Part 18 (1/2)
The popular a.s.sembly would meet and consider the questions put before it by the council, voting yes or no, but the subject was not open for discussion. However, it was possible for the a.s.sembly to bring other subjects up for discussion and, through motion, refer them to the consideration of the council. It was also possible to attach to the proposition of the council a motion, called in modern terms ”a rider,”
and thus enlarge upon the work of the council; but it was so arranged that the preponderance of all the offices went to the n.o.bility and that the council be made up of this cla.s.s, and hence there was no danger that the government would fall into the hands of the people. Solon claimed to have put into the hands of the people all the power that they deserved, and to have established numerous checks on government which made it possible for each group of people to be well represented.
Thus the council limited the power of the a.s.sembly, the Areopagus supervised the council, while the courts of the people had the final decision in cases of appeal. As is well known, Solon could not carry out his own reforms, but was forced to leave the country. Had he been of a different nature and at once seized the government, or appealed to the people, as did his successor, Pisistratus, he might have made his measures of reform more effective. As it was, he was obliged to leave their execution to others.
_Cleisthenes Continues the Reforms of Solon_.--Some years later (509 B.C.) Cleisthenes inst.i.tuted other reforms, increasing the council to 500, the members of which might be drawn from the first three cla.s.ses rather than the first, limiting the archons.h.i.+p to the first cla.s.s, and breaking up the four ancient tribes formed from the n.o.bility. He formed ten new tribes of religious and political unions, thus intending to break down the influence of the n.o.bility. Although the popular a.s.sembly was composed of all citizens of the four cla.s.ses, the functions of this body in the early period were very meagre. It gave them the privilege of voting on the princ.i.p.al affairs of the nation when the council desired them to a.s.sume the responsibility. The {238} time for holding it was in the beginning indefinite, it being only occasionally convened, but in later times there were ten[1] a.s.semblies in each year, when business was regularly placed before it. Meetings were held in the market-place at first; later a special building was erected for this purpose. Sometimes, however, special a.s.semblies were held elsewhere.
The a.s.sembly was convoked by the prytanes, while the right of convoking extraordinary a.s.semblies fell to the lot of the strategi. There were various means for the compulsion of the attendance of the crowd. There was a fine for non-attendance, and police kept out people who ought not to appear. Each a.s.sembly opened with religious service. Usually sucking pigs were sacrificed, which were carried around to purify the place, and their blood was sprinkled over the floor. This ceremony was followed by the offering of incense. This having been done, the president stated the question to be considered and summoned the people to vote.
As the a.s.sembly developed in the advanced stage of Athenian life, every member in good standing had a right to speak. The old men were called upon first and then the younger men. This discussion was generally upon open questions, and not upon resolutions prepared by the council, though amendments to these resolutions were sometimes allowed. No speaker could be interrupted except by the presiding officer, and no member could speak more than once. As each speaker arose, he mounted the rostrum and placed a wreath of myrtle upon his head, which signified that he was performing a duty to the state. The Greeks appear to have developed considerable parliamentary usage and to have practised a system of voting similar to our ballot reform. Each individual entered an enclosure and voted by means of pebbles.
Subsequently the functions of the a.s.sembly grew quite large. The demagogues found it to their interests to extend its powers. They tried to establish the principle in Athens that the people were the rulers of everything by right.
{239}
The powers of the a.s.sembly were generally divided into four groups, the first including the confirmation of appointments, the accusation of offenders against the state, the confiscation of goods, and claims to succession of property. The second group considered pet.i.tions of the people, the third acted upon motions for the remission of sentences, and the fourth had charge of dealings with foreign states and religious matters in general.
It is observed that the Athenians represented the highest cla.s.s of the Greeks and that government received its highest development among them.
But the only real political liberty in Greece may be summed up in the principle of hearing both sides of a question and of obtaining a decision on the merits of the case presented. Far different is this from the old methods of despotic rule, under which kings were looked upon as authority in themselves, whose will must be carried out without question. The democracy of Athens, too, was the first instance of the subst.i.tution of law for force.
