320 THE REVOLUTIONS. BOOK IV, the poor, who wci'O scattered about in the villages and the yifT]. These men rejoiced, rather, at a change which gave a chief to their chiefs, and assured to them- selves a refuge and a protection. The ones who suf- fered by the change were the chiefs of families, and the chiefs of villages and tribes, the GuaiUi;, (fvlofluaiXfX:^ those Eupatrids who, by hereditary right, held the supreme authority in their yim;^ or in their tribe. Tiiese stoutly defended their independence, and when it was lost they lamented its loss. At any rate they retained all they could of their an- cient independence. Each remained the absolute chief of his tribe, or of his "/£'o,-. Theseus could not destroy an authority which religion had established, and which it rendered inviolable. Still further, if we examine the traditions which relate to this epoch, we shall see that these powerful Eupatrids agreed to associate for the purpose of forming a city only after stipulating that the government should be really federative, and that each one of themselves should have a part in it. There was, indeed, a sujjreme king ; but as soon as the com- mon interest was at stake, the assembly of the chiefs was convoked, and nothing of importance could be done without the consent of this species of a senate. These traditions, in the language of succeeding gen- erations, were expressed somewhat after this manner: "Theseus changed the government of Athens from a monarchy to a republic.^ This is the account of Aris- totle, Isocrates, Demosthenes, and Plutarch. In this somewhat deceptive statement there is a foundation of truth. Theseus did, indeed, as tradition says, "restore the sovereign authority to the hands of the people." Only the word people, <5»i/'o;, which the tradition has preserved, had not, in the time of Theseus, so extended
