Note 728 — Chapter LXXV · FROM THE REBUILDING OF THE LONG WALLS OF ATHENS TO THE PEACE OF ANTALKIDAS.

See such direct assessments on property alluded to in various speeches of Lysias, Orat. xix. De Bonis Aristoph. s. 31, 45, 63; Orat. xxvii. cont. Epikratem, s. 11; Orat. xxix. cont. Philokrat. s. 14.

Boeckh (in his Public Econ. of Athens, iv, 4, p. 493, Engl. transl., which passage stands unaltered in the second edition of the German original recently published, p. 642) affirms that a proposition for the assessment of a direct property-tax of one-fortieth, or two and a half per cent., was made about this time by a citizen named Euripides, who announced it as intended to produce five hundred talents; that the proposition was at first enthusiastically welcomed by the Athenians, and procured for its author unbounded popularity; but that he was presently cried down and disgraced, because on farther examination the measure proved unsatisfactory and empty talk.

Sievers also (Geschichte von Griech. bis zur Schlacht von Mantineia, pp. 100, 101) adopts the same view as Boeckh, that this was a real proposition of a property tax of two and a half per cent., made by Euripides. After having alleged that the Athenians in these times supplied their treasury by the most unscrupulous injustice in confiscating the property of rich citizens,—referring as proof to passages in the orators, none of which establishes his conclusion,—Sievers goes on to say,—“But that these violences did not suffice, is shown by the fact that the people caught with greedy impatience at other measures. Thus a new scheme of finance, which however was presently discovered to be insufficient or inapplicable, excited at first the most extravagant joy.” He adds in a note: “The scheme proceeded from Euripides; it was a property-tax of two and a half per cent. See Aristoph. Ecclesiaz. 823; Boeckh, Staatshaush. ii, p. 27.”

In my judgment, the assertion here made by Boeckh and Sievers rests upon no sufficient ground. The passage of Aristophanes does not warrant us in concluding anything at all about a proposition for a property-tax. It is as follows:—

What this “new financial scheme” (so Sievers properly calls it) was, which the poet here alludes to,—we have no means of determining. But I venture to express my decided conviction that it cannot have been a property-tax. The terms in which it is described forbid that supposition. It was a scheme which seemed at first sight exceedingly promising and gainful to the city, and procured for its author very great popularity; but which, on farther examination, proved to be mere empty boasting (ὁ Διὸς Κόρινθος) How can this be said about any motion for a property-tax? That any financier should ever have gained extraordinary popularity by proposing a property-tax, is altogether inconceivable. And a proposition to raise the immense sum of five hundred talents (which Schömann estimates as the probable aggregate charge of the whole peace-establishment of Athens, Antiq. Jur. Public. Græc. s. 73, p. 313) at one blow by an assessment upon property! It would be as much as any financier could do to bear up against the tremendous unpopularity of such a proposition; and to induce the assembly even to listen to him, were the necessity ever so pressing. How odious are propositions for direct taxation, we may know without recurring to the specific evidence respecting Athens; but if any man requires such specific evidence, he may find it abundantly in the Philippics and Olynthiacs of Demosthenes. On one occasion (De Symmoriis, Or. xiv. s. 33, p. 185) that orator alludes to a proposition for raising five hundred talents by direct property-tax as something extravagant, which the Athenians would not endure to hear mentioned.

Moreover,—unpopularity apart,—the motion for a property-tax could scarcely procure credit for a financier, because it is of all ideas the most simple and obvious. Any man can suggest such a scheme. But to pass for an acceptable financier, you must propose some measure which promises gain to the state without such undisguised pressure upon individuals.

Lastly, there is nothing delusive in a property-tax,—nothing which looks gainful at first sight, and then turns out on farther examination (ἀνασκοπουμένοις) to be false or uncertain. It may, indeed, be more or less evaded; but this can only be known after it has been assessed, and when payment is actually called for.

Upon these grounds I maintain that the τεσσαρακοστὴ proposed by Euripides was not a property-tax. What it was I do not pretend to say; but τεσσαρακοστὴ may have many other meanings; it might mean a duty of two and a half per cent. upon imports or exports, or upon the produce of the mines of Laureion; or it might mean a cheap coinage or base money, something in the nature of the Chian τεσσαρακοσταί (Thucyd. viii, 100). All that the passage really teaches us is, that some financial proposition was made by Euripides which at first seemed likely to be lucrative, but would not stand an attentive examination. It is not even certain that Euripides promised a receipt of five hundred talents; this sum is only given to us as a comic exaggeration of that which foolish men at first fancied. Boeckh in more than one place reasons (erroneously, in my judgment) as if this five hundred talents was a real and trustworthy estimate, and equal to two and a half per cent. upon the taxable property of the Athenians. He says (iv, 8, p. 520, Engl. transl.) that “Euripides assumed as the basis of his proposal for levying a property-tax, a taxable capital of twenty thousand talents,”—and that “his proposition of one-fortieth was calculated to produce five hundred talents.” No such conclusion can be fairly drawn from Aristophanes.

Again, Boeckh infers from another passage in the same play of the same author, that a small direct property-tax of one five-hundredth part had been recently imposed. After a speech from one of the old women, calling upon a young man to follow her, he replies (v. 1006):—

Boeckh himself admits (iv, 8, p. 520) that this passage is very obscure, and so I think every one will find it. Tyrwhitt was so perplexed by it that he altered ἐμῶν into ἐτῶν. Without presuming to assign the meaning of the passage, I merely contend that it cannot be held to justify the affirmation, as a matter of historical fact, that a property-tax of one-five-hundredth had been levied at Athens, shortly before the representation of Ekklesiazusæ.

I cannot refrain here from noticing another inference drawn by Sievers from a third passage in this same play,—the Ekklesiazusæ (Geschichte Griechenlands vom Ende des Pelop. Kriegs bis zur Schlacht von Mantineia, p. 101.) He says,—“How melancholy is the picture of Athenian popular life, which is presented to us by the Ekklesiazusæ and the second Plutus, ten or twelve years after the restoration of the democracy! What an impressive seriousness (welch ein erschütternder Ernst) is expressed in the speech of Praxagora!” (v. 174 seqq.).

I confess that I find neither seriousness, nor genuine and trustworthy coloring, in this speech of Praxagora. It was a comic case made out for the purpose of showing that the women were more fit to govern Athens than the men, and setting forth the alleged follies of the men in terms of broad and general disparagement. The whole play is, throughout, thorough farce and full of Aristophanic humor. And it is surely preposterous to treat what is put into the mouth of Praxagora, the leading feminine character, as if it were historical evidence as to the actual condition or management of Athens. Let any one follow the speech of Praxagora into the proposition of reform which she is made to submit, and he will then see the absurdity of citing her discourse as if it were an harangue in Thucydides. History is indeed strangely transformed by thus turning comic wit into serious matter of evidence; and no history has suffered so much from the proceeding as that of Athens.