And why did it take effect? Simply because the Assembly, instead of being the simple medium[204] through which the king acted, was the arena on which either the will of the people might find a rude and tumultuary vent, or, on the other hand, his royal companions in arms could say, as Diomed says, ‘I will use my right and resist your foolish project in debate; which you ought not to resent.’ [204] Grote ii. 104. Ἀτρείδη, σοὶ πρῶτα μαχήσομαι ἀφραδέοντι, ἣ θέμις ἐστὶν, ἄναξ, ἀγορῇ· σὺ δὲ μή τι χολωθῇς. The proposal of Agamemnon had been heard in silence[205], the mode by which the army indicated its disinclination or its doubt. But the counter proposal of Diomed, to fight to the last, was hailed with acclamation[206]; [205] Il. ix. 30. [206] Ibid. 50. οἱ δ’ ἄρα πάντες ἐπίαχον υἷες Ἀχαιῶν, μῦθον ἀγασσάμενοι Διομήδεος ἱπποδάμοιο· so that the Assembly was then ripe for the plan of Nestor, which at once received its approval[207]: [207] Il. ix. 79. ὣς ἔφαθ’· οἱ δ’ ἄρα τοῦ μάλα μὲν κλύον, ἠδ’ ἐπίθοντο. Subsequently, in the βουλὴ of the same Book, Nestor tells Agamemnon that it is his duty to listen as well as to speak, and to adopt the plans of others when they are good (100-2). At the same time, the aged chieftain appears to submit himself to the judgment of Agamemnon in the Council[208]. His expressions are perhaps matter more of compliment than of business; and at any rate we do not find any like terms used in the Assembly. [208] Ibid. 97. It was a happy characteristic of heroic Greece, that while she abounded in true shame, she had no false shame. It was not thought that a king, who had done wrong, compromised his dignity by atonement; but, on the contrary, that he recovered it. So says Ulysses, in the Assembly of the Nineteenth Iliad[209]; [209] Il. xix. 182. οὐ μὲν γάρ τι νεμεσσητὸν βασιλῆα ἄνδρ’ ἀπαρέσσασθαι, ὅτε τις πρότερος χαλεπήνῃ. This passage at once establishes in the most pointed manner both the right to chide the head of the army, and the obligation incumbent on him, as on others, where he had given offence to make amends. Thus then a large liberty of speech and judgment on the part of the kings or chiefs, when they differed from Agamemnon, would appear to be established beyond dispute, a liberty which in certain cases resulted in his being summarily overruled. I cannot therefore here subscribe even to the measured statement of Mure, who, admits the liberty of remonstrance, but asserts also the sovereignty of the will of Agamemnon. Much less to the very broad assertions of Grote, that the resolutions of Agamemnon appear uniformly to prevail in the Council, and that the nullity of positive function is still more striking in the Agorè[210]. [210] Grote’s Hist. vol. ii. pp. 90, 2. To that institution it is now time for us to turn. ~_Influence of Speech._~