The year 776 B.C., or the era of the First Olympiad, is the period from which we can begin to date real history in Greece. The 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey,' by whomsoever written, are to be dated prior to that period. They present accurate pictures of the primitive manners in Greece, although the events they record are mythological: it is the same with the old Hebrew books; and there are many coincidences in these latter with the manners described in the Greek epics.

Let us glance at the state of society and manners as depicted in the Greek legends.

The kings of each petty state are god-descended, and over-ruling in their personal ascendancy. The 'Boulê,' is the Council of Chiefs, in which the king states his nind; and the assembly reasons with him, but submits if they cannot convince him. The 'Agora' is the Assembly of the People, in which the chiefs speak, when the heralds have proclaimed silence; and the people listen, sitting, but do not speak or vote. These primitive assemblies formed the habits of public speaking, and their preservation led on to the power of the people. So did the annual assemblies in Germany, and the Wittenagemote in England. Wherever these assemblies were put down, as in France, monarchic despotism ensued. Gradually, in Athens, kingship was abolished. Kodrus was the last king: the Archon (his son) was at first appointed for life, then for ten years, then

for one.

Hospitality was open: so it was in 'Genesis.' The force of family ties and marriage is remarkable. Ferociousness towards foes is another characteristic of these pictures; accompanied by mutilation and insult of dead bodies, unfeeling conduct to orphans, compensation for homicide (so there are 'Cities of Refuge' in the 'Torah'), while murder is punished as a crime against the state in historic Greece. Limited commerce and small acquaintance with other nations, also, characterise society in the legendary epics. Brass or copper are used for weapons, and iron only for agriculture: the chiefs are the effective soldiers, and the army a mere mass, so different from Grecian military array in after times (yet European warfare, in the middle ages, was similar): robbery and piracy were honourable. There is one great name to be dwelt upon a little before we enter on the historical period-Lycurgus. All the ancient accounts of him are brief. Plutarch (who was contemporary with the Roman emperor Trajan, with Tacitus and Pliny, and did not die till 140 A.D.), has given us the largest account of him; but he introduces it by saying that all he can say is matter of controversy, that there are different stories of his birth, travels, death, and legislation;' and that 'least of all is the time in which he lived agreed upon.' Herodotus, in the 65th chapter of the Clio,' describes Lycurgus visiting Delphi: the Pythoness hesitates whether to address him as a man or a god, but inclines to the latter: the Pythoness reveals to him the plan of legislation for Sparta-and so Moses had his revelation from 'Jehovah,' and Numa from the nymph Egeria. Yet Herodotus adds that 'the Lacedemonians themselves say that Lycurgus, when guardian of his nephew Labotas, king of the Spartans, introduced these institutions out of Crete.'

Let us rapidly glance at the Spartan system. There were two kings and twenty-eight ancient men for senate; and a periodical assembly of the people in the open air, to receive or reject, but not to debate. Herodotus says the five Ephori were appointed also by Lycurgus, but Aristotle says that it was some time afterwards, and Plutarch says 100 years afterwards. The senate was for life, and formed an oligarchy. The population was threefold. 1. Spartansfreemen who never worked, but were always in military training (the land being

tilled for them by the Helots); these contributed to the 'Syssitia,' or public mess. 2. Pericki-freemen,and citizens of some of the hundred townships of Laconia, but not of Sparta; these received their orders from Sparta. 3. Helots-serfs, living in the villages, cultivating the land, and paying over their rent to the owner in Sparta, but enjoying their homes, families, &c. These were never sold out of the country, and probably were never sold at all. Sometimes they were called on by the state for military service; and the state often rewarded their bravery with a grant of freedom. Some of them were domestic slaves at Sparta. The Helots were always objects of fear to the Spartan government, on account of their numbers; and a select body of 300 young Spartans were annually sworn in as the 'Krypteia,' or police, to assassinate any Helots who were dangerous, and to watch the conduct of all of them. The character of the Oligarchy may be seen by this institution.

