{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_57143/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_57143","id":"gutenberg_57143","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57143","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Greece -- History"],"text":"Produced by Henry Flower, Adrian Mastronardi, Ramon Pajares\nBox and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/American\nLibraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n * Italics are denoted by underscores as in _italics_.\n * Small caps are represented in upper case as in SMALL CAPS.\n * Letter spaced Greek text is enclosed in tildes as in ~\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\n \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac~.\n * Footnotes have been renumbered. Each footnote is placed at the\n end of the paragraph that includes its anchor.\n * Obvious printer errors have been silently corrected, after\n comparison with a later edition of this work. Greek text has\n also been corrected after checking with this later edition and\n with Perseus, when the reference was found.\n * Original spelling, hyphenation and punctuation have been kept,\n but variant spellings were made consistent when a predominant\n usage was found.\n * Nevetherless, no attempt has been made at normalizing proper\n names (i.e. Xenophon and Xenoph\u00f4n, \u00c6g\u00e6an and \u00c6gean, La\u00ebrt\u00eas and\n La\u00ebrtes, Cor\u0153bus and Kor\u0153bus etc.). The author established at the\n beginning of the first volume of this work some rules of\n transcription for proper names, but neither he nor his publisher\n follow them consistently.\n\n\n\n HISTORY OF GREECE\n\n I. Legendary Greece.\n\n II. Grecian History to the Reign of\n Peisistratus at Athens.\n\n BY\n GEORGE GROTE, ESQ.\n\n VOL. II.\n\n REPRINTED FROM THE SECOND LONDON EDITION.\n\n NEW YORK:\n HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,\n 329 AND 331 PEARL STREET.\n 1877.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nVOL. II.\n\n\nPART I.\n\nCONTINUATION OF LEGENDARY GREECE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nCLOSING EVENTS OF LEGENDARY GREECE.\u2014PERIOD OF INTERMEDIATE\nDARKNESS, BEFORE THE DAWN OF HISTORICAL GREECE.\n\n SECTION I.\u2014_Return of the Herakleids into Peloponn\u00easus._\n\n Exile and low condition of the Herakleids.\u2014Their reappearance as\n a powerful force along with the Dorians.\u2014Mythical account of this\n alliance, as well as of the three tribes of Dorians.\u2014T\u00eamenus,\n Kresphont\u00eas, and Aristod\u00eamus, invade Peloponn\u00easus across the\n gulf of Corinth.\u2014The prophet Karnus slain by Hippot\u00eas.\u2014Oxylus\n chosen as guide.\u2014Division of the lands of Peloponn\u00easus among the\n invaders.\u2014Explanatory value of these legendary events.\u2014Mythical\n title of the Dorians to Peloponn\u00easus.\u2014Plato makes out a different\n title for the same purpose.\u2014Other legends respecting the Ach\u00e6ans\n and Tisamenus.\u2014Occupation of Argos, Sparta, and Mess\u00eania, by\n the Dorians.\u2014Dorians at Corinth\u2014Al\u00eat\u00eas.\u2014Oxylus and the \u00c6tolians\n at Elis.\u2014Rights of the Eleians to superintend the Olympic\n games.\u2014Family of T\u00eamenus and Kresphont\u00eas lowest in the series\n of subjects for the heroic drama.\u2014Pretence of the historical\n Spartan kings to Ach\u00e6an origin.\u2014Emigrations from Peloponn\u00easus\n consequent on the Dorian occupation.\u2014Epeians, Pylians, Ach\u00e6ans,\n Ionians.\u2014Ionians in the north of Peloponn\u00easus\u2014not recognized\n by Homer.\u2014Date assigned by Thucydid\u00eas to the return of the\n Herakleids. _pages_ 1-14\n\n SECTION II.\u2014_Migration of Thessalians and B\u0153otians._\n\n Thessalians move from Thespr\u00f4tis into Thessaly.\u2014Non-Hellenic\n character of the Thessalians.\u2014B\u0153otians\u2014their migration\n from Thessaly into B\u0153otia.\u2014Discrepant legends about the\n B\u0153otians.\u2014Affinities between B\u0153otia and Thessaly.\u2014Transition from\n mythical to historical B\u0153otia. 14-19\n\n SECTION III\u2014_Emigrations from Greece to Asia and the Islands of\n the \u00c6g\u00e6an._\n\n 1. \u00c6olic Emigration.\n\n Secession of the mythical races of Greece.\u2014\u00c6olic migration under\n the Pelopids. 19-21\n\n 2. Ionic Emigration.\n\n Ionic emigration\u2014branches off from the legendary history of\n Athens.\u2014Th\u00easeus and Menestheus.\u2014Restoration of the sons of\n Th\u00easeus to their father\u2019s kingdom.\u2014They are displaced by the\n Neleids.\u2014Melanthus and Kodrus.\u2014Devotion and death of Kodrus.\u2014No\n more kings at Athens.\u2014Quarrel of the sons of Kodrus, and\n emigration of Neileus.\u2014Different races who furnished the\n emigrants to I\u00f4nia. 21-25\n\n 3. Doric Emigrations.\n\n Dorian colonies in Asia.\u2014Th\u00eara.\u2014Legend of the Miny\u00e6 from\n Lemnos.\u2014Miny\u00e6 in Triphylia.\u2014Migrations of Dorians to Krete.\u2014Story\n of Andr\u00f4n.\u2014Alth\u00e6men\u00eas, founder of Rhodes.\u2014K\u00f4s, Knidus, and\n Karpathus. 25-31\n\n Intervening blank between legend and history.\u2014Difficulty\n of explaining that blank, on the hypothesis of continuous\n tradition.\u2014Such an interval essentially connected with the\n genesis of legend. 31-34\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nAPPLICATION OF CHRONOLOGY TO GRECIAN LEGEND.\n\n Different schemes of chronology proposed for the mythical\n events.\u2014The data essential to chronological determination\n are here wanting.\u2014Modern chronologists take up the same\n problem as ancient, but with a different canon of belief.\u2014Mr.\n Clinton\u2019s opinion on the computations of the date of the Trojan\n war.\u2014Value of the chronological computations depends on the\n trustworthiness of the genealogies.\u2014Mr. Clinton\u2019s vindication\n of the genealogies\u2014his proofs.\u20141. Inscriptions\u2014none of proved\n antiquity.\u2014Genealogies\u2014numerous, and of unascertainable date.\u20142.\n Early poets.\u2014Mr. Clinton\u2019s separation of the genealogical\n persons into real and fabulous: principles on which it is\n founded.\u2014Remarks on his opinion.\u2014His concessions are partial\n and inconsistent, yet sufficient to render the genealogies\n inapplicable for chronology.\u2014Mr. Clinton\u2019s positions respecting\n historical evidence.\u2014To what extent presumption may stand in\n favor of the early poets.\u2014Plausible fiction satisfies the\n conditions laid down by Mr. Clinton\u2014not distinguishable from\n truth without the aid of evidence.\u2014Kadmus, Danaus, Hyllus, etc.,\n all eponyms, and falling under Mr. Clinton\u2019s definition of\n fictitious persons.\u2014What is real in the genealogies cannot be\n distinguished from what is fictitious.\u2014At what time did the poets\n begin to produce continuous genealogies, from the mythical to the\n real world?\u2014Evidence of mental progress when men methodize the\n past, even on fictitious principles. 34-57\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nSTATE OF SOCIETY AND MANNERS AS EXHIBITED IN GRECIAN LEGEND.\n\n Legendary poems of Greece valuable pictures of real manners,\n though giving no historical facts.\u2014They are memorials of\n the first state of Grecian society\u2014the starting-point of\n Grecian history.\u2014Comparison of legendary with historical\n Greece\u2014government of the latter\u2014of the former.\u2014The king\u2014in\n legendary Greece.\u2014His overruling personal ascendency.\u2014Difficulty\n which Aristotle found in explaining to himself the voluntary\n obedience paid to the early kings.\u2014The boul\u00ea\u2014the agora: their\n limited intervention and subordination to the king.\u2014The agora\u2014a\n medium for promulgation of the intentions of the king.\u2014Agora\n summoned by Telemachus in Ithaka.\u2014Agora in the second book of\n the Iliad\u2014picture of submission which it presents.\u2014Conduct of\n Odysseus to the people and the chiefs.\u2014Justice administered in\n the agora by the king or chiefs.\u2014Complaints made by Hesiod of\n unjust judgment in his own case.\u2014The king among men is analogous\n to Zeus among gods.\u2014The Council and Assembly, originally media\n through which the king acted, become, in historical Greece, the\n paramount depositaries of power.\u2014Spartan kings an exception to\n the general rule\u2014their limited powers.\u2014Employment of public\n speaking as an engine of government\u2014coeval with the earliest\n times.\u2014Its effects in stimulating intellectual development.\u2014Moral\n and social feeling in legendary Greece.\u2014Omnipotence of personal\n feeling towards the gods, the king, or individuals.\u2014Effect of\n special ceremonies.\u2014Contrast with the feelings in historical\n Athens.\u2014Force of the family tie.\u2014Marriage\u2014respect paid to\n the wife.\u2014Brothers, and kinsmen.\u2014Hospitality.\u2014Reception of\n the stranger and the suppliant.\u2014Personal sympathies the\n earliest form of sociality.\u2014Ferocious and aggressive passions\n unrestrained.\u2014Picture given by Hesiod still darker.\u2014Contrast\n between heroic and historical Greece.\u2014Orphans.\u2014Mutilation\n of dead bodies.\u2014Mode of dealing with homicide.\u2014Appeased by\n valuable compensation (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74) to the kinsman of the murdered\n man.\u2014Punished in historical Greece as a crime against\n society.\u2014Condition, occupations, and professions of the Homeric\n Greeks.\u2014Slaves.\u2014Th\u00eates.\u2014Limited commerce and navigation of\n the Homeric Greeks.\u2014Kretans, Taphians, Ph\u0153nicians.\u2014Nature of\n Ph\u0153nician trade as indicated by Homer.\u2014Weapons and mode of\n fighting of the Homeric Greeks.\u2014Contrast with the military array\n of historical Greece.\u2014Analogous change\u2014in military array and in\n civil society.\u2014Fortification of towns.\u2014Earliest residences of\n the Greeks\u2014hill-villages lofty and difficult of access.\u2014Homeric\n society recognizes walled towns, individual property, and\n strong local attachments.\u2014Means of defence superior to those\n of attack.\u2014Habitual piracy.\u2014Extended geographical knowledge\n in the Hesiodic poems, as compared with Homer.\u2014Astronomy and\n physics.\u2014Coined money, writing, arts.\u2014Epic poetry.\u2014Its great and\n permanent influence on the Greek mind. 57-118\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nGRECIAN EPIC. HOMERIC POEMS.\n\n Two classes of epic poetry\u2014Homeric\u2014Hesiodic.\u2014Didactic and mystic\n Hexameter poetry\u2014later as a genus than the epic.\u2014Lost epic\n poems.\u2014Epic poets and their probable dates.\u2014Epic cycle.\u2014What\n the epic cycle was\u2014an arrangement of the poems according\n to continuity of narrative.\u2014Relation of the epic cycle to\n Homer.\u2014What poems were included in the cycle.\u2014The Iliad and\n Odyssey are the only poems of the cycle preserved.\u2014Curiosity\n which these two poems provoke\u2014no data to satisfy it.\u2014Different\n poems ascribed to Homer.\u2014Nothing known, and endless diversity of\n opinion, respecting the person and date of Homer.\u2014Poetical gens\n of the Hom\u00earids.\u2014Homer, the superhuman eponymus and father of\n this gens.\u2014What may be the dates of the Iliad and Odyssey.\u2014Date\n assigned by Herodotus the most probable.\u2014Probable date of the\n Iliad and Odyssey between 850 and 776 B. C.\u2014Epic poems recited\n to assembled companies, not read by individuals apart.\u2014Lyric and\n choric poetry, intended for the ear.\u2014Importance of the class\n of rhapsodes, singers, and reciters.\u2014Rhapsodes condemned by\n the Socratic philosophers\u2014undeservedly.\u2014Variations in the mode\n of reciting the ancient epic.\u2014At what time the Homeric poems\n began to be written.\u2014Prolegomena of Wolf\u2014raised new questions\n respecting the Homeric text\u2014connected unity of authorship\n with poems written from the beginning.\u2014The two questions not\n necessarily connected, though commonly discussed together.\u2014Few\n traces of writing, long after the Homeric age.\u2014Bards or rhapsodes\n of adequate memory, less inconsistent with the conditions of\n the age than long MSS.\u2014Blind bards.\u2014Possibility of preserving\n the poems by memory, as accurately as in fact they were\n preserved.\u2014Argument from the lost letter Digamma.\u2014When did\n the Homeric poems begin to be written?\u2014Reasons for presuming\n that they were first written about the middle of the seventh\n century B. C.\u2014Condition of the Iliad and Odyssey down to the\n reign of Peisistratus.\u2014Theory of Wolf.\u2014Authorities quoted in its\n favor.\u2014Objections against it.\u2014Other long epic poems besides the\n Iliad and Odyssey.\u2014Catalogue in the Iliad\u2014essentially a part of\n a long poem\u2014its early authority.\u2014Iliad and Odyssey were entire\n poems long anterior to Peisistratus, whether they were originally\n composed as entire or not.\u2014No traces in the Homeric poems, of\n ideas or customs belonging to the age of Peisistratus.\u2014Homeric\n poems. 1. Whether by one author or several. 2. Whether of one\n date and scheme.\u2014Question raised by Wolf\u2014Sagen-poesie.\u2014New\n standard applied to the Homeric poems.\u2014Homeric unity\u2014generally\n rejected by German critics in the last generation\u2014now again\n partially revived.\u2014Scanty evidence\u2014difficulty of forming any\n conclusive opinion.\u2014Method of studying the question of Homeric\n unity.\u2014Odyssey to be studied first, as of more simple and\n intelligible structure than the Iliad\u2014Odyssey\u2014evidences of\n one design throughout its structure.\u2014Exhibits very few marks\n of incoherence or contradiction.\u2014Chronological reckoning in\n the Odyssey, inaccurate in one case.\u2014Inference erroneously\n drawn from hence, that the parts of the poem were originally\n separate.\u2014Double start and double stream of events, ultimately\n brought into confluence in the Odyssey.\u2014Skill displayed in\n this point by the poet.\u2014Difficulty of imagining the Odyssey\n broken up into many existing poems or songs.\u2014Structure of\n the Odyssey\u2014essentially one\u2014cannot have been pieced together\n out of pre\u00ebxisting epics.\u2014Analogy of the Odyssey shows that\n long and premeditated epical composition consists with the\n capacities of the early Greek mind.\u2014Iliad\u2014much less coherent and\n uniform than the Odyssey.\u2014Incoherence prevails only in parts\n of the poem\u2014manifest coherence in other parts.\u2014Wolfian theory\n explains the former, but not the latter.\u2014Theory of Welcker,\n Lange, and Nitzsch.\u2014Age of the Epos preparatory to that of the\n Epopee.\u2014Iliad essentially an organized poem\u2014but the original\n scheme does not comprehend the whole poem.\u2014Iliad\u2014originally\n an Achill\u00eais built upon a narrower plan, then enlarged.\u2014Parts\n which constitute the primitive Achill\u00eais exhibit a coherent\n sequence of events.\u2014Disablement of Agamemn\u00f4n, Odysseus, and\n Diom\u00ead\u00eas, all in the battle of the eleventh book.\u2014The first book\n concentrates attention upon Achilles, and upon the distress\n which the Greeks are to incur in consequence of the injury done\n to him.\u2014Nothing done to realize this expectation until the\n eighth book.\u2014Primitive Achill\u00eais includes books i, viii, xi\n to xxii.\u2014Ninth book an unsuitable addition.\u2014Transition from\n the Achill\u00eais into the Iliad, in the beginning of the second\n book.\u2014Transition from the Iliad back into the Achill\u00eais at the\n end of the seventh book.\u2014Fortification of the Grecian camp.\u2014Zeus\n in the fourth book, or Iliad, different from Zeus in the first\n and eighth, or Achill\u00eais.\u2014Continuous Achill\u00eais\u2014from the eleventh\n book onward.\u2014Supposition of an enlarged Achill\u00eais is the most\n consonant to all the parts of the poem as it stands.\u2014Question\n of one or many authors\u2014difficult to decide.\u2014Odyssey all by one\n author, Iliad probably not.\u2014Difference of style in the last\n six books\u2014may be explained without supposing difference of\n authorship.\u2014Last two books\u2014probably not parts of the original\n Achill\u00eais.\u2014Books ii. to vii. inclusive.\u2014Book x.\u2014Odyssey\u2014probably\n by a different author from the Iliad\u2014but perhaps of the\n same age.\u2014Real character of the Homeric poems\u2014essentially\n popular.