Page:History of Greece Vol VIII.djvu/33

 PHRfiSlCHUS. OLIGARCHl. U receive that boon with indifference. Those who had already revolted would not come back, those who yet remained faithful, would not be the more inclined to remain so longer. Their object would be to obtain autonomy, either under oligarchy or democracy, as the case might be. Assuredly, they would not expect better treatment from an oligarchical government at Ath- ens, than from a democratical ; for they knew that those self- styled u good and virtuous " men, who would form the oligarchy, were, as ministers of democracy, the chief advisers and insti- gators of the people to iniquitous deeds, most commonly for nothing but their own individual profit. From an Athenian oli- garchy, the citizens of these dependencies had nothing to expect but violent executions without any judicial trial ; but under the democracy, they could obtain shelter and the means of appeal, while their persecutors were liable to restraint and chastisement, from the people and the popular dikasteries. Such, Phrynichus affirmed on his own personal knowledge, was the genuine feeling among the dependencies of Athens. 1 Having thus shown the calculations of the conspirators as to Alkibiades, as to Persia, and as to the allied dependencies to be all illusory, Phrynichus concluded by entering his decided protest against adopting the propositions of Alkibiades. But in this protest, borne out afterwards by the result, he stood nearly alone. The tide of opinion, among the oligarchical conspir- 1 Thucyd. viii, 48. Tuf re fvpfiaxtteif 7ro?.c, atf vireaxya&at 61) a<*>u$ u/.t-/af>x'iav, 5rt 6q xal avrol ov dTjfioKpar^aovrai, eii eldevat etj>rj ori ovdcv ftu/J.ov oiaiv oW ai ufaaTijKvlai irpooxupriaovTat, 01;$' al virupxovaai pepaiorepai iaovrai ' ov yap ^ov^fiaca'&ai avroi>f fier 1 oXiyapxicif % Kpariaf dovTieiietv //uA/lov, ?/ //#' dirortpov uv rvxuot TOVTUV rival. Tovf T E KaXotif /cayai?oi)f 6 vop a^Ofievo Vf OVK khaaou air vopi&iv atyiai irpayftara irapcfriv row 6r) ftov, -iropiar&s fivrafi torjyijTuf TUV KCLKUV ry dfi/iif),^ uv T& ir^e'ia avrotif cio a #'a i ical rb fifv tV tueivoif dvai, xal atcpiroi uv Kal fliaioTcpov u7rodvf/ff- neiv, TOV re djjftov a(j>u v re KaraQvyijv elvai Kal k K eiv uv c u typov tarrjv. Kai ravra nap 1 aiiruv TUV Ipyuv TT i a ra [jevaf -(if no^etf aaQf airdf eidevat, 5rt ovru vofii&vai. In taking the comparison between oligarchy and democracy in Greece, thire is hardly any evidence more important than this passage : a testimony to the comparative merit of democracy, pronounced by an oligarchical con ipirator, and sanctioned by an historian himself unfriendly to the democracy