Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

> twelve Ionic cities in Asia, he might propy point ont the differences of speech among m, as so many different xaPax'r^PlC yXutfr; the limits of difference were fixed by the :>wledge which his hearers possessed of the rsons about whom he was speaking; the Ions being all notoriously Hellens. "So too an h»T describing Italy might say that Bolog■e, Romans, Neapolitans, Genoese, &c, had 'erent X«pa,eT''P£S y*-i><t6ris; it being underrid that the difference was such as might sub: among persons all Italians. But there is

0 a xapoarijp yXuatfris of Greek generr (abstraction made of its various dialects

1 diversities) as contrasted with Persian, tenician or Latin—and of Italian generally, contrasted with German or English. It is I comparison which Herodotus is taking *•« he describes the language spoken by the iple of Krjston and Plakia, and which he Iw by the word /S<ip/3apov as opposed to M.rvnrev: it is with reference to this cornwon that ^apaxnty yXiiddrs in the fiftyrenth chapter is to be construed. The word f |5»p»f is the usual and recognized antithe

of 'EXXr,v or 'EXXrjvrxos. It is not the «t remarkable part of the statement of Helotos, that the language spoken at Kreston i at Plakia was the same, though the plai were so far apart from each other. This ntity of itself shows that he meant to speak » substantive language, not of a strange P». I think it, therefore, certain, that Helens pronounces the Pelasgians of his day to -1* a snbstantive language different from wk; but whether differing from it in a greater less degree, (e. g. in the degree of Latin of Phoenician,) we have no means of decidr."—Grote, vol. ii. Note on pp. 352, 353.

The barbaric or non-Hellenic character the Pelasgian language has then the •t grounds for being admitted as a fact.

* it is curious to observe, that while

* fact breaks up many of the supposed fcities between the Pelasgi and the his"cal Greeks, it seems to strengthen their aneetkm with another people of autheni history—the Etrusci. One of the stand& objections to the Pelasgic origin of

* tt rusci is, that if their language were sUkspan we ought to be able to trace in e Etruscan inscriptions extant some deled similitude to Greek, and no such refflblaace can be discovered.* But the

f*'!iiel'p T6- XlebuDr» vo1-'-. P- HInjnt hiroscan language, scarcely anything is "*'> with certainty.

it.- worth which we find quoted by Festus, Var'aaa other Roman authorities, are (even suppos

supposition that Pelasgic and Greek (i. e. Hellenic) were different languages, removes this difficulty at once. The speculation is an interesting one, but to pursue it here, would involve us in too long a digression, especially as we have yet to notice Mr. Grote's other and most important conclusion respecting the Pelasgi, in which we also coincide with him, viz., that it is impossible to determine which (if any) of the elements of Hellenic civilization and character are referable to them.

The Hellenic national characteristics— those distinguishing institutions and habits which prevailed among the Greeks generally in spite of local differences—are well summed up by Mr. Grote: community of sacrifices and religious festivals ; traditional community of blood; a sturdy spirit of individual independence, strongly contrasting with the Asiatic feeling of unlimited obedience to one man; the non-existence of polygamy and child-traffic; a religious horror of castration, and generally of all mutilation of the person, alive or dead; on the other hand, exposure of the person in gymnastic contests, &c, which the Eastern nations regarded as most unseemly.* If we were asked what was the most striking trait of Hellenic character—that which explains and includes the greatest number of their national peculiarities—we should say that it was their respect for the human bod}-, for the mere physical person. The human form was something sacred to them. Hence they regarded the Eastern punishments of cutting off the hands and feet, putting out the eyes, and the practice (for it was not even exclusively a pun

ing those authorities unexceptionable) independent nouns, Ihrowing no light on the structure of the tomrne ; and from the inscriptions noihing has been gathered except that aifd ri/or avil ril means vixit annos, or annos vixit, for antiquarians have not been able to satisfy themselves which is which. Donaldson's attempts to explain the inscriptions {Varronianus, ch. 5) are more ingenious than satisfactory. Take, as rather a favorable specimen of them, ru, a year, connected with f>iu, to flow, from the regular flowing of lime!