\u2014Addressed to unlettered minds, but touching those\n feelings which all men have in common.\u2014No didactic purpose in\n Homer. 118-209\n\n\nPART II.\n\nHISTORICAL GREECE.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nGENERAL GEOGRAPHY AND LIMITS OF GREECE.\n\n Northern boundary of Greece\u2014Olympus.\u2014Scardus and Pindus\u2014their\n extension and dissemination through southern Greece and\n Peloponnesus.\u2014Ossa and Pelion\u2014to the Cyclades.\u2014Geological\n features.\u2014Irregularity of the Grecian waters\u2014rivers dry in\n summer.\u2014Frequent marshes and lakes.\u2014Subterranean course\n of rivers, out of land-locked basins.\u2014Difficulty of land\n communication and transport in Greece.\u2014Indentations in\n the line of coast\u2014universal accessibility by sea.\u2014Sea\n communication essential for the islands and colonies.\u2014Views of\n the ancient philosophers on the influence of maritime habits\n and commerce.\u2014Difference between the land-states and the\n sea-states in Greece.\u2014Effects of the configuration of Greece\n upon the political relations of the inhabitants.\u2014Effects upon\n their intellectual development.\u2014Limits of Greece.\u2014Its chief\n productions.\u2014Climate\u2014better and more healthy in ancient times\n than it is now.\u2014Great difference between one part of Greece and\n another.\u2014Epirots, Macedonians, etc.\u2014Islands in the \u00c6gean.\u2014Greeks\n on the coast of Asia Minor. 211-236\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE HELLENIC PEOPLE GENERALLY IN THE EARLY HISTORICAL TIMES.\n\n The Hellens generally.\u2014Barbarians\u2014the word used as antithesis to\n Hellens.\u2014Hellenic aggregate\u2014how held together. 1. Fellowship of\n blood. 2. Common language.\u2014Greek language essentially one with a\n variety of dialects. 3. Common religious sentiments, localities,\n and sacrifices.\u2014Olympic and other sacred games.\u2014Habit of common\n sacrifice an early feature of the Hellenic mind\u2014began on a small\n scale.\u2014Amphiktyonies\u2014exclusive religious partnerships.\u2014Their\n beneficial influence in creating sympathies.\u2014What was called the\n Amphiktyonic Council.\u2014Its twelve constituent members and their\n mutual position.\u2014Antiquity of the Council\u2014simplicity of the old\n oath.\u2014Amphiktyonic meeting originally at Thermopyl\u00e6.\u2014Valuable\n influence of these Amphiktyonies and festivals in promoting\n Hellenic union.\u2014Amphiktyons had the superintendence of the\n temple of Delphi.\u2014But their interference in Grecian affairs\n is only rare and occasional.\u2014Many Hellenic states had no\n participation in it.\u2014Temple of Delphi.\u2014Oracles generally\u2014habit\n of the Greek mind to consult them.\u2014General analogy of manners\n among the Greeks.\u2014Political sovereignty attached to each\n separate city\u2014essential to the Hellenic mind.\u2014Each city stood to\n the rest in an international relation.\u2014But city government is\n essential\u2014village residence is looked upon as an inferior scale\n of living.\u2014Village residents\u2014numerous in early Greece\u2014many of\n them coalesced into cities.\u2014Sparta retained its old village trim\n even at the height of its power.\u2014Hellenic aggregate accepted as\n a primary fact\u2014its pre\u00ebxisting elements untraceable.\u2014Ancient\n Pelasgians not knowable.\u2014Historical Pelasgians\u2014spoke a\n barbarous language.\u2014Historical Leleges\u2014barbarians in language\n also.\u2014Statements of good witnesses regarding the historical\n Pelasgians and Leleges are to be admitted,\u2014whether they fit the\n legendary Pelasgians and Leleges or not.\u2014Alleged ante-Hellenic\n colonies from Ph\u0153nicia and Egypt\u2014neither verifiable nor\n probable.\u2014Most ancient Hellas\u2014Gr\u00e6ci. 236-269\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nMEMBERS OF THE HELLENIC AGGREGATE, SEPARATELY TAKEN.\u2014GREEKS NORTH\nOF PELOPONNESUS.\n\n Amphiktyonic races.\u2014Non-Amphiktyonic races.\u2014First period\n of Grecian history\u2014from 776-560 B. C.\u2014Second period\u2014from\n 560-300 B. C.\u2014Important differences between the two\u2014the first\n period preparatory and very little known.\u2014Extra-Peloponnesian\n Greeks (north of Attica) not known at all during the\n first period.\u2014General sketch of them.\u2014Greeks north of\n Thermopyl\u00e6.\u2014Thessalians and their dependents.\u2014Thessalian\n character.\u2014Condition of the population of Thessaly\u2014a villein\n race\u2014the Penest\u00e6.\u2014Who the Penest\u00e6 were\u2014doubtful.\u2014Quadruple\n division of Thessaly.\u2014Disorderly confederacy of the\n Thessalian cities.\u2014Great power of Thessaly, when in a\n state of unanimity.\u2014Ach\u00e6ans, Perrh\u00e6bi, Magn\u00eates, Malians,\n Dolopes, etc., all tributaries of the Thessalians, but all\n Amphiktyonic races.\u2014Asiatic Magn\u00eates.\u2014The Malians.\u2014The\n \u0152t\u00e6i.\u2014The \u00c6nianes.\u2014Lokrians, Phocians, Dorians.\u2014The\n Phocians.\u2014Doris\u2014Dryopis.\u2014Historical Dryopes.\u2014The \u00c6tolians.\u2014The\n Akarnanians.\u2014Ozolian Lokrians, \u00c6tolians, and Akarnanians, were\n the rudest of all Greeks.\u2014The B\u0153otians.\u2014Orchomenus.\u2014Cities\n of B\u0153otia.\u2014Confederation of B\u0153otia.\u2014Early legislation of\n Thebes.\u2014Philolaus and Diokl\u00eas. 269-298\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nEARLIEST HISTORICAL VIEW OF PELOPONNESUS. DORIANS IN ARGOS AND\nTHE NEIGHBORING CITIES.\n\n Distribution of Peloponnesus about 450 B. C.\u2014Continuous\n Dorian states.\u2014Western Peloponnesus.\u2014Northern\n Peloponnesus\u2014Achaia.\u2014Central region\u2014Arcadia.\u2014Difference\n between this distribution and that of 776 B. C.\u2014Portions\n of the population which were believed to be indigenous\n Arcadians, Kynurians. Ach\u00e6ans.\u2014Emigrant portions\u2014Dorians,\n \u00c6tolo-Eleians, Dryopes, Triphylians.\u2014Legendary account of the\n Dorian emigration.\u2014Alexandrine chronology from the return of\n the Herakleids to the first Olympiad.\u2014Spartan kings.\u2014Herakleid\n kings of Corinth.\u2014Argos and the neighboring Dorians greater\n than Sparta in 770 B. C.\u2014Early settlements of the Dorians at\n Argos and Corinth\u2014Temenion\u2014Hill of Solygeius.\u2014Dorian settlers\n arrived by sea.\u2014Early Dorians in Krete.\u2014The Dryopians\u2014their\n settlements formed by sea.\u2014Dorian settlements in Argos quite\n distinct from those in Sparta and in Messenia.\u2014Early position of\n Argos\u2014metropolis of the neighboring Dorian cities.\u2014Pheid\u00f4n the\n Temenid\u2014king of Argos.\u2014His claims and projects as representative\n of H\u00earakl\u00eas.\u2014He claims the right of presiding at the Olympic\n games.\u2014Relations of Pisa with Pheid\u00f4n, and of Sparta with\n Elis.\u2014Conflict between Pheid\u00f4n and the Spartans, at or about\n the 8th Olympiad, 747 B. C.\u2014Pheid\u00f4n the earliest Greek who\n coined money and determined a scale of weight.\u2014Coincidence\n of the \u00c6gin\u00e6an scale with the Babylonian.\u2014Argos at this time\n the first state in Peloponnesus.\u2014Her subsequent decline, from\n the relaxation of her confederacy of cities.\u2014Dorians in the\n Argolic peninsula\u2014their early commerce with the Dorian islands\n in the \u00c6gean.\u2014From hence arose the coinage of money, etc., by\n Pheid\u00f4n.\u2014Pheidonian coinage and statical scale\u2014belong originally\n to Argos, not to \u00c6gina. 298-325\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\u00c6TOLO-DORIAN EMIGRATION INTO PELOPONNESUS.\u2014ELIS, LACONIA, AND\nMESSENIA.\n\n \u00c6tolian emigration into Peloponnesus.\u2014Dorians of Sparta\n and Stenykl\u00earus\u2014accompanying or following them across the\n Corinthian gulf.\u2014Settlement at Sparta made by marching along\n the valleys of the Alpheus and Eurotas.\u2014Causes which favored\n the settlement\u2014Settlements confined at first to Sparta and\n Stenykl\u00earus.\u2014First view of historical Sparta.\u2014Messenian\n kings.\u2014Analogous representations in regard to the early\n proceedings both of Spartans and Messenians.\u2014The kings\n of Stenykl\u00earus did not possess all Messenia.\u2014Olympic\n festival\u2014the early point of union of Spartans, Messenians, and\n Eleians.\u2014Previous inhabitants of southern Peloponnesus\u2014how far\n different from the Dorians.\u2014Doric and \u00c6olic dialect. 325-337\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nLAWS AND DISCIPLINE OF LYKURGUS AT SPARTA.\n\n Lykurgus\u2014authorities of Plutarch respecting him.\u2014Uncertainties\n about his genealogy.\u2014Probable date of Lykurgus.\u2014Opinion of O.\n M\u00fcller (that Sparta is the perfect type of Dorian character\n and tendencies) is incorrect.\u2014Peculiarity of Sparta.\u2014Early\n date of Lykurgus.\u2014View taken of Lykurgus by Herodotus.\u2014Little\n said about Lykurgus in the earlier authors.\u2014Copious details of\n Plutarch.\u2014Regency of Lykurgus\u2014his long absence from Sparta.\u2014He is\n sent by the Delphian oracle to reform the state.\u2014His institutions\n ascribed to him\u2014senate and popular assembly\u2014ephors.\u2014Constitution\n ascribed to Lykurgus agrees with that which we find in\n Homer.\u2014Pair of kings at Sparta\u2014their constant dissensions\u2014a\n security to the state against despotism.\u2014Idea of Kleomen\u00eas the\n Third respecting the first appointment of the ephors.\u2014Popular\n origin of the board of ephors\u2014oath interchanged between them and\n the kings.\u2014Subordination of the kings, and supremacy of the\n ephors, during the historical times.\u2014Position and privileges\n of the kings.\u2014Power of the ephors.\u2014Public assembly.\u2014The\n Senate.\u2014Spartan constitution\u2014a close oligarchy.\u2014Long duration\n of the constitution without formal change\u2014one cause of the\n respect in Greece and pride in the Spartans themselves.\u2014Dorians\n divided into three tribes,\u2014Hylleis, Pamphyli, and Dymanes.\u2014Local\n distinctions known among the Spartans.\u2014Population of Laconia\u20141.\n Spartans.\u20142. Peri\u0153ki.\u2014Special meaning of the word Peri\u0153ki\n in Laconia.\u2014Statement of Isokrat\u00eas as to the origin of the\n Peri\u0153ki.\u2014Statement of Ephorus\u2014different from Isokrat\u00eas,\n yet not wholly irreconcilable.\u2014Spartans and Peri\u0153ki\u2014no\n distinction of race known between them in historical times.\u20143.\n Helots\u2014essentially villagers.\u2014They were serfs\u2014adscripti\n gleb\u00e6\u2014their condition and treatment.\u2014Bravery and energy of\n the Helots\u2014fear and cruelty of the Spartans.\u2014Evidence of the\n character of the Spartan government.\u2014The Krypteia.\u2014Manumitted\n Helots.\u2014Economical and social regulations ascribed to\n Lykurgus.\u2014Partition of lands.\u2014Syssitia, or public mess.\u2014Public\n training or discipline.\u2014Manners and training of the Spartan\n women\u2014opinion of Aristotle.\u2014Statement of Xenophon and\n Plutarch.\u2014Number of rich women in the time of Aristotle\u2014they had\n probably procured exemption from the general training.\u2014Earnest\n and lofty patriotism of the Spartan women.\u2014Lykurgus is the\n trainer of a military brotherhood, more than the framer of a\n political constitution.\u2014His end exclusively warlike\u2014his means\n exclusively severe.\u2014Statements of Plutarch about Lykurgus\u2014much\n romance in them.\u2014New partition of lands\u2014no such measure ascribed\n to Lykurgus by earlier authors down to Aristotle.\u2014The idea of\n Lykurgus as an equal partitioner of lands belongs to the century\n of Agis and Kleomen\u00eas.\u2014Circumstances of Sparta down to the reign\n of Agis.\u2014Diminished number of citizens and degradation of Sparta\n in the reign of Agis.\u2014His ardent wish to restore the dignity of\n the state.\u2014Historic fancy of Lykurgus as an equal partitioner\n of lands grew out of this feeling.\u2014Partition proposed by\n Agis.\u2014Opinion that Lykurgus proposed some agrarian interference,\n but not an entire repartition, gratuitous and improbable.\u2014The\n statement of Plutarch is best explained by supposing it a fiction\n of the time of Agis.\u2014Acknowledged difficulty of understanding\n by what means the fixed number and integrity of the lots was\n maintained.\u2014Plutarch\u2019s story about the ephor Epitadeus.\u2014Landed\n property was always unequally divided at Sparta.\u2014Nor were\n there any laws which tended to equalize it.\u2014Opinions of\n Aristotle.\u2014Erroneous suppositions with regard to the Spartan\n law and practice of succession.\u2014Lykurgean system\u2014originally\n applied only to Sparta\u2014introduced equal severity of discipline,\n not equality of property.\u2014Original Dorian allotment of land\n in Sparta unknown\u2014probably not equal.\u2014Gradual conquest of\n Laconia, the result of the new force imparted by the Lykurgean\n discipline.\u2014Conquest of Amykl\u00e6, Pharis, and Geronthr\u00e6, by king\n T\u00ealeklus.\u2014Helus conquered by Alkamen\u00eas.\u2014Progressive increase of\n Sparta. 337-421\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nFIRST AND SECOND MESSENIAN WARS.\n\n Authorities for the history of the Messenian wars.\u2014Chiefly\n belong to the time after the foundation of Mess\u00ean\u00ea by\n Epameinondas.\u2014Absence of real or ancient traditions concerning\n these wars: contradictions about the Messenian hero\n Aristomen\u00eas.\u2014Dates of the first wars\u2014B. C. 743-724.\u2014Causes\n alleged by the Spartans.\u2014Spartan king T\u00ealeklus slain by the\n Messenians at the temple of Artemis Limnatis.\u2014First Messenian\n war.\u2014Messenian kings, Eupha\u00eas and Aristod\u00eamus.\u2014Messenians\n concentrate themselves on Mount Ith\u00f4me\u2014after a long siege they\n are completely conquered.\u2014Harsh treatment and Helotism of the\n conquered Messenians under Sparta.\u2014Revolt of the Messenians\n against Sparta\u2014second Messenian war\u2014Aristomen\u00eas.\u2014His chivalrous\n exploits and narrow escapes\u2014end of the second war.\u2014The Messenians\n again conquered.\u2014Narrative of Pausanias, borrowed from the\n poet Rhianus, is undeserving of credit.\u2014The poet Tyrt\u00e6us, the\n ally of Sparta\u2014his great efficiency and influence over the\n Spartan mind.\u2014Musical susceptibilities of the Spartans.\u2014Powerful\n ethical effect of the old Grecian music.\u2014Sufferings of the\n Spartans in the second Messenian war.\u2014Date of the second war,\n B. C. 648-631.\u2014Punishment of the traitor Aristokrat\u00eas, king of\n the Arcadian Orchomenus.\u2014Spartans acquire the country west of\n Taygetus.\u2014The Messenian Dorians had no considerable fortified\n places\u2014lived in small townships and villages.\u2014Relations of\n Pisa and Elis.\u2014Struggles of the Pisat\u00e6 and Triphylians for\n autonomy\u2014the latter in after times sustained by the political\n interests of Sparta. 421-440\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nCONQUESTS OF SPARTA TOWARDS ARCADIA AND ARGOLIS.\n\n State of Arcadia.\u2014Tegea and Mantineia the most powerful Arcadian\n towns, before the building of Megalopolis.\u2014Encroachments of\n Sparta upon the southern boundary of Arcadia.\u2014Unsuccessful\n attempts of the Spartans against Tegea.\u2014They are directed by the\n oracle to bring to Sparta the bones of the hero Orest\u00eas.\u2014Their\n operations against Tegea become more successful; nevertheless,\n Tegea maintains her independence.\u2014Boundaries of Sparta towards\n Argos\u2014conquest of Thyreatis by Sparta.\u2014Battle of the three\n hundred select champions, between Sparta and Argos, to decide the\n possession of the Thyreatis\u2014valor of Othryades.\u2014Thyreatis comes\n into possession of Sparta\u2014efforts of the Argeians to recover\n it.\u2014Alteration of Grecian opinion, as to the practice of deciding\n disputes by select champions.\u2014Kynurians in Argolis, said to be of\n Ionic race, but Dorized.\u2014Full acquisition of the southern portion\n of Peloponnesus, from sea to sea, by the Spartans before 540 B.\n C.\u2014Great comparative power of Sparta at that early time.\u2014Careful\n personal training of the Spartans at a time when other states had\n no training at all.\u2014Military institutions of Sparta.\u2014Peculiar and\n minute military subdivisions, distinct from the civil En\u00f4moties,\n etc.\u2014Careful drilling of the En\u00f4moties.\u2014In other Grecian cities\n there were no peculiar military divisions distinct from the\n civil.