1. It is my intention in the present chapter to collect and arrange the various accounts respecting the alterations in the constitution of those Doric states, which deviated more from their original condition than Crete and Sparta: having been more affected by the general revolutions of the Greek governments, and drawn with greater violence into the strong current of political change.

And first, with regard to Argos, I will extract the following particulars from former parts of this work. There were in this state three classes of persons; the inhabitants of the city, who were for the most part Dorians, distributed into four tribes; a class of [pg 146] Periœci, and also a class of bondslaves, named gymnesii.623 The kings, who were at first of the Heraclide family, and afterwards of another dynasty, reigned until the time of the Persian war;624 there were also officers named artynæ, and a senate possessing extensive powers. All these are traces which seem to prove a considerable resemblance between the constitutions of Argos and Sparta, at least they show that there was no essential difference. But this similarity was put an end to by the destruction of a large portion of the citizens, in the battle with Cleomenes, and the consequent admission of many Periœci to the rights of citizenship.625 Soon after this period, we find Argos flourishing in population, industry, and wealth;626 and in the enjoyment of a democratic constitution.627 The latter, however, was ill adapted to acquire the ascendency in Peloponnesus, which Argos endeavoured to obtain after the peace of Nicias. Hence the people appointed a board of twelve men, with full powers to conclude treaties with any Greek state that was willing to join their party; but in case of Sparta or Athens proposing any such alliance, the question was to be first referred to the whole people.628 The state also, in order to form the nucleus of an army, levied a body of well-armed men,629 who were selected from the higher ranks.630 It was natural that these should endanger the democracy; and after the battle of Mantinea (B.C. 418.) they overthrew it, in concert with the [pg 147] Lacedæmonians, after having put the demagogues to death.631 Their dominion, however, only lasted for eight months, as an insurrection and battle within the city deprived them of their power, and reinstated the democracy.632 Alcibiades the Athenian completed this change by the expulsion of many oligarchs, who were still remaining in the city;633 afterwards he wished to overthrow the democracy by means of his friends,634 in consequence of which they were all killed. Two parties, however, must have still continued to exist in this state. Æneas the Tactician relates, that the rich purposing to attack the people for the second time, and on a certain night having introduced many soldiers into the city, the leaders of the people hastily summoned an assembly, and ordered that every armed man should that night pass muster in his tribe,635 by which means the rich were prevented from uniting themselves in a body. The leaders of the people (δήμου προστάται636) are here manifestly democratic magistrates, who rose to power during the contests between the opposite factions, and differed chiefly from the demagogues of Athens, in that their authority was official, without which they would not have been able to convene an [pg 148] assembly of the people. For although the appellation of δήμου προστάτης in the Doric states, as well as at Athens, sometimes denotes merely a person who by his character and eloquence had placed himself at the head of the people; we shall produce hereafter certain proofs, when we speak of Gela and Calymna, that it was also the title of a public officer.637

When, during the peace of Artaxerxes, the Lacedæmonians had ceased to possess any extensive share in the direction of public affairs in Peloponnesus, a spirit of ungovernable licentiousness and ochlocracy arose in those cities which had hitherto been under an oligarchical rule; everywhere there were vexatious accusations, banishments, and confiscations of property, especially of the property of such persons as had filled public offices under the guidance of Sparta, though, even during that period, (B.C. 374.) Argos had been a place of refuge for banished democrats.638 But after the battle of Leuctra, when the power of Lacedæmon was completely broken, and Peloponnesus had for a certain time lost its leader, the greatest anarchy began to prevail in Argos. Demagogues stirred up the people so violently against all privileged or distinguished persons, that the latter thought themselves driven to plot the overthrow of the democracy.639 The scheme was discovered, and the people raged with the greatest ferocity against the real or supposed conspirators. On this occasion, more than 1200 of the chief persons (many upon mere suspicion) were put to death;640 and at length the demagogues, fearing to carry [pg 149] through the measures which themselves had originated, suffered the same fate. This state of things was called by the name of σκυταλισμὸς, or club-law; it appears to have been a time when the strongest man was the most powerful. When the Athenians heard of these transactions, they purified their market-place, thinking that the whole of Greece was polluted by such atrocities:641 it was probably at the same time that the Argives themselves offered an expiatory sacrifice to the mild Zeus (Ζεὺς Μειλίχιος), for the free blood which had been shed.642 Notwithstanding these proceedings, the rich and distinguished continued to be persecuted at Argos with the greatest violence;643 for which the ostracism, a custom introduced from Athens,644 together with other democratic institutions,645 was the chief instrument. In times such as these, the chief and most noble features of the Doric character necessarily disappeared; the unfortunate termination of nearly all military undertakings646 proves the decline of bravery. In so unsettled a state of public affairs, sycophancy and violence became prevalent:647 notwithstanding which, their eagerness and attention to public speaking produced no orator, whose fame was sufficient to descend to posterity.648