* Herodotus, Clio, 10, (the story of Gyges and Candaules.) "For with the Lydians, and we may say with all the other barbarian nations, it is a great disgrace even for a man to be sean naked." An analogous difference in European and Asiatic ideas of propriety is observable at the present day. The tight dress of the Frank is an abomination to the Moslem: it has the same effect to him that the appearance of a woman in man's clothes has to us.

ishment) of castration, not merely as barbarities, but as positive impieties. Hence, too, the immense importance they attached to the burial of the dead, and the whole treatment of the corpse after death. With this was naturally connected the cultivation of physical excellence, and the study of physical beauty: so "far from the form being concealed as something to be ashamed of, it was rather to be exhibited and contemplated. We see the highest development of this feeling in the anthropomorphic character of their religion, and its expression in their marvellous works of art; but the germ of the sentiment is traceable before art existed: it runs through the whole Homeric psychology. With Homer the body is the man; the souls are mere shades that flit about. The life of the poorest laborer on earth is preferable to a sovereignty in the realms below. We detect this in the very first lines of the Iliad. Achilles' wrath has sent many brave souls of heroes to Hades, and made themselves a prey to dogs. Here a modern writer would directly reverse the personality.

Now how far can this, or any other trait of Grecian character and civilization, be deduced from the Pelasgi? Maiden thinks that the physical element was Hellenic, and the intellectual Pelasgic* And certainly, according to tradition, the Athenians were of almost pure Pelasgic descent. But then it is also traditionary that some of the rudest and least intellectual Greek tribes, such as the Arcadians, were, to use Maiden's own words, "pure Pelasgians rendered Hellenic only by gradual assimilation to their neighbors." So that here we are at a dead lock. The only thing really known about the civilization of the Pelasgi is, that they were people of an architectural turn, who built massive fortifications; beyond this we have no right to affirm anything positively. That part of the Greek institutions where there is most hope of our being able to detect and separate the Pelasgian element, is their theology. Thus there seems good reason to suppose that Apollo was the original chief divinity of the Hellenes, and that Zeus (Jupiter) whose head-quarters at Dodona are unanimously allowed to be

* History of Rome, p. 70.

Pelasgic, was adopted by them from tb Pelasgi. But this distinction, erra thoroughly established throughout, wod lead to nothing certain beyond itself.

We are not sorry to quit this perpleiii theme, and hasten on to the next rc-tir place—the foundation of the Spam commonwealth, and the institutions < Lycurgus; although Mr. Grote previoos1 dispatches the early history of Argos. ai in this respect his arrangement is to I preferred to Dr. Thirlwall's, as it is prefi evident that Argos was at first the leadr power in the Peloponnesus, and that t ascendency of Sparta was an event later date. At this point, the prop commencement of our politico-bistork inquiries, it is curious to note the differs views and methods of proceeding adopt* by our two historians. Both are dtp* to be critical and skeptical, as our rea<k have already had abundant opportunity perceiving; but their doubts take a diffi ent turn. Grote receives the institutk as having a definite reality and estabfe ment at a very early period, but is incre ulous about the law-giver, his opinion whom coincides with Midler's, that " ■ have absolutely no account of him as individual person." Thirlwall admits t personality of Lycurgus, and considers t chronological discrepancies in the vario accounts of him inconsiderable, while believes that every important part of 1 institutions had existed previous to time, and that his work was one of adjustment, not of creation. Mr. Grot view has this recommendation, if no oth that it is conformable to the method dealing with the early Roman hisi adopted by Niebuhr and Arnold. W the able historian and panegyrist of Dorians, C. O. Muller, our authors and disagree alternately. Grote, as said above, follows him in regard to 1 curgus, but is directly opposed to 1 (and consequently to Thirlwall, w! opinion is substantially the same as ler's) as to the non-peculiarity of the Sp tan institutions. Muller, whose work < plays throughout the strongest pro-oli£ chical, pro-Dorian and anti-Ionian b represents the laws of Sparta as the ti Doric institutions, and Sparta as the 1 Doric type. The only authority he deij to give for this is a passage in P r, which we cannot dismiss better than Mr. Grote's words, that " it is scarcely any value."* Thirlwall's modified posiii. that many of the individual Spartan liiuiions may be traced in other Doric les, is no wise inconsistent with the iertion that there were also elements of ■ Lycurgan constitution peculiar to ;lf. We may suppose that Lycurgus lected those qualities in the Dorian meter, which rendered it particularly ill adapted to receive certain institutions; tile, as Mr. Grote well observes, it was ; very singularity of these institutions it made them work so impressively on t Grecian mind. Thus both sides are rii;illy right: Muller in the theory that t Dorians generally had a capacity for a liuiry -oligarchical system of government; rote in the fact that Sparta was the only xk- state in which this idea was fully deloped. The people whose institutions *t nearly resembled those of Sparta were e Cretans. On this resemblance it may i interesting to compare two distinguishI authorities, Aristotle and Polybius. The rmer observes:—

