Chapter IX (2)

The rise of these despots on the ruins of the previous oligarchies was, in appearance, a return to the principles of the heroic age,—the restoration of a government of personal will in place of that systematic arrangement known as the City. But the Greek mind had so far outgrown those early principles, that no new government founded thereupon could meet with willing acquiescence, except under some temporary excitement. At first, doubtless, the popularity of the usurper,—combined with the fervor of his partizans and the expulsion or intimidation of opponents, and farther enhanced by the punishment of rich oppressors,—was sufficient to procure for him obedience; and prudence on his part might prolong this undisputed rule for a considerable period, perhaps even throughout his whole life. But Aristotle intimates that these governments, even when they began well, had a constant tendency to become worse and worse: discontent manifested itself, and was aggravated rather than repressed by the violence employed against it, until at length the despot became a prey to mistrustful and malevolent anxiety, losing any measure of equity or benevolent sympathy which might once have animated him. If he was fortunate enough to bequeathe his authority to his son, the latter, educated in a corrupt atmosphere and surrounded by parasites, contracted dispositions yet more noxious and unsocial: his youthful appetites were more ungovernable, while he was deficient in the prudence and vigor which had been indispensable to the self-accomplished rise of his father.[28] For such a position, mercenary guards and a fortified acropolis were the only stay,—guards fed at the expense of the citizens, and thus requiring constant exactions on behalf of that which was nothing better than a hostile garrison. It was essential to the security of the despot that he should keep down the spirit of the free people whom he governed; that he should isolate them from each other, and prevent those meetings and mutual communications which Grecian cities habitually presented in the school, the leschê, or the palæstra; that he should strike off the overtopping ears of corn in the field (to use the Greek locution) or crush the exalted and enterprising minds.[29] Nay, he had even to a certain extent an interest in degrading and impoverishing them, or at least in debarring them from the acquisition either of wealth or leisure: and the extensive constructions undertaken by Polykratês at Samos, as well as the rich donations of Periander to the temple at Olympia, are considered by Aristotle to have been extorted by these despots with the express view of engrossing the time and exhausting the means of their subjects.

[28] Aristot. Polit. v, 8, 20. The whole tenor of this eighth
chapter (of the fifth book) shows how unrestrained were the
personal passions,—the lust as well as the anger,—of a Grecian
τύραννος.

Τόν τοι τύραννον εὐσεβεῖν οὐ ῥᾴδιον (Sophokles ap. Schol.
Aristides, vol. iii, p. 291, ed. Dindorf).

[29] Aristot. Polit. iii, 8, 3; v, 8, 7. Herodot. v, 92.
Herodotus gives the story as if Thrasybulus had been the person
to suggest this hint by conducting the messenger of Periander
into a cornfield and there striking off the tallest ears with
his stick: Aristotle reverses the two, and makes Periander the
adviser: Livy (i, 54) transfers the scene to Gabii and Rome, with
Sextus Tarquinius as the person sending for counsel to his father
at Rome. Compare Plato, Republ. viii, c. 17, p. 565; Eurip.
Supplic. 444-455.

The discussion which Herodotus ascribes to the Persian
conspirators, after the assassination of the Magian king, whether
they should constitute the Persian government as a monarchy,
an oligarchy, or a democracy, exhibits a vein of ideas purely
Grecian, and altogether foreign to the Oriental conception
of government: but it sets forth,—briefly, yet with great
perspicuity and penetration,—the advantages and disadvantages of
all the three. The case made out against monarchy is by far the
strongest, while the counsel on behalf of monarchy assumes as a
part of his case that the individual monarch is to be the best
man in the state. The anti-monarchical champion Otanes concludes
a long string of criminations against the despot, with these
words above-noticed: “He subverts the customs of the country:
he violates women: he puts men to death untried.” (Herod. iii,
80-82.)

It is not to be imagined that all were alike cruel or unprincipled; but the perpetual supremacy of one man and one family had become so offensive to the jealousy of those who felt themselves to be his equals, and to the general feeling of the people, that repression and severity were inevitable, whether originally intended or not. And even if an usurper, having once entered upon this career of violence, grew sick and averse to its continuance, abdication only left him in imminent peril, exposed to the vengeance[30] of those whom he had injured,—unless, indeed, he could clothe himself with the mantle of religion, and stipulate with the people to become priest of some temple and deity; in which case his new function protected him, just as the tonsure and the monastery sheltered a dethroned prince in the Middle Ages.[31] Several of the despots were patrons of music and poetry, and courted the good-will of contemporary intellectual men by invitation as well as by reward; and there were some cases, such as that of Peisistratus and his sons at Athens, in which an attempt was made (analogous to that of Augustus at Rome) to reconcile the reality of personal omnipotence with a certain respect for preëxisting forms.[32] In such instances the administration, though not unstained by guilt, never otherwise than unpopular, and carried on by means of foreign mercenaries, was doubtless practically milder. But cases of this character were rare, and the maxims usual with Grecian despots were personified in Periander, the Kypselid of Corinth,—a harsh and brutal person, but not destitute either of vigor or intelligence.

[30] Thucyd. ii, 63. Compare again the speech of Kleon, iii,
37-40,—ὡς τυραννίδα γὰρ ἔχετε αὐτὴν, ἣν λαβεῖν μὲν ἄδικον δοκεῖ
εἶναι, ἀφεῖναι δὲ ἐπικίνδυνον.

The bitter sentiment against despots seems to be as old as
Alkæus, and we find traces of it in Solon and Theognis (Theognis,
38-50; Solon, Fragm. vii, p. 32, ed. Schneidewin). Phanias of
Eresus had collected in a book the “Assassinations of Despots
from revenge.” (Τυράννων ἀναιρέσεις ἐκ τιμωρίας,—Athenæus, iii,
p. 90; x, p. 438.)

[31] See the story of Mæandrius, minister and successor of
Polykratês of Samos, in Herodotus, iii, 142, 143.

[32] Thucyd. vi, 54. The epitaph of Archedikê, the daughter of
Hippias (which was inscribed at Lampsakus, where she died),
though written by a great friend of Hippias, conveys the sharpest
implied invective against the usual proceedings of the despots:—

Ἡ πατρός τε καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀδελφῶν τ᾽ οὖσα τυράννων
Παιδῶν τ᾽, οὐχ ᾕρθη νοῦν ἐς ἀτασθαλίην (Thuc. vi, 59).