\u2014Recognized superiority of Sparta\u2014a part of early Grecian\n sentiment\u2014coincident with the growing tendency to increased\n communion.\u2014Homeric mode of fighting\u2014probably belonged to Asia,\n not to Greece.\u2014Argos\u2014her struggles to recover the headship of\n Greece.\u2014Her conquest of Myken\u00e6, Tiryns, and Kle\u00f4n\u00e6.\u2014Nemean\n games.\u2014Achaia\u2014twelve autonomous towns, perhaps more\u2014little known.\n 441-466\n\n\n\n\nHISTORY OF GREECE.\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\nCONTINUATION OF LEGENDARY GREECE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nCLOSING EVENTS OF LEGENDARY GREECE.\u2014PERIOD OF INTERMEDIATE DARKNESS,\nBEFORE THE DAWN OF HISTORICAL GREECE.\n\n\nSECTION I.\u2014RETURN OF THE HERAKLEIDS INTO PELOPONNESUS.\n\nIn one of the preceding chapters, we have traced the descending\nseries of the two most distinguished mythical families in\nPeloponn\u00easus,\u2014the Perseids and the Pelopids: we have followed the\nformer down to H\u00earakl\u00eas and his son Hyllus, and the latter down\nto Orest\u00eas son of Agamemn\u00f4n, who is left in possession of that\nascendancy in the peninsula which had procured for his father the\nchief command in the Trojan war. The Herakleids, or sons of H\u00earakl\u00eas,\non the other hand, are expelled fugitives, dependent upon foreign\naid or protection: Hyllus had perished in single combat with Echemus\nof Tegea, (connected with the Pelopids by marriage with Timandra\nsister of Klyt\u00e6mn\u00eastra,[1]) and a solemn compact had been made, as\nthe preliminary condition of this duel, that no similar attempt at\nan invasion of the peninsula should be undertaken by his family for\nthe space of one hundred years. At the end of the stipulated period\nthe attempt was renewed, and with complete success; but its success\nwas owing, not so much to the valor of the invaders as to a powerful\nbody of new allies. The Herakleids reappear as leaders and companions\nof the Dorians,\u2014a northerly section of the Greek name, who now first\ncome into importance,\u2014poor, indeed, in mythical renown, since they\nare never noticed in the Iliad, and only once casually mentioned in\nthe Odyssey, as a fraction among the many-tongued inhabitants of\nKr\u00eate,\u2014but destined to form one of the grand and predominant elements\nthroughout all the career of historical Hellas.\n\n [1] Hesiod, Eoiai, Fragm. 58, p. 43, ed. D\u00fcntzer.\n\nThe son of Hyllus\u2014Kleod\u00e6us\u2014as well as his grandson Aristomachus, were\nnow dead, and the lineage of H\u00earakl\u00eas was represented by the three\nsons of the latter,\u2014T\u00eamenus, Kresphont\u00eas, and Aristod\u00eamus, and under\ntheir conduct the Dorians penetrated into the peninsula. The mythical\naccount traced back this intimate union between the Herakleids and\nthe Dorians to a prior war, in which H\u00earakl\u00eas himself had rendered\ninestimable aid to the Dorian king \u00c6gimius, when the latter was\nhard pressed in a contest with the Lapith\u00e6. H\u00earakl\u00eas defeated the\nLapith\u00e6, and slew their king Kor\u00f4nus; in return for which \u00c6gimius\nassigned to his deliverer one third part of his whole territory, and\nadopted Hyllus as his son. H\u00earakl\u00eas desired that the territory thus\nmade over might be held in reserve until a time should come when his\ndescendants might stand in need of it; and that time did come, after\nthe death of Hyllus, (see Chap. V.) Some of the Herakleids then found\nshelter at Trikorythus in Attica, but the remainder, turning their\nsteps towards \u00c6gimius, solicited from him the allotment of land which\nhad been promised to their valiant progenitor. \u00c6gimius received them\naccording to his engagement, and assigned to them the stipulated\nthird portion of his territory:[2] and from this moment the\nHerakleids and Dorians became intimately united together into one\nsocial communion. Pamphylus and Dymas, sons of \u00c6gimius, accompanied\nT\u00eamenus and his two brothers in their invasion of Peloponn\u00easus.\n\n [2] Diod\u00f4r. iv. 37-60; Apollod\u00f4r. ii. 7, 7; Ephorus ap. Steph.\n Byz. \u0394\u03c5\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd, Fragm. 10, ed. Marx.\n\n The Doric institutions are called by Pindar \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af (Pyth. i. 124).\n\n There existed an ancient epic poem, now lost, but cited on\n some few occasions by authors still preserved, under the title\n \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2; the authorship being sometimes ascribed to Hesiod,\n sometimes to Kerkops (Athen\u00e6. xi. p. 503). The few fragments\n which remain do not enable us to make out the scheme of it,\n inasmuch as they embrace different mythical incidents lying\n very wide of each other,\u2014I\u00f4, the Argonauts, P\u00ealeus, and Thetis,\n etc. But the name which it bears seems to imply that the war\n of \u00c6gimius against the Lapith\u00e6, and the aid given to him by\n H\u00earakl\u00eas, was one of its chief topics. Both O. M\u00fcller (History of\n the Dorians, vol. i. b. 1, c. 8) and Welcker (Der Epische Kyklus,\n p. 263) appear to me to go beyond the very scanty evidence which\n we possess, in their determination of this last poem; compare\n Marktscheffel, Pr\u00e6fat. Hesiod. Fragm. cap. 5, p. 159.\n\nSuch is the mythical incident which professes to explain the origin\nof those three tribes into which all the Dorian communities were\nusually divided,\u2014the Hyll\u00eais, the Pamphyli, and the Dymanes,\u2014the\nfirst of the three including certain particular families, such as\nthat of the kings of Sparta, who bore the special name of Herakleids.\nHyllus, Pamphylus, and Dymas are the eponymous heroes of the three\nDorian tribes.\n\nT\u00eamenus and his two brothers resolved to attack Peloponn\u00easus, not by\na land-march along the Isthmus, such as that in which Hyllus had been\npreviously slain, but by sea, across the narrow inlet between the\npromontories of Rhium and Antirrhium, with which the Gulf of Corinth\ncommences. According to one story, indeed,\u2014which, however, does not\nseem to have been known to Herodotus,\u2014they are said to have selected\nthis line of march by the express direction of the Delphian god, who\nvouchsafed to expound to them an oracle which had been delivered\nto Hyllus in the ordinary equivocal phraseology. Both the Ozolian\nLokrians, and the \u00c6tolians, inhabitants of the northern coast of the\nGulf of Corinth, were favorable to the enterprise, and the former\ngranted to them a port for building their ships, from which memorable\ncircumstance the port ever afterwards bore the name of Naupaktus.\nAristod\u00eamus was here struck with lightning and died, leaving twin\nsons, Eurysthen\u00eas and Prokl\u00eas; but his remaining brothers continued\nto press the expedition with alacrity.\n\nAt this juncture, an Akarnanian prophet named Karnus presented\nhimself in the camp[3] under the inspiration of Apollo, and\nuttered various predictions: he was, however, so much suspected\nof treacherous collusion with the Peloponnesians, that Hippot\u00eas,\ngreat-grandson of H\u00earakl\u00eas through Phylas and Antiochus, slew him.\nHis death drew upon the army the wrath of Apollo, who destroyed their\nvessels and punished them with famine. T\u00eamenus, in his distress,\nagain applying to the Delphian god for succor and counsel, was made\nacquainted with the cause of so much suffering, and was directed\nto banish Hippot\u00eas for ten years, to offer expiatory sacrifice for\nthe death of Karnus, and to seek as the guide of the army a man\nwith three eyes.[4] On coming back to Naupaktus, he met the \u00c6tolian\nOxylus, son of Andr\u00e6m\u00f4n, returning to his country, after a temporary\nexile in Elis, incurred for homicide: Oxylus had lost one eye, but\nas he was seated on a horse, the man and the horse together made up\nthe three eyes required, and he was adopted as the guide prescribed\nby the oracle.[5] Conducted by him, they refitted their ships, landed\non the opposite coast of Achaia, and marched to attack Tisamenus son\nof Orest\u00eas, then the great potentate of the peninsula. A decisive\nbattle was fought, in which the latter was vanquished and slain,\nand in which Pamphylus and Dymas also perished. This battle made\nthe Dorians so completely masters of the Peloponn\u00easus, that they\nproceeded to distribute the territory among themselves. The fertile\nland of Elis had been by previous stipulation reserved for Oxylus, as\na recompense for his services as conductor: and it was agreed that\nthe three Herakleids,\u2014T\u00eamenus, Kresphont\u00eas, and the infant sons of\nAristod\u00eamus,\u2014should draw lots for Argos, Sparta, and Mess\u00ean\u00ea. Argos\nfell to T\u00eamenus, Sparta to the sons of Aristod\u00eamus, and Mess\u00ean\u00ea to\nKresphont\u00eas; the latter having secured for himself this prize, the\nmost fertile territory of the three, by the fraud of putting into\nthe vessel out of which the lots were drawn, a lump of clay instead\nof a stone, whereby the lots of his brothers were drawn out while his\nown remained inside. Solemn sacrifices were offered by each upon this\npartition: but as they proceeded to the ceremony, a miraculous sign\nwas seen upon the altar of each of the brothers,\u2014a toad corresponding\nto Argos, a serpent to Sparta, and a fox to Mess\u00ean\u00ea. The prophets,\non being consulted, delivered the import of these mysterious\nindications: the toad, as an animal slow and stationary, was an\nevidence that the possessor of Argos would not succeed in enterprises\nbeyond the limits of his own city; the serpent denoted the aggressive\nand formidable future reserved to Sparta; the fox prognosticated a\ncareer of wile and deceit to the Messenian.\n\n [3] Respecting this prophet, compare \u0152nomaus ap. Eusebium,\n Pr\u00e6parat. Evangel. v. p. 211. According to that statement, both\n Kleod\u00e6us (here called _Arid\u00e6us_) son of Hyllus, and Aristomachus\n son of Kleod\u00e6us, had made separate and successive attempts at the\n head of the Herakleids to penetrate into Peloponn\u00easus through\n the Isthmus: both had failed and perished, having misunderstood\n the admonition of the Delphian oracle. \u0152nomaus could have\n known nothing of the pledge given by Hyllus, as the condition\n of the single combat between Hyllus and Echemus (according to\n Herodotus), that the Herakleids should make no fresh trial for\n one hundred years; if it had been understood that they had given\n and then violated such a pledge, such violation would probably\n have been adduced to account for their failure.\n\n [4] Apollod\u00f4r. ii. 8, 3; Pausan. iii. 13. 3.\n\n [5] Apollod\u00f4r. ii. 8, 3. According to the account of Pausanias,\n the beast upon which Oxylus rode was a mule, and had lost one eye\n (Paus. v. 3, 5).\n\nSuch is the brief account given by Apollod\u00f4rus of the Return of the\nHerakleids, at which point we pass, as if touched by the wand of a\nmagician, from mythical to historical Greece. The story bears on\nthe face of it the stamp, not of history, but of legend,\u2014abridged\nfrom one or more of the genealogical poets,[6] and presenting such\nan account as they thought satisfactory, of the first formation of\nthe great Dorian establishments in Peloponn\u00easus, as well as of the\nsemi-\u00c6tolian Elis. Its incidents are so conceived as to have an\nexplanatory bearing on Dorian institutions,\u2014upon the triple division\nof tribes, characteristic of the Dorians,\u2014upon the origin of the\ngreat festival of the Karneia at Sparta, alleged to be celebrated\nin expiation of the murder of Karnus,\u2014upon the different temper\nand character of the Dorian states among themselves,\u2014upon the\nearly alliance of the Dorians with Elis, which contributed to give\nascendency and vogue to the Olympic games,\u2014upon the reverential\ndependence of Dorians towards the Delphian oracle,\u2014and, lastly, upon\nthe etymology of the name Naupaktus. If we possessed the narrative\nmore in detail, we should probably find many more examples of\ncoloring of the legendary past suitable to the circumstances of the\nhistorical present.\n\n [6] Herodotus observes, in reference to the Laced\u00e6monian\n account of their first two kings in Peloponn\u00easus, (Eurysthen\u00eas\n and Prokl\u00eas, the twin sons of Aristod\u00eamus,) that the\n Laced\u00e6monians gave a _story not in harmony with any of the\n poets_,\u2014\u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, ~\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc7~, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 (Herodot.\n vi. 52).\n\nAbove all, this legend makes out in favor of the Dorians and their\nkings a mythical title to their Peloponnesian establishments; Argos,\nSparta, and Mess\u00ean\u00ea are presented as rightfully belonging, and\nrestored by just retribution, to the children of H\u00earakl\u00eas. It was\nto them that Zeus had specially given the territory of Sparta; the\nDorians came in as their subjects and auxiliaries.[7] Plato gives a\nvery different version of the legend, but we find that he, too, turns\nthe story in such a manner as to embody a claim of right on the part\nof the conquerors. According to him, the Ach\u00e6ans, who returned from\nthe capture of Troy, found among their fellow-citizens at home\u2014the\nrace which had grown up during their absence\u2014an aversion to readmit\nthem: after a fruitless endeavor to make good their rights, they\nwere at last expelled, but not without much contest and bloodshed. A\nleader named Dorieus, collected all these exiles into one body, and\nfrom him they received the name of Dorians instead of Ach\u00e6ans; then\nmarching back, under the conduct of the Herakleids into Peloponn\u00easus,\nthey recovered by force the possessions from which they had been\nshut out, and constituted the three Dorian establishments under the\nseparate Herakleid brothers, at Argos, Sparta, and Mess\u00ean\u00ea. These\nthree fraternal dynasties were founded upon a scheme of intimate\nunion and sworn alliance one with the other, for the purpose of\nresisting any attack which might be made upon them from Asia,[8]\neither by the remaining Trojans or by their allies. Such is the\nstory as Plato believed it; materially different in the incidents\nrelated, yet analogous in mythical feeling, and embodying alike the\nidea of a rightful reconquest. Moreover, the two accounts agree\nin representing both the entire conquest and the triple division\nof Dorian Peloponn\u00easus as begun and completed in one and the same\nenterprise,\u2014so as to constitute one single event, which Plato would\nprobably have called the Return of the Ach\u00e6ans, but which was\ncommonly known as the Return of the Herakleids. Though this is both\ninadmissible and inconsistent with other statements which approach\nclose to the historical times, yet it bears every mark of being the\nprimitive view originally presented by the genealogical poets: the\nbroad way in which the incidents are grouped together, was at once\neasy for the imagination to follow, and impressive to the feelings.\n\n [7] Tyrt\u00e6us, Fragm.\u2014\n\n \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7\n \u039f\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n In a similar manner Pindar says that Apollo had planted the sons\n of H\u00earakl\u00eas, jointly with those of \u00c6gimius, at Sparta, Argos, and\n Pylus (Pyth. v. 93).\n\n Isokrat\u00eas (Or. vi. _Archidamus_, p. 120) makes out a good title\n by a different line of mythical reasoning. There seem to have\n been also stories containing mythical reasons why the Herakleids\n did _not_ acquire possession of Arcadia (Poly\u00e6n. i. 7).\n\n [8] Plato, Legg. iii. 6-7, pp. 682-686.\n\nThe existence of one legendary account must never be understood as\nexcluding the probability of other accounts, current at the same\ntime, but inconsistent with it: and many such there were as to the\nfirst establishment of the Peloponnesian Dorians. In the narrative\nwhich I have given from Apollod\u00f4rus, conceived apparently under the\ninfluence of Dorian feelings, Tisamenus is stated to have been slain\nin the invasion. But according to another narrative, which seems to\nhave found favor with the historical Ach\u00e6ans on the north coast of\nPeloponn\u00easus, Tisamenus, though expelled by the invaders from his\nkingdom of Sparta or Argos, was not slain: he was allowed to retire\nunder agreement, together with a certain portion of his subjects,\nand he directed his steps towards the coast of Peloponn\u00easus south\nof the Corinthian Gulf, then occupied by the Ionians. As there were\nrelations, not only of friendship, but of kindred origin, between\nIonians and Ach\u00e6ans, (the eponymous heroes I\u00f4n and Ach\u00e6us pass for\nbrothers, both sons of Xuthus), Tisamenus solicited from the Ionians\nadmission for himself and his fellow-fugitives into their territory.