2655.

[75:2] These inventions were produced at a comparatively late period, and therefore do not conflict with what I said of the rarity of invention in a primitive age which had no theories to support.

[76:1] I allude to the views of M. G. Maspero, in his admirable _Archeologie egyptienne_.

[76:2] We have now positive evidence that the Athenians registered their public acts on stone as early as 570-560 B.C. On the Acropolis has been found (in 1884) the broken slab which contained the decree as to the legal status of the first cleruchs sent to Salamis upon its conquest by Athens. (See the article of Koehler in the _Mittheilungen_ of the German Inst.i.tute at Athens, vol. ix. p. 117 sq., and the _Bull. de Corresp.

h.e.l.l._ xii. 1 _sq._ where Foucart comments upon the inscription.) Three conditions are implied: (1) the _cleruch_ is a.s.similated to Athenian citizens, as to taxes and military service, though he is bound to reside on Salamis and not leave his land. This was no doubt a novelty, and distinguishes the Athenian cleruch from the older colonist who had gone to Pontus or Magna Graecia. (2) If he did not reside, or while he did not, he must pay a special absentee's tax to the State. (This is understood differently by Koehler and by Busolt, G. G. i. 548.) The original number of cleruchs was apparently 500 (Foucart _op. cit._ ibid.). (3) If he defaulted in his payment there was a fine of thirty drachmae--a very small penalty, even regarding the modest means of the early Greek states.

CHAPTER IV.

THE DESPOTS; THE DEMOCRACIES.

[Sidenote: Brilliant age of the great lyric poets.]

[Sidenote: The Sparta of Alcman's time.]

-- 34. At last we emerge into the open light of day, and find ourselves in the seventh century (more strictly 650-550 B.C.), in that brilliant, turbulent, enterprising society which produced the splendid lyric poetry of Alcaeus and Sappho, of Alcman and Terpander, and carried Greek commerce over most of the Mediterranean[77:1]. We have still but scanty facts to guide us; yet they are enough to show us the general condition of the country,--aristocratical governments which had displaced monarchies, and beside them the ancient twin-monarchy of Sparta, gradually pa.s.sing into the oligarchy of the ephors. There is evidence in the character of Alcman's poetry that he did not sing to a Sparta at all resembling the so-called Sparta of Lycurgus. The remains of early art found there point in the same direction, as do also the strange funeral customs described by Herodotus on the death of the kings[78:1]. It would seem that there was luxury, that there was artistic taste, that there was considerable license in this older society. The staid sobriety and simplicity of what is known as Spartan life seems therefore rather a later growth, than the original condition of this Doric aristocracy. And so this type is far more explicable, in its exceptional severity, and its contrast to all other Dorian states, if we take it to be the gradual growth of exceptional circ.u.mstances, than if we regard it as a primitive type, which would naturally appear in other branches of the race.

[Sidenote: Its exceptional const.i.tution.]

At all events the Greeks had before them the example of an ancient, a respectable and a brilliant monarchy. It is nevertheless most remarkable that in all the changes of const.i.tution attempted through the various States, amid the universal respect in which the Spartans were held, no attempt was ever made in practical[78:2] Greek history to copy their inst.i.tutions. The distinct resemblances to Spartan inst.i.tutions in some of the Cretan communities were probably not imitations, nor can we say that they were Dorian ideas, for the many Dorian States we know well, such as Argos, Corinth, Syracuse, did not possess them.

[Sidenote: E. Curtis on the age of the despots.]

The Spartan State may therefore be regarded as standing outside the development of Greece, even in the political sense[78:3]. In one respect only was its policy an aggressive one,--in interfering on the side of the aristocracies against the despots who took up the cause of the common people against their n.o.ble oppressors. It is one of those brilliant general views which make Curtius' history so attractive, that he interprets this great conflict as partly one of race, so far as Ionic and Doric can severally be called such. The Doric aristocracies of the Peloponnesus were opposed by their Ionic subjects, or by Ionic States rising in importance with the growing commerce and wealth of the Asiatic cities. The tyrants generally carried out an anti-Dorian policy, even though they were often Dorian n.o.bles themselves. There was no more successful aspirant to a tyranny than a renegade n.o.bleman who adopted the cause of the people.

[Sidenote: Grote's view.]

-- 35. I have already alluded to the chapter in Grote's history[79:1]--indeed there is such a chapter in most histories--ent.i.tled the 'Age of the Despots.' The mistake which such a t.i.tle is likely to engender must be carefully noticed. If we mean the age when this kind of monarch first arose, no objection need be urged; but if it be implied that such an age ceased at any definite moment, nothing can be further from the truth. For this form of government was a permanent feature in the Greek world. When the tyrants were expelled from Athens and from the Peloponnesus, they still flourished in Sicily, Italy, the Black Sea coasts, and Cyprus, till they reappeared again in Greece[80:1]. There was no moment in old Greek history when there were not scores of such despots. The closing period, after the death of Alexander, shows us most of the Greek States under their control. It was the great boast of Aratus that he freed his neighbours from them, and brought their cities under the more const.i.tutional Achaean League. But at this period a despot, if he ruled over a large dominion, called himself a king; and we may therefore add to the list most of the so-called kings, who close the history of independent Greece, as they commenced it in the legends.

