Part 48

"In the days of Cecrops and the first kings [see ATTICA] down to the reign of Theseus, Attica was divided into communes, having their own town-halls and magistrates. Except in case of alarm the whole people did not assemble in council under the king, but administered their own affairs, and advised together in their several townships. Some of them at times even went to war with him, as the Eleusinians under Eumolpus with Erectheus. But when Theseus came to the throne, he, being a powerful as well as a wise ruler, among other improvements in the administration of the country, dissolved the councils and separate governments, and united all the inhabitants of Attica in the present city, establishing one council and town-hall. They continued to live on their own lands, but he compelled them to resort to Athens as their metropolis, and henceforward they were all inscribed in the roll of her citizens. A great city thus arose which was handed down by Theseus to his descendants, and from his day to this the Athenians have regularly celebrated the national festival of the Synoecia, or 'union of the communes' in honour of the goddess Athenè. Before his time, what is now the Acropolis and the ground lying under it to the south was the city. Many reasons may be urged in proof of this statement."

_Thucydides, History (Jowett's translation), book 2, section 15._

ALSO IN: _M. Duncker, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2)_.

{145}

[Image: Map]

PLAN OF ATHENS.

From "Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens," by Jane E. Harrison and Margaret de G. Verrall.

[Image: Map]

HARBORS OF ATHENS.

{146}

ATHENS: From the Dorian Migration to B. C. 683. End of kingship and institution of the Archons.

At the epoch of the Boeotian and Dorian migrations (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS), Attica was flooded by fugitives, both from the north and from the Peloponnesus. "But the bulk of the refugees passed on to Asia, and built up the cities of Ionia. … When the swarms of emigrants cleared off, and Athens is again discernable, the crown has passed from the old royal house of the Cecropidæ to a family of exiles from Peloponnesus. … A generation later the Dorian invasion, which had overwhelmed Corinth and torn away Megara from the Attic dominion, swept up to the very gates of Athens. An oracle declared that the city would never fall if its ruler perished by the hand of the invaders; therefore King Codrus disguised himself as a peasant, set out for the Dorian camp, struck down the first man he met, and was himself slain by the second. The invasion failed, and the Athenians, to perpetuate the memory of their monarch's patriotism, would not allow the title of 'king' to be borne by the descendants who succeeded him on the throne, but changed the name to 'archon,' or 'ruler.' … These legends evidently cover some obscure changes in the internal history of Attica."

_C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, chapter 11._

"After the death of Codrus the nobles, taking advantage, perhaps, of the opportunity afforded by the dispute between his sons, are said to have abolished the title of king, and to have substituted for it that of Archon. This change, however, seems to have been important, rather as it indicated the new, precarious tenure by which the royal power was held, than as it immediately affected the nature of the office. It was, indeed, still held for life; and Medon, the son of Codrus, transmitted it to his posterity. … After twelve reigns, ending with that of Alcmæon [B. C. 752], the duration of the office was limited to ten years; and through the guilt or calamity of Hippomenes, the fourth decennial archon, the house of Medon was deprived of its privilege, and the supreme magistracy was thrown open to the whole body of nobles. This change was speedily followed by one much more important. … The duration of the archonship was again reduced to a single year [B. C. 683]; and, at the same time, its branches were severed and distributed among nine new magistrates. Among these, the first in rank retained the distinguishing title of the Archon, and the year was marked by his name. He represented the majesty of the state, and exercised a peculiar jurisdiction—that which had belonged to the king as the common parent of his people, the protector of families, the guardian of orphans and heiresses, and of the general rights of inheritance. For the second archon the title of king [basileus], if it had been laid aside, was revived, as the functions assigned to him were those most associated with ancient recollections. He represented the king as the high-priest of his people; he regulated the celebration of the mysteries and the most solemn festivals; decided all causes which affected the interests of religion. … The third archon bore the title of Polemarch, and filled the place of the king as the leader of his people in war, and the guardian who watched over its security in time of peace. … The remaining six archons received the common title of thesmothetes, which literally signifies legislators, and was probably applied to them as the judges who determined the great variety of causes which did not fall under the cognizance of their colleagues; because, in the absence of a written code, those who declare and interpret the laws may be properly said to make them."

_C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11._

"We are in no condition to determine the civil classification and political constitution of Attica, even at the period of the Archonship of Kreon, 683 B. C., when authentic Athenian chronology first commences, much less can we pretend to any knowledge of the anterior centuries. … All the information which we possess respecting that old polity is derived from authors who lived after all or most of these great changes [by Solon, and later]—and who, finding no records, nor anything better than current legends, explained the foretime as well as they could by guesses more or less ingenious, generally attached to the dominant legendary names."

