Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/866

862 LYCURGUS. sisted of every Spartan of 30 years of age, and of unblemished character ; only those were excluded who had not the means of contributing their portion to the syssitia. (Arist. Pol. ii. 7, 4.) They met at stated times, to decide on all important questions brought before them, after a previous dis- cussion in the senate. They had no right of amendment, but only that of simple approval or rejection, which was given in the rudest form pos- sible, by si. outing. A law of the kings, Theo- pompus and Polydorus, during the first Messenian war, modified the constitutional power of the as- sembly ; but it is difficult to ascertain the exact meaning of the old law preserved by Plutarch, which regulated this point. (Plut.Z^c.6,) It seems to have authorised the magistrates to refuse any amendments being made by the people, so that if this right existed before by law or custom, it was now abolished ; or if it had been illegally assumed, it was again suppressed. The want of this right shows that the Spartan democracy was moderate as well as its monarchy and aristocracy, for the right of amendment, enjoyed by a popular assembly such as existed at Athens, is almost the last stage of licentious ochlocracy^ But it must be con- fessed that the sovereign people of Sparta had neither frequent nor very important occasions for directly exerting their sovereign power. Their chief activity consisted in delegating it ; therefore the importance of the ephors, who were the repre- sentatives of the popular element of the constitu- tion, rose so high, in proportion as the kings lost their ancient prerogatives. The ephors answer in every characteristic feature to the Roman tribunes of the people. Their origin was lost in obscurity and insignificance, and at the end they had en- grossed the whole power of the state, although they were not immediately connected with military command. Their institution is variously attriVsuted to Lycurgus (Herod, i. 65) andTheopompus(Plut. Lye. 7), who is said to have had in view the per- petuation of monarchy, through the diminution of its rights. The ephors were ancient officers for the regulation of police and minor law-suits. It is significant that their origin is ascribed to Theo- pompus, who diminished the power of the popular assembly. Consequently, as the people in a body withdrew more and more from the immediate exercise of sovereign power, this power was vested in their representatives, the ephors, who, in behalf of the people, now tend to the kings the oath of allegiance, and receive from them the oath of obe- dience to the laws. They rise paramount to kings and people, and acquire a censorial, inquisitorial, and judicial power, which authorizes them, either sum- marily to impose fines on the magistrates, and even kings, or to suspend their functions, or to impeach and arrest them, and bring them to trial before themselves and the senate. On account of this excess of power, Aristotle says that their power was tyrannical, and justly so ; for they exercised the sovereign power of the people, who were in themselves the source of all law. It may surprise us, that the Spartan constitu- tion, which contained such a strong democratic^ element, was always looked upon in Greece as the model of a perfect aristocracy, and that Sparta in- variably throughout the whole histor}' of her in- cessant wars supported aristocratical institutions against the acrgressions of democracy. She always took the lead of the aristocratical, as Athens did of LYCURGUS. the democratical party. The reason is, that the Dorians in general, and particularly the Spartans, considered good order {k6(T(xos) as the first requi- site in the state. (Miiller, Dor. iii. 1. § 1, 10.) They preferred order, even coupled with suppres- sion, to anarchy and confusion. The Spartan willingly yielded during his whole life, and in every situation, to military discipline, and sub- mitted unconditionally to established authority. Miiller says (l. c.) "the Doric state was a body of men acknowledging one strict principle of order and one unalterable rule of manners ; and so sub- jecting themselves to this system, that scarcely any- thing was unfettered by it, but every action was influenced and regulated by the recognised prin- ciples." And this was not an unaccountable fancy, a predilection, a favourite pursuit ; but on it was based the security of the whole Spartan common- wealth. The Spartans were a small number of lords among a tenfold horde of slaves and subjects. To maintain this position, every feature in the con- stitution, down to the minutest detail, was calcu- lated. (Thuc. iv. 3 ; Arnold, Second Appendix to his Thucydides.) With reference to their subjects, the few Spar- tans formed a most decided aristocracy ; and to maintain their dominion, they had to preserve order and concord among themselves. Nothing was so dangerous as a turbulent popular assembly, nothing could tempt so much either the subject population to aspire to equality, or a demagogue to procure it for them, and thus to acquire tyrannical power for himself. In the relative position of the Spartans to their subjects, we discover the key to all their institutions and habits : the whole of their history was foi-med by this single circumstance. When the Dorians had conquered Peloponnesus, they appear to have granted at first mild conditions to the conquered inhabitants, which in Argolis, Sicyon, Corinth, and Messenia allowed both races to coalesce in course of time. (Isocrat. Panath. p. 270, a. b. 286, a. ; Ephorus, ap. Strab. viii. 5. § 4 ; Arnold, 2nd append, to Thucyd. p. 641 ; Mull. Dor. iv. 4, § 3.) But in Sparta this partial equality of rights was soon overthrown. Part of the old Achaeans, under the name of perioici, were allowed indeed to retain their personal liberty, but they lost all cWil rights, and were obliged to pay to the state a reat for the land that was left them. They were subjetjt to Spartan magistrates, and compelled to serve a,s heavy-armed soldiers, by the side of the Spartans, in wars which did not concern them. But still they might be considered fortunate in comparison with the Helots, for their want of political rights was compensated to some extent by greater individual liberty tlian even the Spartans enjoyed. (Miill. Dor. iii. 2.) Those, however, of the old inhabitants who had through obstinate and continued resistance exasperated the Dorians, were reduced to a state of perfect slavery, different from that of the slaves of Athens and Rome, and more similar to the villanage of the feudal ages. They were allotted together with patches of land, to which they were bound, to individual members of the ruling class. They tilled the land, with their wives and children, and paid a fixed rent to their masters, not as the perioici to the state (Plut. Lye. 8) ; they followed the Spartans as light-armed soldiers in war, and were in every respect regarded as the ever available property of the citizens, who through the labour of their bondsmen were enabled