2. In Epidaurus, on the other hand, the aristocracy continued in force, and accordingly this city [pg 150] was as much attached to the Spartans, as Argos was disinclined to them. Of the artynæ in this state, and of the senate of 180, as well as of the class of cultivators, and of the tribes, we have spoken in former parts of this work.649

As long as Ægina remained an independent state, the government was held by the hereditary aristocracy, whose titular dignity was probably increased by the power derived from the possession of great wealth. The insurrection of a democratic party remained fruitless. Ægina and Corinth are decisive proofs, that under an aristocratical government an active and enterprising spirit of commerce may arise and flourish.

The Epidaurian colony, Cos, without doubt, originally adopted the constitution of its mother-state. Before the 75th (probably about the 73rd or 74th) Olympiad, we find a tyrant appointed by the king of Persia reigning in this island, Cadmus, the son of Scythes of Zancle;650 after some time, however, he quitted Cos, having established a senate, and given back the state its freedom; yet the island appears to have immediately afterwards fallen under the dominion of Artemisia.651 At a later period, the influence of Athens opened the way to democracy, but it was overthrown by violent demagogues, who compelled the chief persons in self-defence to combine against it.652 The senate (βουλὴ or γερουσία) of the Coans, as well as their prytanes, have been mentioned above;653 the nominal magistrates under the Roman dominion need not be here treated of.