■•The social arrangements of the Cretans * analogous to those of the Laconians; for t Utter have their ground cultivated by <]-**, and the former by Periceci, and both lit public tables; indeed, the Laconians used 1 call these tables, not phiditia as now, but rfria, as the Cretans do, whence it is evident »t this custom came from Crete. The polit»l arrangements are also analogous, for the ^hori correspond exactly to the officers called 'vim in Crete, except that the Ephori are re in number, and the Cosmi ten; and the uooian Senate is equivalent to the Cretan Initial. The office of king formerly existed I Crete; afterwards it was abolished, and the kwai have the chief command in war. All tie a right to vote at the popular assembly, iii this assembly has no power to do anything irept ratify the decrees of the Council and Sostni. The public messes are better managed y the Cretans than by the Laconians, for in •awirmon each individual contributes his ap«int*d portion, and if he fail to do this, the iw excludes him from participating in the privlegw of citizenship; but in Crete, the proline of the earth, the cattle, the public rcveWm, and the tributes paid by the Periceci, are iS appropriated, one half for religious expenses uxi other public services, the other for the pubic tables, to that all, men, women, and ctiild

* Mailer's Dorian?, iii. 1,8. Grote. ii. 456.

ren, are supported from a common fund.* . . . But the institution of the Cosmi is even worse than that of the Ephori; for the main evil of the Ephoralty, namely, that the election is a mere matter of chance, is also true of the Cosmi, but the compensating expedient which exists in the former case, does not exist in the latter. In Laceda?mon, as the office is open to all, the people, having a share in the supreme authority, desire the maintenance of (lie constitution; but the Cretans choose their Cosmi, not from the whole people, but from certain families, and the Council from those who have served as Cosmi."f

Polybius wonders " how the most distinguished prose writers of antiquity could have said that the Cretan government was similar to, nay, identical with the Lacedaemonian," and proceeds to mention three very important points of difference :—

"The peculiarities of the Lacedaemonian constitution are, first, the regulations respecting the acquisition of land, of which no one has more than another, but all the citizens must have an equal share of the territory belonging to the state; secondly, their estimation of money, the pursuit of which was from the first dishonorable among them, and consequently, rivalry in wealth has been entirely extirpated from the community; thitdly, that the Lacedaemonian kings preserve an hereditary succession, and the senators hold office for life, and these two manage all state affairs. But with the Cretans everything is the very opposite of this, for their laws suffer every man to acquire as much land as he can, and money is prized by them to such a degree, that the acquisition of it is considered not only necessary but most meritorious. And generally, the tendency to mean traffic and avarice is so prevalent in the country, that the Cretans alone of all men see nothing base in money-making. Moreover, their offices are annual, and their government arranged on democratic principles. J

* A tolerable approximation to Fourierism, which did not prevent the Cretans from being terribly quarrelsome and disorderly among themselves, as we learn from this very same chapter of Aristotle a little further on.

t Politics, ii. 10.

j Polybius, vi. 45-6. The historian's astonishment that a people should see nothing disgraceful in the acquisition of money, is in accordance with the spirit of antiquity. Mr. Grote, in the appendix to his chapter on the Solonian Constitution, (iii. 215,) after tracing the gradual change of moral feeling in this respect, adus, that to do so is highly instructive, "the more so as that general basis of sentiment of which the antipathy against ltnding money on interest is only a particular case, still prevails largely in society, and directs (he current of moral approbation and disapprobation. With