[Sidenote: Greek hatred of the despot,]

[Sidenote: how far universal in early days.]

The despot, or tyrant[80:2] as he is called, has a very bad reputation in Greek history. The Greeks of every age have not only loved individual liberty, but are a singularly jealous people, who cannot endure that one of themselves shall lord it over the rest. Even in the present day Greeks have often told me that they would not for a moment endure a Greek as king, because they all feel equal, and could not tolerate that any one among them should receive such honour and profit. This is why the ancient tyrant, however wisely and moderately he ruled, was always regarded with hatred by the aristocrats he had deposed; so that to them the killing of him was an act of virtue approved by all their society. I very much doubt whether in early days the common people generally had any such feeling, as the tyrant usually saved them from much severer oppression. Of course any individual might avenge a particular wrong or insult, and in later days, when a despot overthrew a democratic const.i.tution, the lower cla.s.ses might share in the old aristocratic hatred of the usurper.

[Sidenote: Literary portraits of the Greek despot.]

[Sidenote: How far exaggerated.]

-- 36. But Greek literature was in the hands of the aristocrats; and so we have a long catalogue of accusations from Alcaeus, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, Polybius, Plutarch,--in fact all through Greek literature; according to which the tyrant is a ruffian who usurps power in order that he may gratify his l.u.s.ts at the expense of all justice and mercy. Feeling himself the enemy of mankind, he is perpetually in a panic of suspicion, and surrounds himself with mercenaries who carry out his behests. He plunders, confiscates, and violates the sanct.i.ty of the family and the virtue of the young.

This terrible indictment, of which the climax was Lycophron's _Casandreans_, has been indorsed by the great democratic historian of our century[81:1], to whom the completeness of political liberty is the great goal of all civilization, and who therefore looks with horror upon those who r.e.t.a.r.d its growth.

But it seems to me that the problem has not been fairly handled, and that there is a great deal to be said for these tyrants, in the face of all this literary evidence[82:1]. Of course their irresponsible powers were often abused. Coming without the shackles of tradition or the scruples of legitimacy to a usurped throne, the same Greek who was so jealous of his neighbour was sure to feel insolent elation at his own success, and deep suspicion of his unsuccessful rivals. And if a case can be found of a tyrant overthrowing a fairly working const.i.tution, I surrender it to the verdict of the jury of historians from Herodotus to Grote.

[Sidenote: _Reductio ad absurdum_ of the popular view.]

But if the _tyrannis_ was so unmixed an evil, how comes it to have been a constant and permanent phenomenon in Greek politics? Man may indeed, as Polybius says, be the most gullible of all animals, though professing to be the most sagacious, and may ever be ready to fall into the same snares that he has seen successful in entrapping others[82:2]. But surely it exceeds all the bounds of human, not to say Greek, stupidity that men should perpetually set a villain over them to plunder, violate, and exile men and women.

[Sidenote: The real uses to politics of temporary despots.]

The fact is that the tyrant was at one time a necessity, and even a valuable _moment_, in the march of Greek culture. The aristocratic governments had only subst.i.tuted a many-headed sovranty over the poor for the rule of a single king, who might be touched by compa.s.sion or reached by persuasion. But who could argue with the clubs of young patricians, who thought the poor no better than their slaves, and swore the solemn oath which Aristotle has preserved: 'I will be at enmity with the Demos, and will do it all the harm I can.' To these gentlemen the political differences with the people had gone quite beyond argument; whatever they urged was true, whatever was against them false: each side regarded its opponents as morally infamous. Whenever politics reach this condition, it is time to abandon discussion and appeal to an umpire who can enforce his decision with arms.

[Sidenote: Questionable statement of Thucydides.]

When the commons had gained wealth and acquired some cohesion, there were consequently violent revolutions and counter-revolutions, ma.s.sacres and confiscations, so that 'peace at any price' was often the cry of the State. Thucydides has drawn a famous picture of the political factions of his day, in which he declares their violence, fraud, and disregard of every obligation but that of party interests to be novel features of his times. That clever rhetorician knew well enough that these frauds and violences were no new thing in Greek politics. The poems of Alcaeus, still more those of Theognis, and many more that were known to him, must have taught him that this war of factions was as old as real Greek history, and that the earliest solution of this terrible problem was the tyrant, who made peace by coercing both sides to his will and punis.h.i.+ng with death or exile those that were refractory.