\nThe leading Ionians declining this request, under the apprehension\nthat Tisamenus might be chosen as sovereign over the whole, the\nlatter accomplished his object by force. After a vehement struggle,\nthe Ionians were vanquished and put to flight, and Tisamenus thus\nacquired possession of Helik\u00ea, as well as of the northern coast of\nthe peninsula, westward from Siky\u00f4n; which coast continued to be\noccupied by the Ach\u00e6ans, and received its name from them, throughout\nall the historical times. The Ionians retired to Attica, many of\nthem taking part in what is called the Ionic emigration to the coast\nof Asia Minor, which followed shortly after. Pausanias, indeed, tells\nus that Tisamenus, having gained a decisive victory over the Ionians,\nfell in the engagement,[9] and did not himself live to occupy the\ncountry of which his troops remained masters. But this story of\nthe death of Tisamenus seems to arise from a desire, on the part\nof Pausanias, to blend together into one narrative two discrepant\nlegends; at least the historical Ach\u00e6ans in later times continued\nto regard Tisamenus himself as having lived and reigned in their\nterritory, and as having left a regal dynasty which lasted down to\nOgyg\u00eas,[10] after whom it was exchanged for a popular government.[11]\n\n [9] Pausan. vii. 1-3.\n\n [10] Polyb. ii. 45; iv. 1; Strabo, viii. pp. 383-384. This\n Tisamenus derives his name from the memorable act of revenge\n ascribed to his father Orest\u00eas. So, in the legend of the Siege\n of Th\u00eabes, Thersander, as one of the Epigoni, avenged his father\n Polynik\u00eas: the son of Thersander was also called _Tisamenus_\n (Herodot. iv. 149). Compare O. M\u00fcller, Dorians, i. p. 69, note 9,\n Eng. Trans.\n\n [11] Diod\u00f4r. iv. 1. The historian Ephorus embodied in his work a\n narrative in considerable detail of this grand event of Grecian\n legend, the Return of the Herakleids,\u2014with which he professed to\n commence his consecutive history: from what sources he borrowed\n we do not know.\n\nThe conquest of T\u00eamenus, the eldest of the three Herakleids,\noriginally comprehended only Argos and its neighborhood; it was\nfrom thence that Tr\u0153zen, Epidaurus, \u00c6gina, Siky\u00f4n, and Phlius\nwere successfully occupied by Dorians, the sons and son-in-law of\nT\u00eamenus\u2014Deiphont\u00eas, Phalk\u00eas, and Keisus\u2014being the leaders under whom\nthis was accomplished.[12] At Sparta, the success of the Dorians was\nfurthered by the treason of a man named Philonomus, who received as\nrecompense the neighboring town and territory of Amykl\u00e6.[13] Mess\u00eania\nis said to have submitted without resistance to the dominion of the\nHerakleid Kresphont\u00eas, who established his residence at Stenykl\u00earus:\nthe Pylian Melanthus, then ruler of the country, and representative\nof the great mythical lineage of N\u00ealeus and Nest\u00f4r, withdrew with\nhis household gods and with a portion of his subjects to Attica.[14]\n\n [12] Strabo, viii. p. 389. Pausan. ii. 6, 2; 12, 1.\n\n [13] Con\u00f4n, Nar. 36; Strabo, viii. p. 365.\n\n [14] Strabo, viii. p. 359; Con\u00f4n, Narr. 39.\n\nThe only Dorian establishment in the peninsula not directly connected\nwith the triple partition is Corinth, which is said to have been\nDorized somewhat later and under another leader, though still a\nHerakleid. Hippot\u00eas\u2014descendant of H\u00earakl\u00eas in the fourth generation,\nbut not through Hyllus,\u2014had been guilty (as already mentioned) of\nthe murder of Karnus the prophet at the camp of Naupaktus, for which\nhe had been banished and remained in exile for ten years; his son\nderiving the name of Al\u00eat\u00eas from the long wanderings endured by the\nfather. At the head of a body of Dorians, Al\u00eat\u00eas attacked Corinth:\nhe pitched his camp on the Solygeian eminence near the city, and\nharassed the inhabitants with constant warfare until he compelled\nthem to surrender. Even in the time of the Peloponnesian war, the\nCorinthians professed to identify the hill on which the camp of\nthese assailants had been placed. The great mythical dynasty of\nthe Sisyphids was expelled, and Al\u00eat\u00eas became ruler and \u0152kist of\nthe Dorian city; many of the inhabitants, however, \u00c6olic or Ionic,\ndeparted.[15]\n\n [15] Thucydid. iv. 42. Schol. Pindar. Olymp. xiii. 17; and Nem.\n vii. 155. Con\u00f4n, Narrat. 26. Ephor. ap. Strab. viii. p. 389.\n\n Thucydid\u00eas calls the ante-Dorian inhabitants of Corinth \u00c6olians;\n Con\u00f4n calls them Ionians.\n\nThe settlement of Oxylus and his \u00c6tolians in Elis is said by some\nto have been accomplished with very little opposition; the leader\nprofessing himself to be descended from \u00c6tolus, who had been in a\nprevious age banished from Elis into \u00c6t\u00f4lia, and the two people,\nEpeians and \u00c6tolians, acknowledging a kindred origin one with the\nother.[16] At first, indeed, according to Ephorus, the Epeians\nappeared in arms, determined to repel the intruders, but at length\nit was agreed on both sides to abide the issue of a single combat.\nDegmenus, the champion of the Epeians, confided in the long shot\nof his bow and arrow; but the \u00c6tolian Pyr\u00e6chm\u00eas came provided with\nhis sling,\u2014a weapon then unknown and recently invented by the\n\u00c6tolians,\u2014the range of which was yet longer than that of the bow\nof his enemy: he thus killed Degmenus, and secured the victory to\nOxylus and his followers. According to one statement, the Epeians\nwere expelled; according to another, they fraternized amicably with\nthe new-comers: whatever may be the truth as to this matter, it is\ncertain that their name is from this moment lost, and that they never\nreappear among the historical elements of Greece:[17] we hear from\nthis time forward only of Eleians, said to be of \u00c6tolian descent.[18]\n\n [16] Ephorus ap. Strabo, x. p. 463.\n\n [17] Strabo, viii. p. 358; Pausan. v. 4, 1. One of the six towns\n in Triphylia mentioned by Herodotus is called \u1f1c\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (Herodot.\n iv. 149).\n\n [18] Herodot. viii. 73; Pausan. v. 1, 2. Hekat\u00e6us affirmed that\n the Epeians were completely alien to the Eleians; Strabo does\n not seem to have been able to satisfy himself either of the\n affirmative or negative (Hekat\u00e6us, Fr. 348, ed. Didot; Strabo,\n viii. p. 341).\n\nOne most important privilege was connected with the possession of the\nEleian territory by Oxylus, coupled with his claim on the gratitude\nof the Dorian kings. The Eleians acquired the administration of the\ntemple at Olympia, which the Ach\u00e6ans are said to have possessed\nbefore them; and in consideration of this sacred function, which\nsubsequently ripened into the celebration of the great Olympic games,\ntheir territory was solemnly pronounced to be inviolable. Such\nwas the statement of Ephorus:[19] we find, in this case as in so\nmany others, that the Return of the Herakleids is made to supply a\nlegendary basis for the historical state of things in Peloponn\u00easus.\n\n [19] Ephorus ap. Strabo. viii. p. 358. The tale of the\n inhabitants of Pisa, the territory more immediately bordering\n upon Olympia, was very different from this.\n\nIt was the practice of the great Attic tragedians, with rare\nexceptions, to select the subjects of their composition from the\nheroic or legendary world, and Euripid\u00eas had composed three dramas,\nnow lost, on the adventures of T\u00eamenus with his daughter Hyrneth\u00f4 and\nhis son-in-law D\u00eaiphont\u00eas,\u2014on the family misfortunes of Kresphont\u00eas\nand Merop\u00ea,\u2014and on the successful valor of Archelaus the son of\nT\u00eamenus in Macedonia, where he was alleged to have first begun the\ndynasty of the Temenid kings. Of these subjects the first and second\nwere eminently tragical, and the third, relating to Archelaus,\nappears to have been undertaken by Euripid\u00eas in compliment to his\ncontemporary sovereign and patron, Archelaus king of Macedonia: we\nare even told that those exploits which the usual version of the\nlegend ascribed to T\u00eamenus, were reported in the drama of Euripid\u00eas\nto have been performed by Archelaus his son.[20] Of all the heroes,\ntouched upon by the three Attic tragedians, these Dorian Herakleids\nstand lowest in the descending genealogical series,\u2014one mark amongst\nothers that we are approaching the ground of genuine history.\n\n [20] Agatharchides ap. Photium, Sect. 250, p. 1332. \u1f48\u03c5\u03b4\u1fbd\n \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff6, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n Compare the Fragments of the \u03a4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2, and \u039a\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\n in Dindorf\u2019s edition of Euripid\u00eas, with the illustrative remarks\n of Welcker, Griechische Trag\u00f6dien, pp. 697, 708, 828.\n\n The Prologue of the Archelaus seems to have gone through the\n whole series of the Herakleidan lineage, from \u00c6gyptus and Danaus\n downwards.\n\nThough the name Ach\u00e6ans, as denoting a people, is henceforward\nconfined to the North-Peloponnesian territory specially called\nAchaia, and to the inhabitants of Ach\u00e6a, Phthi\u00f4tis, north of Mount\n\u0152ta,\u2014and though the great Peloponnesian states always seem to have\nprided themselves on the title of Dorians,\u2014yet we find the kings\nof Sparta, even in the historical age, taking pains to appropriate\nto themselves the mythical glories of the Ach\u00e6ans, and to set\nthemselves forth as the representatives of Agamemn\u00f4n and Orest\u00eas.\nThe Spartan king Kleomen\u00eas even went so far as to disavow formally\nany Dorian parentage; for when the priestess at Athens refused to\npermit him to sacrifice in the temple of Ath\u00ean\u00ea, on the plea that it\nwas peremptorily closed to all Dorians, he replied: \u201cI am no Dorian,\nbut an Ach\u00e6an.\u201d[21] Not only did the Spartan envoy, before Gel\u00f4n\nof Syracuse, connect the indefeasible title of his country to the\nsupreme command of the Grecian military force, with the ancient name\nand lofty prerogatives of Agamemn\u00f4n,[22]\u2014but, in farther pursuance\nof the same feeling, the Spartans are said to have carried to Sparta\nboth the bones of Orest\u00eas from Tegea, and those of Tisamenus from\nHelik\u00ea,[23] at the injunction of the Delphian oracle. There is also a\nstory that Oxylus in Elis was directed by the same oracle to invite\ninto his country an Ach\u00e6an, as \u0152kist conjointly with himself;\nand that he called in Agorius, the great-grandson of Orest\u00eas,\nfrom Helik\u00ea, with a small number of Ach\u00e6ans who joined him.[24]\nThe Dorians themselves, being singularly poor in native legends,\nendeavored, not unnaturally, to decorate themselves with those\nlegendary ornaments which the Ach\u00e6ans possessed in abundance.\n\n [21] Herodot. v. 72.\n\n [22] Herodot. vii. 159.\n\n [23] Herodot. i. 68; Pausan. vii. 1, 3.\n\n [24] Pausan. v. 4, 2.\n\nAs a consequence of the Dorian establishments in Peloponn\u00easus,\nseveral migrations of the pre\u00ebxisting inhabitants are represented as\ntaking place. 1. The Epeians of Elis are either expelled, or merged\nin the new-comers under Oxylus, and lose their separate name. 2.\nThe Pylians, together with the great heroic family of N\u00ealeus and\nhis son Nest\u00f4r, who preside over them, give place to the Dorian\nestablishment of Mess\u00eania, and retire to Athens, where their leader,\nMelanthus, becomes king: a large portion of them take part in the\nsubsequent Ionic emigration. 3. A portion of the Ach\u00e6ans, under\nPenthilus and other descendants of Orest\u00eas, leave Peloponn\u00easus, and\nform what is called the \u00c6olic emigration, to Lesbos, the Tr\u00f4ad,\nand the Gulf of Adramyttium: the name _\u00c6olians_, unknown to Homer,\nand seemingly never applied to any separate tribe at all, being\nintroduced to designate a large section of the Hellenic name, partly\nin Greece Proper, and partly in Asia. 4. Another portion of Ach\u00e6ans\nexpel the Ionians from Achaia, properly so called, in the north of\nPeloponn\u00easus; the Ionians retiring to Attica.\n\nThe Homeric poems describe Ach\u00e6ans, Pylians, and Epeians, in\nPeloponn\u00easus, but take no notice of Ionians in the northern district\nof Achaia: on the contrary, the Catalogue in the Iliad distinctly\nincludes this territory under the dominions of Agamemn\u00f4n. Though the\nCatalogue of Homer is not to be regarded as an historical document,\nfit to be called as evidence for the actual state of Peloponn\u00easus\nat any prior time, it certainly seems a better authority than the\nstatements advanced by Herodotus and others respecting the occupation\nof northern Peloponn\u00easus by the Ionians, and their expulsion from\nit by Tisamenus. In so far as the Catalogue is to be trusted, it\nnegatives the idea of Ionians at Helik\u00ea, and countenances what seems\nin itself a more natural supposition,\u2014that the historical Ach\u00e6ans in\nthe north part of Peloponn\u00easus are a small undisturbed remnant of the\npowerful Ach\u00e6an population once distributed throughout the peninsula,\nuntil it was broken up and partially expelled by the Dorians.\n\nThe Homeric legends, unquestionably the oldest which we possess, are\nadapted to a population of Ach\u00e6ans, Danaans, and Argeians, seemingly\nwithout any special and recognized names, either aggregate or\ndivisional, other than the name of each separate tribe or kingdom.\nThe post-Homeric legends are adapted to a population classified\nquite differently,\u2014Hellens, distributed into Dorians, Ionians, and\n\u00c6olians. If we knew more of the time and circumstances in which these\ndifferent legends grew up, we should probably be able to explain\ntheir discrepancy; but in our present ignorance we can only note the\nfact.\n\nWhatever difficulty modern criticism may find in regard to the event\ncalled \u201cThe Return of the Herakleids,\u201d no doubt is expressed about it\neven by the best historians of antiquity. Thucydid\u00eas accepts it as a\nsingle and literal event, having its assignable date, and carrying at\none blow the acquisition of Peloponn\u00easus. The date of it he fixes as\neighty years after the capture of Troy. Whether he was the original\ndeterminer of this epoch, or copied it from some previous author, we\ndo not know. It must have been fixed according to some computation\nof generations, for there were no other means accessible,\u2014probably\nby means of the lineage of the Herakleids, which, as belonging to\nthe kings of Sparta, constituted the most public and conspicuous\nthread of connection between the Grecian real and mythical world,\nand measured the interval between the Siege of Troy itself and the\nfirst recorded Olympiad. H\u00earakl\u00eas himself represents the generation\nbefore the siege, and his son Tlepolemus fights in the besieging\narmy. If we suppose the first generation after H\u00earakl\u00eas to commence\nwith the beginning of the siege, the fourth generation after him will\ncoincide with the ninetieth year after the same epoch; and therefore,\ndeducting ten years for the duration of the struggle, it will\ncoincide with the eightieth year after the capture of the city;[25]\nthirty years being reckoned for a generation. The date assigned\nby Thucydid\u00eas will thus agree with the distance in which T\u00eamenus,\nKresphont\u00eas, and Aristod\u00eamus, stand removed from H\u00earakl\u00eas. The\ninterval of eighty years, between the capture of Troy and the Return\nof the Herakleids, appears to have been admitted by Apollod\u00f4rus and\nEratosthen\u00eas, and some other professed chronologists of antiquity:\nbut there were different reckonings which also found more or less of\nsupport.\n\n [25] The date of Thucydid\u00eas is calculated, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f38\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f05\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (i.\n 13).\n\n\nSECTION II.\u2014MIGRATION OF THESSALIANS AND B\u0152OTIANS.