Of the three peculiarities here specified, the existence of the first is, as we shall soon see, exceedingly problematical; the consequence of the second was directly the reverse of what Polybius represents, for the Spartans came to be remarkably venal and avaricious ;* the tliird, if correctly stated, as regards the Cretans, certainly constitutes an important difference. It must be borne in mind, that Aristotle is comparing analogous institutions, and the state which he considers analogous to Crete and Lacedsemon, is Carthage, which certainly had nothing Doric or Spartan in its national character or social institutions, though some of its political institutions resembled the Spartan—the diarchy, for instance, though even here the resemblance was by no means complete, as the suffetes, so far from succeeding hereditarily, were not even chosen for life. On a similar system of partial comparison, we might class the British government with those of Spain and Prussia, in respect of its principle of hereditary succession to the chief magistracy, and with our own in respect of its representative system, free press, freedom of travel without passports, &c. So, too, we might call the Norwegian government a monarchy or a democracy, looking at it from different points of view. The Spartan government itself was arranged by the Greek political writers, sometimes in one class of governments, sometimes in another; nay, the aristocratical or democratic force of particular ele

many, the principle of reciprocity in human dealings appears,when conceived in iheory, odious and contemptible, and goes by some bad name, such as egoism, selfishness, calculation, political economy, Ice.; the only sentiment which they will admit in theory is, that the man who has, ought to be ready at all times to give away what he has to him who has not, while, the latter is encouraged to expect and require such gratuitous donation."

Exactly the social economy of the Sue and Dickens school. It is worthy of observation also, that some of the most enlightened nations of the present Jay have not yet got rid of those barbarous absurdities, the Usury Laws.

* " Lycurgus does not try to make the poor rich, nor the rich poor; but he imposes upon both the same subjugating drill—the same habits of life, gentlemanlike idleness and unlettered strength— ttie same fare, clothing, labors, privations, endurance, punishments and subordination. It is a lesson instructive, at least, however unsatisfactory to political students, that with all this equality of dealing, he ends in creating a community in whom the love of money stands powerfully and specially developed." Uiote, vol. ii. p. 548.

ments in it is variously represented: ihm in' the passage of Aristotle above quotd the Ephoralty is represented as a d«*> cratic institution, while in Plato's Lam (iv. 112,) one of the speakers says that tii institution of the Ephori is "marvelW-> despotic," (daufxatfrov clj s-upavvixov.)

Indeed, these Ephori are very trouble some people to deal with. That from be ing a subordinate magistracy of some son they managed to engross the chief pom in the state, is well known, but the dcui respecting them are very vague and coo tradictory. On this point, neither of <t historians are as full as we could m-i Thirlwall says scarcely anything; aa we are surprised that Mr. Grote has mil not the least allusion to the theory sweated by Muller and others, that tl Ephors were originally a civil court, wi gradually usurped criminal jnrisdictw and through criminal jurisdiction, politicpower. ''It was the regular course t events in the Grecian states, that the cii courts enlarged their influence, while th power of the criminal courts was conu ually on the decline. As in Athens, ll Heliaea rose, as compared with the Aret pagus, so in Sparta, the power of til Ephors increased in comparison with tht of the Gerusia."* This view is render* extremely probable by a comparison Aristotle's, (which Muller must have hi in his mind, though he does not direct cite it,) where he says distinctly, that ti magistracy of the hundred and jav' Carthage closely resembled the Eph'<except that the mode of election was di ferent.f Now we know that the knndn and four was a civil court, and the gret difference in the numbers of the two hot ies is only proportioned to the ditferrrt in the population of the two states.J Thir wall seems to incline to Muller's opinioi for he states that the Ephors "appa from the first to have exercised a jurisdi tion and superintendence over the Spa. tons in their civil concerns." We must I careful, however, not to involve in ot adoption of this position the reception' another which Muller connects with i namely, that the Ephors were the "agea

„• Muller's Dorians, Lit. 7, 4. t Politics, ii. 11. j Heeren's African Nations, chap. 3.

