more into harmony with their own particular interests; and we must now turn to examine briefly the way in which this change was accomplished. We know something of it at Athens, and have recently learnt more; we have also some knowledge of it at Rome, and in one or two other States.
The revolutions at Athens and Rome may be described, so far as we can understand them, as generically the same but specifically different. They seem to offer a contrast in more than one important point. At Rome there is every sign that the monarchy came to an end suddenly, and that this was the result of attempts on the part of a powerful monarch to override the aristocracy. But at Athens we may guess that the king's power fell to pieces gradually, and that what brought it to an end was not increasing strength, but increasing weakness. As we saw (p. 49), the noble families had, in part at least, migrated from the country to Athens, and thus found their opportunity of slowly closing in upon the king, whose power might have grown much more conspicuous had not his councillors been constantly around him. He seems never to have struggled against them with any serious effort or success. There is no Attic tradition of misdoing or tyranny on the part of the king. The word Basileus was never held in execration by the Athenians. We do not hear that any attempt was made by the king to "take the people into partnership," and play them off against the nobility. There is no trace in later Athenian feeling of any memory of hot blood or evil doing in this revolution; the develop-
