Page:History of Greece Vol IV.djvu/166

145 HISTORY OF GREECE. stopped short of the mature democracy which prevailed from Periklerf to Demosthenes, in three ways especially, among vari- ous others ; and it is therefore sometimes considered by the later writers as an aristocratical constitution: 1 1. It still recog- nized tho archons as judges to a considerable extent, and the ihird arcLon, or polemarch, as joint military commander along with the tBtrategi. 2. It retained them as elected annually by the body of -citizens, not as chosen by lot.' 3 3. It still excluded 1 Plutaron, Iviraon, c. 15. TIJV erf KfaiadEvove eyeipeiv upiuroKpcTinv KELpwfii-vo-j : compare Plutarch, Aristeides, c. 2, and Isokrates, Areopagi- ticus, Or. vii, p. 143, p. 192, ed. Bck. 8 Herodotus speaks of Kallimachus the Polemarch, at Marathon, a? o r> xvafi(f) Aa^fciv Yio^i-ftap^of (vi, 110). I cannot but think that in this case he transfers to the year 490 B.C. the practice ot his own time. The polemarch, at the time of the battle of Marathon, was in a certain sense the first strategus ; and the stratugi were never taken by lot, but always chosen by show of hands, even to the end of tho democracy. It sceins impossible to believe that the strategi were elfccted, ana that the polemarch, at the time when his functions were the Buiftc as theirs, was chosen by lot. Herodotus seems to have conceived the choice of magistrates by lot as being of the essence of a democracy (Hcrodot. iii, 80). Pmtarch also (Perikles, c. 9) seems to have conceived the choice of archons by lot as a very ancient institution of Athens: nevertheless, it result from the first chapter of his life of Aristeides, an obscure chapter, in which conflicting authorities are mentioned without being well discrim- inated, that Aristeides was chosen arc/ion by the people, not drawn by lot : a;i additional reason for believing this is, that he was archon in the year following the battle of Marathon, at which lie had been one of the tea generals. Idomeneus distinctly affirmed this to be the/act, ov Kvapevrbv, cl/U' ifofiivuv 'A.d7]vaiuv (Plutarch, Arist. c. 1) Isokuites also (Areopagit. Or. vii, p. 144, p. 195, ed. Bekker) conceived the constitution of Kleisthenes as including all the three points noticed in the text: 1. A high pecuniary qualification of eligibility for individual cfiices. 2. Election to these offices by all the citizens, and accountability to the same after office. 3. No employment of the lot. He even contends that this election is more truly democratical than sortition ; since the latter process might admit men attached to oligarchy, which would not happen tinder the former, CTreira nal drjfioTtKUTepav ivopifyv TO.VTIJV TTJV Kariic- raaiv /} Tr)v 6ia TOV hayxdveiv yiyvo^ivriv lvp.lv yap ry ic7.T)puaei rrjv TV%T]V fipafievastv, Kal TroA^MKi^ Arj^iea&at raf dp^af roi)f Ttjf ohr/apxtaf im&V' uovvrac, etc. This would be a good argument if there were no pecuniary qualification for eligibility, such pecuniary qualification is a provision