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 five[686] 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 πρόβουλοι[688] 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 stated[705] 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 men[717] 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 Greeks[720] 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 presided[751] (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 hierapolus[753] 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]