plenipotentiaries of the popular asbly," answering to demagogues and raising a democratic tyranny. His mofur wishing to make this out is clear ugh. That the rule of the Ephori m to be tyrannical and mischievous, all lorities are agreed; and, of course, it great point for him if he can put all evil on the head of his bite noire, desracy. But there is really no reason suppose that the popular assembly, in ch there was no discussion, and not often rision.erer had any independent weight, :h less predominance, in the govern)t; and the indisputable fact, that when i$ III. and Cleomenes III. wished to reD the government on the most demote basis, the principal resistance offered them was by the Ephori, is utterly irredkble with Muller's supposition. If it ne perfectly certain that these officers re chosen upon the most democratic nciples from among the people, as he tes, it would certainly give plausibility his argument, but even this is by no ans clear. How they were elected is ry uncertain. Not by lot, for Aristotle's timony is positive to the effect that no iters were appointed by lot in Sparta, t Plato speaks of the Ephoralty as closetpproxunating to an office appointed by li (*Yps «% xXnp£jc?,g duvofASuj.) Elselere Aristotle speaks of the manner of xtion as " particularly childish."* Our m suspicion is, that there was some &t about the matter, some specious ntmance, which pretended to give the «ce to the people, but really lodged it ah the oligarchy. A contrivance of this ad would be favored by the secrecy of « Spartan government, which was noto»»% close and silent in all its transacts—as much so as that of Venice or wia. And this incidental mention of «uce reminds us of a not inapposite ilstration of our meaning, a plan most iborately fair in appearance, but practiJly amounting to no security against the riU which it was supposed to prevent— '•'■ mean the method of electing the doge; fee working of which is thus described by 'wd Brougham :—

"In 1249 a new and very complicated manner of exercising the elective power was devised, which continued to be practiced as long as the republic lasted; that is, till the year 1798. First of all, thirty of the Council were drawn by lot, and these again were reduced by lot to nine, who selected, by a majority of seven, at least, of their number, forty of the Council, and those were by lot reducea to twelve. These twelve elected twenty-five of the Council, which were reduced by lot to nine, and the nine selected forty-five, of whom eleven drawn by lot selected forty-one of the Council to be electors of the doge. A majority of twenty-five of these electors required to join in choosing the doge. The prevailing view in this combination of choice and chance must have been twofold —to prevent the combination of partisans, and thus neutralize or weaken party influence, and to prevent the knowledge of the parties who should elect, and thus frustrate or obstruct the exercise of bribery or other undue influence. The first of these objects could not be at all secured by the contrivance, the second could only be most imperfectly attained. 1. In order to try its effect upon party, we must suppose two or more factions to divide the great Council; suppose, too, an aristocratic, which for shortness we shall call the Whigs, and a monarchical, the Tories, and first, suppose them unequal in the proportion of two to one. The chances are, that the first lot gives twenty Whigs to ten Tories, and the second, six Whigs to three Tories. As seven must then concur to choose the forty, it is certain tbat the minority may make terms; but nothing can be so improbable, as that they should obtain, by holding out, any proportion of the forty which could affect usefully for their purpose the next or fourth operation, the lot reducing the forty to twelve; for unless they get so many of the forty as to give them a fair chance of having seven out of the twelve, they do nothing, a

• Arijtot Polit., ii. 6, 16, iv. 7, 8. Plato, Leg.,

bare majority of the twelve being enough to

■-five by the fifth The twenty-five then will be all Whigs, and

choose the twenty-five by the fifth operation.

so will of course the nine to which they are reduced by lot. These by the seventh operation will choose eleven Whigs, whom the lot reducing to eight, these eight will choose fortyone, all Whigs, twenty-five of whom will therefore by the tenth and last operation choose a Whig doge. In fact, the whole result is certain, notwithstanding the complication after the two first lots; and the complication then becomes useless. * * * * 2. It may be admitted that the lot threw some impediment in the way of corruption and intimidation, preventing those undue influences from being used towards the greater number of the Council. When, however, the thirty were once drawn and then reduced to nine, it is not easy to see how those nine should be exempt from the arts of the candidates. Even if they were to vote

« AnteriorContinuar »