Chapter VI.
§ 1. The Gerusia of Sparta, a council of elders. § 2. The Spartan Gerontes were irresponsible. § 3. Functions of the Spartan Gerusia. § 4. Gerusia of Crete and of Elis. § 5. Character of the Spartan royalty. § 6. Honours paid to the Spartan kings, and the mode of their succession. § 7. Powers of the Spartan kings in domestic; § 8. and in foreign affairs. 9. Revenues of the Spartan kings. § 10. Heraclide princes in Doric states other than Sparta.
1. This result was chiefly brought about by the aristocratical counterpoise to the popular assembly, the gerusia, which was never wanting in a genuine Doric state, the “council of elders,” as the name signifies.[376] In this respect it is opposed to the senate [pg 094] (βουλὴ), which represented the people; although the latter name, as being the more general term, is sometimes used for the council, but never the converse. Thus in the Persian war a senate assembled at Argos, which had full powers to decide concerning peace and war;[377] this was therefore of an aristocratic character, since the government of Argos had not then become democratical. The Homeric assembly, which was of a purely aristocratical form, is called βουλὴ γερόντων or γερουσία;[378] it consisted of the older men of the ruling families, and decided both public business and judicial causes conjointly with the kings, properly so called,[379] frequently, however, in connexion with an ἀγορά. In this assembly lay, but as yet undeveloped, the political elements of the Doric gerusia. At Sparta the name was taken in the strictest sense, as the national opinion laid the greatest importance upon age in the management of public affairs; the young men were appointed for war;[380] [pg 095] and accordingly none but men of sixty or more years of age had admission to this council.[381] The office of a councillor was, however, according to the expression both of Aristotle and Demosthenes,[382] the prize of virtue, and attended with general honour;[383] none but men of distinguished families, blameless lives, and eminent station, could occupy it.[384] Being an office which was held for life,[385] it never could happen that more than one individual was elected at a time, and the eyes of the whole state were directed towards the choice of this one person. Distinguished men, therefore, bordering upon old age, probably always from the oba to which the person whose place was vacated had belonged,[386] offered themselves upon their own judgment[387] before the tribunal of the public voice. Their advanced age enabled the electors to consider and examine a long public life, and ensured to the state the greatest prudence and experience in the elected. To provide against the weakness of age, which Aristotle considers as a defect attendant on this mode of election, was unnecessary for a time and a state whose inhabitants enjoyed the highest bodily health. The aristocratic tendency of the office required that the candidates should be nominated by [pg 096] vote, not by lot, but yet by the whole people;[388] and that they themselves should meet with the good-will of every person; which was particularly required for this dignity.
2. When they had passed through this ordeal they were for ever relieved from all further scrutiny, and were trusted to their own conscience.[389] They were subject to no responsibility, since it was thought that the near prospect of death would give them more moderation,[390] than the fear of incurring at the cessation of their office the displeasure of the community; to whom in other states the power of calling the highest officers to account was intrusted. The spirit of this aristocratic institution was, that the councillors were morally perfect, and hence it gave them a complete exemption from all fear as to the consequences of their actions. To later politicians it appeared still more dangerous that the councillors of Sparta acted upon their own judgment, and not according to written laws; but only because they did not take into account the power of custom and of ancient habit (the ἄγραφα νόμιμα, πάτριοι νόμοι),[391] which have an absolute sway, so long as the internal unity of a people is not separated and destroyed. Upon unwritten laws, which were fixed in the hearts of the citizens, and were there implanted by education, the whole public and legal transactions of the Spartans depended; and these were doubtless most correctly delivered through [pg 097] the mouths of the experienced old men, whom the community had voluntarily selected as its best citizens. Thousands of written laws always leave open a door for the entrance of arbitrary decision, if they have not by their mutual connexion a complete power of supplying what is deficient; this power is, however, alone possessed by the law, connate with the people, which, in the ancient simple times, when national habits are preserved in perfect purity, is better maintained by custom fixed under the inspection of the best men, than by any writing.