The position of Augustus at Rome, and of Peisistratus at Athens,
may be illustrated by a passage in Sismondi, Républiques
Italiennes, vol. iv, ch. 26, p. 208:—

“Les petits monarques de chaque ville s’opposaient eux-mêmes à
ce que leur pouvoir fût attribué à un droit héréditaire, parce
que l’hérédité aurait presque toujours été retorquée contre eux.
Ceux qui avaient succédé à une république, avaient abaissé des
nobles plus anciens et plus illustres qu’eux: ceux qui avaient
succédé à d’autres seigneurs n’avaient tenu aucun compte du droit
de leurs prédécesseurs, et se sentaient intéressés à le nier.
Ils se disaient donc mandataires du peuple: ils ne prenaient
jamais le commandement d’une ville, lors même qu’ils l’avaient
soumise par les armes, sans se faire attribuer par les anciens
ou par l’assemblée du peuple, selon que les uns ou les autres se
montraient plus dociles, le titre et les pouvoirs de seigneur
général, pour un an, pour cinq ans, ou pour toute leur vie, avec
une paie fixée, qui devoit être prise sur les deniers de la
communauté.”

The position of a Grecian despot, as depicted by Plato, by Xenophon and by Aristotle,[33] and farther sustained by the indications in Herodotus, Thucydides, and Isokrates, though always coveted by ambitious men, reveals clearly enough “those wounds and lacerations of mind,” whereby the internal Erinnys avenged the community upon the usurper who trampled them down. Far from considering success in usurpation as a justification of the attempt (according to the theories now prevalent respecting Cromwell and Bonaparte, who are often blamed because they kept out a legitimate king, but never because they seized an unauthorized power over the people), these philosophers regard the despot as among the greatest of criminals: the man who assassinated him was an object of public honor and reward, and a virtuous Greek would seldom have scrupled to carry his sword concealed in myrtle branches, like Harmodius and Aristogeiton, for the execution of the deed.[34] A station which overtopped the restraints and obligations involved in citizenship, was understood at the same time to forfeit all title to the common sympathy and protection,[35] so that it was unsafe for the despot to visit in person those great Pan-Hellenic games in which his own chariot might perhaps have gained the prize, and in which the theors, or sacred envoys, whom he sent as representatives of his Hellenic city, appeared with ostentatious pomp. A government carried on under these unpropitious circumstances could never be otherwise than short-lived. Though the individual daring enough to seize it, often found means to preserve it for the term of his own life, yet the sight of a despot living to old age was rare, and the transmission of his power to his son still more so.[36]

[33] Consult, especially, the treatise of Xenophon, called Hiero,
or Τυραννικὸς, in which the interior life and feelings of the
Grecian despot are strikingly set forth, in a supposed dialogue
with the poet Simonides. The tenor of Plato’s remarks in the
eighth and ninth books of the Republic, and those of Aristotle in
the fifth book (ch. 8 and 9) of the Politics, display the same
picture, though not with such fulness of detail. The speech of
one of the assassins of Euphrôn (despot of Sikyon) is remarkable,
as a specimen of Grecian feeling (Xenoph. Hellen. vii, 3, 7-12).
The expressions both of Plato and Tacitus, in regard to the
mental wretchedness of the despot, are the strongest which the
language affords: Καὶ πένης τῇ ἀληθείᾳ φαίνεται, ἐάν τις ὅλην
ψυχὴν ἐπίστηται θεάσασθαι, καὶ φόβου γέμων διὰ παντὸς τοῦ βίου,
σφαδασμῶν τε καὶ ὀδυνῶν πλήρης ... Ἀνάγκη καὶ εἶναι, καὶ ἔτι
μᾶλλον γίγνεσθαι αὐτῷ ἢ πρότερον διὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν, φθονερῷ, ἀπίστῳ,
ἀδίκῳ, ἀφίλῳ, ἀνοσίῳ, καὶ πάσης κακίας πανδοκεῖ τε καὶ τροφεῖ,
καὶ ἐξ ἁπάντων τούτων μάλιστα μὲν αὐτῷ δυστυχεῖ εἶναι, ἔπειτα δὲ
καὶ τοὺς πλησίον αὑτῷ τοιούτους ἀπεργάζεσθαι (Republic, ix, p.
580).

And Tacitus, in the well-known passage (Annal. vi, 6): “Neque
frustra præstantissimus sapientiæ firmare solitus est, si
recludantur tyrannorum mentes, posse aspici laniatus et ictus:
quando ut corpora verberibus, ita sævitiâ, libidine, malis
consultis, animus dilaceretur. Quippe Tiberium non fortuna, non
solitudines, protegebant, quin tormenta pectoris suasque ipse
pœnas fateretur.”

It is not easy to imagine power more completely surrounded with
all circumstances calculated to render it repulsive to a man
of ordinary benevolence: the Grecian despot had large means of
doing harm,—scarcely any means of doing good. Yet the acquisition
of power over others, under any conditions, is a motive so
all-absorbing, that even this precarious and anti-social sceptre
was always intensely coveted,—Τυραννὶς, χρῆμα σφαλερὸν, πολλοὶ δὲ
αὐτῆς ἐρασταί εἰσι (Herod. iii, 53). See the striking lines of
Solon (Fragment, vii, ed. Schneidewin), and the saying of Jason
of Pheræ, who used to declare that he felt incessant hunger until
he became despot,—πεινῇν, ὅτε μὴ τυραννοῖ· ὡς οὐκ ἐπιστάμενος
ἰδιώτης εἶναι (Aristot. Polit. iii, 2, 6).

[34] See the beautiful Skolion of Kallistratus, so popular at
Athens, xxvii, p. 456, apud Schneidewin, Poet. Græc.—Ἐν μύρτου
κλαδὶ τὸ ξίφος φορήσω, etc.

Xenophon, Hiero, ii, 8. Οἱ τύραννοι πάντες πανταχῆ ὡς διὰ
πολεμίας πορεύονται. Compare Isokrates, Or. viii (De Pace), p.
182; Polyb. ii, 59; Cicero, Orat. pro Milone, c. 29.

Aristot. Polit. ii, 4, 8. Επεὶ ἀδικοῦσί γε τὰ μέγιστα διὰ τὰς
ὑπερβολὰς, ᾿αλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ τἀναγκαῖα· οἶον τυραννοῦσιν, οὐχ ἵνα μὴ
ῥιγῶσι· διὸ καὶ αἱ τιμαὶ μεγάλαι, ἂν ἀποκτείνῃ τις, οὐ κλέπτην,
ἀλλὰ τύραννον.

