513 



AREOPAGUS, COUNCIL OF. 



AREOPAGUS, COUNCIL OF. 



514 



IIIHH? future of the curve (qwadratitm, a square), because, before the appli- 

 cation of arithmetic to geometry, the most convenient method of 

 representing an area was by giving the square to which it is equal. 



For some practical purposes the following experimental method of 

 finding the above area might suffice. Cut out the figure A B c D in 

 pasteboard (heavy wood or metal would be better) ; out of the same 

 pasteboard cut a square inch or other unit ; and weigh both the pieces 

 thus cut out accurately. Then the weight of the first piece divided by 

 that of the second will give the number of square units in the area 

 required, if the pasteboard or other material be of moderately uniform 

 thickness. A method similar to that of Archimedes (see his Life, 

 in Bioo. Div.) might easily be devised. 



AREOPAGUS, COUNCIL OF, a celebrated council, so called from 

 the hill of that name, on which its sessions were held. It was also 

 called the council above (r/ aru /JovXji), to distinguish it from the 

 council of five hundred, whose place of meeting was in a lower part of 

 the city, known by the name of the Ceramicus (Pans. 1, 3, 4). Its 

 hili antiquity may be inferred from the well-known legends respecting 

 the causes brought before it in the mythical age of Greece, among 

 which that of Orestes, who was tried for the murder of his mother, 

 has obtained especial celebrity (^Eschyl. ' Eunien.') ; but its authentic 

 history commences with the age of Solon. There is, indeed, as early 

 as the first Messenian war, something like historical notice of its great 

 fame, in the shape of a tradition preserved by Pausanias (iv. 51), that 

 the Messeniaus were willing to commit the decision of a dispute 

 U-twreii them and the Lacedaemonians, involving a case of murder, to 

 this council of Areopagus. We are told that it was not mentioned by 

 name in the laws of Draco, though its existence in his time, as a court 

 nf justice, can be distinctly proved (Plut. ' Vit. Sol.' c. 19). It seems 

 tliat the name of the Areopagites was lost in that of the Ephetse, who 

 were then the appointed judges of all cases of homicide, as well in the 

 court of Areopagus, as in the other criminal courts. (See Miiller, 

 History of the Dorians,' vol. i. p. 352, English translation.) Solon, 

 however, so completely reformed its constitution, that he received 

 from many, or, as Plutarch says, from most authors, the title of its 

 f i mnder. It is, therefore, of the council of Areopagus, as constituted 

 by Solon, that we shall first speak ; and the subject possesses some 

 interest from the light which it throws on the views and character of 

 Si .lun as a legislator. It was composed of the archons of the year 

 [ARCHON], and of those who had borne the office of archon. The 

 latter became members for life ; but before their admission, they were 

 subjected, at the expiration of their annual magistracy, to a rigid 

 scrutiny (dokimaiia) into their conduct in office, and their morals in 

 private life. Proof of criminal or unbecoming conduct was sufficient 

 to exclude them in the first instance, and to expel them after admis- 

 sion. Various accounts are given of the number to which the 

 Areopagites were limited. If there was any fixed number, it is plain 

 that admission to the council was not a necessary consequence of 

 honourable discharge from the dokimasia. But it is more probable 

 that the accounts which limit the number are applicable only to an 

 earlier period of ite existence. (See the anonymous argument to the 

 oration of Demosthenes against Audrotion.) It may be proper to 

 observe, that modern histories of this council do not commonly give 

 the actual archons a seat in it. They are, however, placed there by 

 Lysias the orator ('Areop.'p. 110, 16-20), and there is no reason to 

 think that in this respect any change had been made in its constitution 

 after the time of Solon. To the council thus constituted Solon 

 entrusted a mixed jurisdiction and authority of great extent, judicial, 

 ]Kilitical, and censorial. As a court of justice, it had direct cognizance 

 "f thu more serious crimes, such as murder and arson. It exercised a 

 certain control over the ordinary courts, and was the guardian generally 

 of the laws and religion. It interfered, at least on some occasions, 

 with the immediate administration of the government, and at all times 

 inspected the conduct of the public functionaries. But, in the exer- 

 cise of its duties as public censor for the preservation of order and 

 decency it was armed with inquisitorial powers to an almost unlimited 

 extent. 



It should be observed, that in the time of Solon, and by his regula- 

 tions, the archons were chosen from the highest of the four classes 

 into which he had divided the citizens. Of the archons so chosen, the 

 council of Areopagus was formed. Here, then, was a permanent body, 

 whjch possessed a great and general control over the state, composed 

 necessarily of men of the highest rank, and doubtless in considerable 

 proportion of eupatrida;, or nobles by blood. The strength of the 

 racy lay in the errlesia or popular assembly, and in the ordinary 

 courts of justice, of which the dikasts, or jurors, were taken indis- 

 criminately from the general body of the citizens ; and the council of 

 Areopagus exercised authority directly or indirectly over both. The 

 tendency of this institution to be a check on the popular part of that 

 mixed government given by Solon to the Athenians, is noticed by 

 Aristotle (' Polit.' ii. 9, and v. 3, ed. Schneid). He speaks, indeed, of 

 the council as being one of those institutions which Solon found and 

 suffered to remain ; but he can hardly mean to deny what all authority 

 proves, that in the shape in which it existed from the time of the 

 legislator, it was his institution. 