To me, therefore, the gerusia appears to be a splendid monument of early Grecian customs: and, by its noble openness, simple greatness, and pure confidence, shows that it was safe to build upon the moral excellence and paternal wisdom of those who had experienced a long life, and to whom in this instance the people intrusted its safety and welfare.
3. The functions of the gerusia were double, it having at the same time an administrative and a judicial authority. In the first capacity it debated with the kings upon all important affairs, preparing them for the decision of the public assembly, and passed a decree in its first stage by a majority of voices,[392] the influence of which was doubtless far greater than at Athens: in the latter capacity it had the supreme decision in all criminal cases, and could punish with infamy and death.[393] Since, however, in [pg 098] both these directions the power of the council gradually came in conflict with that of the ephors, we must first enter into an investigation concerning these officers, before it will be possible to speak of the extent of the functions of the council at different periods. Another circumstance also, which renders a separate inquiry into the nature of the ephoralty requisite, is the inspection which it exercised over the manners of the citizens,[394] in which it manifests a great similarity with the ancient Athenian court of the Areopagus. As every old man had the right of severely censuring the habits of any youth, so every citizen was a youth in comparison with these aged fathers of the state. Hence the awe and veneration with which they were commonly regarded at Sparta. That, however, to an Athenian orator of the democratic times, the gerusia should appear possessed of despotic authority, is not surprising; for it is so far true, that this institution, if transplanted to Athens, would necessarily have caused a tyrannical dominion. In Sparta, however, so little was known of any despotic measure of the gerontes, that, on the contrary, the constitution was impaired when their antagonist office, the ephors, gained the ascendency in influence and power. The institution of the gerusia was in fact, in its main features, once established at Athens, when Lysander nominated the Thirty, who were to be a legislative body, and at the same time the supreme court of justice; with how little success [pg 099] is well known; so true is it, that every institution can only flourish in the soil in which it is first planted.[395]
4. In early times every Doric state must have had a gerusia; but Crete is the only place of whose council accounts have been preserved, and these represent it in precisely the same light as that of Sparta. It was, we are informed, armed with large political and legislative powers, and laid its decrees in a matured state before the general assembly, for its approval or rejection.[396] It decided, without appeal to written laws, upon its own judgment, and was responsible to no one.[397] The members were chosen from those persons who had before filled the supreme magistracy (the cosmi), not, however, until after a fresh examination of their fitness.[398] The office lasted for life, as at Sparta.[399] The princeps senatus was styled βουλῆς πρείγιστος.[400]
In Elis, also, whose government resembled that of Sparta, a gerusia was a very important part of the constitution. It consisted of ninety members, who were chosen for their lifetime from oligarchical families;[401] but in other respects the election was the [pg 100] same as at Sparta, and therefore they were chosen by the whole people. Yet there was also a larger council of 600,[402] which may have been an aristocratical committee selected from the popular assembly. Thus much at least is clear, that the power of the people was very limited; and that, as Aristotle says, there was one oligarchy within another.[403]
5. To the consideration of the gerusia may be joined the inquiry concerning the kingly office in Sparta and other Doric states, as being a cognate element of the constitution. The Doric royalty was a continuation of the heroic or Homeric; and neither in the one nor in the other are we to look for that despotic power, with which the Greeks were not acquainted until they had seen it in foreign countries. In those early times the king, together with his council, was supreme ruler and judge, but not without it; he was also chief commander in war, and as such possessed a large executive authority, as circumstances required. On the whole, however, his station with regard to the nobles was that of an equal; and his office, although for the most part hereditary, could yet be transferred to another family of the aristocracy. [pg 101] He ruled over the common people either in an arbitrary manner, as the suitors in Ithaca, or as a mild father, like Ulysses.[404] His office on the whole bore an analogy to the power of Zeus; and it received a religious confirmation from the circumstance of his presiding at and performing the great public sacrifices with the assistance of soothsayers.