There cannot be a more striking manifestation of the sentiment
entertained towards a despot in the ancient world, than the
remarks of Plutarch on Timoleon, for his conduct in assisting
to put to death his brother, the despot Timophanês (Plutarch,
Timoleon, c. 4-7, and Comp. of Timoleon with Paulus Æmilius,
c. 2). See also Plutarch, Comparison of Dion and Brutus, c. 3,
and Plutarch, Præcepta Reipublicæ Gerendæ, c. 11, p. 805; c.
17, p. 813; c. 32, p. 824,—he speaks of the putting down of a
despot (τυραννίδων κατάλυσις) as among the most splendid of human
exploits,—and the account given by Xenophon of the assassination
of Jason of Pheræ, Hellenic. vi, 4, 32.

[35] Livy, xxxviii, 50. “Qui jus æquum pati non possit, in eum
vim haud injustam esse.”

[36] Plutarch, Sept. Sapient. Conviv. c. 2, p. 147,—ὡς ἐρωτηθεὶς
ὑπὸ Μολπαγόρου τοῦ Ἴωνος, τί παραδοξότατον εἴης ἑωρακὼς,
ἀποκρίναιο, τύραννον γέροντα.—Compare the answer of Thales, in
the same treatise, c. 7, p. 152.

The orator Lysias, present at the Olympic games, and seeing the
theors of the Syracusan despot Dionysius also present, in tents
with gilding and purple, addressed an harangue, inciting the
assembled Greeks to demolish the tents (Lysiæ Λόγος Ὀλυμπιακὸς,
Fragm. p. 911, ed. Reisk.; Dionys. Halicar. De Lysiâ Judicium,
c. 29-30). Theophrastus ascribed to Themistokles a similar
recommendation, in reference to the theôrs and the prize-chariots
of the Syracusan despot Hiero (Plutarch, Themistokles, c. 25).

The common-places of the rhetors afford the best proof how
unanimous was the sentiment in the Greek mind to rank the
despot among the most odious criminals, and the man who put him
to death among the benefactors of humanity. The rhetor Theon,
treating upon _common-places_, says: Τόπος ἐστὶ λόγος αὐξητικὸς
~ὁμολογουμένου~ πράγματος, ἤτοι ἁμαρτήματος, ἢ ἀνδραγαθήματος.
Ἐστὶ γὰρ διττὸς ὁ τόπος· ὁ μέν τις, κατὰ τῶν ~πεπονηρευμένων~,
οἷον κατὰ ~τυράννου, προδότου, ἀνδροφόνου, ἀσώτου~· ὁ δέ τις,
ὑπὲρ τῶν ~χρηστόν~ τι διαπεπραγμένων· οἷον ὑπὲρ ~τυραννοκτόνου,
ἀριστέως, νομοθέτου~. (Theon, Progymnasmata, c. vii, ap. Walz.
Coll. Rhett. vol. i, p. 222. Compare Aphthonius, Progymn. c. vii,
p. 82 of the same volume, and Dionysius Halikarn. Ars Rhetorica,
x, 15, p. 390, ed. Reiske.)

Amidst the numerous points of contention in Grecian political morality, this rooted antipathy to a permanent hereditary ruler stood apart as a sentiment almost unanimous, in which the thirst for preëminence felt by the wealthy few, and the love of equal freedom in the bosoms of the many, alike concurred. It first began among the oligarchies of the seventh and sixth centuries B. C., a complete reversal of that pronounced monarchical sentiment which we now read in the Iliad; and it was transmitted by them to the democracies, which did not arise until a later period. The conflict between oligarchy and despotism preceded that between oligarchy and democracy, the Lacedæmonians standing forward actively on both occasions to uphold the oligarchical principle: a mingled sentiment of fear and repugnance led them to put down despotism in several cities of Greece during the sixth century B. C., just as, during their contest with Athens in the following century, they assisted the oligarchical party, where-ever they could, to overthrow democracy. And it was thus that the demagogue-despot of these earlier times, bringing out the name of the people as a pretext, and the arms of the people as a means of accomplishment, for his own ambitious designs, served as a preface to the reality of democracy, which manifested itself at Athens a short time before the Persian war, as a development of the seed planted by Solon.

As far as our imperfect information enables us to trace, the early oligarchies of the Grecian states, against which the first usurping despots contended, contained in themselves far more repulsive elements of inequality, and more mischievous barriers between the component parts of the population, than the oligarchies of later days. What was true of Hellas as an aggregate, was true, though in a less degree, of each separate community which went to compose that aggregate: each included a variety of clans, orders, religious brotherhoods, and local or professional sections, which were very imperfectly cemented together: and the oligarchy was not, like the government so denominated in subsequent times, the government of a rich few over the less rich and the poor, but that of a peculiar order, sometimes a patrician order, over all the remaining society. In such a case, the subject Many might number opulent and substantial proprietors as well as the governing Few; but these subject Many would themselves be broken into different heterogeneous fractions, not heartily sympathizing with each other, perhaps not intermarrying together, nor partaking of the same religious rites. The country-population, or villagers, who tilled the land, seem in these early times to have been held to a painful dependence on the proprietors who lived in the fortified town, and to have been distinguished by a dress and habits of their own, which often drew upon them an unfriendly nickname. These town proprietors seem to have often composed the governing class in early Grecian states, while their subjects consisted,—1. Of the dependent cultivators living in the district around, by whom their lands were tilled. 2. Of a certain number of small self-working proprietors (αὐτουργοὶ), whose possessions were too scanty to maintain more than themselves by the labor of their own hands on their own plot of ground—residing either in the country or the town, as the case might be. 3. Of those who lived in the town, having no land but exercising handicraft, arts, or commerce.

The governing proprietors went by the name of the Gamori, or Geomori, according as the Doric or Ionic dialect might be used in describing them, since they were found in states belonging to one race as well as to the other. They appear to have constituted a close order, transmitting their privileges to their children, but admitting no new members to a participation,—for the principle called by Greek thinkers a timocracy, the appointment of political rights and privileges according to comparative property, appears to have been little, if at all, applied in the earlier times, and we know no example of it earlier than Solon. So that, by the natural multiplication of families and mutation of property, there would come to be many individual gamori possessing no land at all, and perhaps worse off than those small freeholders who did not belong to the order; while some of these latter freeholders, and some of the artisans and traders in the towns, might at the same time be rising in wealth and importance. Under a political classification such as this, of which the repulsive inequality was aggravated by a rude state of manners, and which had no flexibility to meet the changes in relative position amongst individual inhabitants, discontent and outbreaks were unavoidable, and the earliest despot, usually a wealthy man of the disfranchised class, became champion and leader of the malcontents.[37] However oppressive his rule might be, at least it was an oppression which bore with indiscriminate severity upon all the fractions of the population; and when the hour of reaction against him or against his successor arrived, so that the common enemy was expelled by the united efforts of all, it was hardly possible to revive the preëxisting system of exclusion and inequality without some considerable abatements.

