Читаем The Great Events by Famous Historians полностью

Such are the only new political institutions (apart from the laws to be noticed presently) which there are grounds for ascribing to Solon, when we take proper care to discriminate what really belongs to Solon and his age from the Athenian constitution as afterward remodelled. It has been a practice common with many able expositors of Grecian affairs, and followed partly even by Dr. Thirlwall, to connect the name of Solon with the whole political and judicial state of Athens as it stood between the age of Pericles and that of Demosthenes—the regulations of the senate of five hundred, the numerous public dicasts or jurors taken by lot from the people—as well as the body annually selected for law-revision, and called nomothets

—and the open prosecution (called the
graphe paranomon
) to be instituted against the proposer of any measure illegal, unconstitutional, or dangerous. There is indeed some countenance for this confusion between Solonian and post-Solonian Athens, in the usage of the orators themselves. For Demosthenes and Æschines employ the name of Solon in a very loose manner, and treat him as the author of institutions belonging evidently to a later age—for example: the striking and characteristic oath of the Heliastic jurors, which Demosthenes ascribes to Solon, proclaims itself in many ways as belonging to the age after Clisthenes, especially by the mention of the senate of five hundred, and not of four hundred. Among the citizens who served as jurors or dicasts, Solon was venerated generally as the author of the Athenian laws. An orator, therefore, might well employ his name for the purpose of emphasis, without provoking any critical inquiry whether the particular institution, which he happened to be then impressing upon his audience, belonged really to Solon himself or to the subsequent periods. Many of those institutions, which Dr. Thirlwall mentions in conjunction with the name of Solon, are among the last refinements and elaborations of the democratical mind of Athens—gradually prepared, doubtless, during the interval between Clisthenes and Pericles, but not brought into full operation until the period of the latter (B.C. 460-429). For it is hardly possible to conceive these numerous dicasteries and assemblies in regular, frequent, and long-standing operation, without an assured payment to the dicasts who composed them. Now such payment first began to be made about the time of Pericles, if not by his actual proposition; and Demosthenes had good reason for contending that if it were suspended, the judicial as well as the administrative system of Athens would at once fall to pieces. It would be a marvel, such as nothing short of strong direct evidence would justify us in believing, that in an age when even partial democracy was yet untried, Solon should conceive the idea of such institutions; it would be a marvel still greater, that the half-emancipated Thetes and small proprietors, for whom he legislated—yet trembling under the rod of the Eupatrid archons, and utterly inexperienced in collective business—should have been found suddenly competent to fulfil these ascendant functions, such as the citizens of conquering Athens in the days of Pericles, full of the sentiment of force and actively identifying themselves with the dignity of their community, became gradually competent, and not more than competent, to exercise with effect. To suppose that Solon contemplated and provided for the periodical revision of his laws by establishing a nomothetic jury or dicastery, such as that which we find in operation during the time of Demosthenes, would be at variance (in my judgment) with any reasonable estimate either of the man or of the age. Herodotus says that Solon, having exacted from the Athenians solemn oaths that they would not rescind any of his laws for ten years, quitted Athens for that period, in order that he might not be compelled to rescind them himself. Plutarch informs us that he gave to his laws force for a century. Solon himself, and Draco before him, had been lawgivers evoked and empowered by the special emergency of the times: the idea of a frequent revision of laws, by a body of lot-selected dicasts, belongs to a far more advanced age, and could not well have been present to the minds of either. The wooden rollers of Solon, like the tables of the Roman decemvìrs, were doubtless intended as a permanent "fons omnis publici privatique juris"

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

1939: последние недели мира.
1939: последние недели мира.

Отстоять мир – нет более важной задачи в международном плане для нашей партии, нашего народа, да и для всего человечества, отметил Л.И. Брежнев на XXVI съезде КПСС. Огромное значение для мобилизации прогрессивных сил на борьбу за упрочение мира и избавление народов от угрозы ядерной катастрофы имеет изучение причин возникновения второй мировой войны. Она подготовлялась империалистами всех стран и была развязана фашистской Германией.Известный ученый-международник, доктор исторических наук И. Овсяный на основе в прошлом совершенно секретных документов империалистических правительств и их разведок, обширной мемуарной литературы рассказывает в художественно-документальных очерках о сложных политических интригах буржуазной дипломатии в последние недели мира, которые во многом способствовали развязыванию второй мировой войны.

Игорь Дмитриевич Овсяный

История / Политика / Образование и наука
Лжеправители
Лжеправители

Власть притягивает людей как магнит, манит их невероятными возможностями и, как это ни печально, зачастую заставляет забывать об ответственности, которая из власти же и проистекает. Вероятно, именно поэтому, когда представляется даже малейшая возможность заполучить власть, многие идут на это, используя любые средства и даже проливая кровь – чаще чужую, но иногда и свою собственную. Так появляются лжеправители и самозванцы, претендующие на власть без каких бы то ни было оснований. При этом некоторые из них – например, Хоремхеб или Исэ Синкуро, – придя к власти далеко не праведным путем, становятся не самыми худшими из правителей, и память о них еще долго хранят благодарные подданные.Но большинство самозванцев, претендуя на власть, заботятся только о собственной выгоде, мечтая о богатстве и почестях или, на худой конец, рассчитывая хотя бы привлечь к себе внимание, как делали многочисленные лже-Людовики XVII или лже-Романовы. В любом случае, самозванство – это любопытный психологический феномен, поэтому даже в XXI веке оно вызывает пристальный интерес.

Анна Владимировна Корниенко

История / Политика / Образование и наука