_G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10._

ALSO IN: _G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3._

ATHENS: B. C. 624. Under the Draconian Legislation.

"Drako was the first thesmothet, who was called upon to set down his thesmoi [ordinances and decisions] in writing, and thus to invest them essentially with a character of more or less generality. In the later and better-known times of Athenian law, we find these archons deprived in great measure of their powers of judging and deciding, and restricted to the task of first hearing of parties and collecting the evidence, next, of introducing the matter for trial into the appropriate dikastery, over which they presided. Originally, there was no separation of powers; the archons both judged and administered…. All of these functionaries belonged to the Eupatrids, and all of them doubtless acted more or less in the narrow interest of their order; moreover, there was ample room for favouritism in the way of connivance as well as antipathy on the part of the archons. That such was decidedly the case, and that discontent began to be serious, we may infer from the duty imposed on the thesmothet Drako, B. C. 624, to put in writing the thesmoi or ordinances, so that they might be 'shown publicly' and known beforehand. He did not meddle with the political constitution, and in his ordinances Aristotle finds little worthy of remark except the extreme severity of the punishments awarded: petty thefts, or even proved idleness of life, being visited with death or disfranchisement. But we are not to construe this remark as demonstrating any special inhumanity in the character of Drako, who was not invested with the large power which Solon afterwards enjoyed, and cannot be imagined to have imposed upon the community severe laws of his own invention. … The general spirit of penal legislation had become so much milder, during the two centuries which followed, that these old ordinances appeared to Aristotle intolerably rigorous."

_G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3)._

{147}

ATHENS: B. C. 612-595. Conspiracy of Cylon. Banishment of the Alcmæonids.

The first attempt at Athens to overturn the oligarchical government and establish a personal tyranny was made, B. C. 612, by Cylon (Kylon), a patrician, son-in-law of the tyrant of Megara, who was encouraged and helped in his undertaking by the latter. The conspiracy failed miserably. The partisans of Cylon, blockaded in the acropolis, were forced to surrender; but they placed themselves under the protection of the goddess Minerva and were promised their lives. More effectually to retain the protection of the goddess until their escape was effected, they attached a cord to her altar and held it in their hands as they passed out through the midst of their enemies. Unhappily the cord broke, and the archon Megacles at once declared that the safeguard of Minerva was withdrawn from them, whereupon they were massacred without mercy, even though they fled to the neighboring altars and clung to them. The treachery and bad faith of this cruel deed does not seem to have disturbed the Athenian people, but the sacrilege involved in it caused horror and fear when they had had time to reflect upon it. Megacles and his whole family—the Alcmæonids as they were called, from the name of one of their ancestors—were held accountable for the affront to the gods and were considered polluted and accursed. Every public calamity was ascribed to their sin, and at length, after a solemn trial, they were banished from the city (about 596 or 595 B. C.), while the dead of the family were disinterred and cast out. The agitations of this affair exercised an important influence on the course of events, which opened the way for Solon and his constitutional reforms.

_C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11._

ALSO IN: _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10._

ATHENS: B. C. 610-586. Struggle with Megara for Salamis. Cirrhæan or First Sacred War.

