Andokidês is a useful authority for the politics of Athens in his
own time (between 420-390 B. C.), but in regard to the previous
history of Athens between 510-480 B. C., his assertions are so
loose, confused, and unscrupulous, that he is a witness of no
value. The mere circumstance noted by Valckenaer, that he has
confounded together Marathon and Salamis, would be sufficient
to show this; but when we add to such genuine ignorance his
mention of his two great-grandfathers in prominent and victorious
leadership, which it is hardly credible that they could ever have
occupied,—when we recollect that the facts which he alleges to
have preceded and accompanied the expulsion of the Peisistratids
are not only at variance with those stated by Herodotus, but so
contrived as to found a factitious analogy for the cause which
he is himself pleading,—we shall hardly be able to acquit him of
something worse than ignorance in his deposition.
CHAPTER XXXI.
GRECIAN AFFAIRS AFTER THE EXPULSION OF THE PEISISTRATIDS. —
REVOLUTION OF KLEISTHENES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMOCRACY AT ATHENS.
With Hippias disappeared the mercenary Thracian garrison, upon which
he and his father before him had leaned for defence as well as for
enforcement of authority; and Kleomenês with his Lacedæmonian forces
retired also, after staying only long enough to establish a personal
friendship, productive subsequently of important consequences,
between the Spartan king and the Athenian Isagoras. The Athenians
were thus left to themselves, without any foreign interference to
constrain them in their political arrangements.
It has been mentioned in the preceding chapter, that the
Peisistratids had for the most part respected the forms of the
Solonian constitution: the nine archons, and the probouleutic or
preconsidering Senate of Four Hundred (both annually changed),
still continued to subsist, together with occasional meetings
of the people,—or rather of such portion of the people as was
comprised in the gentes, phratries, and four Ionic tribes. The
timocratic classification of Solon (or quadruple scale of income and
admeasurement of political franchises according to it) also continued
to subsist,—but all within the tether and subservient to the
purposes of the ruling family, who always kept one of their number
as real master, among the chief administrators, and always retained
possession of the acropolis as well as of the mercenary force.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account