3. In the Argive colony of Rhodes, it may be supposed [pg 151] that an ancient Doric constitution existed; for there were kings of the Heraclide family, and probably also a council with the same powers as the Spartan gerusia. The royalty expired after the 30th Olympiad (660 B.C.); but the ancient family of the Eratidæ at Ialysus, retained a considerable share in the government; probably exercising nearly the powers of a prytanis. Pindar shows that the frame of justice belonged to this once royal family,654 when he says, “Give, O father Zeus, to Diagoras favour both with citizens and with strangers, since he walks constantly in the way opposed to violence, knowing well what the just minds of noble ancestors have inspired in him. Destroy not the common progeny of Callianax. At the solemnities for the victory of the Eratidæ, the whole city rejoices in banquets. Yet in a moment of time many winds meet from many quarters.” Pindar thus early (464 B.C.) predicts the dangers that then awaited the ancient family, to which Rhodes owed so much, from the growing influence of Athens;655 throughout the whole ode he cautions the citizens against precipitate innovation, and prays for the continuance of the ancient firmly-seated constitution.656 Both prophecies were fulfilled. The sons of Diagoras were condemned to death, and banished by the Athenians, as heads of the aristocracy; but the hero Dorieus returned to his country from Thurii, with Thurian ships, and fought with them against the enemies of his family, as a faithful [pg 152] partisan of the Spartans. He was taken by the Athenians in the year 405 B.C., who, when about to condemn him, were moved by the appearance of the noble son of Diagoras (whose boldness of spirit corresponded with the size and beauty peculiar to his family), to release him from imprisonment and death.657 The ancient fortune of the Rhodians, which was owing to their strict adherence to the Doric customs, and to their great commercial activity, was interrupted by the troubles of the Peloponnesian war, in which the alternation of the Athenian and Lacedæmonian influence by turns introduced democracy and aristocracy. At the time of the Sicilian expedition, Rhodes was under the power of Athens;658 but the Spartans having in 412 B.C. obtained the superiority in this island,659 and Dorieus having been recalled by them (413 B.C.) in order to suppress internal dissensions, the governing power again reverted to the nobles: these latter having been compelled to unite against the people by the demagogues, who, while they distributed the public money among the people in the shape of salaries, had not repaid the sums due to the trierarchs, and at the same time vexed them by continual lawsuits.660 Soon [pg 153] after this period (408 B.C.),661 the large city of Rhodes was founded, by collecting to one spot the inhabitants of the three small cities of the island, Lindus, Ialysus, and Camirus. But in 396 B.C. Rhodes was again recovered by Conon to Athens, and became democratical;662 yet in five years (391 B.C.) the Spartan party was again victorious;663 and the Social War finally put an end to the influence of the Athenians. From this time the interference of the Carian rulers, Mausolus and Artemisia, commenced, by which the oligarchy was greatly raised, and the democratical party driven out; to restore which, and to regard rather the cause of popular freedom in Greece, than the injuries received from the Rhodians, was the advice of Demosthenes to the Athenians.664 At that time a Carian garrison was in the Acropolis of Rhodes. Out of these troubles and dissensions a constitution arose, in which, as far as we are able to ascertain, democracy prevailed, although the small number and extensive powers of the prytanes prove that it was not unmixed with aristocratical elements. According to the description which Cicero puts in the mouth of the younger Scipio, at this time all the members of the [pg 154] senate belonged (in the same year) to the public assembly, and sat in alternate months (probably periods of six months, like the prytanes) in the senate and among the people; in both capacities they received pay (conventicium): the same persons also sometimes sat as judges among the people in the theatre, sometimes in the senate in criminal and other cases.665 These statements cannot be easily reconciled with Strabo's view of the constitution, and yet there can be no doubt that he, as well as Cicero, speaks of the time preceding Cassius' conquest of Rhodes. “The Rhodians,” he says, “though not under a democratic government, took great care of the people; in order to support the number of poor in the state, they provided them with corn, and the rich maintained the poor according to an ancient custom; there were also liturgies, by which the people were furnished with meat, &c.”666 Notwithstanding the democratic institution of the senate, many offices, those perhaps in particular which were connected with the administration, such for example as the superintendence of the marine, were managed on oligarchical principles; the internal quiet of Rhodes at this period is also a proof against the existence of an unmixed democracy. Accordingly, the true Doric characteristics were here retained for a longer time than in most other Doric states; viz., courage, constancy, patriotism, with a haughty sternness [pg 155] of manners, and a certain temperance, which was indeed in some manner contrasted with their magnificence in meals, buildings, and all arts.667