"The petty state of Megara, which, since the earlier ages, had, from the dependent of Athens, grown up to the dignity of her rival, taking advantage of the internal dissensions in the latter city, succeeded in wresting from the Athenian government the isle of Salamis. It was not, however, without bitter and repeated struggles that Athens at last submitted to the surrender of the isle. But, after signal losses and defeats, as nothing is ever more odious to the multitude than unsuccessful war, so the popular feeling was such as to induce the government to enact a decree by which it was forbidden, upon pain of death, to propose reasserting the Athenian claims. … Many of the younger portion of the community, pining at the dishonour of their country, and eager for enterprise, were secretly inclined to countenance any stratagem that might induce the reversal of the decree. At this time there went a report through the city that a man of distinguished birth … had incurred the consecrating misfortune of insanity. Suddenly this person appeared in the market place, wearing the peculiar badge [a cap] that distinguished the sick. … Ascending the stone from which the heralds made their proclamations, he began to recite aloud a poem upon the loss of Salamis, boldly reproving the cowardice of the people, and inciting them again to war. His supposed insanity protected him from the law—his rank, reputation, and the circumstance of his being himself a native of Salamis, conspired to give to his exhortation a powerful effect, and the friends he had secured to back his attempt loudly proclaimed their applauding sympathy with the spirit of the address. The name of the pretended madman was Solon, son of Execestides, the descendant of Codrus. … The stratagem and the eloquence of Solon produced its natural effect upon his spirited and excitable audience, and the public enthusiasm permitted the oligarchical government to propose and effect the repeal of the law. An expedition was decreed and planned, and Solon was invested with its command. It was but a brief struggle to recover the little island of Salamis. … But the brave and resolute Megarians were not men to be disheartened by a single reverse; they persisted in the contest—losses were sustained on either side, and at length both states agreed to refer their several claims on the sovereignty of the island to the decision of Spartan arbiters. And this appeal from arms to arbitration is a proof how much throughout Greece had extended that spirit of civilisation which is but an extension of the sense of justice. … The arbitration of the umpires in favour of Athens only suspended hostilities; and the Megarians did not cease to watch (and shortly afterwards they found) a fitting occasion to regain a settlement so tempting to their ambition. The credit acquired by Solon in this expedition was shortly afterwards greatly increased in the estimation of Greece. In the Bay of Corinth was situated a town called Cirrha, inhabited by a fierce and lawless race, who, after devastating the Sacred territories of Delphi, sacrilegiously besieged the city itself, in the desire to possess themselves of the treasures which the piety of Greece had accumulated in the Temple of Apollo. Solon appeared at the Amphictyonic council, represented the sacrilege of the Cirrhæans, and persuaded the Greeks to arm in defence of the altars of their tutelary god [B. C. 595]. Clisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon, was sent as commander-in-chief against the Cirrhæans; and (according to Plutarch) the records of Delphi inform us that Alcmæon was the leader of the Athenians. The war [known as the First Sacred War] was not very successful at the onset; the oracle of Apollo was consulted, and the answer makes one of the most amusing anecdotes of priestcraft. The besiegers were informed by the god that the place would not be reduced until the waves of the Cirrhæan Sea washed the territories of Delphi. The reply perplexed the army; but the superior sagacity of Solon was not slow in discovering that the holy intention of the oracle was to appropriate the lands of the Cirrhæans to the profit of the temple. He therefore advised the besiegers to attack and to conquer Cirrha, and to dedicate its whole territory to the service of the god. The advice was adopted—Cirrha was taken [B. C. 586]; it became thenceforth the arsenal of Delphi, and the insulted deity had the satisfaction of seeing the sacred lands washed by the waves of the Cirrhæan Sea. … The Pythian games commenced, or were revived, in celebration of this victory of the Pythian god."

_Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall, book 2, chapter 1._

See, also, DELPHI.

{148}

ATHENS: B. C. 594. The Constitution of Solon. The Council of Four Hundred.

"Solon, Archon Ol. 46,1, was chosen mediator. Equity and moderation are described by the ancients as the characteristics of his mind; he determined to abolish the privileges of particular classes, and the arbitrary power of officers, and to render all the participators in civil and political freedom equal in the eye of the law, at the same time ensuring to everyone the integrity of those lights to which his real merits entitled him; on the other hand, he was far from contemplating a total subversion of existing regulations. … Whatever was excellent in prescription was incorporated with the new laws and thereby stamped afresh; but prescription as such, with the exception of some unwritten religious ordinances of the Eumolpids, was deprived of force. The law was destined to be the sole centre, whence every member of the political community was to derive a fixed rule of conduct."

_W. Wachsmuth, Historical Antiquities of the Greeks, section 46 (volume 1)_.

"The factions, to allay the reviving animosities of which was Solon's immediate object, had, at that time, formed parties corresponding to the geographical division of the country, which we have already adverted to; the Pediæi, or inhabitants of the lowlands, insisted on a strict oligarchy; the Parali, on the coast, who, did we not find the Alcmaeonid Megacles at their head, might be considered the wealthier portion of the people, wished for a mixed constitution; but the Diacrii or Hyperacrii [of the mountainous district] formed the great majority, who, in their impoverished state, looked for relief only from a total revolution. Solon might, had he so chosen, have made himself tyrant by heading this populace: but he preferred acting as mediator, and with this view caused himself to be elected archon, B. C. 594, as being an Eupatrid of the house … of Codrus."

