The result of recent research into the early organization of society, the growth of the governmental idea, and the development of the family, among tribes in the ascending scale, serve to throw new and unexpected light upon the customs, ideas, institutions, and legends of early historic peoples. Upon investigation it is observed that the construction of Greek and Roman society corresponds exactly with that of existing tribes occupying a lower plane in the scale of development, and that all the institutions of these nations, although in a higher state of advancement, involve the same original principles and ideas.
That the Greek and Roman tribes before reaching civilization had passed through exactly the same processes of development as have been witnessed in the ascending scale among the North American Indians, the Arabians, and all other extant peoples, is shown not alone by the manner in which early society was organized and held together, but by the similarity observed in their myths, legends, traditions, institutions, and social usages.
Whether or not a more advanced stage of civilization had been attained by the progenitors of the Greeks and Romans is a question that does not here concern us; for, if at any time prior to the appearance of these peoples in history, a higher plane of life had been reached, it is reasonable to suppose that such a state was gained under gentile forms of society, especially as their various institutions at the beginning of the historic period represent them as still to a considerable extent governed by the ideas peculiar to the gens.
The earliest authentic accounts which we have of the Greeks represent them as composed of the Doric tribes, who were Hellenes, and the Ionians, who were of Pelasgic origin. The Dorians were a conservative people, exclusive in their tastes and intolerant of innovations, while the Ionians, who occupied the seacoasts and the adjacent islands, were restless, fond of novelty, and not averse to intercourse with surrounding nations.
Of the original inhabitants of Rome, it is observed that they consisted of wandering tribes, bands of outlaws, and refugees from various countries. Concerning the true origin of these peoples, however, and of the history of their earliest settlements, they themselves were evidently ignorant, and the fragmentary accounts of them which have been preserved to us, when viewed independently of the light reflected upon them by recent investigation, furnish but a dim picture in the outline of which the most prominent figures appear only as indistinct shadows or as objects without definite shape. It is true there was no lack of myths and traditions which had come down to the Greeks and Romans as genuine history, and which were doubtless regarded by them as trustworthy accounts of their ancestors. Theseus who united the Attic tribes, and Romulus who founded Rome, were heroes in whom the divine and human were so nicely adjusted and so evenly balanced that the history of their earthly career presents no shade of error either in public or in private life. Indeed, both had sprung from immortal sources, and their exploits were such as might be expected from the mythical heroes of a forgotten age.
Although Greek society when it first came under our observation was under gentile organization, the gens had passed out of its archaic stage. This ancient institution, which had carried humanity through to civilization, was gradually losing its vitality; it had lost its efficiency as a governing agency, and was about to give place to political institutions.
With the facts at present accessible regarding peoples in the lower and middle stages of barbarism, the various steps in the growth of government as administered in the upper or latter stage of barbarism are clearly observed; also by close attention to the conditions surrounding extant peoples in the latter stage of barbarism and the opening ages of civilization, the processes involved in the transfer of society from gentile to political institutions are easily traced, together with the principal ideas and motives underlying the growth of all the institutions belonging to early historic nations.
Until civilization was reached the gens constituted the unit of organized society. This fact, however, until a comparatively recent time, seems to have been overlooked. Without attempting to explain the origin of the gens and phratry as they existed in Greece, Mr. Grote observes: “The legislator finds them pre-existing, and adapts or modifies them to answer some national scheme.” Unacquainted as this writer evidently was with the construction of primitive society, he failed to observe that originally, in Greece, all the powers of the legislator himself were derived from and circumscribed by the gens. Indeed, that this organization upon which the superstructure of Grecian society rested was the original source whence proceeded all social privileges and all military rights and obligations, is a condition which until a comparatively recent time has been overlooked. While discussing the relations of the family to the gens, the gens to the phratry, and the phratry to the tribe, Mr. Grote says: “The basis of the whole was the house, hearth, or family—a number of which, greater or less, composed the gens, or genos.”147
Mr. Morgan has shown, however, that the family could not have constituted the basis of the gens, for the reason that the heads of families belonged to separate gentes. We are assured that the gens is much older than the monogamic family, and therefore that the latter could not have formed the basis of the gentile organization; but even had the family preceded the gens in order of development, as its members belonged to different gentes it could not have constituted the unit of the social series.