[37] Thucyd. i, 13.

As a general rule, every Greek city-community included in its population, independent of bought slaves, the three elements above noticed,—considerable land proprietors with rustic dependents, small self-working proprietors, and town-artisans,—the three elements being found everywhere in different proportions. But the progress of events in Greece, from the seventh century B. C. downwards, tended continually to elevate the comparative importance of the two latter, while in those early days the ascendency of the former was at its maximum, and altered only to decline. The military force of most of the cities was at first in the hands of the great proprietors, and formed by them; it consisted of cavalry, themselves and their retainers, with horses fed upon their lands. Such was the primitive oligarchical militia, as it was constituted in the seventh and sixth centuries B. C.,[38] at Chalkis and Eretria in Eubœa, as well as at Kolophôn and other cities in Ionia, and as it continued in Thessaly down to the fourth century B. C.; but the gradual rise of the small proprietors and town-artisans was marked by the substitution of heavy-armed infantry in place of cavalry; and a farther change not less important took place when the resistance to Persia led to the great multiplication of Grecian ships of war, manned by a host of seamen who dwelt congregated in the maritime towns. All the changes which we are able to trace in the Grecian communities tended to break up the close and exclusive oligarchies with which our first historical knowledge commences, and to conduct them either to oligarchies rather more open, embracing all men of a certain amount of property, or else to democracies. But the transition in both cases was usually attained through the interlude of the despot.

[38] Aristot. Polit. iv, 3, 2; 11, 10. Aristot. Rerum Public.
Fragm. ed. Neumann. Fragm. v. Εὐβοέων πολιτεῖαι, p. 112; Strabo,
x, p. 447.

In enumerating the distinct and unharmonious elements of which the population of these early Grecian communities was made up, we must not forget one farther element which was to be found in the Dorian states generally,—men of Dorian, as contrasted with men of non-Dorian race. The Dorians were in all cases emigrants and conquerors, establishing themselves along with and at the expense of the prior inhabitants. Upon what terms the cohabitation was established, and in what proportions invaders and invaded came together, we are without information; and important as this circumstance is in the history of these Dorian communities, we know it only as a general fact, and are unable to follow its results in detail. But we see enough to satisfy ourselves that in those revolutions which overthrew the oligarchies both at Corinth and Sikyon,—perhaps also at Megara,—the Dorian and non-Dorian elements of the community came into conflict more or less direct.

The despots of Sikyon are the earliest of whom we have any distinct mention: their dynasty lasted one hundred years, a longer period than any other Grecian despots known to Aristotle; they are said,[39] moreover, to have governed with mildness and with much practical respect to the preëxisting laws. Orthagoras,[40] the beginner of the dynasty, raised himself to the position of despot about 676 B. C., subverting the preëxisting Dorian oligarchy; but the cause and circumstances of this revolution are not preserved. He is said to have been originally a cook. In his line of successors we find mention of Andreas, Myrôn, Aristônymus, and Kleisthenês; but we know nothing of any of them until the last, except that Myrôn gained a chariot victory at Olympia in the 33d Olympiad (648 B. C.), and built, at the same holy place, a thesaurus containing two ornamented alcoves of copper for the reception of commemorative offerings from himself and his family.[41] Respecting Kleisthenês (whose age must be placed between 600-560 B. C., but can hardly be determined accurately,) some facts are reported to us highly curious, but of a nature not altogether easy to follow or verify.

[39] Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 21. An oracle is said to have
predicted to the Sikyonians that they would be subjected for the
period of a century to the hand of the scourger (Diodor. Fragm.
lib. vii-x; Fragm. xiv, ed. Maii).

[40] Herodot. vi, 126; Pausan. ii, 8, 1. There is some confusion
about the names of Orthagoras and Andreas; the latter is called a
_cook_ in Diodorus (Fragment. Excerpt. Vatic. lib. vii-x, Fragm.
xiv). Compare Libanius in Sever. vol. iii, p. 251, Reisk. It has
been supposed, with some probability, that the same person is
designated under both names: the two names do not seem to occur
in the same author. See Plutarch, Ser. Numin. Vind. c. 7, p. 553.

Aristotle (Polit. v, 10, 3) seems to have conceived the dominion
as having passed direct from Myrôn to Kleisthenês, omitting
Aristônymus.

[41] Pausan. vi, 19, 2. The Eleians informed Pausanias that the
brass in these alcoves came from Tartessus (the south-western
coast of Spain from the Strait of Gibraltar to the territory
beyond Cadiz): he declines to guarantee the statement. But O.
Müller treats it as a certainty: “Two apartments inlaid with
Tartessian brass, and adorned with Doric and Ionic columns. Both
the architectural orders employed in this building, and the
Tartessian brass, which the Phocæans had then brought to Greece
in large quantities from the hospitable king Arganthonius, attest
the intercourse of Myrôn with the Asiatics.” (Dorians, i, 8, 2.)
So also Dr. Thirlwall states the fact: “Copper of Tartessus,
which had not long been introduced into Greece.” (Hist. Gr. ch.
x, p. 483, 2d ed.) Yet, if we examine the chronology of the
case, we shall see that the 33d Olympiad (648 B. C.) must have
been earlier even than the first discovery of Tartessus by the
Greeks,—before the accidental voyage of the Samian merchant
Kôlaeus first made the region known to them, and more than half a
century (at least) earlier than the commerce of the Phocæans with
Arganthonius. Compare Herod. iv. 152; i, 163, 167.