\n\nIn the same passage in which Thucydid\u00eas speaks of the Return of\nthe Herakleids, he also marks out the date of another event a\nlittle antecedent, which is alleged to have powerfully affected the\ncondition of Northern Greece. \u201cSixty years after the capture of Troy\n(he tells us) the B\u0153otians were driven by the Thessalians from Arn\u00ea,\nand migrated into the land then called Kadm\u00ea\u00efs, but now B\u0153otia,\nwherein there had previously dwelt a section of their race, who had\ncontributed the contingent to the Trojan war.\u201d\n\nThe expulsion here mentioned, of the B\u0153otians from Arn\u00ea \u201cby the\nThessalians,\u201d has been construed, with probability, to allude\nto the immigration of the Thessalians, properly so called, from\nthe Thespr\u00f4tid in Epirus into Thessaly. That the Thessalians had\nmigrated into Thessaly from the Thespr\u00f4tid territory, is stated by\nHerodotus,[26] though he says nothing about time or circumstances.\nAntiphus and Pheidippus appear in the Homeric Catalogue as commanders\nof the Grecian contingent from the islands of K\u00f4s and Karpathus, on\nthe south-east coast of Asia Minor: they are sons of Thessalus, who\nis himself the son of H\u00earakl\u00eas. A legend ran that these two chiefs,\nin the dispersion which ensued after the victory, had been driven\nby storms into the Ionian Gulf, and cast upon the coast of Epirus,\nwhere they landed and settled at Ephyr\u00ea in the Thespr\u00f4tid.[27] It\nwas Thessalus, grandson of Pheidippus, who was reported to have\nconducted the Thesprotians across the passes of Pindus into Thessaly,\nto have conquered the fertile central plain of that country, and\nto have imposed upon it his own name instead of its previous\ndenomination \u00c6olis.[28]\n\n [26] Herod. vii. 176.\n\n [27] See the Epigram ascribed to Aristotle (Antholog. Gr\u00e6c. t. i.\n p. 181, ed. Reisk; Velleius Patercul. i. 1).\n\n The Scholia on Lycophr\u00f4n (912) give a story somewhat different.\n Ephyr\u00ea is given as the old legendary name of the city of Krannon\n in Thessaly (Kineas, ap. Schol. Pindar. Pyth. x. 85), which\n creates the confusion with the Thesprotian Ephyr\u00ea.\n\n [28] Herodot. vii. 176; Velleius Patercul. i. 2-3; Charax. ap.\n Stephan. Byz. v. \u0394\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd: Poly\u00e6n. viii. 44.\n\n There were several different statements, however, about the\n parentage of Thessalus, as well as about the name of the country\n (Strabo, ix. p. 443 Stephan. Byz. v. \u0391\u1f31\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1).\n\nWhatever we may think of this legend as it stands, the state of\nThessaly during the historical ages renders it highly probable\nthat the Thessalians, properly so called, were a body of immigrant\nconquerors. They appear always as a rude, warlike, violent, and\nuncivilized race, distinct from their neighbors the Ach\u00e6ans, the\nMagnetes, and the Perrh\u00e6bians, and holding all the three in tributary\ndependence: these three tribes stand to them in a relation analogous\nto that of the Laced\u00e6monian Peri\u0153ki towards Sparta, while the\nPenest\u00e6, who cultivated their lands, are almost an exact parallel\nof the Helots. Moreover, the low level of taste and intelligence\namong the Thessalians, as well as certain points of their costume,\nassimilates them more to Macedonians or Epirots than to Hellens.[29]\nTheir position in Thessaly is in many respects analogous to that of\nthe Spartan Dorians in Peloponn\u00easus, and there seems good reason for\nconcluding that the former, as well as the latter, were originally\nvictorious invaders, though we cannot pretend to determine the\ntime at which the invasion took place. The great family of the\nAleuads,[30] and probably other Thessalian families besides, were\ndescendants of H\u00earakl\u00eas, like the kings of Sparta.\n\n [29] See K. O. M\u00fcller, History of the Dorians, Introduction,\n sect. 4.\n\n [30] Pindar, Pyth. x. 2.\n\nThere are no similar historical grounds, in the case of the alleged\nmigration of the B\u0153otians from Thessaly to B\u0153otia, to justify a\nbelief in the main fact of the legend, nor were the different\nlegendary stories in harmony one with the other. While the Homeric\nEpic recognizes the B\u0153otians in B\u0153otia, but not in Thessaly,\nThucydid\u00eas records a statement which he had found of their migration\nfrom the latter into the former; but in order to escape the necessity\nof flatly contradicting Homer, he inserts the parenthesis that there\nhad been previously an outlying fraction of B\u0153otians in B\u0153otia at\nthe time of the Trojan war,[31] from whom the troops who served\nwith Agamemn\u00f4n were drawn. Nevertheless, the discrepancy with the\nIliad, though less strikingly obvious, is not removed, inasmuch as\nthe Catalogue is unusually copious in enumerating the contingents\nfrom Thessaly, without once mentioning B\u0153otians. Homer distinguishes\nOrchomenus from B\u0153otia, and he does not specially notice Th\u00eabes\nin the Catalogue: in other respects his enumeration of the towns\ncoincides pretty well with the ground historically known afterwards\nunder the name of B\u0153otia.\n\n [31] Thucyd. i. 12. \u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f67\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f3c\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nPausanias gives us a short sketch of the events which he supposes\nto have intervened in this section of Greece between the Siege of\nTroy and the Return of the Herakleids. Penele\u00f4s, the leader of the\nB\u0153otians at the siege, having been slain by Eurypylus the son of\nTelephus, Tisamenus, son of Thersander and grandson of Polynik\u00eas,\nacted as their commander, both during the remainder of the siege and\nafter their return. Autesi\u00f4n, his son and successor, became subject\nto the wrath of the avenging Erinnyes of Laius and \u0152dipus: the oracle\ndirected him to expatriate, and he joined the Dorians. In his place,\nDamasichth\u00f4n, son of Opheltas and grandson of Penele\u00f4s, became king\nof the B\u0153otians: he was succeeded by Ptolem\u00e6us, who was himself\nfollowed by Xanthus. A war having broken out at that time between\nthe Athenians and B\u0153otians, Xanthus engaged in single combat with\nMelanthus son of Andropompus, the champion of Attica, and perished by\nthe cunning of his opponent. After the death of Xanthus, the B\u0153otians\npassed from kingship to popular government.[32] As Melanthus was of\nthe lineage of the Neleids, and had migrated from Pylus to Athens\nin consequence of the successful establishment of the Dorians in\nMess\u00eania, the duel with Xanthus must have been of course subsequent\nto the Return of the Herakleids.\n\n [32] Pausan. ix. 5, 8.\n\nHere, then, we have a summary of alleged B\u0153otian history between the\nSiege of Troy and the Return of the Herakleids, in which no mention\nis made of the immigration of the mass of B\u0153otians from Thessaly,\nand seemingly no possibility left of fitting in so great and capital\nan incident. The legends followed by Pausanias are at variance with\nthose adopted by Thucydid\u00eas, but they harmonize much better with\nHomer.\n\nSo deservedly high is the authority of Thucydid\u00eas, that the\nmigration here distinctly announced by him is commonly set down as\nan ascertained datum, historically as well as chronologically. But\non this occasion it can be shown that he only followed one amongst a\nvariety of discrepant legends, none of which there were any means of\nverifying.\n\nPausanias recognized a migration of the B\u0153otians from Thessaly,\nin early times anterior to the Trojan war;[33] and the account\nof Ephorus, as given by Strabo, professed to record a series of\nchanges in the occupants of the country: First, the non-Hellenic\nAones and Temmikes, Leleges and Hyantes; next, the Kadmeians, who,\nafter the second siege of Th\u00eabes by the Epigoni, were expelled by\nthe Thracians and Pelasgians, and retired into Thessaly, where they\njoined in communion with the inhabitants of Arn\u00ea,\u2014the whole aggregate\nbeing called B\u0153otians. After the Trojan war, and about the time of\nthe \u00c6olic emigration, these B\u0153otians returned from Thessaly and\nreconquered B\u0153otia, driving out the Thracians and Pelasgians,\u2014the\nformer retiring to Parnassus, the latter to Attica. It was on this\noccasion (he says) that the Miny\u00e6 of Orchomenus were subdued, and\nforcibly incorporated with the B\u0153otians. Ephorus seems to have\nfollowed, in the main, the same narrative as Thucydid\u00eas, about the\nmovement of the B\u0153otians out of Thessaly; coupling it, however, with\nseveral details current as explanatory of proverbs and customs.[34]\n\n [33] Pausan. x. 8, 3.\n\n [34] Ephor. Fragm. 30, ed. Marx.; Strabo, ix. pp. 401-402. The\n story of the B\u0153otians at Arn\u00ea, in Poly\u00e6nus (i. 12), probably\n comes from Ephorus.\n\n Diod\u00f4rus (xix. 53) gives a summary of the legendary history of\n Th\u00eabes from Deukalion downwards: he tells us that the B\u0153otians\n were expelled from their country, and obliged to return into\n Thessaly during the Trojan war, in consequence of the absence of\n so many of their brave warriors at Troy; they did not find their\n way back into B\u0153otia until the fourth generation.\n\nThe only fact which we make out, independent of these legends, is,\nthat there existed certain homonymies and certain affinities of\nreligious worship, between parts of B\u0153otia and parts of Thessaly,\nwhich appear to indicate a kindred race. A town named Arne,[35]\nsimilar in name to the Thessalian, was enumerated in the B\u0153otian\nCatalogue of Homer, and antiquaries identified it sometimes with the\nhistorical town Ch\u00e6roneia,[36] sometimes with Akr\u00e6phium. Moreover,\nthere was near the B\u0153otian Kor\u00f4neia a river named Kuarius, or\nKoralius, and a venerable temple dedicated to the Itonian Ath\u00ean\u00ea,\nin the sacred ground of which the Pamb\u0153otia, or public council of\nthe B\u0153otian name, was held; there was also a temple and a river\nof similar denomination in Thessaly, near to a town called Iton,\nor It\u00f4nus.[37] We may from these circumstances presume a certain\nancient kindred between the population of these regions, and such\na circumstance is sufficient to explain the generation of legends\ndescribing migrations backward and forward, whether true or not in\npoint of fact.\n\n [35] Stephen. Byz. v. \u1f0c\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7, makes the Thessalian Arn\u00ea an \u1f04\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n of the B\u0153otian.\n\n [36] Homer, Iliad, ii.; Strabo, ix. p. 413; Pausan. ix. 40, 3.\n Some of the families at Ch\u00e6roneia, even during the time of the\n Roman dominion in Greece, traced their origin to Peripoltas\n the prophet, who was said to have accompanied Opheltas in his\n invading march out of Thessaly (Plutarch, Cim\u00f4n, c. 1).\n\n [37] Strabo, ix. 411-435; Homer, Iliad, ii. 696; Hekat\u00e6us, Fr.\n 338, Didot.\n\n The fragment from Alk\u00e6us (cited by Strabo, but briefly, and with\n a mutilated text,) serves only to identify the river and the town.\n\n It\u00f4nus was said to be son of Amphikty\u00f4n, and B\u0153\u00f4tus son of It\u00f4nus\n (Pausan. ix. 1, 1. 34, 1: compare Steph. Byz. v. \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1) by\n Melanipp\u00ea. By another legendary genealogy (probably arising after\n the name _\u00c6olic_ had obtained footing as the class-name for a\n large section of Greeks, but as old as the poet Asius, Olympiad\n 30), the eponymous hero B\u0153\u00f4tus was fastened on to the great\n lineage of \u00c6olus, through the paternity of the god Poseid\u00f4n,\n either with Melanipp\u00ea or with Arn\u00ea, daughter of \u00c6olus (Asius, Fr.\n 8, ed. D\u00fcntzer; Strabo, vi. p. 265; Diod\u00f4r. v. 67; Hellanikus\n ap. Schol. Iliad. ii 494). Two lost plays of Euripid\u00eas were\n founded on the misfortunes of Melanipp\u00ea, and her twin children by\n Poseid\u00f4n,\u2014B\u0153\u00f4tus and \u00c6olus (Hygin. Fab. 186; see the Fragments of\n \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03b7 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f74 and \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03b7 \u0394\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 in Dindorf\u2019s edition, and\n the instructive comments of Welcker; Griech. Trag\u00f6d. vol. ii. pp.\n 840-860).\n\nWhat is most important to remark is, that the stories of Thucydid\u00eas\nand Ephorus bring us out of the mythical into the historical B\u0153otia.\nOrchomenus is B\u0153otized, and we hear no more of the once-powerful\nMiny\u00e6: there are no more Kadmeians at Th\u00eabes, nor B\u0153otians in\nThessaly. The Miny\u00e6 and the Kadmeians disappear in the Ionic\nemigration, which will be presently adverted to. Historical B\u0153otia\nis now constituted, apparently in its federative league, under the\npresidency of Th\u00eabes, just as we find it in the time of the Persian\nand Peloponnesian wars.\n\n\nSECTION III.\u2014EMIGRATIONS FROM GREECE TO ASIA AND THE ISLANDS OF THE\n\u00c6G\u00c6AN.\n\n\n1. \u00c6OLIC.\u20142. IONIC.\u20143. DORIC.\n\nTo complete the transition of Greece from its mythical to its\nhistorical condition, the secession of the races belonging to the\nformer must follow upon the introduction of those belonging to\nthe latter. This is accomplished by means of the \u00c6olic and Ionic\nmigrations.\n\nThe presiding chiefs of the \u00c6olic emigration are the representatives\nof the heroic lineage of the Pelopids: those of the Ionic emigration\nbelong to the Neleids: and even in what is called the Doric\nemigration to Th\u00eara, the \u0152kist Th\u00earas is not a Dorian but a Kadmeian,\nthe legitimate descendant of \u0152dipus and Kadmus.\n\nThe \u00c6olic, Ionic, and Doric colonies were planted along the western\ncoast of Asia Minor, from the coasts of the Propontis southward down\nto Lykia (I shall in a future chapter speak more exactly of their\nboundaries); the \u00c6olic occupying the northern portion, together\nwith the islands of Lesbos and Tenedos; the Doric occupying the\nsouthernmost, together with the neighboring islands of Rhodes and\nK\u00f4s; and the Ionic being planted between them, comprehending Chios,\nSamos, and the Cyclad\u00eas islands.\n\n\n1. \u00c6OLIC EMIGRATION.\n\nThe \u00c6olic emigration was conducted by the Pelopids: the original\nstory seems to have been, that Orest\u00eas himself was at the head of the\nfirst batch of colonists, and this version of the event is still\npreserved by Pindar and by Hellanikus.[38] But the more current\nnarratives represented the descendants of Orest\u00eas as chiefs of the\nexpeditions to \u00c6olis,\u2014his illegitimate son Penthilus, by Erigon\u00ea\ndaughter of \u00c6gisthus,[39] together with Echelatus and Gras, the\nson and grandson of Penthilus, together with Kleu\u00eas and Malaus,\ndescendants of Agamemn\u00f4n through another lineage. According to the\naccount given by Strabo, Orest\u00eas began the emigration, but died\non his route in Arcadia; his son Penthilus, taking the guidance\nof the emigrants, conducted them by the long land-journey through\nB\u0153otia and Thessaly to Thrace;[40] from whence Archelaus, son of\nPenthilus, led them across the Hellespont, and settled at Daskylium\non the Propontis. Gras, son of Archelaus, crossed over to Lesbos\nand possessed himself of the island. Kleu\u00eas and Malaus, conducting\nanother body of Ach\u00e6ans, were longer on their journey, and lingered\na considerable time near Mount Phrikium, in the territory of\nLokris; ultimately, however, they passed over by sea to Asia and\ntook possession of Kym\u00ea, south of the Gulf of Adramyttium, the most\nconsiderable of all the \u00c6olic cities on the continent.[41] From\nLesbos and Kym\u00ea, the other less considerable \u00c6olic towns, spreading\nover the region of Ida as well as the Tr\u00f4ad, and comprehending the\nisland of Tenedos, are said to have derived their origin.\n\n [38] Pindar, Nem. xi. 43; Hellanic. Fragm. 114, ed. Didot.\n Compare Stephan. Byz. v. \u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n [39] Kin\u00e6thon ap. Pausan. ii. 18, 5. Penthilids existed in Lesbos\n during the historical times (Aristot. Polit. v. 10, 2).\n\n [40] It has sometimes been supposed that the country called\n Thrace here means the residence of the Thracians near Parnassus;\n but the length of the journey, and the number of years which it\n took up, are so specially marked, that I think Thrace in its\n usual and obvious sense must be intended.\n\n [41] Strabo, xiii. p. 582. Hellanikus seems to have treated of\n this delay near Mount Phrikium (see Steph. Byz. v. \u03a6\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). In\n another account (xiii. p. 621), probably copied from the Kym\u00e6an\n Ephorus, Strabo connects the establishments of this colony with\n the sequel of the Trojan war: the Pelasgians, the occupants of\n the territory, who had been the allies of Priam, were weakened\n by the defeat which they had sustained and unable to resist the\n emigrants.