In order to gain a clear understanding of the processes and principles involved in the early Grecian form of government, it first becomes necessary briefly to review the various steps in the growth of the governmental functions through two ethnical periods.
The tribe is a community of related individuals possessed of equal rights and privileges, and bound by equal duties and responsibilities. It has been shown that in the Lower Status of barbarism the government consisted of only one power—a council of chiefs elected by the people. During the Middle Status of barbarism two powers appear,—the civil and military functions have become separated, the duties of a military commander being co-ordinated with those of a council of chiefs. The military commander, however, has not succeeded in drawing to himself the powers of a ruler or king. In the Second Status of barbarism tribes have not begun to confederate. A single tribe, its members bound together by the tie of kinship and united by common rights and responsibilities, owning their lands in common, and each contributing his share toward the common defence, so long as it was able to maintain its independence, had little need for an elaborate form of government. As yet no strifes engendered by envy and extreme selfishness had arisen to disturb the simplicity of their lives, or to check the development of those early principles of liberty and fraternity which were the natural inheritance of the gens. A council of chiefs elected by the gentes and receiving all its powers from the people had thus far performed all the duties of government.
After the Upper Status of barbarism is reached we find confederated tribes dwelling together in walled cities surrounded by embankments, and a state of affairs existing which called for a further differentiation of the functions of government, and a redistribution of the powers and responsibilities of the people. In process of time, with the accumulation of property in masses in the hands of the few, and the consequent rise of an aristocracy, a government founded on wealth, or on a territorial basis, rather than on the personal relations of an individual to his gens, was demanded; and, finally, those principles, rights, and privileges which constitute a pure democracy, and which had always formed the basis of gentile institutions were gradually ignored; that personal influence which was originally exercised by each and every gentilis being transferred to a privileged class—a class which controlled the wealth, and at the head of which was the military commander or basileus. Such was the condition of Grecian society as it first appears in history.
A comparison instituted by Mr. Morgan between the Iroquois gens and that of the Greeks shows the former at the time when it first came under European observation to have been in the archaic stage, with descent and all the rights of succession traced in the female line; while the latter, at the time designated as the heroic age, had not only changed the manner of reckoning descent from the female to the male line, but was evidently about to give place to political society which, instead of being founded on kinship, was based on property and territory, or upon a man’s relations to the township or deme in which he resided.
While the Iroquois tribe of Indians represents the gens in its original vitality, the Greeks appear to have reached a stage at which the archaic form of government instituted on the basis of kin was found inadequate to meet their necessities; hence the confusion arising from disputed authority, at the almost interminable struggle between the various classes which had arisen, and the evident disaffection and unrest manifest among the entire Grecian people during the ages intervening between Codrus, nearly eleven hundred years B. C., and Clisthenes, five hundred years later.
That degree of jealousy with which individual liberty was guarded during the earlier ages of historic Greece, that thirst for freedom, and that restlessness under tyranny which characterized the Grecian people throughout their entire career, are explained by the fact that prior to the age of Clisthenes they were under gentile institutions, the fundamental principles of which were liberty, equality, and justice. From all the facts which may be gathered bearing upon this subject, it is evident that although at the beginning of the historic period the Greeks had lost much of that independence which belonged to an earlier stage of human development, their institutions still partook of the character of a democracy.
Of the similarity of the customs and institutions of early historic Greece and those of a more primitive age we have ample evidence. In ancient Greece, as among the Iroquois tribe of Indians, “property was vested absolutely in the clan, and could not be willed away from it.”148 Not only did the members of a clan hold their property in common, but they were obliged to help, defend, support, and even avenge those of their number who required their assistance. Young females bereft of near relations were either furnished with husbands or provided with suitable portions. Descent must still have been reckoned in the female line, for foreigners admitted to citizenship were not members of any clan, neither were their descendants, unless born of women who were citizens. Citizens were enrolled in the clan and phratry of their mothers.149
In the administration of the government, however, are to be noted a few important changes. The complications which had arisen as a result of the individual ownership of property, the change in the reckoning of descent from the female to the male line which followed, and the growth of the aristocratic element, had produced a corresponding change in the control and management of the government. Solicitude for the common weal, although still felt by the great mass of the people, had among the rulers given place to extreme egoism, and that association and combination of interests, which since the dawn of organized society had characterized the gens, was rapidly giving way before the love of dominion, the thirst for power, and the greed of gain—characters which in process of time came to represent the mainspring of human action.