We learn from the narrative of Herodotus that the tribe to which Kleisthenês[42] himself (and of course his progenitors Orthagoras and the other Orthagoridæ also) belonged, was distinct from the three Dorian tribes, who have been already named in my previous chapter respecting the Lykurgean constitution at Sparta,—the Hylleis, Pamphyli, and Dymanes. We also learn that these tribes were common to the Sikyonians and the Argeians; and Kleisthenês, being in a state of bitter hostility with Argos, tried in several ways to abolish the points of community between the two. Sikyôn, originally Dorized by settlers from Argos, was included in the “lot of Temenus,” or among the towns of the Argeian confederacy: the coherence of this confederacy had become weaker and weaker, partly without doubt through the influence of the predecessors of Kleisthenês; but the Argeians may perhaps have tried to revive it, thus placing themselves in a state of war with the latter, and inducing him to disconnect, palpably and violently, Sikyôn from Argos. There were two anchors by which the connection held,—first, legendary and religious sympathy; next, the civil rites and denominations current among the Sikyonian Dorians: both of them were torn up by Kleisthenês. He changed the names both of the three Dorian tribes, and of that non-Dorian tribe to which he himself belonged: the last he called by the complimentary title of archelai (commanders of the people); the first three he styled by the insulting names of hyatæ, oneatæ, and chœreatæ, from the three Greek words signifying a boar, an ass, and a little pig. The extreme bitterness of this insult can only be appreciated when we fancy to ourselves the reverence with which the tribes in a Grecian city regarded the hero from whom their name was borrowed. That these new denominations, given by Kleisthenês, involved an intentional degradation of the Dorian tribes as well as an assumption of superiority for his own, is affirmed by Herodotus, and seems well-deserving of credit.

[42] Herodot. v. 67.

But the violence of which Kleisthenês was capable in his anti-Argeian antipathy, is manifested still more plainly in his proceedings with respect to the hero Adrastus and to the legendary sentiment of the people. Something has already been said, in my former volume,[43] about this remarkable incident, which must, however, be here again briefly noticed. The hero Adrastus, whose chapel Herodotus himself saw in the Sikyonian agora, was common both to Argos and to Sikyôn, and was the object of special reverence at both: he figures in the legend as king of Argos, and as the grandson and heir of Polybus, king of Sikyôn. He was the unhappy leader of the two sieges of Thebes, so famous in the ancient epic,—and the Sikyonians listened with delight both to the exploits of the Argeians against Thebes, as celebrated in the recitations of the epical rhapsodes, and to the mournful tale of Adrastus and his family misfortunes, as sung in the tragic chorus. Kleisthenês not only forbade the rhapsodes to come to Sikyôn, but farther resolved to expel Adrastus himself from the country,—such is the literal Greek expression,[44] the hero himself being believed to be actually present and domiciled among the people. He first applied to the Delphian oracle for permission to carry this banishment into direct effect, but the Pythian priestess returned an answer of indignant refusal,—“Adrastus is king of the Sikyonians, but thou art a ruffian.” Thus baffled, he put in practice a stratagem calculated to induce Adrastus to depart of his own accord.[45] He sent to Thebes to beg that he might be allowed to introduce into Sikyôn the hero Melanippus, and the permission was granted. Now Melanippus was celebrated in the legend as the puissant champion of Thebes against Adrastus and the Argeian besiegers, and as having slain both Mêkisteus the brother, and Tydeus the son-in-law, of Adrastus; and he was therefore preëminently odious to the latter. Kleisthenês brought this anti-national hero into Sikyôn, assigning to him consecrated ground in the prytaneium, or government-house, and even in that part which was most strongly fortified[46] (for it seems that Adrastus was conceived as likely to assail and do battle with the intruder);—moreover, he took away both the tragic choruses and the sacrifice from Adrastus, assigning the former to the god Dionysus, and the latter to Melanippus.

[43] See above, vol. ii, p. 129, part i, ch. 21.

[44] Herod. v, 67. Τοῦτον ἐπεθύμησε ὁ Κλεισθένης, ἐόντα Ἀργεῖον,
ἐκβαλεῖν ἐκ τῆς χώρης.

[45] Herod. v, 67. Ἐφρόντιζε μηχανὴν τῇ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἄδρηστος
ἀπαλλάξεται.

[46] Ἐπαγαγόμενος δὲ ὁ Κλεισθένης τὸν Μελάνιππον, τέμενος οἱ
ἀπέδεξε ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ πρυτανηΐῳ, καί μιν ἐνθαῦτα ἵδρυσε ἐν τῷ
ἰσχυροτάτῳ. (Herod. _ib._)

The religious manifestations of Sikyôn being thus transferred from Adrastus to his mortal foe, and from the cause of the Argeians in the siege of Thebes to that of the Thebans, Adrastus was presumed to have voluntarily retired from the place, and the purpose which Kleisthenês contemplated, of breaking the community of feeling between Sikyôn and Argos, was in part accomplished.

A ruler who could do such violence to the religious and legendary sentiment of his community may well be supposed capable of inflicting that deliberate insult upon the Dorian tribes which is implied in their new appellations. As we are uninformed, however, of the state of things which preceded, we know not how far it might have been a retaliation for previous insult in the opposite direction. It is plain that the Dorians of Sikyôn maintained themselves and their ancient tribes quite apart from the remaining community, though what the other constituent portions of the population were, or in what relation they stood to these Dorians, we are not enabled to make out. We hear, indeed, of a dependent rural population in the territory of Sikyôn, as well as in that of Argos and Epidaurus, analogous to the Helots in Laconia. In Sikyôn, this class was termed the Korynêphori (club men), or the Katônakophori, from the thick woollen mantle which they wore, with a sheepskin sewn on to the skirt: in Argos, they were called Gymnêsii, from their not possessing the military panoply or the use of regular arms: in Epidaurus, Konipodes, or the dusty-footed.[47] We may conclude that a similar class existed in Corinth, in Megara, and in each of the Dorian towns of the Argolic Aktê. But besides the Dorian tribes and these rustics, there must probably have existed non-Dorian proprietors and town residents, and upon them we may suppose that the power of the Orthagoridæ and of Kleisthenês was founded, perhaps more friendly and indulgent to the rustic serfs than that of the Dorians had been previously. The moderation, which Aristotle ascribes to the Orthagoridæ generally, is belied by the proceedings of Kleisthenês: but we may probably believe that his predecessors, content with maintaining the real predominance of the non-Dorian over the Dorian population, meddled very little with the separate position and civil habits of the latter,—while Kleisthenês, provoked or alarmed by some attempt on their part to strengthen alliance with the Argeians, resorted both to repressive measures and to that offensive nomenclature which has been above cited. The preservation of the power of Kleisthenês was due to his military energy (according to Aristotle) even more than to his moderation and popular conduct; it was aided, probably, by his magnificent displays at the public games, for he was victor in the chariot-race at the Pythian games 582 B. C., as well as at the Olympic games besides. Moreover, he was in fact the last of the race, nor did he transmit his power to any successor.[48]

[47] Julius Pollux, iii, 83; Plutarch, Quæst. Græc. c. 1, p. 291;
Theopompus ap. Athenæum, vi, p. 271; Welcker, Prolegomen. ad
Theognid. c. 19, p. xxxiv.