6. These are the principal features of the kingly office at Sparta, where, according to Aristotle, as well as among the Molossi in Epirus, it acquired firmness by the limitation of its power; it also derived an additional strength from the mythical notion that the conquest of the country had originated from the royal family.[405] The main support of the dignity of the kings was doubtless the honour paid to the Heraclidæ, which extended throughout the whole of Greece, and was the theme of many fables; even the claim of the Spartans to the command of the allied Grecian armies was in part founded upon it. These princes, deriving their origin from the first of the heroes of Greece, were in many respects themselves considered as heroes,[406] and enjoyed a certain religious respect. Hence also we may account for their funeral ceremonies, so splendid, when compared with the simplicity of Doric customs; for the general mourning of ten days,[407] to which a fixed number of Spartans, [pg 102] Periœci and Helots came, together with their wives, from all parts of the country into the city, where they covered their heads with dust or ashes with great lamentation, and on each occasion praised the dead king as the best of all princes;[408] as well as for the exposure of those kings who had fallen in battle, whose images were laid upon a state-couch:[409] usages which approximate very closely to the worship of an hero (τιμαὶ ἡρωϊκαί). The royal dignity was also guarded by the sanction of the sacerdotal office: for the kings were priests of Zeus Uranius and Zeus Lacedæmon, and offered public sacrifices to Apollo on every new moon and seventh day (Νεομήνιος and Ἑβδομαγέτας);[410] they also received the skins of all sacrificed animals as a part of their income. From [pg 103] this circumstance, added to the fact that in war they had a right to the back of every victim, and had liberty to sacrifice as much as they wished,[411] it follows that they presided over the entire worship of the army, being both priests and princes, like the Agamemnon of Homer.[412] Their power, however, most directly required that they should maintain a constant intercourse between the state and the Delphian oracle; hence they nominated the Pythians, and, together with these officers, read and preserved the oracles.[413] As then it appears from these facts that the dignity of the kings was founded on a religious notion, so it was also limited by religion; although the account we have is rather of an ancient custom, which was retained when its meaning had been lost, than an institution of real influence. Once in every eight years (δι᾽ ἐτῶν ἐννέα) the ephors chose a calm and moonless night, and placed themselves in the most profound silence to observe the heavens: if there was any appearance of a shooting star, it was believed that the kings had in some manner offended the Deity, and they were suspended until an oracle from Delphi, or the priests at Olympia, absolved them from the guilt.[414] If this custom (doubtless of great antiquity) is compared with the frequent occurrence of this period of nine years in early times, and especially with the tradition preserved in a verse of Homer, “of Minos, who reigned for periods of nine years, holding intercourse with [pg 104] Zeus,”[415] it is easy to perceive that the dominion of the ancient Doric princes determined, as it were, at the period of every eight years, and required a fresh religious ratification. So intimate in early times was the connexion between civil government and religion.
It is clear, from what has been said, that the Dorians considered the kingly office as proceeding from the Deity, and not as originating from the people; which would, I believe, have seemed to them in no-wise more natural, than that the liberty of the people should be dependent on the king. But they were well aware that the elements of the constitution had not been formed by a people consisting, like the American colonists after their defection from the mother-country, of individuals possessed of equal rights: but they had existed at the beginning, and grown with the growth of the nation. For this reason the people were not empowered to nominate the king (from which disputes concerning the rightful succession to the throne should be carefully distinguished;)[416] but the royal dignity passed in a regular succession to the eldest son, with this exception, that the sons born during the reign of the father had the precedence of their elder brothers: if the eldest son died, the throne passed to his next male descendant; and on failure of [pg 105] his line, to the younger brothers in succession; if there was no male issue of the king, the office went to his brother[417] (who also, during the minority of the son of the late king, was his natural guardian),[418] and his heirs; or, lastly, if the whole line was extinct, to the next of kin.[419] The anxiety of the Spartans for the legitimacy of their kings, also serves to prove the high importance which was attached to the genuineness of their birth. Notwithstanding these large privileges, the people believed its liberty to be secured by the oath which was taken every month by the kings, that they would reign according to the laws; a custom also in force among the Molossi;[420] in return for which, the state engaged through the ephors to preserve the dominion of the kings unshaken (ἀστυφέλικτος), if they adhered to their oath.[421]