With the changes which took place in the conditions of the people, it is seen that the administrative functions became still further differentiated. Co-ordinate with the Greek basileus or war-chief are to be observed not only a council of chiefs who were the heads of the gentes, but also an assembly of the people, these three governmental functions corresponding in a general way to our President, Senate, and House of Representatives.
The Ecclesia or general assembly at Sparta was originally composed of all the free males who dwelt within the city. Although this body originated no measures, it was invested with authority to adopt or reject any proposed legislation or plan of action devised by the chiefs. “All changes in the constitution or laws, and all matters of great public import, as questions of peace or war, of alliances, and the like, had to be brought before it for decision.”150 Thus may be observed the precautions which during the latter stages of barbarism had been taken to guard the rights of the people, and to insure them against individual and class usurpation.
Curtius assures us that the Dorian people
did not feel as if they were placed in a foreign state, but they were the citizens of their own—not merely the objects of legislation, but also participants in it, for they only obeyed such statutes as they themselves had agreed to.151
Although Mr. Grote would have us believe that the assembly of the people was simply a “listening agora,”152 it is plain that it was originally invested with sufficient power to protect the people against despotism. In the further differentiation of the administrative functions the powers of the subordinate officers are all drawn from the sum of the powers invested in the three principal branches of the government, the ill-defined duties of each giving rise to those unabated dissensions and fierce and unrelenting strifes which in course of time became such a fruitful source of devastation and bloodshed.
From what is known at the present time regarding Greek society prior to the age of Theseus, it is not at all likely that it was organized on monarchial principles, or that any form of government prevailed in Greece other than that of a military democracy. It is true that by most of the writers who have dealt with the subject of the government of the early Greeks, the basileus has been designated as king, and that he has been invested by them with all the insignia of a modern monarch. In later times, however, with a better understanding of the principles underlying early society, this view of the matter is seen to be false. Mr. Morgan, a writer who as we have seen has given much attention to the constitution of gentile society, informs us that in the Lower and also in the Middle Status of barbarism the office of chief was elective or during good behaviour, “for this limitation follows from the right of the gens to depose from office.”153
When descent was in the female line this office descended either to a brother of the deceased chief or to a sister’s son, but later, when descent began to be traced in the male line, the eldest son was usually elected to succeed his father. Upon this subject Mr. Morgan says further:
It cannot be claimed, on satisfactory proof, that the oldest son of the basileus took the office, upon the demise of his father, by absolute hereditary right.... The fact that the oldest, or one of the sons, usually succeeded, which is admitted, does not establish the fact in question; because by usage he was in the probable line of succession by a free election from a constituency. The presumption on the face of Grecian institutions is against succession to the office of basileus by hereditary right; and in favour either of a free election, or of a confirmation of the office by the people through their recognized organization, as in the case of the Roman rex. With the office of basileus transmitted in the manner last named, the government would remain in the hands of the people. Because without an election or confirmation he could not assume the office; and because, further, the power to elect or confirm implies the reserved right to depose.154
There is no lack of evidence at the present time going to prove that all these early tribes were originally organized on thoroughly democratic principles, and that there never was any dignity conferred on the leader of the early Grecian hosts answering to the present definition of king; also that prior to the time of Romulus, no chieftain of the Latin tribes was ever invested with sufficient authority to have constituted him an imperial ruler. The term basileus, as applied to a leader of a military democracy in the early ages of Grecian history, doubtless implies simply the war-chief of the primitive tribe, an officer chosen from among the chiefs of the gentes as a leader of the hosts in battle, but as claiming no civil functions, and as possessing no authority outside the office of military chieftain.