_C. F. Hermann, Manual of the Political Antiquities of Greece, chapter 5, section 106._

"The chief power was vested in the collective people; but in order that it might be exercised with advantage it was necessary that they should be endowed with common rights of citizenship. Solon effected this by raising the lower class from its degradation, and by subjecting to legal control those who had till now formed the governing order, as well as by rendering the liberty of both dependent upon the law. … This change was brought about by two ordinances, which must not be regarded as mere remedies for the abuses of that period, but as the permanent basis of free and legal citizenship. The one was the Seisachtheia; this was enacted by Solon to afford relief to oppressed debtors, by reducing their debts in amount, and by raising the value of money in the payment of interest and principal; at the same time he abrogated the former rigorous law of debt by which the freeman might be reduced to servitude, and thus secured to him the unmolested possession of his legal rights. … A second ordinance enjoined, that their full and entire rights should be restored to all citizens who had incurred Atimia, except to absolute criminals. This was not only destined to heal the wounds which had been caused by the previous dissensions, but as till that time the law of debt had been able to reduce citizens to Atimia, and the majority of the Atimoi pointed out by Solon were slaves for debt, that declaration stood in close connection with the Seisachtheia, and had the effect of a proclamation from the state of its intention to guarantee the validity of the new citizenship. … The right of naturalization was granted by Solon to deserving aliens, when 6,000 citizens declared themselves in favour of the measure, but these new citizens were likewise deficient in a few of the privileges of citizenship. … The statement that Solon received a great many foreigners as citizens, and every artizan that presented himself, appears highly improbable, as Solon was the first legislator who systematically regulated the condition of the Metœci. The Metœci … probably took the place of the former Demiurgi; their position was one of sufferance, but the protection of the laws was guaranteed them. … The servile order, exclusively consisting of purchased aliens and their descendants, did not, as a body, stand in direct relation with the state; individual slaves became the property of individual citizens, but a certain number were employed by the state as clerks, etc., and were abandoned to the arbitrary pleasure of their oppressive taskmasters. … Those who were manumitted stood upon the footing of Metœci; the citizens who enfranchised them becoming their Prostatæ. … Upon attaining the age of puberty, the sons of citizens entered public life under the name of Ephebi. The state gave them two years for the full development of their youthful strength. … Upon the expiration of the second, and according to the most authentic accounts, in their eighteenth year, they received the shield and spear in the popular assembly, complete armour being given to the sons of those who had fallen in battle, and in the temple of Agraulos took the oath of young citizens, the chief obligations of which concerned the defence of their country, and then for the space of one or two years performed military service in the Attic border fortresses under the name of Peripoli. The ceremony of arming them was followed by enrolment in the book which contained the names of those who had attained majority; this empowered the young citizen to manage his own fortune, preside over a household, enter the popular assembly, and speak. When he asserted the last right, viz., the Isegoria, Parrhesia, he was denominated Rhetor, and this appellation denoted the difference between him and the silent member of the assembly, the Idiotes. … Upon attaining his 30th year, the citizen might assert his superior rights; he was qualified for a member of the sworn tribunal entitled Heliæa. … The word Heliast does not merely signify a judge; but the citizen who has fully attained maturity. … The judges of the courts of the Diætetæ and Ephetæ, which existed without the circle of the ordinary tribunals, were required to be still older men than the Heliasts, viz., 50 or 60 years of age. Solon appointed gradations in the rights of citizenship, according to the conditions of a census in reference to offices of state. … Upon the principle of a conditional equality of rights, which assigns to everyone as much as he deserves, and which is highly characteristic of Solon's policy in general, he instituted four classes according to a valuation; these were the Pentacosiomedimni [whose land yielded 500 measures of wheat or oil], the Hippeis [horsemen], the Zeugitæ [owners of a yoke of mules], and the Thetes [or laborers]. The valuation, however, only affected that portion of capital from which contributions to the state-burthens were required, consequently, according to Böckh, a taxable capital. … The Thetes, the last of these classes, were not regularly summoned to perform military service, but only exercised the civic right as members of the assembly and the law-courts; … the highest class exclusively supplied the superior offices, such as the archonship, and through this the council of the Areopagus. … In lieu of the former council of administration, of which no memorial has been preserved, Solon instituted a Council of four hundred citizens taken from the first three classes, 100 from every Phyle, of which no person under 30 years of age could be a member. The appointments were renewed annually; the candidates underwent an examination, and such as were deemed eligible drew lots."

_W. Wachsmuth, Historical Antiquities of the Greeks, section 46-47 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN: _G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3, section 4._

_E. Abbott, History of Greece, part 11, chapter 3._

_G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 11._