As an analogy to this name of Konipodes, we may notice the
ancient courts of justice called Courts of _Pie-powder_ in
England, _Pieds Poudrés_.

[48] Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 21; Pausan. x, 7, 3.

The reigns of the early Orthagoridæ, then, may be considered as marking a predominance, newly acquired but quietly exercised, of the non-Dorians over the Dorians in Sikyôn: the reign of Kleisthenês, as displaying a strong explosion of antipathy from the former towards the latter; and though this antipathy, and the application of those opprobrious tribe-names in which it was conveyed, stand ascribed to Kleisthenês personally, we may see that the non-Dorians in Sikyôn shared it generally, because these same tribe-names continued to be applied not only during the reign of that despot, but also for sixty years longer, after his death. Of course, it is needless to remark that such denominations could never have been acknowledged or employed among the Dorians themselves. After the lapse of sixty years from the death of Kleisthenês, the Sikyonians came to an amicable adjustment of the feud, and placed the tribe-names on a footing satisfactory to all parties; the old Dorian denominations (Hylleis, Pamphyli, and Dymanes) were reëstablished, and the name of the fourth tribe, or non-Dorians, was changed from Archelai to Ægialeis,—Ægialeus son of Adrastus being constituted their eponymus.[49] This choice of the son of Adrastus for an eponymus, seems to show that the worship of Adrastus himself was then revived in Sikyôn, since it existed in the time of Herodotus.

[49] Herod, v, 68. Τούτοισι τοῖσι οὐνόμασι τῶν φυλέων ἐχρέωντο οἱ
Σικυώνιοι, καὶ ἐπὶ Κλεισθένεος ἄρχοντος, καὶ ἐκείνου τεθνεῶτος
ἔτι ἐπ᾽ ἔτεα ἑξήκοντα· μετέπειτα μέντοι λόγον σφισι δόντες,
μετέβαλον ἐς τοὺς Ὑλλέας καὶ Παμφύλους καὶ Δυμανάτας· τετάρτους
δὲ αὐτοῖσι προσέθεντο ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀδρήστου παιδὸς Αἰγιαλέος τὴν
ἐπωνυμίην ποιεύμενοι κεκλῆσθαι Αἰγιαλέας.

Of the war which Kleisthenês helped to conduct against Kirrha, for the protection of the Delphian temple, I shall speak in another place. His death and the cessation of his dynasty seem to have occurred about 650 B. C., as far as the chronology can be made out.[50] That he was put down by the Spartans, as K. F. Hermann, O. Müller, and Dr. Thirlwall suppose,[51] can be hardly admitted consistently with the narrative of Herodotus, who mentions the continuance of the insulting names imposed by him upon the Dorian tribes for many years after his death. Now, had the Spartans forcibly interfered for the suppression of his dynasty, we may reasonably presume that, even if they did not restore the decided preponderance of the Dorians in Sikyôn, they would at least have rescued the Dorian tribes from this obvious ignominy. But it seems doubtful whether Kleisthenês had any son: and the extraordinary importance attached to the marriage of his daughter, Agaristê, whom he bestowed upon the Athenian Megaklês of the great family of Alkmæônidæ, seems rather to evince that she was an heiress,—not to his power, but to his wealth. There can be no doubt as to the fact of that marriage, from which was born the Athenian leader Kleisthenês, afterwards the author of the great democratical revolution at Athens after the expulsion of the Peisistratidæ; but the lively and amusing details with which Herodotus has surrounded it, bear much more the stamp of romance than of reality. Dressed up, apparently, by some ingenious Athenian, as a compliment to the Alkmæonid lineage of his city, which comprised both Kleisthenês and Periklês, the narrative commemorates a marriage-rivalry between that lineage and another noble Athenian house, and at the same time gives a mythical explanation of a phrase seemingly proverbial at Athens—“_Hippokleides don’t care._”[52]

[50] The chronology of Orthagoras and his dynasty is perplexing.
The commemorative offering of Myron at Olympia is marked for 648
B. C., and this must throw back the beginning of Orthagoras to a
period between 680-670. Then we are told by Aristotle that the
entire dynasty lasted one hundred years; but it must have lasted,
probably, somewhat longer, for the death of Kleisthenês can
hardly be placed earlier than 560 B. C. The war against Kirrha
(595 B. C.) and the Pythian victory (582 B. C.) fall within his
reign: but the marriage of his daughter Agaristê with Megaklês
can hardly be put earlier than 570 B. C., if so high; for
Kleisthenês the Athenian, the son of that marriage, effected the
democratical revolution at Athens in 509 or 508 B. C.: whether
the daughter, whom Megaklês gave in marriage to Peisistratus
about 554 B. C., was also the offspring of that marriage, as
Larcher contends, we do not know.

Megaklês was the son of that Alkmæon who had assisted the
deputies sent by Crœsus of Lydia into Greece to consult the
different oracles, and whom Crœsus rewarded so liberally as
to make his fortune (compare Herod. i, 46; vi, 125): and the
marriage of Megaklês was in the next generation after this
enrichment of Alkmæon,—μετὰ δὲ, γενεῇ δευτέρῃ ὕστερον (Herod. vi,
126). Now the reign of Crœsus extended from 560-546 B. C. and his
deputation to the oracles in Greece appears to have taken place
about 556 B. C.; and if this chronology be admitted, the marriage
of Megaklês with the daughter of the Sikyonian Kleisthenês cannot
have taken place until considerably after 556 B. C. See the long,
but not very satisfactory, note of Larcher, ad Herodot. v, 66.

But I shall show grounds for believing, when I recount the
interview between Solon and Crœsus, that Herodotus in his
conception of events misdates very considerably the reign and
proceedings of Crœsus as well as of Peisistratus: this is
a conjecture of Niebuhr which I think very just, and which
is rendered still more probable by what we find here stated
about the succession of the Alkmæonidæ. For it is evident that
Herodotus here conceives the adventure between Alkmæon and Crœsus
as having occurred one generation (about twenty-five or thirty
years) anterior to the marriage between Megaklês and the daughter
of Kleisthenês. That adventure will thus stand about 590-585 B.
C., which would be about the time of the supposed interview (if
real) between Solon and Crœsus, describing the maximum of the
power and prosperity of the latter.