The Homeric writings, which contain the earliest direct information which we have of the Greeks, and in which are doubtless mirrored forth a tolerably correct picture of the customs, institutions, and manners of this people, when read by the light of more recently developed facts relative to the early constitution of society, are invested with new interest, and a fresh charm and a new significance are added to every detail connected with the narrative. As to the extent of authority attached to the office of military leader among the Greeks, Homer has given us a fair illustration in the person of Agamemnon—“shepherd of the people.” That the position of this chieftain differs widely from that occupied by the king of succeeding ages is apparent. At the outset we find the injured Achilles, after he has taunted the chieftain with being the “greediest of men,” addressing him in the following language:
Then Pelides takes up the strain and with opprobrious words thus addresses the son of Atreus:
Even the brawler Thersites,
dares to insult this chief—this king as he is represented by most modern writers, and to his face taunt him with his injustice towards Achilles. To Agamemnon he says:
It is true Ulysses smote Thersites as he upbraided him for this insult to Agamemnon. It is plain, however, that the chastisement was of a private nature. It seems not to have been a crime openly to berate their chief. Indeed the position of “shepherd of the people” was not one of such dignity that any warrior among the hosts might not with impunity freely speak his mind concerning him, or to his face confront him with improper behaviour. When Agamemnon compared unfavourably the valour of Diomed with that of his father, Tydeus, Sthenelus, the honoured son of Capaneus, hesitated not to remind the chief of his folly, and to his face upbraid him. “Atrides, speak not falsely when thou knowest the truth so well.”158
Regarding the office of king, Mr. Morgan says:
Modern writers, almost without exception, translate basileus by the term king, and basileia by the term kingdom, without qualification, and as exact equivalents. I wish to call attention to this office of basileus, as it existed in the Grecian tribes, and to question the correctness of this interpretation. There is no similarity whatever between the basileia of the ancient Athenians and the modern kingdom or monarchy.... Constitutional monarchy is a modern development, and essentially different from the basileia of the Greeks. The basileia was neither an absolute nor a constitutional monarchy; neither was it a tyranny nor a despotism. The question then is, what was it?
Mr. Morgan’s answer to the question is as follows:
The primitive Grecian government was essentially democratical, reposing on gentes, phratries, and tribes organized as self-governing bodies, and on the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
This writer says further:
Our views upon Grecian and Roman questions have been moulded by writers accustomed to monarchical government and privileged classes, who were perhaps glad to appeal to the earliest known governments of the Grecian tribes for a sanction of this form of government, as at once natural, essential, and primitive.159
We have noted the precautions which during the second and latter periods of barbarism were necessary to keep in check the increasing thirst for power, and it may not be doubted that through the growth of the aristocratic tendency during the latter ages of the existence of the gens, the office of basileus gave to its incumbent a degree of distinction closely allied to that of king.
In the eleventh century B. C., upon the death of Codrus, so necessary had it become to check the continually increasing power of the military chieftains that the office was abolished and the archonship established in its place; but as an election or confirmation was necessary before the duties of either office could be entered upon, it is plain that at the period referred to a democratic form of government still prevailed.
Now archon is the term which had been applied to the chief of the early gentes at a time when fraternity, liberty, and equality were the cardinal virtues of society; and the abolition of the office of basileus, to which had become attached a considerable degree of power, was doubtless an attempt on the part of the people to return to the simpler and purer methods of government which had formerly prevailed; but the institution known as the Agora, Ecclesia, or Appella, which had proved the great bulwark of safety to early democratic institutions, had, through the strengthening of the aristocratic element, become gradually weakened, hence the nobles were in a position to draw to themselves not only much of the power originally exercised by the military commander, but that also which had formerly belonged to the assembly of the people. We have observed that not only among the Greeks of the heroic age, but among the tribes and nations which preceded them, as far back in the history of the past as the close of the second stage of barbarism, there had always been an assembly of the people whose duty it was to guard the rights of the tribe, to protect it against usurpation, and to keep down the rising tendency toward imperialism. Of this institution, Mr. Rawlinson says: “Thus at Athens, as elsewhere, in the heroic times, there was undoubtedly the idea of a public assembly consisting of all freemen.”160
Theseus, basileus, or military chieftain of the Athenian tribes, a personage who belongs to the legendary period, was the first to perceive the insufficiency of gentile institutions to meet the needs of the people. Although the primary idea involved in the establishment of political society was the transference of the original governmental functions from the gens to a territorial limit, so deeply had the instincts, ideas, and associations connected with the personal government of the gens taken root that several centuries were required to accomplish the change. To establish the deme or township, in which, irrespective of kinship or personal ties, all its inhabitants (except slaves) should be enrolled as citizens, with rights, privileges, and duties adjusted according to the amount of property owned by each, and which should be a unit of the larger and more important institution—the State,—was an undertaking the mastery of which although seemingly simple, nevertheless involved intricacies and obstacles of such magnitude as to baffle all attempts of the Greeks from the time of Theseus to that of Clisthenes, at which time political society was established, and the gens, shorn of its utility and power, remained only as the embodiment of certain social ideas, or survived as a religious centre, over which their eponymous ancestor, as hero or god, still presided.