4. Corinth, delivered by Sparta from its tyrants, had again reverted to its former constitution, which however was not so oligarchical as the hereditary aristocracy of the Bacchiadæ. Some noble families, as the Oligæthidæ,668 had a priority, probably the gerusia was composed of them; and the public assembly was restricted in a manner similar to that of Sparta. But at the same time Pindar celebrates Corinth as “the city in which Eunomia (or good government) dwells, and her sisters, the firm supports of cities, Justice and Peace, the bestowers of riches, who know how to keep off Violence, the bold mother of Arrogance.” From these words it may also be conjectured, that the aristocratical party was compelled to resist the endeavours made by the people to extend their power: it remained, however, unshaken up to the date of the Peloponnesian war, and Corinth, with the exception of a short time, continued the faithful ally of Sparta, and foe of Athens.669 At a later period, a democratic party, which relied upon Argos, rose in Corinth, by the assistance of Persian money: this at first obtained the supreme power, and afterwards attacked the Lacedæmonian party, consisting of the noble families, at the festival of the Euclea; and at last proceeded so far, as to wish to abolish the independence of Corinth, and to [pg 156] incorporate it completely with Argos (B.C. 395 and 394.)670 The banished aristocrats, supported by some Lacedæmonians who were quartered at Sicyon, continued nevertheless to keep up a contest, and maintained themselves at Lechæum;671 after this they must have returned and restored the ancient constitution: for we find Corinth again true to the Lacedæmonian alliance.672 In the time of Dion (356 B.C.) Corinth was under a government nearly oligarchical, little business being transacted in the popular assembly:673 and although this body sent Timoleon as general of the state to Sicily (B.C. 345.), there was then in existence a gerusia (a name completely aristocratic), which not only treated with foreign ambassadors, but also, which is very remarkable, exercised a criminal jurisdiction.674 The tyranny of Timophanes, who was slain by Timoleon, was, according to Aristotle, a short interruption of the oligarchy.675

5. From the moderate and well-balanced constitution, which Corinth had upon the whole the good fortune to possess, its colony Corcyra had at an early period departed. Founded under the guidance of Chersicrates, a Bacchiad, it was for a time governed by the Corinthian families, which had first taken possession of the colony. At the same time, however, a popular party was formed, which obtained a greater power by the violent disruption of Corcyra from its [pg 157] mother-country, and the hostile relation in which the two states were thus placed. In addition to these differences, the connexion between Corcyra and the Peloponnesian league had been relaxed, and was replaced by a closer intimacy with Athens; so that while the aristocratic party had lost its hold, the democratic influence had taken a deep root. The people also strengthened themselves by the union of a numerous class of slaves.676 By means of this combined force, the aristocratical party was overthrown, whose expulsion was attended with such scenes of blood and atrocity, as were hardly known in any other state of Greece.677 But even before these occurrences the constitution had been democratical.678 The popular assembly had the supreme power; and although the senate had perhaps a greater authority than at Athens,679 it was manifestly only a part of the demus:680 leaders of the people appear to have been in this, as well as in other states, a regular office.681 From this time the most unbounded freedom prevailed at Corcyra, of which the Greek proverb says coarsely indeed, but expressively, Ἑλευθέρα Κόρκυρα, χέζ᾽ ὅπου θέλεις.682 The Corcyreans were active, industrious, and enterprising, good sailors, and active merchants; but they had entirely lost the stability and noble features of the Doric character. In absence of all modesty they even exceeded the Athenians, among whom the very dogs, as a certain philosopher said, were more [pg 158] impudent than in any other place: fabulous reports were circulated in Greece, respecting the excessive luxury of the successors of the Phæacians.683 Yet even in this state an antidemocratic party, inclined to the Lacedæmonians, was never entirely expelled; and it frequently rose against the people without success,684 but in the time of Chares with a fortunate result,685 The four or five686 prytanes, who were at a later period the chief magistrates of Corcyra, seem not to have been entirely democratic magistrates, although the government was democratical; besides these officers, there occur in an important monument,687 πρόδικοι βουλᾶς, who appear as accusers in a lawsuit which has reference to the administration; also πρόβουλοι688 with a προστάτης, who brings a lawsuit of the same description before the courts; besides which we learn, that from time to time revisions (διορθώσεις) of the laws took place, for which certain persons named διορθωτῆρες were appointed; and that a ταμίας and a διοικητὴς were among the financial authorities.

