Page:Essays and Addresses.djvu/426

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

or just legislation can be expected from citizens who have not such a stake in the country as is represented by the lives of children[1]. The distinctive merits of an oligarchy—always provided that it is constitutional, and not of the narrow type which Thucydides calls a "dynasty[2]"—are fairly recognised in the History. Archidamus and Brasidas claim stability, moderation and disciplined loyalty for the Spartan State[3]. A true democracy is pictured as one in which three elements work together for the common good: the rich are the guardians of property, the able men offer counsel, and the mass of the citizens decide on the opinions laid before them[4]. Democracy was the form of government under which Athens had been greatest and most free[5]: and the best phase of the Athenian democracy in his recollection, Thucydides says, was just after the Revolution of the Four Hundred, since then the oligarchic and popular elements were judiciously tempered[6]. Destiny may alter the part which a State is called upon to perform, and its institutions may require to be modified accordingly. Thus the Corinthians say to the Spartans, "Your system is out of date if you are to cope with Athens. In politics, as in art,

  1. ii. 44.
  2. The δυναστεία (οὐ μετὰ νόμων, unconstitutional) of Thebes in the Persian wars is opposed to the later ὀλιγαρχία ἰσόνομος, iii. 62.
  3. i. 84; iv. 126 § 4.
  4. vi. 39 (Hermocrates); cf. ii. 37 (Pericles). It is only Alcibiades (at Sparta) who uses δημοκρατία in a narrow and bad sense, as a synonym for ἀκολασία πλήθους (vi. 89).
  5. vi. 89 § 6.
  6. viii. 97.