[51] Müller, Dorians, book i, 8, 2; Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece,
vol. i, ch. x, p. 486, 2d ed.

[52] Herod. vi, 127-131. The locution explained is,—Οὐ φροντὶς
Ἱπποκλείδῃ: compare the allusions to it in the Parœmiographi,
Zenob. v, 31; Diogenian. vii, 21; Suidas, xi, 45, ed. Schott.

The convocation of the suitors at the invitation of Kleisthenês
from all parts of Greece, and the distinctive mark and character
of each, is prettily told, as well as the drunken freak whereby
Hippokleidês forfeits both the favor of Kleisthenês, and the hand
of Agaristê, which he was on the point of obtaining. It seems to
be a story framed upon the model of various incidents in the old
epic, especially the suitors of Helen.

On one point, however, the author of the story seems to have
overlooked both the exigencies of chronology and the historical
position and feelings of his hero Kleisthenês. For among the
suitors who present themselves at Sikyôn in conformity with
the invitation of the latter, one is Leôkêdês, son of Pheidôn
the despot of Argos. Now the hostility and vehement antipathy
towards Argos, which Herodotus ascribes in another place to
the Sikyonian Kleisthenês, renders it all but impossible that
the son of any king of Argos could have become a candidate for
the hand of Agaristê. I have already recounted the violence
which Kleisthenês did to the legendary sentiment of his native
town, and the insulting names which he put upon the Sikyonian
Dorians,—all under the influence of a strong anti-Argeian
feeling. Next, as to chronology: Pheidôn king of Argos lived some
time between 760-730; and his son can never have been a candidate
for the daughter of Kleisthenês, whose reign falls 600-500 B.
C. Chronologers resort here to the usual resource in cases of
difficulty: they recognize a second and later Pheidôn, whom they
affirm that Herodotus has confounded with the first: or they
alter the text of Herodotus, and in place of “son of Pheidôn,”
read “descendant of Pheidôn.” But neither of these conjectures
rests upon any basis: the text of Herodotus is smooth and clear,
and the second Pheidôn is nowhere else authenticated. See Larcher
and Wesseling, _ad loc._; compare also vol. ii, p. 419, part ii,
ch. 4, of this History.

Plutarch numbers Æschinês of Sikyôn[53] among the despots put down by Sparta: at what period this took place, or how it is to be connected with the history of Kleisthenês as given in Herodotus, we are unable to say.

[53] Plutarch, De Herod. Malign. c. 21, p. 859.

Contemporaneous with the Orthagoridæ at Sikyôn,—but beginning a little later and closing somewhat earlier,—we find the despots Kypselus and Periander at Corinth. The former appears as the subverter of the oligarchy called the Bacchiadæ. Of the manner in which he accomplished his object we find no information: and this historical blank is inadequately filled up by various religious prognostics and oracles, foreshadowing the rise, the harsh rule, and the dethronement, after two generations, of these powerful despots.

According to an idea deeply seated in the Greek mind, the destruction of a great prince or of a great power is usually signified to him by the gods beforehand, though either through hardness of heart or inadvertence, no heed is taken of the warning. In reference to Kypselus and the Bacchiadæ, we are informed that Melas, the ancestor of the former, was one of the original settlers at Corinth who accompanied the first Dorian chief Alêtês, and that Alêtês was in vain warned by an oracle not to admit him;[54] again, too, immediately before Kypselus was born, the Bacchiadæ received notice that his mother was about to give birth to one who would prove their ruin: the dangerous infant escaped destruction only by a hair’s breadth, being preserved from the intent of his destroyers by lucky concealment in a chest. Labba, the mother of Kypselus, was daughter of Amphion, who belonged to the gens, or sept, of the Bacchiadæ; but she was lame, and none of the gens would consent to marry her with that deformity. Eetion, son of Echekratês, who became her husband, belonged to a different, yet hardly less distinguished heroic genealogy: he was of the Lapithæ, descended from Kæneus, and dwelling in the Corinthian deme called Petra. We see thus that Kypselus was not only a high-born man in the city, but a Bacchiad by half-birth; both of these circumstances were likely to make exclusion from the government intolerable to him. He rendered himself highly popular with the people, and by their aid overthrew and expelled the Bacchiadæ, continuing as despot at Corinth for thirty years until his death (B. C. 655-625). According to Aristotle, he maintained throughout life the same conciliatory behavior by which his power had first been acquired; and his popularity was so effectually sustained that he had never any occasion for a body-guard. But the Corinthian oligarchy of the century of Herodotus,—whose tale that historian has embodied in the oration of the Corinthian envoy Sosiklês[55] to the Spartans,—gave a very different description, and depicted Kypselus as a cruel ruler, who banished, robbed, and murdered by wholesale.

[54] Pausan. ii, 4, 9.

[55] Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 22; Herodot. v, 92. The tale
respecting Kypselus, and his wholesale exaction from the people,
contained in the spurious second book of the Œconomica of
Aristotle, coincides with the general view of Herodotus (Aristot.
Œconom. ii, 2); but I do not trust the statements of this
treatise for facts of the sixth or seventh centuries B. C.

His son and successor Periander, though energetic as a warrior, distinguished as an encourager of poetry and music, and even numbered by some among the seven wise men of Greece,—is, nevertheless, uniformly represented as oppressive and inhuman in his treatment of subjects. The revolting stories which are told respecting his private life, and his relations with his mother and his wife, may for the most part be regarded as calumnies suggested by odious associations with his memory; but there seems good reason for imputing to him tyranny of the worst character, and the sanguinary maxims of precaution so often acted upon by Grecian despots were traced back in ordinary belief to Periander,[56] and his contemporary Thrasybulus, despot of Milêtus. He maintained a powerful body-guard, shed much blood, and was exorbitant in his exactions, a part of which was employed in votive offerings at Olympia; and this munificence to the gods was considered by Aristotle and others as part of a deliberate system, with the view of keeping his subjects both hard at work and poor. On one occasion, we are told that he invited the women of Corinth to assemble for the celebration of a religious festival, and then stripped them of their rich attire and ornaments. By some later writers, he is painted as the stern foe of everything like luxury and dissolute habits,—enforcing industry, compelling every man to render account of his means of livelihood, and causing the procuresses of Corinth to be thrown into the sea.[57] Though the general features of his character, his cruel tyranny no less than his vigor and ability, may be sufficiently relied on, yet the particular incidents connected with his name are all extremely dubious: the most credible of all seems to be the tale of his inexpiable quarrel with his son, and his brutal treatment of many noble Korkyræan youths, as related in Herodotus. Periander is said to have put to death his wife, Melissa, daughter of Proklês, despot of Epidaurus; and his son Lykophrôn, informed of this deed, contracted an incurable antipathy against him. After vainly trying, both by rigor and by conciliation, to conquer this feeling on the part of his son, Periander sent him to reside at Korkyra, then dependent upon his rule; but when he found himself growing old and disabled, he recalled him to Corinth, in order to insure the continuance of the dynasty. Lykophrôn still obstinately declined all personal communication with his father, upon which the latter desired him to come to Corinth, and engaged himself to go over to Korkyra. So terrified were the Korkyræans at the idea of a visit from this formidable old man, that they put Lykophrôn to death,—a deed which Periander avenged by seizing three hundred youths of their noblest families, and sending them over to the Lydian king, Alyattês at Sardis, in order that they might be castrated and made to serve as eunuchs. The Corinthian vessels in which the youths were dispatched fortunately touched at Samos in the way; where the Samians and Knidians, shocked at a proceeding which outraged all Hellenic sentiment, contrived to rescue the youths from the miserable fate intended for them, and, after the death of Periander, sent them back to their native island.[58]

