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.