These three orders were pre-existing to the Lycurgean Institutions; and Plutarch says that Lycurgus, seeing the misery and poverty of the greater number of the Spartans and Perioki, redistributed the land of the former in 9000 equal lots, and that of the latter in 30,000; that he banished all gold and silver money, tolerating only iron; that he forbade Spartan citizens all money-making occupations, even agriculture; that he constituted the 'Syssitia' (for which Alkander, a young Spartan spark, knocked out his eye), where there were joint tables, and each citizen was obliged to belong to one and to eat there-where each new member was balloted for, and received or rejected-and where each contributed from his land a specified quota of barley-meal, wine, cheese, and figs, and a small sum for spices, &c. To these tables game was also brought by hunting in the forests which belonged to the state; and whoever sacrificed to the gods, had to send a part to that public mess-table to which he belonged. From seven years of age, each Spartan fed thus in public (the 'Polemarchs' presiding at the tables); and then passed to drill, gymnastics, &c., seeing his wife only by stealth during the first years after marriage. He had to sleep in the public barrack, always under the surveillance of his fellow citizens and captains. He had little peculiar relation to his children; had to maintain a daring and fighty spirit; to endure torture unmoved, with hunger and thirst; to go barefoot on flints, wear the same garment winter and summer; and to endure scourging before the altar of Artemis. He was allowed to steal while a youth, to make up for want of food, if he could, secretly.

The young women were as severely trained; but the elder women became privileged in course of time and were more independent than any other women in Greece, in their own households: they even contrived to amass riches. No stranger could remain in Sparta; and none were allowed to travel: only to go out on special messages.

The public-mess, as the sign of citizenship, and the severity of discipline is all true; for it is confirmed over and over again, and continued to a late period in the History of Independent Greece; but the banishing of gold and silver money is questionable—since Pheidon of Argos (a century after the latest time alleged for Lycurgus) is stated to have first introduced coined silver.

The division of the land into equal lots, Mr. Grote thinks, is a legend devised by Agis, the philanthropic king of Sparta, at a later time-250 B.C. Of Agis we shall have more to say when we come to his period: he was a martyr to his philanthropy; but, with deep reluctance, and with diffidence, I beg to dissent from Mr. Grote. It is true, that neither Herodotus, nor Thucydides, nor Xenophon, nor Plato, nor Aristotle (the keenest of Greek observers) mention the division of

the land into equal lots, by Lycurgus, though they all, more or less, describe his institutions. It is also true that from the time of Lycurgus to that of Agis there are, all along, allusions to the inequality of landed property in Sparta, and, indeed, in all Laconia. But I cannot avoid expressing a belief that Agis pointed to a conviction in the minds of his countrymen that such was the original institution of Lycurgus; and it seems, to me, far more likely that, although this institution had become corrupt and obsolete, it should have really existed, and so dwelt in the Spartan mind as a cherished conviction-than that Agis should have been able, at an historic period, to have made the Spartans believe it from invention. Only 250 years before. Christ, and in Greece, during the rule of Alexander's successors! It was not a locality or period to impose such a legend on the public mind. But we dismiss this subject, for the present.

In the various states of Greece despotism gave way to Oligarchy and that to Democracy. Athens was the state in which the Democratic advance was first and most completely made. Oligarchy was prevalent throughout Greece 700 B.C. How the change from Despotism to Oligarchy was brought about, History does not say. When real history dawns upon us, we behold Oligarchy established in Grecian cities. Government had lost its 'Heaven-appointed' character, and the City was governed by Law, resulting from agreement or consent-though the Few ruled.

The seventh and sixth centuries B.C. produced Despots; sometimes Oligarchs who managed for a time to get supreme power and lord it over the state; at other times Demagogue-Despots: men who contrived to be elected from profession of sympathy for the Many, but who acted selfishly. It was a transition period towards broader freedom and higher civilisation. Meanwhile Colonies were being sent out from various parts of Greece.