The council, from its restoration by Solon to the time of Pericles, 

 seems to have remained untouched by any direct interference with its 

 constitution. But during that interval two important changes were 



ARTS AND SCI. DIV. VOL. I. 



introduced in the general constitution of the state, which must have 

 had some influence on the composition of -the council, though we may 

 not be able to trace their effects. The election of the chief magistrates 

 by suffrage was exchanged for appointment by lot, and the highest 

 offices of state were thrown open to the whole body of the people. 

 [ARCHOX.] But about the year B.C. 459, Pericles attacked the council 

 itself, which never recovered from the blow which he inflicted upon it. 

 All ancient authors agree in saying that a man called Ephialtes was his 

 instrument in proposing the law by which his purpose was effected, 

 but unfortunately we have no detailed account of his proceedings. 

 Aristotle and Diodorus state generally that he abridged the authority 

 of the council, and broke its power (Arist. ' Polit.' ii. 9 ; Diodor. 

 Sic. xi. 77). Plutarch, who has told us more than others (' Vit. Cim.' 

 c. 15; 'Vit. Pericl." c. 7), says only that he removed from its cog- 

 nisance the greater part of those causes which had previously come 

 before it in its judicial character, and that, by transferring the control 

 over the ordinary courts of law immediately to the people, he subjected 

 the state to an unmixed democracy. Little more than this can now 

 be told, save from conjecture, in which modern compilers have rather 

 liberally indulged. Among the causes withdrawn from its cognisance. 

 those of murder (<f>oviKa.t StVcu) were not included; for Demosthenes 

 has assured us (' Contr. Aristocr.' p. 641-2), that none of the many 

 revolutions which had occurred before his day had ventured to touch 

 this part of its criminal jurisdiction. There is no reason to believe 

 that it ever possessed, in matters of religion, such extensive authority 

 as some have attributed to it, and there is at least no evidence that it 

 lost at this time any portion of that which it had previously exercised. 

 Lysias observes ('Areop.' p. 110, 46), that it was in his time charged 

 especially with the preservation of the sacred olive-trees ; and we are 

 told elsewhere that it was the scourge of impiety. It possessed, also, 

 long after the time of Pericles, in some measure at least, the powers of 

 the censorship. (Athenacus, 4, 64, ed. Dindorf.) 



Pericles was struggling for power by the favour of the people, and 

 it was his policy to relieve the democracy from the pressure of an 

 adverse influence. He assigned salaries to the numerous dikasteries, 

 which sat in the market-place, and thus popularised the jurisprudence. 

 'By increasing the business of the popular courts, he at once conciliated 

 his friends, and strengthened their hands. The council possessed 

 originally some authority in matters of finance, and the appropriation 

 of the revenue. In later times, the popular assembly reserved the full 

 control of the revenue exclusively to itself, and the administration o 

 it was committed to the popular council, the senate of five hundred. 

 It seems that, at first, the Areopagites were invested with an irre- 

 sponsible authority. Afterwards they were obliged, with all other 

 public functionaries, to render an account of their administration to 

 the people. (^Esch. ' Contr. Ctes.' p. 56, 30.) Both these changes 

 may, with some probability, be attributed to Pericles. After all, the 

 council was allowed to retain a large portion of its former dignity and 

 very extensive powers. The change operated by Pericles seems to have 

 consisted principally in this : that, from having exercised independent 

 and paramount authority, it was made subordinate to the ecclesia. 

 The power which it continued to possess was delegated by the people, 

 but it was bestowed in ample measure. Whatever may have been the 

 effect of this change on the fortunes of the republic, it is probable that 

 too much importance has been commonly attached to the agency of 

 Pericles. He seems only to have accelerated what the irresistible 

 course of things must soon have accomplished. It may be true that 

 the unsteady course of the popular assembly required some check, 

 which the democracy in its unmitigated form could not supply, but 

 the existence of an independent body in the state, such as the council 

 of Areopagus as constituted by Solon, seems hardly to be consistent 

 with the secure enjoyment of popular rights and public liberty ; which 

 the Athenian people, by their naval services in the Persian war, and 

 the consequences of their success, had earned the right to possess, and 

 the power to obtain. It ought not, however, to be concluded, that 

 institutions unsuitable to an altered state of things were unskilfully 

 framed by Solon, or that he surrounded the infancy of a free con- 

 stitution with more restrictions than were necessary for its security. 

 He may still deserve the reputation which he has gained of having laid 

 the foundation of popular government at Athens. 



With respect to the censorship, we can show, by a few instances 

 of the mode in which it acted, that it could have been effectually 

 o|'rative only in a state of society from which the Athenians were fast 

 emerging before the time of Pericles. The Areopagites paid domiciliary 

 visits, for the purpose of checking extravagant housekeeping (Athenaous, 

 6, 46). They called on any citizen at their discretion to account for 

 the employment of his time (Plut. ' Vit. Sol.' c. 23). They summoned 

 before their awful tribunal a little boy for the offence of poking out 

 the eyes of a quail (Quinctil. 5, 9, 13). They fixed a mark of disgrace 

 on a man who had dined in a tavern (Athena;, 13, 21). Athens in the 

 prosperity which she enjoyed during the last fifty years before the 

 Peloponnesian war, might have tolerated the existence, but certainly 

 not the general activity, of such an inquisition. 



It appears from the language of contemporary writers, that, while 

 there were any remains of public spirit and virtue in Athens, the 

 council was regarded with respect, appealed to with deference, and 

 employed on the most important occasions (Lys. ' Contr. Theomnest.,' 

 p. 117, 12; 'Do Evandr.,' p. 176, 17; ' Audoc.,' p. 11, 32; Dem. 



i. i. 



