revolution might be effected in the habits and feelings, as well as in the political organisation of the people. The clans and families continued to exist as private communities, and to preserve their peculiar religious observances, with which Clisthenes did not choose to interfere. Many priestly offices belonged by ancient right to certain families; and the removal of all distinction between them would have been attended with a shock to religious sentiment. While however they were retained for these and other private purposes, their political importance was mostly transferred to the new corporations. And they were kept quite distinct, so that people of the same clans and families might belong to different tribes and townships.

The tribes were named from the ancient Attic heroes, Cecropis, Erechtheis, Pandionis, Ægeis, Hippothoontis, Œneis, Acamantis, Antiochis, Leontis, Eantis. Such was the machinery of the new system, that every tribe had an equal share of political honours and power. The Council of five hundred was constituted by choosing fifty from each tribe. The six thousand jurors were obtained by taking six hundred from each. So of the ten Generals, the ten Phylarchs (who commanded the cavalry), the ten Auditors, the ten Treasurers, &c. &c.; one was chosen from each tribe. All these whom I have mentioned were taken from the tribes, but chosen by the people at large, either by lot or suffrage. Some other public functionaries however were elected by the tribes themselves, as the Shipbuilders, Trieropæi, the Conservators of walls, Teichopai; likewise the Choragi, the Gymnasiarchs, and Architheori (as to whom see Volume III. Appendix II.). There were tribe-meetings as well for the transaction of business imposed by the state, as for the regulation of their corporate affairs : for every tribe had lands and property of its own, its own business, its own feasts, its own officers. Of these, the principal were the Superintendents, Epimeleta; who presided at the tribe-meetings, and who, as we learn from the oration against Midias, had various duties connected with the scenic and other exhibitions at the public festivals; for example, to see that the Choragi were duly nominated, and performed the parts assigned to them; to preside at the games and contests, to assist in the preparations for them, preserve order, and the like. (See Schömann, De Comitiis, 368-375.)

That the tribes audited the accounts of officers entrusted with their monies, and had power to impose pecuniary fines upon those who were found guilty of embezzlement, may be collected from the oration against Theocrines, who was condemned by his tribe (the Leontian) to pay seven thousand drachms to the hero of the tribe,1 for the payment of which he afterwards made an arrangement under the sanction of a decree of his fellow-tribesmen. (See Schömann, ibid. 373.) The townships, which were at first a hundred in number, were in process of time subdivided, and in the time of Strabo they amounted (1) ἃς ὤφλεν ἐν ταῖς εὐθύναις τῷ ἐπωνύμῳ τῆς αὑτῶν φυλῆς. Demosth. cont. Theocrin. 1326.

to a hundred and seventy-four. This subdivision was found conve nient, in consequence of the increase of population, the building of new towns, and similar causes. Two new tribes had been created in the year B.C. 307, which necessitated some change in the demi. A list of all the demi is given in Reiske's Index Demosthenicus. Some of them took their names from the towns, villages, or places within their precinct, as Marathon, Acharnæ, Brauron, Sunium, Phalerum, Piræus, Lampra, Icaria, Thoricus, Decelea, Enoe, Eleusis, Rhamnus, Melita, Colyttus: others from the families which settled in them, as the Butadæ, Dædalidæ, Ionidæ, Semachida, Cothocidæ, Pæonidæ, Philaidæ, Cyrtiada, Chollidæ, Scambonidæ, &c. The largest of them all was Acharnæ, famous for having given name to the Acharnians of Aristophanes, and which, as Thucydides tells us, furnished not less than three thousand heavy-armed soldiers in the Peloponnesian war.

The townships, like the tribes, had their corporate affairs, as well as those of a more public nature, to attend to. Each of them had its own separate property, its lands, temples, and religious worship; its priests, councillors, and officers. The fellow-townsmen frequently met, either for elections, or for financial business, or other purposes. Their most important meetings were held at Athens; which was probably most convenient; for men did not necessarily reside in the district of which they were members. The chief magistrate of each township was called the demarch, (prefect or mayor,) who, besides local duties, performed many of considerable importance to the whole commonwealth. He convened and presided at the corporate assemblies, kept the books of his township, collected rents or debts that were due to it. He kept a register not only of the corporate property, but of the landed estates of all private persons (whether townsmen or not townsmen) within his district; and from this he made returns for the purpose of the property-tax assessment. He also furnished a list of such of his fellow-townsmen as were fit to serve in war, as we learn from the oration against Polycles (page 1208). A law is cited by Demosthenes in the speech against Macartatus (page 1269), requiring the demarch to provide for the burial of the dead, in case of neglect by the heirs and relations, (to whom he was first to give notice,) and imposing on him, in case of default, a penalty of a thousand drachms. There were forty itinerant judges, called sometimes the Forty, and sometimes the District judges, who made circuits round the various townships, to decide small causes, not exceeding the value of ten drachms, and also actions of assault and battery, and certain actions of trespass, and charges of rape. These they decided without a jury 3