7. The constitutional powers of the kings of Sparta were inconsiderable, as compared with their dignity and honours. In the first place, the two kings were members of the gerusia, and their presence was requisite to make a full council; but as such they only had single votes,[422] which in their absence were held by the [pg 106] councillor who was most nearly related to them, and therefore a Heraclide.[423] If they were present, they presided at the council, and accordingly, in the ancient rhetra above mentioned, they are styled princes (ἀρχαγέται) in reference to the council; it was also their especial office to speak and to propose measures in the public assembly. When the council sat as a court of justice, the kings of course presided in it; besides which, they had a distinct tribunal of their own,[424] for in Sparta all magistrates had a jurisdiction in cases which belonged to the branch of the administration with which they were intrusted: the only remnant of which custom, spared by the democracy at Athens, was, that the public officers always introduced such suits into the courts. This coincidence of administrative and judicial authority also existed at Sparta in the person of their kings. They held a court in cases concerning the repair and security of the public roads, probably in their capacity of generals, and as superintendents of the intercourse with foreign nations. It is remarkable that they gave judgment in all cases of heiresses, and that all adoptions were made in their presence.[425] Both these duties regarded the maintenance of families, the basis of the ancient Greek states, the care for which was therefore intrusted to the kings. Thus in Athens also, the same duty had been transferred from the ancient kings to the archon eponymus, who accordingly had the superintendence, [pg 107] and a species of guardianship over all heiresses and orphans.[426]
8. The greater part of the king's prerogative was his power in foreign affairs. The kings of Sparta were the commanders of the Peloponnesian confederacy. They also went out as ambassadors; although at times of mistrust companions were assigned, who were known to be disinclined and hostile to them.[427] By the same power the kings also nominated citizens as proxeni, who entertained ambassadors and citizens of foreign states in their houses,[428] and otherwise provided for them; it appears that the kings themselves were in fact the proxeni for foreign countries, and that those persons whom they nominated are only to be considered as their deputies.
As soon as the king had assumed the command of the army, and had crossed the boundaries, he became, according to ancient custom, general with unlimited power (στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ).[429] He had authority to despatch and assemble armies, to collect money in foreign countries, and to lead and encamp the army according to his own judgment. Any person who dared to impede him, or to resist his authority, was outlawed.[430] He had power of life and death, and could [pg 108] execute without trial (ἐν χειρὸς νόμῳ); although, from the well-known subordination of the Spartans, such cases were probably of rare occurrence. But it is manifest that the king, upon his return, was always responsible and liable to punishment, as well for an imprudent, as for a tyrannical use of his powers. His political was separated with sufficient accuracy from his military authority, and the king was not permitted to conclude treaties, or to decide the fate of cities, without communication with and permission from the state.[431] His military power was, however, thought dangerous and excessive, and was from time to time curtailed. This limitation was not indeed effected by the arrangement which originated from the dissension between Demaratus and Cleomenes, viz., that only one king should be with the army at the same time[432] (for this regulation rather increased the power of the one king who was sent out); but chiefly by the law, that the king should not go into the field without ten councillors (a rule which owed its origin to the over-hasty armistice of Agis),[433] and by the compulsory attendance of the ephors.[434]