[Sidenote: The tyrant welds together the opposing parties.]

-- 37. In the shocking condition of cities like Athens before Peisistratus, or the Megara of Theognis, we may even go so far as to say that, without an interval during which both parties were taught simply to obey, no reasonable political life was possible. The haughty n.o.ble must be taught that he too had a master; he must be taught to treat his plebeian brother as another man, and not merely as a beast of burden.

The poor must learn that they could be protected from every rich man's oppression, that they could follow their business in peace, and that they could appeal to a sovran who ruled by their sympathy and would listen to their voice.

[Sidenote: Cases of an umpire voluntarily appointed.]

There were even a few cases where the opposing parties voluntarily elected a single man, such as Pittacus or Solon, as umpire, and where their trust was n.o.bly requited. But even in less exceptional cases, such as that of Peisistratus of Athens, I make bold to say that the const.i.tution of Cleisthenes would not have succeeded, had not the people received the training in peace and obedience given them by the Peisistratid family. The despots may have murdered or exiled the leading men; they at all events welded the people into some unity, some h.o.m.ogeneity, if it were merely in the common burdens they inflicted, and the common antipathies they excited. And this is the most adverse view that can be urged. The picture we have of Peisistratus, especially in the _Polity of the Athenians_ of recent fame, is that of a just and kindly man, wielding his power of coercion for the general happiness of his subjects.

[Sidenote: Services of the tyrants to art.]

[Sidenote: Examples.]

This then was the _political_ value of the early tyrants, and a feature in them which is generally overlooked. Their services to the _artistic_ progress of Greece in art and literature are more manifest, and therefore less ignored. The day of great architectural works, such as the castles and tombs of Argolis, the draining of Lake Copais, had pa.s.sed away with the absolute rulers of pre-historic times. Even Agamemnon and his fellows, who probably represent a later stage in Greek society, would not have dared to set their subjects to such task-work.

So long as there were many masters in each city and State, all such achievements were impossible. With the tyrants began again the building of large temples, the organizing of fleets, the sending out of colonies, the patronage of clever handicrafts, the promoting of all the arts. It was the care of Peisistratus for the study of Homer, and no doubt for other old literature, which prepared the Athenian people to understand aeschylus. Nay, this tyrant is said to have specially favoured the nascent drama, and so to have led the way to the splendid results that come upon us, with apparent suddenness, in liberated Athens. The Orthagorids, the Cypselids, and single tyrants such as Polycrates of Samos and Pheidon of Argos, did similar services for Greek art: they organized fleets and promoted commerce; they had personal intercourse of a more definite and intimate kind with one another than States as such can possibly have; they increased the knowledge and wealth of the lower cla.s.ses, as well as their relative position in the State; and so out of apparent evil came real good[86:1].

[Sidenote: Verdict of the Greek theorists.]

Even after all the full experience of Greek democracies, of the complete liberty of the free citizen, of the value of public discussion, and of the responsibility of magistrates to the people, we find all the later theorists deliberately a.s.serting that if you could secure the right man, a single-headed State was the most perfect. All the abuses of tyranny, therefore, so carefully pictured by literary men, had not seemed to them equal to the abuses of mob-rule,--the violence and the vacillation of an incompetent or needy public. I cannot but repeat, that if we regard the world at large, and the general fitness of men for democratic liberties, we shall hesitate to p.r.o.nounce the majority of races even now fit for government by discussion and by vote of the majority.

[Sidenote: Peisistratus and Solon.]

It is very instructive to reflect that Peisistratus, the most enlightened of tyrants, was contemporary with Solon, the father of Greek democracy. The theory, therefore, of a const.i.tution in which wealth as well as birth should have influence, and which should also regard the rights and the burdens of the poor, was not only alive, but represented by Solon, when Peisistratus made himself master of the State. Solon's theory, though supported by his _law against neutrality_[87:1], was unable to overcome the turbulence of faction; and it required a generation of strong rule to prepare the whole people for the revival of Solon's theory, with many further developments, by Cleisthenes.

Nevertheless, Solon remains a capital figure in early Greek history, known to us not by legends and legislation only, but also by the fragments of his poetry[87:2].

[Sidenote: Contrast of Greek and modern democracy.]

-- 38. This is the right place to consider the nature of those Greek democracies that followed upon the expulsion of aristocrats and tyrants, and that have been so lauded in modern histories. The panegyric of Grote is well known; and there is also a very fine chapter[88:1] in which Duruy, without being intimate, apparently, with Grote (for he only quotes Thirlwall in his support), has not only defended and praised this form of government at Athens, but even justified the coercion of all recalcitrant members of the Delian confederacy. The student has, therefore, the case of democracies in Greece ably and brilliantly stated.

[Sidenote: Slave-holding democracies.]

[Sidenote: Supported by public duties.]