And now to Athens. Nine Archons of Athens were appointed annually. The Boule, or 'Senate of Areopagus,' was doubtless derived from the Homeric Council of old men ; and the Ecclesia,' or public assembly of the people, resembled the 'Agora' depictured in the Iliad.

The Archon Drako, (B.C. 624) merely first committed to writing the 'thesmoi,' or Ordinances of the Archons, which had been observed for ages without being written. He is not to be charged with the invention of severe punishments. The rude ancients were all severe-'An eye for an eye, &c.' is a law of another rude nation, you will remember.

Solon was Archon 594 B.C. (30 years after Drako); and undertook the office of legislator. He would not take on him the office till all parties had agreed to give bim full authority. The State was at a 'dead-lock:' the miseries of the poor, their numbers, the danger arising from their just discontent-compelled the Eupatrida, or nobles, to agree to the assumption of the legislatorial office, by Solon. He proceeded in right earnest. He abolished all mortgages of land and swept off the stone-pillars, bearing the sum owed and the name of the mortgagee, from all the lands of Attica. He abolished the slavery of Athenian citizens-for it had been customary to sell a man for his debts! This was for ever abolished at Athens. He next instituted a graduated income tax. There were four classes: those whose yearly income amounted to 500 medimni of corn (about 700 of our bushels) and upwards, formed the first class, and paid the highest tax: those whose yearly income ranged between 300 and 500 medimni formed the second class, and paid less: those whose yearly income ranged between 200 and 300 medimni made the third class, and paid still less; while all whose annual income was below 200 medimni paid no direct tax. The indirect taxes-such as the duty on imports the fourth class paid, in common with the others.

The class who paid no direct taxes had, nevertheless, the power to elect to all offices of the State; but they could not, themselves, serve some of the highest unpaid offices, because it was judged that none ought to hold them but such citizens as possessed sufficient wealth to be above bribes.

Such was the outline of the political scheme of Solon. The speaker showed how, notwithstanding their general agreement, some parties contrived, during Solon's absence in Egypt and Asia, to subvert parts of this constitution; how Peisistratus seized the supreme power, kept it during his own life, and handed it to his sons—one of whom was slain by Harmodius and Aristogeiton (names as sacred in old Athens, for patriotic example, as our Hampden and Sydney, with us)—and how, at length, Cleisthenes entered on the work of perfecting the constitution of Solon, and founded the real democracy of Athens. The historical review paused here, and is to be recommenced from this point in a future discourse. The Asiatic and Italian Greeks were briefly depictured: the influence of Egypt, Phenicia, and Persia was described, (in its commencement) upon the Greeks; the native and unborrowed character of their democracy, as well as of their civilisation and refinement, was rapidly argued; and the highly influential nature of the Olympic, Pythian, Isthmian, and Nemean Games, in forming the national character of the Greeks, unitedly, was forcibly proved.

One of Mr. C.'s usually fervid and impressive hortations to intellectual and moral culture formed the peroration.]

THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE SWISS REPUBLICS.

Fifth Period, continued from page 490.

THE opposition to Rome was so violent and bigoted that the evangelicals would not even accept the Pope's reformation of the calendar, and the excitement which prevailed on the subject nearly caused a civil war. This dispute enabled Cardinal Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, to bring about his project of a Catholic league, for the support of the Roman Church in Switzerland. On the 10th of October, 1586, deputies from Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug, Soleure, and Freybourg, assembled at Lucerne, where a solemn compact was sworn to, called the golden or Borromean league, but which might, with more justice, have been denominated the league of blood; for it served only to rend asunder those bonds which should have united one confederate with another.'-Zschokke, p. 211.