9. The investigation concerning the revenue of the kings is not in itself so important as it is rendered interesting by the parallel with the same office in the Homeric age. In Homer the kings are represented as having three sorts of revenues; first, the produce of their lands (τεμένη),[435] which often contained tillage ground, pastures, and plantations; secondly, the fees for judicial decisions (δῶρα); and, thirdly, the public banquets, which were provided at the expense of the community.[436] To these were added extraordinary gifts, shares of the booty, and other honorary presents. The case was nearly the same at Sparta, except that they received no fees for judicial decisions. But in the first place, the king in this country had his landed property, which was situated in the territory of several cities belonging to the Periœci,[437] and the royal tribute (βασιλικὸς φόρος) was probably derived from the same source.[438] This was the foundation of the private wealth of the kings, which frequently amounted to a considerable sum; otherwise, how could it have been proposed to fine king Agis a hundred thousand drachmas,[439] that is, doubtless, Æginetan drachmas, and therefore about 5800l. of our money? Also the younger Agis, [pg 110] the son of Eudamidas, was possessed of six hundred talents in coin;[440] and in a dialogue attributed to Plato, the king of Sparta is declared to be richer than any private individual at Athens.[441] But besides these revenues, the king received a large sum from the public property; a double portion at the public banquets,[442] an animal without blemish for sacrifice, a medimnus of wheat, and a Lacedæmonian quart of wine on the first and seventh days of each month;[443] the share in the sacrifices above mentioned, &c. It was, moreover, customary for private individuals who gave entertainments, to invite the kings, as was the practice in the Homeric times;[444] on these occasions a double portion was set before them, and when a public sacrifice took place, the kings had the same rights and preferences.[445] In war, also, the king received a large portion of the plunder; thus the share of Pausanias, after the battle of Platæa, was ten women, horses, camels, and talents:[446] in later times it appears that a third of the booty fell to the lot of the king.[447] Lastly, it is proper to mention the official residence of the two kings of Sparta, built, according to tradition, by Aristodemus the ancestor of the two royal families.[448] In addition [pg 111] to this dwelling, they had frequently private houses of their own,[449] and a tent was always built for them without the city, at the public expense.[450]
In taking a review of all these statements, it appears to me that the political sagacity was almost past belief, with which the ancient constitution of Sparta protected the power, the dignity, and welfare of the office of king, yet without suffering it to grow into a despotism, or without placing the king in any one point either above or without the law. Without endangering the liberty of the state, a royal race was maintained, which, blending the pride of their own family with the national feelings, produced, for a long succession of years, princes of a noble and patriotic disposition. Thus it was in fact with the two Heraclide families, to which Theopompus, Leonidas, Archidamus II., Agesilaus, Cleomenes III., and Agis III. belonged; and the greater number of the later kings retained, up to the last period, a genuine Spartan disposition, which we find expressed in many nervous and pithy apophthegms.
10. It may be inferred that it was the case in all, as we know it to have been in many Dorian states, with the exception of later colonies, that they were governed by princes of the Heraclide family. In Argos, the descendants of Temenus reigned until after [pg 112] the time of Phidon, and the kingly office did not expire till after the Persian war;[451] in Corinth, the successors of Aletes, and afterwards of Bacchis, reigned until about the 8th Olympiad. How long the Ctesippidæ [pg 113] reigned in Epidaurus and Cleonæ,[452] we are not informed. In Megara we find the name, but the name only, of a king at a very late period.[453] In Messenia the Æpytidæ ruled as kings until the subjugation of the country; and when Aristomenes was compelled to quit it, he took refuge with Damagetus, the king of Ialysus, in the island of Rhodes, of the Heraclide family of the Eratidæ.[454] Also the Hippotadæ at Cnidos and Lipara,[455] the Bacchiadæ at Syracuse and Corcyra,[456] the Phalantidæ at Tarentum,[457] probably had in early times ruled as sovereign princes, as well as the Heraclidæ at Cos, who derived their origin from Phidippus and Antiphus.[458] In Crete we find but little mention of the Heraclidæ, the only exceptions being Althæmenes of Argos, and Phæstus of Sicyon.[459] In this island the family of Teutamas had reigned from a remote period: with regard to the time during which kings existed in this country, it can only be conjectured from the circumstance that a king named Etearchus reigned at Oaxus not long before the building of Cyrene.[460] Cyrene, as has been already shown, [pg 114] was under the dominion of a Minyean, its mother-city Thera, under that of an Ægide family.[461] Delphi was also at an early period under the rule of kings.[462] Of the aristocratic offices, which were substituted in the place of the royal authority, we shall presently speak, when treating of the power of the cosmi.