6. Another colony of Corinth, Ambracia, had been ruled by a tyrant of the family of the Cypselidæ, named Gorgus (Gorgias), who was succeeded by Periander, evidently a member of the same [pg 159] house:689 this latter tyrant, having insulted one of the subjects of his illicit pleasures, was put to death by the relations of the latter.690 The people had taken a share in the insurrection, and obtained the supreme power:691 the first change having, however, been into a government founded on property, which insensibly passed into a democracy, on account of the low rate of property which qualified a person for public offices.692

In the Corinthian colony of Leucadia, the large estates were originally inalienable, and in the possession of the nobles: when the inalienability was abolished, a certain amount of property was no longer required for the holding of public offices, by which the government became democratic.693

Epidamnus was founded by Corinthians and Corcyæeans, and a Heraclide, Phalias, from the mother-country, was leader of the colony. It cannot be doubted that the founders took possession of the best lands, and assumed the powers of government, only [pg 160] admitting persons of the same race to a share. A single magistrate, similar to the cosmopolis at Opus, was at the head of the administration;694 the phylarchs composed a species of council. But in the second period of the constitution, the phylarchs were replaced by a senate (βουλὴ), chosen on democratic principles: a remnant, however, of the early constitution was preserved, in the regulation that all magistrates, who were chosen from the ancient citizens (the proper πολίτευμα), were compelled to be present in the public assembly, if a magistrate required it;695 the highest archon also alone remained.696 The Peloponnesian war was occasioned by a contest between the popular party at Epidamnus, and the nobles, in which the Corinthians, from jealousy against Corcyra, unmindful of their true interests, supported the former: of the issue of this contest we are not informed. The number of resident and industrious foreigners was very great:697 besides this class of persons, none but public slaves were employed in mechanical labour, and never any citizen.698

Of all the Corinthian settlements, Apollonia kept the nearest to the original colonial constitution,699 upon which its fame for justice is probably founded.700 The government remained almost exclusively in the hands of the noble families and [pg 161] descendants of the first colonists, to whom the large estates doubtless belonged.701 Perhaps Apollonia was indebted for the stability of its government to the Xenelasia;702 an institution which was of the first importance for the preservation of ancient Greek customs, to a state closely bordering on barbarous nations.

