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 introduced in the general consti tution 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 ex changed for appointment by lot, and the highest offices of state were thrown open to the whole body of the people. But about the year B.C. 459, Pericles at tacked the council itself; which never recovered from the blow which he in flicted 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 ac count of his proceedings. Aristotle and Diodorus state generally that he abridged the authority of the council, and broke its power. (Aristotle, Polit. ii. 9; Diodorus, xi. 77.) Plutarch, who has told us more than others (Cim. c. 15; Perla c. 7), says only that he removed from its cognizance 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 Among the caustm withdrawn from its cognizance those of murder were not included; for Demosthenes states (Contr. Arlstoer. p. 64142), that none of the many revo lutions 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 mat ters 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 preserva tion 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. (Athe nteus, 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. 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 ; though Mr. Mitford and others, in saying that it controlled all issues from the public treasury, say perhaps more than they can prove. In later times the popular assembly reserved the full control of the revenue exclusively to itself, and the administration of it was committed to the popular council, the senate of five hundred. It seems that, at first, the Areopagites were invested with an irresponsible authority. Afterwards they were obliged, with all other public functionaries, to render an account of their administration to the people. (lEschi nes, 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 prin cipally in this : that, from having ex ercised independent and paramount au thority, it was made subordinate to the ecelesm. 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 ac celerated 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 insti tutions unsuitable to an altered state of things were unskilfully framed by Solon, or that he surrounded the infancy of a free constitution 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 operative 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. (Athenfens, 6, 46.) They called on any citizen at their discretion to account for the employment of his time. (Plutarch, Sol. c. 23.) They summoned before their awful tribunal, and condemned, a boy for poking out the eyes of a quail. (Quintilian, Asia. Orator. 5, 9. 13.) They fixed a mark of disgrace on a man who had dined in a tavern. (Athenreus, 13, 21.) Athens, in the prosperity which she enjoyed during the last fifty years before the Pelo ponnesian war, might have tolerated the existence, but certainly not the general activity of such an inquisition.
It appears from the language of con temporary 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 occa sions. (Lysias, Contr. Theomnest. p. 117, 12; De Evandr. p. 176, 17; Andoc. p. 11, 32 ; Demosthenes, Contr. Aristocr. p. 641-2.) In the time of Isocrates, when the scrutiny had ceased or become a dead letter, and profligacy of life was no bar to admission into the council, its moral influence was still such as to be an effec tual restraint on the conduct of its own members. (Isocrates, Areop. p. 147.) Ica the corruption of manners and utter degradation of character which prevailed at Athens, after it fell under the domina tion of Macedonia, we are not surprised to find that the council partook of the character of the times, and that an Areo pagite might be a mark for the finger of scorn. (Athenreus, 4, 64.) Under the Romans it retained at least some formal authority, and Cicero applied for and obtained a decree of the council, request big Cratippus, the philosopher, to sojourn at Athens and instruct the youth. (Plu tarch, Cic. c. 24.) It long after remained in existence, but the old qualifications for admission were neglected in the days of its degeneracy, nor is it easy to say what were substituted for them. Later times saw even a stranger to Athens among the Areopagites.
We shall conclude this article with a few words on the forms observed by the council in its proceedings as a court of justice in criminal cases. The court was held in an nninclosed space on the Areo pagus, and in the open air ; which cus tom, indeed, it had in common with all other courts in cases of murder, if we may trust the oration (De Cade Herodis, p. 130) attributed to Antiphon. The Areo pagites were in later times, according to Vitruvius, accommodated with the shelter of a roof. The prosecutor and defendant stood on two separate rude blocks of stone, and, before the pleadings commenced, were required each to take an oath with circumstances of peculiar solemnity : the former, that he charged the accused party justly ; the defendant, that he was inno cent of the charge. At a certain stage of the proceedings, the latter was allowed to withdraw his plea, with the penalty of banishment from his country. (Demos thenes, Contr. Aristocr. p. 642-3.) In their speeches both parties were restricted to a simple statement, and dry argument on the merits of the case, to the exclusion of all irrelevant matter, and of those various contrivances known under the general name of paraskeue (rapaasce01), to affect the passions of the judges, so shamelessly allowed and practised in the other courts. (Or. Lycurg. p. 149, 12-25; Lucian, Gym. c. 19.) Of the existence of the rule in question in this court, we have a remarkable proof in an apology of Lysias for an artful violation of it in his Areopagitic oration (p. 112, 5). Advo cates were allowed, at least in later times, to both parties. Many commentators on the New Testament have placed St. Paul as a defendant at the bar of the Areopa gus, on the strength of a passage in the Acts of the Apostles (xvii. 19). The apostle was indeed taken by the inquisi tive Athenians to the hill, and there required to expound and defend his new doctrines for the entertainment of his auditors ; but in the narrative of Luke there is no hint of an arraignment and trial.
Some of our readers may perhaps be surprised that we have made no mention of a practice so often quoted as peculiar to the Areopagites, that of holding their sessions in the darkness of night. The truth is, that we are not persuaded of the fact. It is, indeed, noticed more than once by Lucian, and perhaps by some other of the later writers ; but it is not supported, we believe, by any sufficient authority, whilst there is strong presump tive evidence against the common opinion. It was, as it should seem, no unusual pas time with the Athenians to attend the trials on the Areopagus as spectators. (Lysias, Contr. Theomn. p. 117, 10.) We suspect that few of this light-hearted people would have gone at an unseason able hour in the dark to hear such speeches as were there delivered, and see nothing. Perhaps there may be no better foundation for the story than there is for the notion, till lately so generally enter tained, that the same gloomy custom was in use with the celebrated Vehmic tribu nal of Westphalia.