\n\nThough there are many differences in the details, the accounts agree\nin representing these \u00c6olic settlements as formed by the Ach\u00e6ans\nexpatriated from Lac\u00f4nia under the guidance of the dispossessed\nPelopids.[42] We are told that in their journey through B\u0153otia\nthey received considerable reinforcements, and Strabo adds that\nthe emigrants started from Aulis, the port from whence Agamemn\u00f4n\ndeparted in the expedition against Troy.[43] He also informs us that\nthey missed their course and experienced many losses from nautical\nignorance, but we do not know to what particular incidents he\nalludes.[44]\n\n [42] Velleius Patercul. i. 4: compare Antikleid\u00eas ap. Athen\u00e6. xi.\n c. 3; Pausanias, iii. 2, 1.\n\n [43] Strabo, ix. p. 401.\n\n [44] Strabo, i. p. 10.\n\n\n2. IONIC EMIGRATION.\n\nThe Ionic emigration is described as emanating from and directed\nby the Athenians, and connects itself with the previous legendary\nhistory of Athens, which must therefore be here briefly recapitulated.\n\nThe great mythical hero Th\u00easeus, of whose military prowess and\nerrant exploits we have spoken in a previous chapter, was still more\nmemorable in the eyes of the Athenians as an internal political\nreformer. He was supposed to have performed for them the inestimable\nservice of transforming Attica out of many states into one. Each\nd\u00eame, or at least a great many out of the whole number, had before\nhis time enjoyed political independence under its own magistrates and\nassemblies, acknowledging only a federal union with the rest under\nthe presidency of Athens: by a mixture of conciliation and force,\nTh\u00easeus succeeded in putting down all these separate governments,\nand bringing them to unite in one political system, centralized at\nAthens. He is said to have established a constitutional government,\nretaining for himself a defined power as king, or president, and\ndistributing the people into three classes: Eupatrid\u00e6, a sort\nof sacerdotal noblesse; Ge\u00f4mori and Demiurgi, husbandmen and\nartisans.[45] Having brought these important changes into efficient\nworking, he commemorated them for his posterity by introducing solemn\nand appropriate festivals. In confirmation of the dominion of Athens\nover the Megarid territory, he is said farther to have erected a\npillar at the extremity of the latter towards the Isthmus, marking\nthe boundary between Peloponn\u00easus and I\u00f4nia.\n\n [45] Plutarch, Th\u00easeus, c. 24, 25, 26.\n\nBut a revolution so extensive was not consummated without creating\nmuch discontent; and Menestheus, the rival of Th\u00easeus,\u2014the first\nspecimen, as we are told, of an artful demagogue,\u2014took advantage of\nthis feeling to assail and undermine him. Th\u00easeus had quitted Attica,\nto accompany and assist his friend Peirith\u00f6us, in his journey down\nto the under-world, in order to carry off the goddess Persephon\u00ea,\u2014or\n(as those who were critical in legendary story preferred recounting)\nin a journey to the residence of Aid\u00f4neus, king of the Molossians in\nEpirus, to carry off his daughter. In this enterprise, Peirith\u00f6us\nperished, while Th\u00easeus was cast into prison, from whence he was\nonly liberated by the intercession of H\u00earakl\u00eas. It was during his\ntemporary absence, that the Tyndarids Cast\u00f4r and Pollux invaded\nAttica for the purpose of recovering their sister Helen, whom Th\u00easeus\nhad at a former period taken away from Sparta and deposited at\nAphidn\u00e6; and the partisans of Menestheus took advantage both of the\nabsence of Th\u00easeus and of the calamity which his licentiousness had\nbrought upon the country, to ruin his popularity with the people.\nWhen he returned, he found them no longer disposed to endure his\ndominion, or to continue to him the honors which their previous\nfeelings of gratitude had conferred. Having, therefore, placed his\nsons under the protection of Elephen\u00f4r, in Eub\u0153a, he sought an asylum\nwith Lykom\u00ead\u00eas, prince of Scyros, from whom, however, he received\nnothing but an insidious welcome and a traitorous death.[46]\n\n [46] Plutarch, Th\u00easeus, c. 34-35.\n\nMenestheus, succeeding to the honors of the expatriated hero,\ncommanded the Athenian troops at the Siege of Troy. But though he\nsurvived the capture, he never returned to Athens,\u2014different stories\nbeing related of the place where he and his companions settled.\nDuring this interval, the feelings of the Athenians having changed,\nthey restored the sons of Th\u00easeus, who had served at Troy under\nElephen\u00f4r, and had returned unhurt, to the station and functions of\ntheir father. The Theseids Demopho\u00f4n, Oxyntas, Apheidas, and Thym\u0153t\u00eas\nhad successively filled this post for the space of about sixty\nyears,[47] when the Dorian invaders of Peloponn\u00easus (as has been\nbefore related) compelled Melanthus and the Neleid family to abandon\ntheir kingdom of Pylus. The refugees found shelter at Athens, where\na fortunate adventure soon raised Melanthus to the throne. A war\nbreaking out between the Athenians and B\u0153otians, respecting the\nboundary tract of \u0152no\u00ea, the B\u0153otian king Xanthus challenged Thym\u0153t\u00eas\nto single combat: the latter declining to accept it, Melanthus not\nonly stood forward in his place, but practised a cunning stratagem\nwith such success as to kill his adversary. He was forthwith chosen\nking, Thym\u0153t\u00eas being constrained to resign.[48]\n\n [47] Eusebius, Chronic. Can. pp. 228-229, ed. Scaliger; Pausan.\n ii. 18, 7.\n\n [48] Ephorus ap. Harpocration. v. \u1f08\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1: \u1f1c\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3,\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u039c\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u039e\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b7\u03b2\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd.\n Compare Strabo, ix. p. 393.\n\n Ephorus derives the term \u1f08\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 from the words signifying a\n trick with reference to the boundaries, and assumes the name of\n this great Ionic festival to have been derived from the stratagem\n of Melanthus, described in Con\u00f4n (Narrat. 39) and Poly\u00e6nus (i.\n 19). The whole derivation is fanciful and erroneous, and the\n story is a curious specimen of legend growing out of etymology.\n\nMelanthus and his son Kodrus reigned for nearly sixty years, during\nwhich time large bodies of fugitives, escaping from the recent\ninvaders throughout Greece, were harbored by the Athenians: so that\nAttica became populous enough to excite the alarm and jealousy of the\nPeloponnesian Dorians. A powerful Dorian force, under the command\nof Al\u00eat\u00eas from Corinth and Alth\u00e6men\u00eas from Argos, were accordingly\ndespatched to invade the Athenian territory, in which the Delphian\noracle promised them success, provided they abstained from injuring\nthe person of Kodrus. Strict orders were given to the Dorian army\nthat Kodrus should be preserved unhurt; but the oracle had become\nknown among the Athenians,[49] and the generous prince determined\nto bring death upon himself as a means of salvation to his country.\nAssuming the disguise of a peasant, he intentionally provoked\na quarrel with some of the Dorian troops, who slew him without\nsuspecting his real character. No sooner was this event known,\nthan the Dorian leaders, despairing of success, abandoned their\nenterprise and evacuated the country.[50] In retiring, however, they\nretained possession of Megara, where they established permanent\nsettlers, and which became from this moment Dorian,\u2014seemingly at\nfirst a dependency of Corinth, though it afterwards acquired its\nfreedom and became an autonomous community.[51] This memorable act of\ndevoted patriotism, analogous to that of the daughters of Erechtheus\nat Athens, and of Men\u0153keus at Th\u00eabes, entitled Kodrus to be ranked\namong the most splendid characters in Grecian legend.\n\n [49] The orator Lykurgus, in his eulogium on Kodrus, mentions a\n Delphian citizen named Kleomantis, who secretly communicated the\n oracle to the Athenians, and was rewarded by them for doing so\n with \u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 (Lycurg. cont. Leocrat. c. 20).\n\n [50] Pherekyd\u00eas, Fragm. 110, ed. Didot; Vell. Paterc. i. 2;\n Con\u00f4n, Narr. 26; Poly\u00e6n. i. c. 18.\n\n Hellanikus traced the genealogy of Kodrus, through ten\n generations, up to Deukali\u00f4n (Fragment 10, ed. Didot.)\n\n [51] Strabo, xiv. p. 653.\n\nKodrus is numbered as the last king of Athens: his descendants were\nstyled Archons, but they held that dignity for life,\u2014a practice\nwhich prevailed during a long course of years afterwards. Medon\nand Neileus, his two sons, having quarrelled about the succession,\nthe Delphian oracle decided in favor of the former; upon which the\nlatter, affronted at the preference, resolved upon seeking a new\nhome.[52] There were at this moment many dispossessed sections of\nGreeks, and an adventitious population accumulated in Attica, who\nwere anxious for settlements beyond sea. The expeditions which\nnow set forth to cross the \u00c6gean, chiefly under the conduct of\nmembers of the Kodrid family, composed collectively the memorable\nIonic Emigration, of which the Ionians, recently expelled from\nPeloponn\u00easus, formed a part, but, as it would seem, only a small\npart; for we hear of many quite distinct races, some renowned in\nlegend, who withdraw from Greece amidst this assemblage of colonists.\nThe Kadmeians, the Miny\u00e6 of Orchomenus, the Abant\u00eas of Eub\u0153a, the\nDryopes; the Molossi, the Phokians, the B\u0153otians, the Arcadian\nPelasgians, and even the Dorians of Epidaurus,\u2014are represented\nas furnishing each a proportion of the crews of these emigrant\nvessels.[53] Nor were the results unworthy of so mighty a confluence\nof different races. Not only the Cyclades islands in the \u00c6gean,\nbut the great islands of Samos and Chios, near the Asiatic coast,\nand ten different cities on the coast of Asia Minor, from Mil\u00eatus\nin the south to Phok\u00e6a in the north, were founded, and all adopted\nthe Ionic name. Athens was the metropolis or mother city of all of\nthem: Androklus and Neileus, the \u0152kists of Ephesus and Mil\u00eatus,\nand probably other \u0152kists also, started from the Prytaneium at\nAthens,[54] with those solemnities, religious and political, which\nusually marked the departure of a swarm of Grecian colonists.\n\n [52] Pausan. vii. 2, 1.\n\n [53] Herodot. i. 146; Pausan. vii. 2, 3, 4. Isokrat\u00eas extols\n his Athenian ancestors for having provided, by means of this\n emigration, settlements for so large a number of distressed and\n poor Greeks at the expense of Barbarians (Or. xii. Panathenaic.\n p. 241).\n\n [54] Herodot. i. 146; vii. 95; viii 46. Vellei. Paterc. i. 4.\n Pherekyd\u00eas Frag. 111, ed. Didot.\n\nOther mythical families, besides the heroic lineage of N\u00ealeus and\nNest\u00f4r, as represented by the sons of Kodrus, took a leading part\nin the expedition. Herodotus mentions Lykian chiefs, descendants\nfrom Glaukus son of Hippolochus, and Pausanias tells us of Phil\u00f4tas\ndescendant of Penele\u00f4s, who went at the head of a body of Thebans:\nboth Glaukus and Penele\u00f4s are commemorated in the Iliad.[55] And\nit is a remarkable fact mentioned by Pausanias (though we do not\nknow on what authority), that the inhabitants of Phok\u00e6a,\u2014which was\nthe northernmost city of I\u00f4nia on the borders of \u00c6olis, and one of\nthe last founded,\u2014consisting mostly of Phokian colonists under the\nconduct of the Athenians Philogen\u00eas and D\u00e6m\u00f4n, were not admitted\ninto the Pan-Ionic Amphiktyony until they consented to choose for\nthemselves chiefs of the Kodrid family.[56] Prokl\u00eas, the chief who\nconducted the Ionic emigrants from Epidaurus to Samos, was said to be\nof the lineage of I\u00f4n, son of Xuthus.[57]\n\n [55] Herodot. i. 147; Pausan. vi. 2, 7.\n\n [56] Pausan. vii. 2, 2; vii. 3, 4.\n\n [57] Pausan. vii. 4, 3.\n\nOf the twelve Ionic states constituting the Pan-Ionic\nAmphiktyony\u2014some of them among the greatest cities in Hellas\u2014I shall\nsay no more at present, as I have to treat of them again when I come\nupon historical ground.\n\n\n3. DORIC EMIGRATIONS.\n\nThe \u00c6olic and Ionic emigrations are thus both presented to us\nas direct consequences of the event called the Return of the\nHerakleids: and in like manner the formation of the Dorian\nHexapolis in the south-western corner of Asia Minor: K\u00f4s, Knidus,\nHalikarnassus, and Rhodes, with its three separate cities, as well as\nthe Dorian establishments in Kr\u00eate, Melos, and Th\u00eara, are all traced\nmore or less directly to the same great revolution.\n\nTh\u00eara, more especially, has its root in the legendary world. Its\n\u0152kist was Th\u00earas, a descendant of the heroic lineage of \u0152dipus and\nKadmus, and maternal uncle of the young kings of Sparta, Eurysthen\u00eas\nand Prokl\u00eas, during whose minority he had exercised the regency. On\ntheir coming of age, his functions were at an end: but being unable\nto endure a private station, he determined to put himself at the\nhead of a body of emigrants: many came forward to join him, and the\nexpedition was farther reinforced by a body of interlopers, belonging\nto the Miny\u00e6, of whom the Laced\u00e6monians were anxious to get rid.\nThese Miny\u00e6 had arrived in Laconia, not long before, from the island\nof Lemnos, out of which they had been expelled by the Pelasgian\nfugitives from Attica. They landed without asking permission, took up\ntheir abode and began to \u201clight their fires\u201d on Mount Taygetus. When\nthe Laced\u00e6monians sent to ask who they were, and wherefore they had\ncome, the Miny\u00e6 replied that they were sons of the Argonauts who had\nlanded at Lemnos, and that, being expelled from their own homes, they\nthought themselves entitled to solicit an asylum in the territory\nof their fathers: they asked, withal, to be admitted to share both\nthe lands and the honors of the state. The Laced\u00e6monians granted\nthe request, chiefly on the ground of a common ancestry,\u2014their own\ngreat heroes, the Tyndarids, having been enrolled in the crew of the\nArg\u00f4: the Miny\u00e6 were then introduced as citizens into the tribes,\nreceived lots of land, and began to intermarry with the pre\u00ebxisting\nfamilies. It was not long, however, before they became insolent: they\ndemanded a share in the kingdom (which was the venerated privilege\nof the Herakleids), and so grossly misconducted themselves in other\nways, that the Laced\u00e6monians resolved to put them to death, and began\nby casting them into prison. While the Miny\u00e6 were thus confined,\ntheir wives, Spartans by birth, and many of them daughters of the\nprincipal men, solicited permission to go in and see them: leave\nbeing granted, they made use of the interview to change clothes with\ntheir husbands, who thus escaped and fled again to Mount Taygetus.\nThe greater number of them quitted Laconia, and marched to Triphylia,\nin the western regions of Peloponn\u00easus, from whence they expelled\nthe Paroreat\u00e6 and the Kaukones, and founded six towns of their own,\nof which Lepreum was the chief. A certain proportion, however, by\npermission of the Laced\u00e6monians, joined Th\u00earas, and departed with him\nto the island of Kallist\u00ea, then possessed by Ph\u0153nician inhabitants,\nwho were descended from the kinsmen and companions of Kadmus, and\nwho had been left there by that prince, when he came forth in\nsearch of Eur\u00f4pa, eight generations preceding. Arriving thus among\nmen of kindred lineage with himself, Th\u00earas met with a fraternal\nreception, and the island derived from him the name, under which it\nis historically known, of Th\u00eara.[58]\n\n [58] Herodot. iv. 145-149; Valer. Maxim. iv. c. 6; Poly\u00e6n.\n vii. 49, who, however, gives the narrative differently by\n mentioning \u201cTyrrhenians from Lemnos aiding Sparta during the\n Helotic war:\u201d another narrative in his collection (viii. 71),\n though imperfectly preserved, seems to approach more closely to\n Herodotus.