7. That we may not disturb the order of the Corinthian colonies, we will immediately proceed to consider the state of Syracuse. In the Syracusan constitution the following were the chief epochs. In the first, the government was in the hands of the gamori,703 originally together with a king,704 whose office was afterwards abolished. These we have already stated705 to have been the original colonists, who took possession of the large estates cultivated by native bondslaves, and exercised the chief governing power. It is probable that the magistrates, and the members of the council,706 who were leaders of the people in the assembly (ἁλία), were chosen from this body; in the same manner as the geomori of Samos formed a council, which after the subversion of the royalty governed the state.707 Against these authorities, the people, having gradually become more pressing in their demands, at length rebelled, and expelled them, by combining with their slaves the Cyllyrii (before B.C. 492.708); but the democracy [pg 162] which succeeded was so irregular and lawless, that it was of very short duration;709 the people therefore voluntarily opened the gates to Gelon, when he came to restore the gamori, and gave themselves entirely into his power,710 in 485 B.C. The rule of Gelon, and of his successor, was, although monarchical, yet not oppressive, and upon the whole beneficial to the state: as the former allowed an extraordinary assembly of the people to decide concerning his public administration,711 it may be perhaps supposed that he wished to be considered an Æsymnetes, to whom the city, overcome by difficulties, intrusted the unlimited disposal of its welfare. With the overthrow of this dynasty, the second period begins, during which there was upon the whole a moderate constitution, called by most writers democracy,712 and by Aristotle distinguished from democracy as a politeia, in his peculiar sense of the word.713 Immediately after the downfall of Thrasybulus an assembly was convened, in which it was debated concerning the constitution. The public offices were only to be filled by the ancient citizens; while those who had been admitted by Gelon from other cities, together with the naturalized mercenaries,714 were not [pg 163] to enjoy the complete rights of citizenship:715 measures which occasioned a war within the walls of Syracuse. Lastly, in this, as well as in the other states of Sicily, peace was re-established by the restoration of the ancient citizens, a separation of the foreigners, who found a settlement at Messana, and a new allotment of the lands,716 in which the estates of the nobles were probably divided anew. At the same time, by the violence of these proceedings, the states of Sicily were reduced to a feeble condition, which occasioned numerous attempts to set up a tyranny. As a security against this danger, the people (in 454 B.C.) established the institution called petalism, in imitation of the ostracism of Athens; but they had sufficient discernment soon to abolish this new form of tyranny, as all distinguished and well educated men717 were deterred by it from taking a part in public affairs. Syracuse suffered at that time, as well as Athens, by the intrigues of demagogues and cabals of sycophants.718 In this city, at an early period, a talent for the subtleties of oratory had begun to develope itself; which owed its origin to Corax, a man employed by Hieron as a secret spy and confidant, and celebrated among the people as a powerful orator and sagacious [pg 164] councillor.719 The naturally refined, acute, and lively temperament of the Sicilian Greeks720 had already turned towards cunning and deceit; and in particular the young, eager after all novelty, ran counter to the temperance and severity of the ancient customs and mode of life.721 As to the constitution at the time of the Sicilian war, we know that all public affairs of importance were decided in the popular assembly,722 and the management of them was in great part confided to the leaders of the people (δήμου προστάται), who seem to have been regular public officers.723 In what manner the people was led, is shown by the instance of Athenagoras, who represents the expedition of the Athenians, when already approaching the shores of Sicily, as a story invented by the oligarchs to terrify the people. To what extent a complete freedom of speaking before the people existed, is not altogether clear.724 That persons of an aristocratic disposition still continued to possess political power, is evident from the speech of Athenagoras;725 and it is probable from Aristotle, that they had an exclusive right to [pg 165] certain offices. The third period begins with the victory over the Athenian armament. As this was decided by the fleet of the Syracusans, the men of inferior rank, who served as sailors, obtained a large increase of importance in their own sight, and were loud in their demands for admission to the highest offices; in the very same manner as at Athens, after the battle of Salamis. In 412 B.C., upon the proposal of Diocles the demagogue,726 a commission was appointed for the arrangement of a new constitution, in which the original contriver of the plan had himself the first place. The government was thus converted into a complete democracy, of which the first principle was, that the public offices should be filled not by election, but by lot.727 There was formed at the same time a collection of written laws, which were very precise and explicit in the determination of punishments, and were doubtless intended, by their severity, to keep off those troubles, which the new constitution could not fail to produce. This code, which was also adopted by other Sicilian states, was written in an ancient native dialect, which seventy years afterwards (in the time of Timoleon) required an interpreter.728 Notwithstanding these precautions, we find the democracy an Olympiad and a half later fallen into such contempt,729 that the people, utterly incapable of protecting the city in the dangers of the time, appointed a general with unlimited power: [pg 166] which measure, though always attended with bad success, they repeatedly had recourse to. Dionysius, a man powerful as well from his talents, as from the means which his situation as demagogue afforded him of keeping the people in continual dread of the nobles,730 soon became tyrant;731 but he still allowed an appearance of freedom to remain in public assemblies, which he summoned, conducted, and dismissed.732 Dion restored the democracy for a short time, and only partially;733 for it was his real intention to introduce a Doric aristocracy upon the model of those in Sparta and Crete.734 Timoleon with more decision abolished the democracy, and restored the former constitution,735 as may be supposed, not without sycophants and demagogues, who were not slow to turn their arms against the founder of the new liberty.736 A mixture of aristocracy is discernible in the office of amphipolus of the Olympian Zeus, which lasted three centuries from 343 B.C. and probably combined political influence with the highest dignity; the person who filled it gave his name to the year. Three candidates were chosen for this office from three families by vote, and one of the three was selected by lot.737

