Page:History of Greece Vol VIII.djvu/67

MISSION TO SAMOS. 45 benefit; that though the Council now installed consisted of Four Hundred only, yet the total number of partisans who had made the revolution, and were qualified citizens under it, was Five Thousand ; a number greater, they added, than had ever been ac- tually assembled in the Fnyx under the democracy, even for the most important debates, 1 in consequence of the unavoidable absences of numerous individuals on military service and foreign travel. What satisfaction might have been given, by this allusion to the fictitious Five Thousand, or by the fallacious reference to the numbers, real or pretended, of the past democratical assemblies, Lad these envoys carried to Samos the first tidings of the Athe- nian revolution, we cannot say. They were forestalled by Chse- reas, the officer of the paralus ; who, though the Four Hundred tried to detain him, made his escape and hastened to Samos to communicate the fearful and unexpected change which had occur- red at Athens. Instead of hearing that change described under the treacherous extenuations prescribed by Antiphon and Phryni- chus, the armament first learned it from the lips of Chtereas, who told them at once the extreme truth, and even more than the truth. He recounted, with indignation, that every Athenian who ventured to say a word against the Four Hundred rulers of the city, was punished with the scourge ; that even the wives and children of persons hostile to them were outraged ; that there 1 Thucycl. viii, 72. This allegation, respecting the number of citizens who attended in the Athenian democratical assemblies, has been sometimes cited as if it carried with it the authority of Thucydides ; which is a great mis- take, duly pointed out by all the best recent critics. It is simply the alle- gation of the Four Hundred, whose testimony, as a guarantee for truth, is worth little enough. That no assembly had ever been attended by so many as five thousand (oifieKuirore) I certainly am far from believing. It is not improbable, how- ever, that five thousand was an unusually large number of citizens to attend. Dr. Arnold, in his note, opposes the allegation in part, by remarking that " the law required not only the presence but the sanction of at least six thousand citizens to some particular decrees of the assembly." It seems to me, however, quite possflilc that, in cases where this large number of votes was required, as in the ostracism, and where there was no discussion car- ried on immediately before the voting, the process of voting may have lasted some hours, like our keeping open of a poll. So that though more than six thousand citizens must have voted, altogether, it wa' not necessarj Ibat all should have been present in the sime assembly.