It is true that in the beginning all of the Greek communities rested upon a military basis. Their foundations were laid in military exploits, and they maintained their position by the force of arms for a long period. But this is true of nearly all states and nations when they make their first attempt at permanent civilization. But after they were once established they sought to rule their subjects by the introduction of well-regulated laws and not by the force of arms. The military discipline, no doubt, was the best foundation for a state of primitive people, but as this pa.s.sed away the newer life was regulated best by law and civil power. Under this the military became subordinate.
To Greece must be given the credit of founding the city, and, indeed, this is one of the chief characteristics of the Greek people. They established the city-state, or polis. It represented a full and complete sovereignty in itself. When they had accomplished this idea of sovereignty the political organization had reached its highest aim.
{240}
_Athenian Democracy Failed in Obtaining Its Best and Highest Development_.--It is a disappointment to the reader that Athens, when in the height of power, when the possibilities for extending and promoting the best interests of humanity in social capacity were greatest, should end in decline and failure. In the first place, extreme democracy in that early period was more open than now to excessive dangers. It was in danger of control by mobs, who were ignorant of their own real interests and the interests of popular government; it was in danger of falling into the hands of tyrants, who would rule for their own private interests; it was in danger of falling into the hands of a few, which frequently happened. And this democracy in the ancient time was a rule of cla.s.s--cla.s.s subordination was the essence of its const.i.tution. There was no universal rule by the majority. The franchise was an exclusive privilege extended to a minority, hence it differed little from aristocracy, being a government of cla.s.s with a rather wider extension.
The ancient democracies were pure in form, in which the people governed immediately. For every citizen had a right to appear in the a.s.sembly and vote, and he could sit in the a.s.sembly, which acted as an open court. Indeed, the elective officers of the democracy were not considered as representatives of the people. They were the state and not subject to impeachment, though they should break over all law.
After they returned among the citizens and were no longer the state they could be tried for their misdemeanors in office.
Now, a state of this nature and form must of necessity be small, and as government expanded and its functions increased, the representative principle should have been introduced as a mainstay to the public system. The individual in the ancient democracy lived for the state, being subordinate to its existence as the highest form of life. We find this entirely different from the modern democracy, in which slavery and cla.s.s subordination are both excluded, as opposed to its theory and antagonistic to its very being. Its citizens.h.i.+p is wide, extending to its native population, and its suffrage is universal to all who qualify as citizens. The citizens, too, in {241} modern democracies, live for themselves, and believe that the state is made by them for themselves.
The decline of the Athenian democracy was hastened, also, by the Peloponnesian war, caused first by the domineering att.i.tude of Athens, which posed as an empire, and the jealousy of Sparta. This struggle between Athens and Sparta amounted almost to civil war. And although it brought Sparta to the front as the most powerful state in all Greece, she was unable to advance the higher civilization, but really exercised a depressing influence upon it. It might be mentioned briefly, too, that the overthrow of Athens somewhat later, and the establishment of the 400 as rulers, soon led to political disintegration. It was the beginning of the founding of Athenian clubs, or political factions, which attempted to control the elections by fear or force. These, by their power, forced the decrees of the a.s.sembly to suit themselves, and thus gave the death-blow to liberty.
There was the reaction from this to the establishment of 5,000 citizens as a controlling body, and restricting the const.i.tution, which attempted to unite all cla.s.ses into one body and approximated the modern democracy, or that which is represented in the ”polity” of Aristotle.
After the domination of Sparta, Lysander and the thirty tyrants rose to oppress the citizens, and deposed a previous council of ten made for the ruling of the city. But once more after this domination democracy was restored, and under the Theban and Macedonian supremacies the old spirit of ”equality of equals” was once more established. But Athens could no longer maintain her ancient position; her warlike ambitions had pa.s.sed away, her national intelligence had declined; the dangers of the populace, too, threatened her at every turn, and the selfishness of the n.o.bility in respect to the other cla.s.ses, as well as the selfishness of the Spartan state outside, soon led to her downfall. At first, too, all the officers were not paid, it being considered a misdemeanor to take pay for office; but finally regular salaries were paid, and this forced the leaders to establish free theatres for the people.