It may be observed, that Timoleon caused a revision of the laws to be made by Cephalus, a Corinthian, who, however, was only called an interpreter of the code of Diocles, although, as it appears, he entirely remodelled the civil law.738 We must pass hastily over the later times, remarking in general, that a feeble democracy continued to exist, frequently contending with clubs of oligarchs,739 and afterwards falling into the hand of tyrants who had risen from demagogues; such, for instance, as Agathocles, who undertook to bring about a redivision of the lands, and an abolition of all claims of debt.740 Hiero II. did not suppress the council of the city, which Hieronymus never consulted; but as it again returned into existence immediately after the death of the latter prince, it appears that it could not have been a body chosen annually, but a board appointed for a considerable period.741 The generals had at all times very large powers, especially in the popular assembly, in which, however, persons of the lowest condition had liberty to speak.742 Another military office also, that of the hipparchs, exercised a superintendence over the internal affairs of the state, in order to guard against disturbances.743

8. After this account of the constitution of Syracuse, we may proceed to notice those of Gela, and its colony Agrigentum; as these cities, though deriving their origin from Rhodes, perhaps took Syracuse for their model in the formation of their government. In both states the noble and wealthy first held the ruling power; which was afterwards for a long time possessed by tyrants.744 Agrigentum, after the overthrow of Thrasydæus in 473 B.C., received a democratic constitution:745 we know, however, that at that time an assembly of a thousand, appointed for three years, governed the state. This assembly was suppressed by Empedocles the philosopher;746 who obtained so large a share of popular favour that he was even offered the office of king.747 The assembly of a thousand also occurs in Rhegium and Croton, in speaking of which city we will again mention this subject. Further than this all information fails us. Scipio established anew the senate of Agrigentum, and ordered that the number of the new colonists of Manlius should never exceed that of the ancient [pg 169] citizens.748 The same senate, in an inscription of the Roman time,749 is called σύγκλητος, συνέδριον, and βουλὴ, and appears to have consisted of 110 members; the day of meeting is stated: it appears that the senate then alternated every two months;750 the decree of the senate is referred to the popular assembly (ἁλία); over which a προάγορος presided751 (which was also the name of the supreme magistrate at Catana in the time of Cicero);752 the Hyllean tribe has the precedency on the day of this assembly. A hierothytes gives his name to the year, corresponding to the amphipolus at Syracuse; in whose place a hierapolus753 is mentioned in a similar decree of Gela,754 together with whom a κατενιαύσιος, an annual magistrate (perhaps archon), is mentioned. In this state the senate (βουλὴ) appears to have been changed every half year,755 their decrees being also confirmed by the assembly (ἁλία);756 the assembly is led by a προστάτης, the same magistrate whom we have already met with in nearly all the democratic states of the Dorians, in Argos, Corcyra, and Syracuse.757

9. We now return to Peloponnesus. In Sicyon the tyrants had, as in other states, been the leaders of a democratic party;758 but their dominion put an end [pg 170] to the times of disturbance and irregularity, which had occasioned the Pythian priestess to say, that “Sicyon needed a disciplinarian.”759 After their overthrow an early constitution was restored, which remained unshaken during the Peloponnesian war. We are only informed that in 418 B.C. the Lacedæmonians made the constitution more oligarchical;760 that it had not previously been entirely democratical, is shown by the fidelity with which Sicyon adhered to the head of the Peloponnesian league. After the battle of Leuctra we find that Sicyon possessed an Achæan constitution, i.e., one founded on property, in which the rich were supreme;761 Euphron, in 369 B.C., undertook to change this into a democracy, and thus obtained the tyranny, until the party of the nobles, whom he persecuted, overthrew him.762 Plutarch states most clearly the changes in this constitution; “after the unmixed and Doric aristocracy763 had been destroyed, Sicyon fell from one sedition, from one tyranny into another;” until, at the time of Aratus, it adopted the almost purely democratical institutions of the Achæans.