At the commencement of the seventeenth century the people of Vaud were engaged in a bitter religious struggle. The reformists, who were by far the least numerous, were at length wholly overpowered: they had, indeed, by virtue of a treaty of amity concluded in 1557, enjoyed unmolested, for above fifty years, their own particular creed, but the spirit of intolerance which at length burst forth could no longer endure their presence. By order of the bishop and the provincial council they were required to sell their lands and quit the country. In vain did the evangelical cantons intercede in their behalf; the Catholics insisted only the more strenuously on the expulsion of the reformists and their pastors: thus were they compelled to abandon the land of their fathers, which they were never again to behold.'-Zschokke, p. 219.

Thus we have seen that though Switzerland was not involved in the horrors of the religious wars which desolated Germany, yet it was shaken to its centre by religious animosities. Its territories and those of its allies were more than once violated by the different belligerent parties, who generally met with sympathy from some of the Swiss themselves-who preferred the interests of a religious

party to the honour of their common country, and who had not sufficient unity among them to keep up an army to protect the frontiers. From the time of the reformation the ultra-Catholic party have always looked for support to Austria; the Protestants have been more independent; but have not unfrequently inclined towards France-an alliance infinitely safer than that of the hereditary enemy of Swiss liberty. But though the bond of union among the confederates was too weak to prevent occasional infractions of the frontiers, it was strong enough to keep the foreigner out of the interior of the country.

The Grisons, however, were not so fortunate; like the Swiss, they were divided among themselves on the subject of religion, and from their isolated state and uncultivated manners they were less tolerant than their more advanced allies, and thus easily became the prey of designing foreigners.

When Charles V. succeeded to the dominions of his respective grandfathers, Maximilian of Austria and Ferdinand of Spain, he ceded all his rights over Austria to his brother Ferdinand, who, on the abdication of Charles, succeeded to the empire, while Philip succeeded his father in Milan, Naples, Spain, and the Netherlands. The two houses of Spain and Austria, though distinct, were close allies, and the great enemies of the Protestant cause (which was then the cause of liberty and progress) all over the world. A glance at the map will show that the possession of Valtellina was of vital importance to Spain, as being the highway between Austria and the Milanese. But Spain and Austria were not the only parties interested in this matter. The republic of Venice was naturally anxious to hinder the communication between her two greatest enemies; and France was interested, though not so warmly, on the same side. The Valtellina—with the districts of Bormio, on the east, and Chiavenna, on the west-had once formed part of the Milanese, but had been transferred to the Grisons in 1512, when the latter assisted the Swiss to restore Maximilian Sforza. The inhabitants of the Valtellina remained Catholics, while the majority of their Grison masters embraced the reformed communion. The latter, stimulated by some of the zealous Protestant pastors, interfered with the religious privileges of their subjects, and even forbade all correspondence between the clergy and their foreign superiors. On the other hand, the conduct of the agents of Rome excited the suspicion of the Grisons. The inquisition of Brescia and Bergumo had arrested several Protestants from Valtellina, one of whom, a preacher called Cellaria, was kidnapped within the limits of the Grison jurisdiction, and sent to Piacenza, and afterwards to Rome, where he suffered death as a heretic. Pope Pius V., a strenuous defender of the prerogatives of his church, endeavoured to recover certain tithes and other revenues in the Valtellina, which had been given up by the Grisons to lay impropriators. He commissioned, for this purpose, John Planta, Baron of Räzuns, and his son Conrad, who was a canon of the cathedral of Coire, to whom, in 1572, he issued a bull conferring on them the management of all church lands and revenues in the Valtellina and in the adjoining county of Chiavenna, which were then held by improper persons, meaning thereby several Protestants, and, among others, the Salis, a powerful Grison family, and ancient rivals of the Plantas. The Salis appealed to the diet of the Grisons, who decided that the grant by the Pope to the Plantas was illegal, and it threatened any one with severe punishment who should attempt to enforce the bull. The Baron Räzuns, not having paid sufficient deference to this decision, was imprisoned, tortured, and put to death. His son escaped; and soon after, through the mediation of the Swiss cantons, public tranquillity was restored, at least in appearance.'-Vieusseux, p. 159. J. D. COLLET.