The federal government of the league, which has just been described, is called by Polybius a democracy: but it was not a democracy according to the definition which Aristotle gave in stating his classification of polities; for he defined democracy as the rule of the many for the interest of the poor[273]. In the Achæan league it can hardly be said that the many were the rulers: for, though no citizen was excluded by law from the assembly, the attendance was in practice limited to those who had time and money to spend in travelling to the place of meeting, and to those few who chanced to reside there. Moreover the meetings were held so seldom and lasted for so short a time that the assembly could not control the government in regard to details, and, though of course it had the supreme power in great questions and in the last resort, it practically left nearly everything in the hands of the strategus. Finally the policy of the league was conducted in the interest not of any governing class or governing person but of the community at large.
A Polity or Commonwealth was originally defined by Aristotle as the rule of the mass of the citizens for the advantage of the whole community: and he afterwards described it as a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. Hence it is clear that, on the lines of his classification, the Achæan league was a Polity. The supreme power in it belonged in one sense to the whole of the citizens, because no citizen was legally excluded from the assembly, and thus the constitution had one of the characteristics of democracy: but in another sense power belonged to those only of the citizens who possessed a fair income and could actually attend the meetings, and in this respect the constitution was oligarchic. Moreover, though oligarchy and democracy when unmixed both belong to the perverted polities, because their governments rule selfishly, the mixture of them in the Achæan league produced a normal polity, viz., a Polity or Commonwealth, whose governors ruled for the good of the whole people. But these were not the only elements in the constitution: the aristocratic principle was conspicuously present, and was seen in the great power and commanding influence which Aratus possessed in consequence of his high qualifications as a ruler and adviser.
The federal system of government combined many advantages. It enabled the Greeks to continue to live as members of small self-governing communities—a way of living to which the physical features of their country naturally led them, and to which they were deeply attached: it gave them, through their union, much greater security than they could have enjoyed without it: and it formed a large part of them into a community that more resembled a nation than anything else that had yet arisen in Greece. The system was tried not only by the Achæans but also by several other divisions of the Hellenic race: by the Phocians, the Acarnanians, the Epirots, the Arcadians, and the Ætolians[274]: and among the Ætolians and Acarnanians it attained such a measure of success that in the later period of the Macedonian supremacy these two peoples were, after the Achæans, the most important of the Hellenic powers.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Curtius, Grundzüge der Griechischen Etymologie, under the word ἀρόω.
[2] The evidence derived from comparison of the Greek, Latin and Sanskrit is taken from Mommsen, History of Rome, English translation, vol. I. p. 15: the additional evidence from German languages from Max Müller, Chips from a German Workshop, vol. II. pp. 22, 44. Curtius, Grundzüge der Griechischen Etymologie, has been used for verification.
[3] Mommsen, Hist. Rome, vol. I. p. 16. Rendall, The Cradle of the Aryans, p. 11.
[4] The classification of uncivilised peoples as hunting peoples and peoples with cattle forms part of the classification used by John Stuart Mill at the beginning of his Political Economy: and it is adopted and fully worked out by Mr Lewis Morgan in his Ancient Society.
All the statements of a general kind which I have made about uncivilised peoples have been verified by reference to Descriptive Sociology, Division I., an encyclopædia of facts relating to such peoples, which was designed by Mr Herbert Spencer and compiled by Professor Duncan. The advantages which uncivilised men gain from living and acting together and from having a government are explained by Mr Herbert Spencer in his Political Institutions, §§ 440-442.
My authorities for the individual peoples which have been noticed are these: for the Bushmen, Burchell, Travels (1822), and Thompson, Travels (1827): for the Esquimaux, C. F. Hall, Life with the Esquimaux (1864): for the Red Indians, H. Y. Hind, The Canadian Red River Exploring Expedition (1860). All these books are cited in Descriptive Sociology.