The age of Theseus could not have been later than 1050 B.C., and the final overthrow of gentile government did not, as we have seen, occur until the age of Clisthenes, five hundred years later. Throughout the intervening time between Theseus and Clisthenes little real advancement is noted among the Greeks; none, perhaps, except that connected with the growth of the idea of government as indicated by the change from gentile to political institutions, and even this growth, when we observe that nearly five centuries and a half were required to establish it, or to substitute the deme or township in the place of the gens as the unit in the governmental series, can scarcely be regarded as evidence of remarkable genius, or as indicating a notable degree of ingenuity. In the transference of society, however, from gentile to political institutions may be observed a progressive principle, inasmuch as by it the limits of the gens and tribe were gradually broken down or obliterated, and the enlarged conception of the state established in their stead. After the age of Clisthenes an isolated community bound together by kinship, and with interests extending no further than the tribe of which it was a part, no longer constituted the fundamental basis upon which the superstructure of society was to rest; but, on the contrary, the deme or township, with all its free inhabitants, of whatsoever tribe or gens, was to become the recognized unit in organized society.
Prior to the age of Theseus, Attica was divided into petty states, each with a council-house of its own. According to the testimony of Thucydides, from the time of Cecrops to Theseus
the population of Athens had always inhabited independent cities, with their own guild-halls and magistrates; and at such times as they were not in fear of any danger they did not meet with the king to consult with him, but themselves severally conducted their own government, and took their own counsel.161
The basileus or war-chief exercised no civil functions,162 and his services were never called into requisition except in times of danger.
Theseus upon receiving the office of military chieftain “persuaded” the people in the adjacent country to remove to the city.163 According to Plutarch he “settled all the inhabitants of Attica in Athens and made them one people in one city.”164 He persuaded them to abolish their independent city governments and to establish in their stead, at Athens, a council-house which would be common to all. Thus, under his direction, the Attic peoples coalesced, or were united under one government. Theseus, we are told, divided the people into three classes, irrespective of gentes, on the basis of property and social position. The chiefs of the several gentes with their families, and the citizens who through their great wealth had become influential, constituted the first class; the second class were the husbandmen, and the third the mechanics. All the principal offices both of the government and the priesthood were in the hands of the nobles or the moneyed and aristocratic classes. Thucydides refers to the fact that “when Greece was becoming more powerful, and acquiring possessions of money still more than before, tyrannies were established in the cities.”165
Upon this subject Mr. Rawlinson says:
All important political privilege is engrossed by the Eupatrids, who consist of a certain number of “clans” claiming a special nobility, but not belonging to any single tribe, or distinguishable from the ignoble clans, otherwise than by the possession of superior rank and riches. The rest of the citizens constitute an unprivileged class, personally free, but with no atom of political power, and are roughly divided, according to their occupation, into yeoman-farmers and artisans. The union of the Eupatrids in the same tribes and phratries with the Geomori and Demiurgi, seems to show that the aristocracy of Athens was not original, like that of Rome, but grew out of an earlier and more democratical condition of things—such, in fact, as we find depicted in the Homeric poems.... Thus at Athens, as elsewhere, in the heroic times, there was undoubtedly the idea of a public assembly, consisting of all free-men; but this institution seems entirely to have disappeared during the centuries which intervened between Codrus and Solon.166
During the three hundred years which followed the death of Codrus, nothing of great importance is observed concerning the growth of Grecian institutions. Doubtless their development was characterized only by the strengthening of the aristocracy and the stimulation of those egoistic principles which are essential in the establishment of an oligarchy. That in course of time the power attached to the office of archon also became a menace to the people’s liberties is shown in the fact that in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, B.C., 752, the life archonship was brought to a close and the term of office reduced to ten years. Although the office was still limited to the family of Codrus, the incumbent became amenable to the elders or chiefs for his acts. However, that this movement was not wholly in the interest of the masses of the people is shown in the fact that during the following thirty years the Eupatrids, or members of the aristocratic party, had drawn to themselves all the power belonging to the archonship. It is observed that during the reign of the fourth decennial archon, a pretext having been found to depose him, the reigning family or gens was declared as having forfeited its right to rule and the office was thrown open to all Eupatrids. Nine archons from among the aristocratic party, with all the powers formerly belonging to the supreme archon, conveyed to them, were chosen as a governing board,167 and were to continue in office for one year. Selected by and from among the Eupatrids, their legislation was wholly in the interest of the wealthy and privileged classes.