2

(1) An Athenian citizen might possess land in a foreign township, paying a small rent or acknowledgment to the demarch. Such possession was called eykтnols. Apollodorus (in the Oration against Polycles, 1208) says, he was returned in three townships as a person fit to pay the προεισφορά.

(2) dikaσTai Katà dηuous. They were originally thirty; ten were afterwards added, when the thirty tyrants had rendered that number odious.

(3) See Meier and Schömann, Att. Proc. 544. Schömann, Ant. Jur. Publ. 267. The speech of Demosthenes against Conon was delivered before the District judges.

But the most important political service rendered by these corporations was the preservation, by means of their register, of a genuine list of Attic citizens. For every Athenian was obliged to be a member of some township, and no man could be admitted to exercise any civic rights, until his name was entered in the roll. In the days of their prosperity the Athenians were proud of their citizenship, and careful to exclude those who were not entitled to it from its honours and advantages. Occasionally it was conferred, by way of distinction, upon some foreigner who had done service to the country; as upon Sadocus, the Thracian prince, their ally, in the beginning of the Peloponnesian war; and in later times the honour became more cheap, and was conferred upon adventurers like Charidemus; but those were generally cases where it was a mere honour, not attended with the advantages which a resident at Athens would derive from it, and which it was always more difficult to obtain. There were exceptional instances; such as that on the first creation of the townships, when Clisthenes, in order to strengthen the popular party, made a new creation of citizens, including even slaves; and the occasion after the plague, when, the strength of the nation having been wasted both by war and by disease, it became necessary to recruit it by new blood. But, setting aside these exceptional cases, we find that the Athenians took the utmost precaution by law, to prevent the intrusion of aliens into their community.

The son of an Athenian citizen, upon attaining his eighteenth year, or as soon after as was thought proper-but not (it seems) after the completion of his twentieth year-was taken by his father or guardian to a meeting of his fellow-townsmen, to have his name entered in the register of the Demus. This was called the heritable register,1 because the entry therein entitled him to take possession of any property which he became heir to. Commonly those townsmen would attend the meeting, who were friends or acquaintances of the candidates for enrolment: in case of any meditated opposition, there would be a large attendance. The father or guardian proved the birth and civic origin of the youth. Any member was at liberty to object upon good ground, such as illegitimacy, or foreign extraction either by the father' s or mother's side. The members present were sworn to adjudicate according to law, and, after hearing the evidence, the majority decided whether the party objected to should be enrolled or not. Upon his admission to the register, the youth became a member of the township, and entitled to his heritable and civic rights. His name was at the same time entered in the assembly-list,2 kept by the demarch, showing who were entitled to take part in the popular assembly. He was then a full citizen in every respect; only he could not serve on juries, nor hold offices of state, until the age of thirty.

(1) ληξιαρχικόν γραμματεῖον. To enter upon an inheritance was called λαγχάνειν κλήρον, and an inheritance λήξις.

(2) πίναξ ἐκκλησιαστικός.

not be his guardian. There are in fact several passages in Isæus, which show the contrary,1 and the practice of appointing the nearest paternal relatives by will seems to indicate what the law was.2 If there were no relatives, or none fit, or perhaps none who chose, to undertake the office, then it fell upon the Archon to select one from the whole body of Athenian citizens.

The duties of the guardian were, to take care of the person of his ward, and provide for his maintenance and education; also to manage and improve his estate, so long as he remained in a state of pupillage. Towards third parties and towards the state he was the ward's legal representative: for example, in actions by or against the ward, he acted as his kúpios, prochein amy, or next friend; (see Volume III. Appendix IX. page 373:) and we have learned from the speech against Aphobus (ante, page 94,) that he made returns on his behalf for the property-tax assessment, the only public charge from which a minor was not exempt, and made the necessary payments in his name to the state. If the mother remained with the orphan, the guardian was bound to make provision for her maintenance also.

