CHAP. X. THE MAGISTRACY. 243 the primitive royalty lasted, it appeared natural that this ruler should be designated by birth, by virtue of the religious law which prescribed that the son should succeed the father in every priestly office; birth seemed sufficiently to reveal the will of the gods. When revolutions had everywhere suppressed this roy* alty, men appear to have sought, in the place of birth, a mode of election which the gods might not have to disavow. The Athenians, like many Greek peoples, saw no better way than to draw lots; but we must not form a wrong idea of this procedure, which has been made a subject of reproach against the Athenian de- mocracy ; and for this reason it is necessary that we attempt to penetrate the view of the ancients on this point. For them the lot was not chance ; it was the revelation of the divine will. Just as they had re- course to it in the temples to discover the secrets of the gods, so the city had recourse to it for the choice of its magisti-ate. It was believed that the gods designated the most worthy by making his name leap out of the urn. This was the opinion of Plato himself, who says, "He on whom the lot l;alls is the ruler, and is dear to the gods; and this we affirm to be quite just. The officers of the temple shall be appointed by lot; in this way their election will be committed to God, who will do what is agreeable to him." The city believed that in this manner it received its magistrates from the gods.' • Plato, Laws, III. GOO; VI. 759. Comp. Demetrius Pliale- reus, Fragm., 4. It is surprising that modern historians rep- resent the dr.iwing of lots as an invention of the Athenian democracy. It was, on tiie contrary, in full rigor under the rule of the aristocracy (Plutarch, Pericles, 9), and appears to have been as old as the archonship itself. Nor is it a democratic procedure : we know, indeed, that even in the' time of Lysias