\n\nSuch is the foundation-legend of Th\u00eara, believed both by the\nLaced\u00e6monians and by the Ther\u00e6ans, and interesting as it brings\nbefore us, characteristically as well as vividly, the persons and\nfeelings of the mythical world,\u2014the Argonauts, with the Tyndarids\nas their companions and Miny\u00e6 as their children. In Lepreum, as in\nthe other towns of Triphylia, the descent from the Miny\u00e6 of old\nseems to have been believed in the historical times, and the mention\nof the river Miny\u00ebius in those regions by Homer tended to confirm\nit.[59] But people were not unanimous as to the legend by which that\ndescent should be made out; while some adopted the story just cited\nfrom Herodotus, others imagined that Chl\u00f4ris, who had come from the\nMinyeian town of Orchomenus as the wife of N\u00ealeus to Pylus, had\nbrought with her a body of her countrymen.[60]\n\n [59] Homer, Iliad, xi. 721.\n\n [60] Strabo, viii. p. 347. M. Raoul Rochette, who treats the\n legends for the most part as if they were so much authentic\n history, is much displeased with Strabo for admitting this\n diversity of stories (Histoire des Colonies Grecques, t. iii. ch.\n 7, p. 54): \u201cApr\u00e8s des d\u00e9tails si clairs et si positifs, comment\n est-il possible que ce m\u00eame Strabon, bouleversant toute la\n chronologie, fasse arriver les Minyens dans la Triphylie sous la\n conduite de Chloris, m\u00e8re de Nestor?\u201d\n\n The story which M. Raoul Rochette thus puts aside, is quite equal\n in point of credibility to that which he accepts: in fact, no\n measure of credibility can be applied.\n\nThese Miny\u00e6 from Lemnos and Imbros appear again as portions of\nanother narrative respecting the settlement of the colony of M\u00ealos.\nIt has already been mentioned, that when the Herakleids and the\nDorians invaded Lac\u00f4nia, Philonomus, an Ach\u00e6an, treacherously\nbetrayed to them the country, for which he received as his recompense\nthe territory of Amykl\u00e6. He is said to have peopled this territory\nby introducing detachments of Miny\u00e6 from Lemnos and Imbros, who, in\nthe third generation after the return of the Herakleids, became so\ndiscontented and mutinous, that the Laced\u00e6monians resolved to send\nthem out of the country as emigrants, under their chiefs Polis and\nDelphus. Taking the direction of Kr\u00eate, they stopped in their way\nto land a portion of their colonists on the island of M\u00ealos, which\nremained throughout the historical times a faithful and attached\ncolony of Laced\u00e6m\u00f4n.[61] On arriving in Kr\u00eate, they are said to have\nsettled at the town of Gortyn. We find, moreover, that other Dorian\nestablishments, either from Laced\u00e6m\u00f4n or Argos, were formed in Kr\u00eate;\nand Lyktos in particular, is noticed, not only as a colony of Sparta,\nbut as distinguished for the analogy of its laws and customs.[62]\nIt is even said that Kr\u00eate, immediately after the Trojan war, had\nbeen visited by the wrath of the gods, and depopulated by famine and\npestilence; and that, in the third generation afterwards, so great\nwas the influx of emigrants, the entire population of the island\nwas renewed, with the exception of the Eteokr\u00eates at Polichn\u00e6 and\nPr\u00e6sus.[63]\n\n [61] Con\u00f4n, Narrat. 36. Compare Plutarch, Qu\u00e6stion. Gr\u00e6c. c. 21,\n where Tyrrhenians from Lemnos are mentioned, as in the passage of\n Poly\u00e6nus, referred to in a preceding note.\n\n [62] Strabo, x. p. 481; Aristot. Polit. ii. 10.\n\n [63] Herodot. vii. 171 (see above, Ch. xii. vol. i. p. 226).\n Diod\u00f4rus (v. 80), as well as Herodotus, mentions generally large\n emigrations into Kr\u00eate from Laced\u00e6m\u00f4n and Argos; but even the\n laborious research of M. Raoul Rochette (Histoire des Colonies\n Grecques, t. iii. c. 9, pp. 60-68) fails in collecting any\n distinct particulars of them.\n\nThere were Dorians in Kr\u00eate in the time of the Odyssey: Homer\nmentions different languages and different races of men, Eteokr\u00eates,\nKyd\u00f4nes, Dorians, Ach\u00e6ans, and Pelasgians, as all coexisting in the\nisland, which he describes to be populous, and to contain ninety\ncities. A legend given by Andr\u00f4n, based seemingly upon the statement\nof Herodotus, that D\u00f4rus the son of Hellen had settled in Histi\u00e6\u00f4tis,\nascribed the first introduction of the three last races to Tektaphus\nson of D\u00f4rus,\u2014who had led forth from that country a colony of\nDorians, Ach\u00e6ans, and Pelasgians, and had landed in Kr\u00eate during\nthe reign of the indigenous king Kr\u00eas.[64] This story of Andr\u00f4n so\nexactly fits on to the Homeric Catalogue of Kretan inhabitants, that\nwe may reasonably presume it to have been designedly arranged with\nreference to that Catalogue, so as to afford some plausible account,\nconsistently with the received legendary chronology, how there came\nto be Dorians in Kr\u00eate before the Trojan war,\u2014the Dorian colonies\nafter the return of the Herakleids being of course long posterior\nin supposed order of time. To find a leader sufficiently early for\nhis hypothesis, Andr\u00f4n ascends to the primitive Eponymus D\u00f4rus, to\nwhose son Tektaphus he ascribes the introduction of a mixed colony\nof Dorians, Ach\u00e6ans, and Pelasgians into Kr\u00eate: these are the exact\nthree races enumerated in the Odyssey, and the king Kr\u00eas, whom Andr\u00f4n\naffirms to have been then reigning in the island, represents the\nEteokr\u00eates and Kyd\u00f4nes in the list of Homer. The story seems to have\nfound favor among native Kretan historians, as it doubtless serves\nto obviate what would otherwise be a contradiction in the legendary\nchronology.[65]\n\n [64] Steph. Byz. v. \u0394\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f67\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f39\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2,\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u039a\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c5\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. Compare Strabo, x. pp. 475-476, from\n which it is plain that the story was adduced by Andr\u00f4n with a\n special explanatory reference to the passage in the Odyssey (xv.\n 175.)\n\n The age of Andr\u00f4n, one of the authors of Atthid\u00eas, is not\n precisely ascertainable, but he can hardly be put earlier than\n 300 B. C.; see the preliminary Dissertation of C. M\u00fcller to the\n Fragmenta Historicorum Gr\u00e6corum, ed. Didot, p. lxxxii; and the\n Prolusio de Atthidum Scriptoribus, prefixed to Lenz\u2019s edition of\n the Fragments of Phanod\u00eamus and D\u00eam\u00f4n, p. xxviii. Lips. 1812.\n\n [65] See Diod\u00f4r, iv. 60; v. 80. From Strabo, (_l. c._) however,\n we see that others rejected the story of Andr\u00f4n.\n\n O. M\u00fcller (History of the Dorians, b. i. c. 1, \u00a7 9) accepts the\n story as substantially true, putting aside the name D\u00f4rus, and\n even regards it as certain that Minos of Kn\u00f4ssus was a Dorian;\n but the evidence with which he supports this conclusion appears\n to me loose and fanciful.\n\nAnother Dorian emigration from Peloponn\u00easus to Kr\u00eate, which extended\nalso to Rhodes and K\u00f4s, is farther said to have been conducted\nby Alth\u00e6men\u00eas, who had been one of the chiefs in the expedition\nagainst Attica, in which Krodus perished. This prince, a Herakleid,\nand third in descent from T\u00eamenus, was induced to expatriate by a\nfamily quarrel, and conducted a body of Dorian colonists from Argos\nfirst to Kr\u00eate, where some of them remained; but the greater number\naccompanied him to Rhodes, in which island, after expelling the\nKarian possessors, he founded the three cities of Lindus, Ialysus,\nand Kameirus.[66]\n\n [66] Con\u00f4n, Narrat. 47; Ephorus, Fragm. 62, ed. Marx.\n\nIt is proper here to add, that the legend of the Rhodian\narch\u00e6ologists respecting their \u0153kist Alth\u00e6men\u00eas, who was worshipped\nin the island with heroic honors, was something totally different\nfrom the preceding. Alth\u00e6men\u00eas was a Kretan, son of the king Katreus,\nand grandson of Minos. An oracle predicted to him that he would\none day kill his father: eager to escape so terrible a destiny, he\nquitted Kr\u00eate, and conducted a colony to Rhodes, where the famous\ntemple of the Atabyrian Zeus, on the lofty summit of Mount Atabyrum,\nwas ascribed to his foundation, built so as to command a view of\nKr\u00eate. He had been settled on the island for some time, when his\nfather Katreus, anxious again to embrace his only son, followed him\nfrom Kr\u00eate: he landed in Rhodes during the night without being known,\nand a casual collision took place between his attendants and the\nislanders. Alth\u00e6men\u00eas hastened to the shore to assist in repelling\nthe supposed enemies, and in the fray had the misfortune to kill his\naged father.[67]\n\n [67] Diod\u00f4r. v. 59; Apollod\u00f4r. iii. 2, 2. In the Chapter next but\n one preceding this, Diod\u00f4rus had made express reference to native\n Rhodian mythologists,\u2014to one in particular, named Zeno (c. 57).\n\n Wesseling supposes two different settlers in Rhodes, both named\n Alth\u00e6men\u00eas: this is certainly necessary, if we are to treat the\n two narratives as historical.\n\nEither the emigrants who accompanied Alth\u00e6men\u00eas, or some other\nDorian colonists afterwards, are reported to have settled at K\u00f4s,\nKnidus, Karpathus, and Halikarnassus. To the last mentioned city,\nhowever, Anth\u00eas of Tr\u0153z\u00ean is assigned as the \u0153kist: the emigrants who\naccompanied him were said to have belonged to the Dymanian tribe, one\nof the three tribes always found in a Doric state: and the city seems\nto have been characterized as a colony sometimes of Tr\u0153z\u00ean, sometimes\nof Argos.[68]\n\n [68] Strabo, xiv. p. 653; Pausan. ii. 39, 3; Kallimachus apud\n Stephan. Byz. v. \u1f09\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n Herodotus (vii. 99) calls Halikarnassus a colony of Tr\u0153z\u00ean;\n Pomponius Mela (i. 16,) of Argos. Vitruvius names both Argos and\n Tr\u0153z\u00ean (ii. 8, 12); but the two \u0153kists whom he mentions, Melas\n and Arevanius, were not so well known as Anth\u00eas; the inhabitants\n of Halikarnassus being called _Anthead\u00e6_ (see Stephan. Byz.\n v. \u1f08\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; and a curious inscription in Boeckh\u2019s Corpus\n Inscriptionum, No. 2655).\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe thus have the \u00c6olic, the Ionic, and the Doric colonial\nestablishments in Asia, all springing out of the legendary age, and\nall set forth as consequences, direct or indirect, of what is called\nthe Return of the Herakleids, or the Dorian conquest of Peloponn\u00easus.\nAccording to the received chronology, they are succeeded by a period,\nsupposed to comprise nearly three centuries, which is almost an\nentire blank, before we reach authentic chronology and the first\nrecorded Olympiad,\u2014and they thus form the concluding events of the\nmythical world, out of which we now pass into historical Greece, such\nas it stands at the last-mentioned epoch. It is by these migrations\nthat the parts of the Hellenic aggregate are distributed into the\nplaces which they occupy at the dawn of historical daylight,\u2014Dorians,\nArcadians, \u00c6tolo-Eleians, and Ach\u00e6ans, sharing Peloponn\u00easus unequally\namong them,\u2014\u00c6olians, Ionians, and Dorians, settled both in the\nislands of the \u00c6gean and the coast of Asia Minor. The Return of the\nHerakleids, as well as the three emigrations, \u00c6olic, Ionic, and\nDoric, present the legendary explanation, suitable to the feelings\nand belief of the people, showing how Greece passed from the heroic\nraces who besieged Troy and Th\u00eabes, piloted the adventurous Arg\u00f4,\nand slew the monstrous boar of Kalyd\u00f4n, to the historical races,\ndifferently named and classified, who furnished victors to the\nOlympic and Pythian games.\n\nA patient and learned French writer, M. Raoul Rochette,\u2014who construes\nall the events of the heroic age, generally speaking, as so much real\nhistory, only making allowance for the mistakes and exaggerations\nof poets,\u2014is greatly perplexed by the blank and interruption which\nthis supposed continuous series of history presents, from the Return\nof the Herakleids down to the beginning of the Olympiads. He cannot\nexplain to himself so long a period of absolute quiescence, after the\nimportant incidents and striking adventures of the heroic age; and if\nthere happened nothing worthy of record during this long period,\u2014as\nhe presumes, from the fact that nothing has been transmitted,\u2014he\nconcludes that this must have arisen from the state of suffering and\nexhaustion in which previous wars and revolution had left the Greeks:\na long interval of complete inaction being required to heal such\nwounds.[69]\n\n [69] \u201cLa p\u00e9riode qui me semble la plus obscure et la plus remplie\n de difficult\u00e9s n\u2019est pas celle que je viens de parcourir: c\u2019est\n celle qui s\u00e9pare l\u2019\u00e9poque des H\u00e9raclides de l\u2019institution des\n Olympiades. La perte des ouvrages d\u2019Ephore et de Th\u00e9opompe est\n sans doute la cause en grande partie du vide immense que nous\n offre dans cet intervalle l\u2019histoire de la Gr\u00e8ce. Mais si l\u2019on\n en excepte l\u2019\u00e9tablissement des colonies Eoliennes, Doriennes,\n et Ioniennes, de l\u2019Asie Mineure, et quelques \u00e9v\u00e8nemens, tr\u00e8s\n rapproch\u00e9s de la premi\u00e8re de ces \u00e9poques, l\u2019espace de plus de\n quatre si\u00e8cles qui les s\u00e9pare est couvert d\u2019une obscurit\u00e9 presque\n imp\u00e9n\u00e9trable, et l\u2019on aura toujours lieu de s\u2019\u00e9tonner que les\n ouvrages des anciens n\u2019offrent aucun secours pour remplir une\n lacune aussi consid\u00e9rable. Une pareille absence doit aussi nous\n faire soup\u00e7onner qu\u2019il se passa dans la Gr\u00e8ce peu de ces grands\n \u00e9v\u00e8nemens qui se gravent fortement dans la m\u00e9moire des hommes:\n puisque, si les traces ne s\u2019en \u00e9taient point conserv\u00e9es dans\n les \u00e9crits des contemporains, au moins le souvenir s\u2019en seroit\n il perp\u00e9tu\u00e9 par des monumens: or les monumens et l\u2019histoire se\n taisent \u00e9galement. Il faut donc croire que la Gr\u00e8ce, agit\u00e9e\n depuis si long temps par des r\u00e9volutions de toute esp\u00e8ce, \u00e9puis\u00e9e\n par ses derni\u00e8res \u00e9migrations, se tourna toute enti\u00e8re vers des\n occupations paisibles, et ne chercha, pendant ce long intervalle,\n qu\u2019\u00e0 gu\u00e9rir, au sein du repos et de l\u2019abondance qui en est la\n suite, les plaies profondes que sa population avait souffertes.\n (Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, t. ii. c. 16. p.\n 455).\n\n To the same purpose, Gillies (History of Greece, ch. iii. p.\n 67. quarto): \u201cThe obscure transactions of Greece, during the\n four following centuries ill correspond with the splendor of the\n Trojan, or even of the Argonautic expedition,\u201d etc.\n\nAssuming M. Rochette\u2019s view of the heroic ages to be correct, and\nreasoning upon the supposition that the adventures ascribed to the\nGrecian heroes are matters of historical reality, transmitted by\ntradition from a period of time four centuries before the recorded\nOlympiads, and only embellished by describing poets,\u2014the blank which\nhe here dwells upon is, to say the least of it, embarrassing and\nunaccountable. It is strange that the stream of tradition, if it had\nonce begun to flow, should (like several of the rivers in Greece) be\nsubmerged for two or three centuries and then reappear. But when we\nmake what appears to me the proper distinction between legend and\nhistory, it will be seen that a period of blank time between the two\nis perfectly conformable to the conditions under which the former\nis generated. It is not the immediate past, but a supposed remote\npast, which forms the suitable atmosphere of mythical narrative,\u2014a\npast originally quite undetermined in respect to distance from the\npresent, as we see in the Iliad and Odyssey. And even when we come\ndown to the genealogical poets, who affect to give a certain measure\nof bygone time, and a succession of persons as well as of events,\nstill, the names whom they most delight to honor and upon whose\nexploits they chiefly expatiate, are those of the ancestral gods and\nheroes of the tribe and their supposed contemporaries; ancestors\nseparated by a long lineage from the present hearer. The gods and\nheroes were conceived as removed from him by several generations,\nand the legendary matter which was grouped around them appeared only\nthe more imposing when exhibited at a respectful distance, beyond\nthe days of father and grandfather, and of all known predecessors.