With respect to the administration of the ward's estate, as well as

(1) De Dicæog. Hered. 18. Ed. Bekker. Aikatoyevηs ¿YYvTάTW ☎v YéVOVS ÈTETPÓTEVEV. De Cleon. Hered. 10-13. The heirs of Cleonymus, claiming his estate, allege that Dinias, their paternal uncle, was their guardian, and that Cleonymus made a will excluding them from the inheritance, because he had quarrelled with Dinias, and did not wish that his property should be under the control of Dinias after his death. Compare also the argument to the oration De Arist. Hered.

(2) The common law of England took the precaution of excluding from guardianship in socage (as it was called) those relatives to whom the inheritance would descend, giving it to the next of kin, to whom the inheritance could not possibly descend; therefore, if the land descended to the heir on the part of the father, the mother, or other next relation on the part of the mother, had the wardship; so, if the land descended to the heir on the mother's side, the father, or his next of kin, had the wardship.

The Roman law as to this point was like the Athenian; and therefore the Satirist says

Pupillum utinam, quem proximus heres
Impello, expungam.

Persius, ii 12.

There was a law of Charondas by which the management of the minor's property was given to the nearest paternal relative, while his education was entrusted to the next of kin by the mother's side. The same middle course was adopted by the Scotch and the ancient French law, committing the pupil's estate to the person who was entitled to the legal succession, because he is most interested in preserving it from waste, but excluding him from the custody of the pupil's person.

Kent in his Commentaries (II. 223) has the following remarks upon this: "The English, Scotch, and French laws, proceeded on too great distrust of the ordinary integrity of mankind. They might with equal propriety have deprived children of the custody and maintenance of their aged and impotent parents. It is equally a mistake in politics and law, to consider mankind degraded to the lowest depths of vice, or to suppose them acting under the uniform government of virtue. Man has a mixed character, and practical wisdom does not admit of such extreme conclusions. The old rule against committing the custody of the person and estate of a lunatic to the heir at law has been overruled as unreasonable. If a presumption must be indulged, it would be in favour of kinder treatment and more patient fortitude from a daughter, as committee of the person and estate of an aged and afflicted mother, than from the collateral kindred. The fears and precautions of the lawgivers on this subject imply, according to Montesquieu, a melancholy consciousness of the corruption of public morals."

as there were members present. He charges his opponents with jobbing and conspiring in other cases besides his own. He insinuates, that there was a prejudice against him on account of his poverty, his mother being a vendor of ribbons, and having taken children to nurse; and also, that he had made himself unpopular formerly, when he was prefect of the township, by enforcing payment of rents and dues. To prove his legitimacy, lie calls, besides his relations, some members of his clan and family; showing that, upon his father's marriage, the members of his clan had partaken of the marriage sacrifice; that he, when a child, had been introduced to the clan, and taken to religious worship at the temples.

Here I may observe that, although for political purposes there was (in general) no necessity for being admitted into the clans and families, as there was to the townships, yet it was usual for all of pure Attic blood to be so admitted to them; and therefore the fact of a man's being an acknowledged member of those associations afforded strong positive proof of his civic origin. And we find that the clansmen and kinsmen were frequently called as witnesses to prove family matters.1

There was a distinction made by the law in cases of adoption. For it was necessary that an adopted son should be registered not only in the township, but also in the clan of the father, as we learn from Isæus.2

APPENDIX II.

GUARDIAN AND WARD.

THE duties of guardians at Athens did not materially differ from those which have been annexed to the office in other countries. The father had the power of appointing guardians by will, to whom generally was confided the personal care of the infant, as well as the management of his property. If there was no testamentary guardian, it devolved upon the Archon, as the official protector of orphans, to appoint one; just as in England the Lord Chancellor will make a similar appointment, upon an application made on the infant's behalf. It seems that the nearest relation was usually entitled to be nominated, in the absence of a direction by will. Meier has shown that we cannot depend upon the statement of Diogenes Laertius, that by a law of Solon the infant's nearest relation by the father's side could

(1) See Isæus, De Philoctem. Hered. 13. Ed. Bekker. De Pyrrh. Hered. 91, 92. De Ciron. Hered. 24-26. De Astyph. Hered. 11-13. Demosthenes, cont. Neær. 1365. (2) De Apollod. Hered. 32, 33. De Aristarch. Hered. 12, 22. De Menecl. Hered. 18-21.