From 684 B.C. to 624 B.C., the aristocratic party exercised unlimited control over the Athenian state, and during the entire sixty years used their great power to crush out even a semblance of free institutions. The thirst for power among them was equalled only by their greed for gain; hence while wielding the former, they gratified their cupidity by gathering into their own coffers almost the entire wealth of the nation. With the machinery of legislation turned against them, the middle and lower classes were soon robbed even of their means of support. Most of the land was mortgaged, and the persons of the owners held by the Eupatrids for debt. Men sold their children and their sisters to satisfy the demands of creditors,168 and such was the inequality existing between various classes that dissensions arose on every hand, and a general state of confusion, disorder, and discontent prevailed. Thus may be observed some of the processes by which the early principles of fraternity, liberty, and justice were overthrown.
At length the sufferings of the people caused by the injustice and rapacity of their rulers became unbearable, and by means of various signs of discontent, notably that of a popular demand for written laws, it became evident that a crisis had been reached. The Eupatrids, pretending to heed the popular demand, elected Draco, one of their number, to the office of archon, with the understanding that a code of written laws defining the rights of the several classes be prepared.
As the Greeks of the Draconian and Solonic age were but a few centuries removed from a time when individual liberty and equality had constituted the cardinal principles upon which society was founded, we may believe that that spirit of personal independence and self-respect which had been inherited from gentile institutions, although it had perhaps slumbered, had never been crushed; therefore, a condition of subjection or slavery, although for a time endured, could not be willingly accepted as a settled fact.
As the laws prepared by Draco tended only to aggravate the abuses of which the people complained, it is quite evident that no reform was intended; the Eupatrids, however, had mistaken the temper of the people, and the fact soon became manifest, even to the members of the governing classes themselves, that certain concessions must be made to the popular demand for justice. An idea of the rapacity, greed, dishonesty, and cupidity which prevailed at this stage of Greek life may be obtained from the writings of Theognis, a poet of Grecian Mega, who lived about five hundred and seventy years B.C. Among his Maxims appear the following:
Now at length a sense of shame hath perished among mankind, but shamelessness reigns over the earth. Everyone honours a rich man but dishonours a poor: And in all men there is the same mind.... No one of the present race of men doth the sun look down upon, being entirely good and moderate.... When I am flourishing, friends are many; but should any calamity have chanced upon me, few retain a faithful spirit. For the multitude of men there is this virtue only, namely, to be rich: But of the rest, I wot, there is no use.
The fact is obvious that already in the history of the Greeks the love of property and the rise of the aristocratic spirit had gained such a foothold that a democracy was no longer desired by the more influential citizens, and that it was the moneyed classes and the aristocratic party who were growing restless under institutions which acknowledged the equality of all free-born citizens.
Doubtless the power which had been hitherto exercised by the gentes had already been drawn to the moneyed classes; still, this attempt to organize society into classes on the basis of property and station was perhaps the first regulated movement openly to curtail the hitherto recognized power of the individual members of the gens, and doubtless constituted the first formulated step towards the subsequent removal of this ancient institution from its original position as the unit in the governmental series.
From accessible facts to be gathered relative to early Greek society, it is plain that individual liberty perished with the gens, and that monarchy, aristocracy, and slavery were the natural results of the decline of the altruistic principles upon which early society was founded.