As Phlius during the whole Peloponnesian war remained faithful to the interest of Sparta and hostile to Argos, it is evident that the state was under an aristocratic government.764 In a revolution which took place before 383 B.C. the Lacedæmonian party had been expelled, but were in the same year again received by the people; the government, however, did not become democratical, until Agesilaus, introduced by the former party, conquered the city, and remodelled [pg 171] the constitution765 (379 B.C.). Before this period the democratic assembly consisted of more than 5000 members, those who were inclined to the Lacedæmonians furnished above 1000 heavy-armed soldiers. A very regular system of government is proved to have existed, by the patience and heroism with which the Phliasians, in 372-376 B.C., defended their city and country against the attacks of the Argives, Arcadians, Eleans, and Thebans, until, without breaking their fidelity to Sparta, they concluded a peace with Thebes and Argos (366 B.C.).

10. In Megara the tyranny of Theagenes, to which he rose from a demagogue, was overthrown by Sparta, and the early constitution restored, which for a time was administered with moderation,766 but even during the Persian war it had already been rendered more democratical by the admission of Periœci.767 The elegiac poet Theognis shows himself about this time the zealous friend of aristocracy;768 he dreads in particular men who stir up the populace to evil, and, as leaders of parties, cause disorder and dissension in the peaceful city; he laments the disappearance of the pride of nobility, the general eagerness for riches, and the increase of a crafty and deceitful disposition.769 These struggles after popular [pg 172] liberty, promoted by demagogues, soon produced the greatest disturbance; the people no longer paid the interest of their debts, and even required a cession of that which had been already paid (παλιντοκία); the houses of the rich, and the very temples, were plundered; many persons were banished for the purpose of confiscating their property.770 It was perhaps at this time that the Megarians adopted the democratic institution of ostracism.771 The nobles, however, soon returned, conquered the people in a battle, and restored an oligarchy, which was the more oppressive, as the public offices were for a time exclusively filled by persons who had fought against the people.772 It is probable that the consequence of this return was the revolt of Megara from Athens, in 446 B.C.;773 in the beginning of the Peloponnesian war the Lacedæmonian party was predominant. But in the eighth year of the war the aristocratic party of Megara was in banishment at Pegæ; and when they were about to be recalled, and restored to their city, the leaders of the people preferred to have the Athenians in the town rather than the citizens whom they had driven from their walls. By the influence of Brasidas, however, they returned, upon a promise of amnesty, which they did not long observe. For having first obtained the supreme offices (to which they must therefore have had a particular claim), they brought a hundred of their chief enemies before the people, and forced [pg 173] them to pass sentence upon the accused with open votes. The people, terrified by this measure, condemned them to death. At the same time the dominant party established a close and strict oligarchy,774 which remained in existence for a very long period.775 In 375 B.C., we again find that democracy was the established constitution, and that the attempts of the oligarchs to change it were defeated.776 Demosthenes777 mentions a court of three hundred in this state, sitting in judgment on public offences; and at this time nobility and wealth were frequently united in the same persons. Of the Megarian magistrates we have already mentioned a king,778 to which may now be added the hieromnamon, an office always held by the priest of Poseidon,779 and probably having the same duties and privileges as the amphipolus, hierapolus, and hierothytes in the Sicilian states. The antiquity of this office is evident from its occurrence in the colonies of Megara, Byzantium and Chalcedon. In the former a hieromnamon is mentioned in a decree quoted by Demosthenes,780 who gives his name to the year; in the latter, a decree now extant781 mentions first a king, then a hieromnamon, then a prophet, together with three nomophylaces, all administering the public [pg 174] affairs (αἰσυμνῶντες) for the appointed term of a month. The two first we have already seen united in the very same manner at Megara; the third refers to the worship of Apollo, of the transfer of which from the mother-state to Chalcedon we have already spoken, and pointed out an oracle of Apollo which was delivered there;782 the nomophylaces also occur at Sparta. The hieromnamon was probably priest also of Poseidon in the colonies, the worship of which god, deriving its origin from the Isthmus of Corinth, was at least more prevalent than any other.783