And finally, it may be said, that the power for good or evil {242} in the democracy lacking in permanent foundations is so great that it can never lead on to perfect success. It will prosper to-day and decline to-morrow. So the attempt of the Athenians to found a democracy led not to permanent success; nevertheless, it gave to the world for the first time the principles of government founded upon equality and justice, and these principles have remained unchanged in the practice of the more perfect republics of modern times.
_The Spartan State Differs from All Others_.--If we turn our attention to Sparta we shall find an entirely different state--a state which may be represented by calling it an aristocratic republic. Not only was it founded on a military basis, but its very existence was perpetuated by military form. The Dorian conquest brought these people in from the north to settle in the Peloponnesus, and by degrees they obtained a foothold and conquered their surrounding neighbors. Having established themselves on a small portion of the land, the Dorians, or Spartans, possessed themselves of superior military skill in order to obtain the overlords.h.i.+p of the surrounding territory. Soon they had control of nearly all of the Peloponnesus. Although Argos was at first the ruling city of the conquerors, Sparta soon obtained the supremacy, and the Spartan state became noted as the great military state of the Greeks.
The population of Sparta was composed of the Dorians, or citizens, who were the conquerors, and the independent subjects, who had been conquered but who had no part in the government, and the serfs or helots, who were the lower cla.s.s of the conquered ones. The total population is estimated at about 380,000 to 400,000, while the serfs numbered at least 175,000 to 224,000. These serfs were always a cause of fear and anxiety to the conquerors, and they were watched over by night and day by spies who kept them from rising. The helots were employed in peace as well as in war, and in all occupations where excessive toil was needed. The middle cla.s.s (Perioeci) were subjects dependent upon the citizens. They had no share in the Spartan state except to obey its {243} administration. They were obliged to accept the obligations of military service, to pay taxes and dues when required. Their occupations were largely the promotion of agriculture and the various trades and industries. Their proportion to the citizens was about thirty to nine, or, as is commonly given, there was one citizen to four of the middle cla.s.s and twelve of the helots, making the ratio of citizens to the entire population about one-seventeenth, or every seventeenth man was a citizen.
Attempts were made to divide the lands of the rich among the poor, and this redistribution of lands occurred from time to time. There were other semblances of pure democracy of communistic nature. It was a pure military state, and all were treated as soldiers. There was a common table, or ”mess,” for a group, called the social union. There all the men were obliged to a.s.semble at meal-time, the women remaining at home. The male children were taken at the age of seven years and trained as soldiers. These were then in charge of the state, and the home was relieved of its responsibility concerning them.
The state also adopted many sumptuary laws regulating what should be eaten and what should be used, and what not. All male persons were subjected to severe physical training, for Sparta, in her education, always dwelt upon physical development and military training. The development of language and literature, art and sculpture, was not observed here as it was in Athens. The ideal of aristocracy was the rule of the n.o.bler elements of the nation and the subordination of the ma.s.s. This was supposed to be the best that could be done for the state and hence the best for the people. There was no opportunity for subjects to rise to citizens.h.i.+p--nor, indeed, was this true in Athens, except by the gradual widening force of legal privilege. Individual life in Sparta was completely subordinate to the state life, and here the citizen existed more fully for the state than in Athens in her worst days.
Finally abuses grew. It was the old story of the few rich {244} dominating and oppressing the many poor. The minority had grown insolent and overbearing, and attempted to rule a hopeless and discontented majority. The reforms of Lycurgus led to some improvements, by the inst.i.tution of new divisions of citizens and territory and the division of the land, not only among citizens but the half-citizens and dependents. Nevertheless, it appears that in spite of these attempted reforms, in spite of the establishment of the council, the public a.s.sembly, and the judicial process, Sparta still remained an arbitrary military power. Yet the government continued to expand in form and function until it had obtained a complex existence.
But there was a non-progressive element in it all. The denial of rights of marriage between citizens and other groups limited the increase of the number of citizens, and while powers were gradually extended to those outside of the pale of citizens.h.i.+p, they were given so n.i.g.g.ardly, and in such a manner, as to fail to establish the great principle of civil government on the basis of a free democracy.