[56] Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 2-22; iii, 8, 3; Herodot. v, 92.

[57] Ephorus, Frag. 106, ed. Marx.; Herakleidês Ponticus, Frag.
v, ed. Köhler; Nicolaus Damasc. p. 50, ed. Orell.; Diogen. Laërt.
i, 96-98; Suidas, v. Κυψελίδων ἀνάθημα.

[58] Herodot. iii, 47-54. He details at some length this tragical
story. Compare Plutarch, De Herodoti Malignitat. c. 22, p. 860.

While we turn with displeasure from the political life of this man, we are at the same time made acquainted with the great extent of his power,—greater than that which was ever possessed by Corinth after the extinction of his dynasty. Korkyra, Ambrakia, Leukas, and Anaktorium, all Corinthian colonies, but in the next century independent states, appear in his time dependencies of Corinth. Ambrakia is said to have been under the rule of another despot named Periander, probably also a Kypselid by birth. It seems, indeed, that the towns of Anaktorium, Leukas, and Apollonia in the Ionian gulf, were either founded by the Kypselids, or received reinforcements of Corinthian colonists, during their dynasty, though Korkyra was established considerably earlier.[59]

[59] Aristot. Polit. v, 3, 6; 8, 9. Plutarch, Amatorius, c. 23,
p. 768, and De Serâ Numinis Vindictâ, c. 7, p. 553. Strabo,
vii, p. 325; x, p. 452. Scymnus Chius, v, 454, and Antoninus
Liberalis, c. iv, who quotes the lost work called Ἀμβρακικὰ of
Athanadas.

The reign of Periander lasted for forty years (B. C. 625-585): Psammetichus son of Gordius, who succeeded him, reigned three years, and the Kypselid dynasty is then said to have closed, after having continued for seventy-three years.[60] In respect of power, magnificent display, and wide-spread connections both in Asia and in Italy, they evidently stood high among the Greeks of their time. Their offerings consecrated at Olympia excited great admiration, especially the gilt colossal statue of Zeus, and the large chest of cedar-wood dedicated in the temple of Hêrê, overlaid with various figures in gold and ivory: the figures were borrowed from mythical and legendary story, and the chest was a commemoration both of the name of Kypselus and of the tale of his marvellous preservation in infancy.[61] If Plutarch is correct, this powerful dynasty is to be numbered among the despots put down by Sparta;[62] yet such intervention of the Spartans, granting it to have been matter of fact, can hardly have been known to Herodotus.

[60] See Mr. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, ad ann. 625-585 B. C.

[61] Pausan. v, 2, 4; 17, 2. Strabo, viii, p. 353. Compare
Schneider, Epimetrum ad Xenophon. Anabas. p. 570. The chest was
seen at Olympia, both by Pausanias and by Dio Chrysostom (Or. xi,
p. 325, Reiske).

[62] Plutarch, De Herodot. Malign. c. 21, p. 859. If Herodotus
had known or believed that the dynasty of the Kypselids at
Corinth was put down by Sparta, he could not have failed to make
allusion to the fact, in the long harangue which he ascribes to
the Corinthian Sosiklês (v, 92). Whoever reads that speech, will
perceive that the inference from silence to ignorance is in this
case almost irresistible.

O. Müller ascribes to Periander a policy intentionally
anti-Dorian,—“prompted by the wish of utterly eradicating the
peculiarities of the Doric race. For this reason he abolished the
public tables, and prohibited the ancient education.” (O. Müller,
Dorians, iii, 8, 3.)

But it cannot be shown that any _public tables_ (συσσίτια),
or any peculiar education, analogous to those of Sparta, ever
existed at Corinth. If nothing more be meant by these συσσίτια
than public banquets on particular festive occasions (see
Welcker, Prolegom. ad Theognid. c. 20, p. xxxvii), these are
noway peculiar to Dorian cities. Nor does Theognis, v, 270, bear
out Welcker in affirming “syssitiorum vetus institutum” at Megara.

Coincident in point of time with the commencement of Periander’s reign at Corinth, we find Theagenês despot at Megara, who is also said to have acquired his power by demagogic arts, as well as by violent aggressions against the rich proprietors, whose cattle he destroyed in their pastures by the side of the river. We are not told by what previous conduct on the part of the rich this hatred of the people had been earned, but Theagenês carried the popular feeling completely along with him, obtained by public vote a body of guards ostensibly for his personal safety, and employed them to overthrow the oligarchy.[63] But he did not maintain his power, even for his own life: a second revolution dethroned and expelled him; on which occasion, after a short interval of temperate government, the people are said to have renewed in a still more marked way their antipathies against the rich; banishing some of them with confiscation of property, intruding into the houses of others with demands for forced hospitality, and even passing a formal palintokia, or decree, to require from the rich who had lent money on interest, the refunding of all past interest paid to them by their debtors.[64] To appreciate correctly such a demand, we must recollect that the practice of taking interest for money lent was regarded by a large proportion of early ancient society with feelings of unqualified reprobation; and it will be seen, when we come to the legislation of Solon, how much such violent reactionary feeling against the creditor was provoked by the antecedent working of the harsh law determining his rights.

[63] Aristot. Polit. v, 4, 5; Rhetor. i, 2, 7.

[64] Plutarch, Quæst. Græc. c. 18, p. 295.