\nThe Odes of Pindar strikingly illustrate this tendency. We thus see\nhow it happened that, between the times assigned to heroic adventure\nand those of historical record, there existed an intermediate blank,\nfilled with inglorious names; and how, amongst the same society which\ncared not to remember proceedings of fathers and grandfathers, there\ncirculated much popular and accredited narrative respecting real\nor supposed ancestors long past and gone The obscure and barren\ncenturies which immediately precede the first recorded Olympiad,\nform the natural separation between the legendary return of the\nHerakleids and the historical wars of Sparta against Mess\u00ean\u00ea,\u2014between\nthe province of legend, wherein matter of fact (if any there be) is\nso intimately combined with its accompaniments of fiction, as to be\nundistinguishable without the aid of extrinsic evidence,\u2014and that\nof history where some matters of fact can be ascertained, and where\na sagacious criticism may be usefully employed in trying to add to\ntheir number.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nAPPLICATION OF CHRONOLOGY TO GRECIAN LEGEND.\n\n\nI need not repeat, what has already been sufficiently set forth in\nthe preceding pages, that the mass of Grecian incident anterior\nto 776 B. C. appears to me not reducible either to history or to\nchronology, and that any chronological system which may be applied\nto it must be essentially uncertified and illusory. It was, however,\nchronologized in ancient times, and has continued to be so in modern;\nand the various schemes employed for this purpose may be found stated\nand compared in the first volume (the last published) of Mr. Fynes\nClinton\u2019s Fasti Hellenici. There were among the Greeks, and there\nstill are among modern scholars, important differences as to the\ndates of the principal events:[70] Eratosthen\u00eas dissented both from\nHerodotus and from Phanias and Kallimachus, while Larcher and Raoul\nRochette (who follow Herodotus) stand opposed to O. M\u00fcller and to\nMr. Clinton. That the reader may have a general conception of the\norder in which these legendary events were disposed, I transcribe\nfrom the Fasti Hellenica a double chronological table, contained in\np. 139, in which the dates are placed in series, from Phor\u00f4neus to\nthe Olympiad of Cor\u0153bus in B. C. 776,\u2014in the first column according\nto the system of Eratosthen\u00eas, in the second according to that of\nKallimachus.\n\n [70] Larcher and Raoul Rochette, adopting the chronological date\n of Herodotus, fix the taking of Troy at 1270 B. C., and the\n Return of the Herakleids at 1190 B. C. According to the scheme of\n Eratosthen\u00eas, these two events stand at 1184 and 1104 B. C.\n\n O. M\u00fcller, in his Chronological Tables (Appendix vi. to History\n of Dorians, vol ii. p. 441, Engl. transl.), gives no dates or\n computation of years anterior to the Capture of Troy and the\n Return of the Herakleids, which he places with Eratosthen\u00eas in\n 1184 and 1104 B. C.\n\n C. M\u00fcller thinks (in his Annotatio ad Marmor Parium, appended to\n the Fragmenta Historicorum Gr\u00e6corum, ed. Didot, pp. 556, 568,\n 572; compare his Prefatory notice of the Fragments of Hellanikus,\n p. xxviii. of the same volume) that the ancient chronologists,\n in their arrangement of the mythical events as antecedent and\n consequent, were guided by certain numerical attachments,\n especially by a reverence for the cycle of 63 years, product\n of the sacred numbers 7 \u00d7 9 = 63. I cannot think that he makes\n out his hypothesis satisfactorily, as to the particular cycle\n followed, though it is not improbable that some preconceived\n numerical theories _did_ guide these early calculators. He calls\n attention to the fact that the Alexandrine computation of dates\n was only one among a number of others discrepant, and that modern\n inquirers are too apt to treat it as if it stood alone, or\n carried some superior authority, (pp. 568-572; compare Clemen.\n Alex. Stromat. i. p. 145, Sylb.) For example, O. M\u00fcller observes,\n (Appendix to Hist. of Dorians, p. 442,) that \u201cLarcher\u2019s criticism\n and rejection of the Alexandrine chronologists may perhaps be\n found as groundless as they are presumptuous,\u201d\u2014an observation,\n which, to say the least of it, ascribes to Eratosthen\u00eas a far\n higher authority than he is entitled to.\n\n\u201cThe following Table (says Mr. Clinton) offers a summary view of\nthe leading periods from Phor\u00f4neus to the Olympiad of Cor\u0153bus, and\nexhibits a double series of dates; the one proceeding from the\ndate of Eratosthen\u00eas, the other from a date founded on the reduced\ncalculations of Phanias and Kallimachus, which strike out fifty-six\nyears from the amount of Eratosthen\u00eas. Phanias, as we have seen,\nomitted fifty-five years between the Return and the registered\nOlympiads; for so we may understand the account: Kallimachus,\nfifty-six years between the Olympiad of Iphitus and the Olympiad in\nwhich Cor\u0153bus won.[71]\n\n [71] The date of Kallimachus for _Iphitus_ is approved by Clavier\n (Prem. Temps, tom. ii. p. 203), who considers it as not far from\n the truth.\n\n\u201cThe first column of this Table exhibits the _current_ years before\nand after the fall of Troy: in the second column of dates the\n_complete_ intervals are expressed.\u201d\n\n Years\n Years intervening\n before between\nthe Fall the different B. C. B. C.\nof Troy. events. Eratosth. Kallimach.\n\n(570)[72] _Phoroneus_, p. 19 287 (1753) (1697)\n(283) { _Daneus_, p. 73 }\n { _Pelasgus V._ p. 13, 88 } 33 (1466) (1410)\n(250) _Deukalion_, p. 42 50 (1433) (1377)\n(200) { _Erechtheus_ }\n { _Dardanus_, p. 88 } 50 (1383) (1327)\n(150) _Azan_, _Aphida_, _Elatus_ 20 (1333) (1277)\n 130 _Kadmus_, p. 85 30 1313 1257\n(100) _Pelops_ 22 (1283) (1227)\n 78 Birth of _Hercules_ 36 1261 1205\n (42) Argonauts 12 (1225) (1169)\n 30 First Theban war, p. 51, h. 4 1213 1157\n 26 Death of _Hercules_ 2 1209 1153\n 24 Death of _Eurystheus_, p. 106, x. 4 1207 1151\n 20 Death of _Hyllus_ 2y 9m 1203 1147\n 18 Accession of _Agamemnon_ 2 1200 1144\n 16 Second Theban war, p. 87, 1 6 1198 1142\n 10 Trojan expedition (9y 1m) 9 1192 1136\n\n Years\n after\nthe Fall\nof Troy.\n Troy taken 7 1183 1127\n 8 _Orestes_ reigns at Argos in the 8th year 52 1176 1120\n 60 { The _Thessali_ occupy Thessaly }\n { The _B\u0153oti_ return to B\u0153otia in the 60th yr. }\n { \u00c6olic migration under _Penthilus_ } 20 1124 1068\n 80 Return of the _Heraclid\u00e6_ in the 80th year 29 1104 1048\n 109 _Aletes_ reigns at Corinth, p. 130, m. 1 1075 1019\n 110 Migration of _Theras_ 21 1074 1018\n 131 Lesbos occupied 130 years after the \u00e6ra 8 1053 997\n 139 Death of _Codrus_ 1 1045 989\n 140 Ionic migration 60 years after the Return 11 1044 988\n 151 Cym\u00ea founded 150 years after the \u00e6ra 18 1033 977\n 169 Smyrna, 168 years after the \u00e6ra, p. 105, t. 131 1015 959\n 299\n 300 Olympiad of _Iphitus_ { 108 }\n { 52 } 884 828\n 408 }\n 352 } Olympiad of _Cor\u0153bus_ .. 776 776\n\n\n [72] These dates, distinguished from the rest by braces, are\n proposed as mere conjectures, founded upon the probable length of\n generations.\n\nWherever chronology is possible, researches such as those of Mr.\nClinton, which have conduced so much to the better understanding of\nthe later times of Greece, deserve respectful attention. But the\nablest chronologist can accomplish nothing, unless he is supplied\nwith a certain basis of matters of fact, pure and distinguishable\nfrom fiction, and authenticated by witnesses both knowing the truth\nand willing to declare it. Possessing this preliminary stock, he\nmay reason from it to refute distinct falsehoods and to correct\npartial mistakes: but if all the original statements submitted to\nhim contain truth (at least wherever there is truth) in a sort\nof chemical combination with fiction, which he has no means of\ndecomposing,\u2014he is in the condition of one who tries to solve a\nproblem without data: he is first obliged to construct his own data,\nand from them to extract his conclusions. The statements of the epic\npoets, our only original witnesses in this case, correspond to the\ndescription here given. Whether the proportion of truth contained in\nthem be smaller or greater, it is at all events unassignable,\u2014and\nthe constant and intimate admixture of fiction is both indisputable\nin itself, and, indeed, essential to the purpose and profession of\nthose from whom the tales proceed. Of such a character are all the\ndeposing witnesses, even where their tales agree; and it is out of a\nheap of such tales, not agreeing, but discrepant in a thousand ways,\nand without a morsel of pure authenticated truth,\u2014that the critic\nis called upon to draw out a methodical series of historical events\nadorned with chronological dates.\n\nIf we could imagine a modern critical scholar transported into Greece\nat the time of the Persian war,\u2014endued with his present habits of\nappreciating historical evidence, without sharing in the religious\nor patriotic feelings of the country,\u2014and invited to prepare, out\nof the great body of Grecian epic which then existed, a History and\nChronology of Greece anterior to 776 B. C., assigning reasons as\nwell for what he admitted as for what he rejected,\u2014I feel persuaded\nthat he would have judged the undertaking to be little better than\na process of guesswork. But the modern critic finds that not only\nPherekyd\u00eas and Hellanikus, but also Herodotus and Thucydid\u00eas, have\neither attempted the task or sanctioned the belief that it was\npracticable,\u2014a matter not at all surprising, when we consider both\ntheir narrow experience of historical evidence and the powerful\nascendency of religion and patriotism in predisposing them to\nantiquarian belief,\u2014and he therefore accepts the problem as they have\nbequeathed it, adding his own efforts to bring it to a satisfactory\nsolution. Nevertheless, he not only follows them with some degree of\nreserve and uneasiness, but even admits important distinctions quite\nforeign to their habits of thought. Thucydid\u00eas talks of the deeds\nof Hell\u00ean and his sons with as much confidence as we now speak of\nWilliam the Conqueror: Mr. Clinton recognizes Hell\u00ean, with his sons\nD\u00f4rus, \u00c6olus, and Xuthus, as fictitious persons. Herodotus recites\nthe great heroic genealogies down from Kadmus and Danaus, with a\nbelief not less complete in the higher members of the series than\nin the lower: but Mr. Clinton admits a radical distinction in the\nevidence of events before and after the first recorded Olympiad, or\n776 B. C.,\u2014\u201cthe first date in Grecian chronology (he remarks, p. 123)\nwhich can be fixed upon _authentic evidence_,\u201d\u2014the highest point to\nwhich Grecian chronology, _reckoning upward_, can be carried. Of this\nimportant epoch in Grecian development,\u2014the commencement of authentic\nchronological life,\u2014Herodotus and Thucydid\u00eas had no knowledge or took\nno account: the later chronologists, from Tim\u00e6us downwards, noted it,\nand made it serve as the basis of their chronological comparisons,\nso far as it went: but neither Eratosthen\u00eas nor Apollod\u00f4rus seem to\nhave recognized (though Varro and Africanus did recognize) a marked\ndifference in respect of certainty or authenticity between the period\nbefore and the period after.\n\nIn farther illustration of Mr. Clinton\u2019s opinion that the first\nrecorded Olympiad is the earliest date which can be fixed upon\nauthentic evidence, we have, in p. 138, the following just remarks\nin reference to the dissentient views of Eratosthen\u00eas, Phanias,\nand Kallimachus, about the date of the Trojan war: \u201cThe chronology\nof Eratosthen\u00eas (he says), founded on a careful comparison of\ncircumstances, and approved by those to whom the same stores of\ninformation were open, is entitled to our respect. But we must\nremember that a conjectural date can never rise to the authority of\nevidence; that what is accepted as a substitute for testimony is not\nan equivalent: witnesses only can prove a date, and in the want of\nthese, the knowledge of it is plainly beyond our reach. If in the\nabsence of a better light we seek for what is probable, we are not to\nforget the distinction between conjecture and proof; between what is\nprobable and what is certain. The computation, then, of Eratosthen\u00eas\nfor the war of Troy is open to inquiry; and if we find it adverse\nto the opinions of many preceding writers, who fixed a lower date,\nand adverse to the acknowledged length of generation in the most\nauthentic dynasties, we are allowed to follow other guides, who give\nus a lower epoch.\u201d\n\nHere Mr. Clinton again plainly acknowledges the want of evidence,\nand the irremediable uncertainty of Grecian chronology before the\nOlympiads; and the reasonable conclusion from his argument is, not\nsimply, that \u201cthe computation of Eratosthen\u00eas was open to inquiry,\u201d\n(which few would be found to deny,) but that both Eratosthen\u00eas and\nPhanias had delivered positive opinions upon a point on which no\nsufficient evidence was accessible, and therefore that neither the\none nor the other was a guide to be followed.[73] Mr. Clinton does,\nindeed, speak of authentic dynasties prior to the first recorded\nOlympiad, but if there be any such, reaching up from that period to\na supposed point coeval with or anterior to the war of Troy,\u2014I see\nno good reason for the marked distinction which he draws between\nchronology before and chronology after the Olympiad of Kor\u0153bus, or\nfor the necessity which he feels of suspending his upward reckoning\nat the last-mentioned epoch, and beginning a different process,\ncalled \u201ca downward reckoning,\u201d from the higher epoch (supposed to\nbe somehow ascertained without any upward reckoning) of the first\npatriarch from whom such authentic dynasty emanates.[74] Herodotus\nand Thucydid\u00eas might well, upon this supposition, ask of Mr.\nClinton, why he called upon them to alter their method of proceeding\nat the year 776 B. C., and why they might not be allowed to pursue\ntheir \u201cupward chronological reckoning,\u201d without interruption,\nfrom Leonidas up to Danaus, or from Peisistratus up to Hell\u00ean and\nDeukalion, without any alteration in the point of view. Authentic\ndynasties from the Olympiads, up to an epoch above the Trojan war,\nwould enable us to obtain chronological proof for the latter date,\ninstead of being reduced (as Mr. Clinton affirms that we are) to\n\u201cconjecture\u201d instead of proof.\n\n [73] Karl M\u00fcller observes (in the Dissertation above referred to,\n appended to the Fragmenta Historicum Gr\u00e6corum, p. 568): \u201cQuod\n attinet \u00e6ram Trojanam, tot obruimur et tam diversis veterum\n scriptorum computationibus, ut singulas enumerare negotium sit\n t\u00e6dii plenum, eas vel probare vel improbare res vana nec vacua ab\n arroganti\u00e2. Nam nemo hodie nescit qu\u00e6nam fides his habenda sit\n omnibus.\u201d\n\n [74] The distinction which Mr. Clinton draws between an upward\n and a downward chronology is one that I am unable to comprehend.\n His doctrine is, that upward chronology is trustworthy and\n practicable up to the first recorded Olympiad; downward\n chronology is trustworthy and practicable from Phor\u00f4neus down\n to the Ionic migration: what is uncertain is, the length of the\n intermediate line which joins the Ionic migration to the first\n recorded Olympiad,\u2014the downward and the upward terminus. (See\n Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. Introduct. p. ix. second edit. and p.\n 123, ch. vi.)\n\n All chronology must begin by reckoning upwards: when by this\n process we have arrived at a certain determined era in earlier\n time, we may from that date reckon downwards, if we please. We\n must be able to reckon upwards from the present time to the\n Christian era, before we can employ that event as a fixed point\n for chronological determinations generally. But if Eratosthen\u00eas\n could perform correctly the upward reckoning from his own\n time to the fall of Troy, so he could also perform the upward\n reckoning up to the nearer point of the Ionic migration. It is\n true that Eratosthen\u00eas gives all his statements of time from an\n older point to a newer (so far at least as we can judge from\n Clemens Alex. Strom. 1, p. 336); he says \u201cFrom the capture of\n Troy to the return of the Herakleids is 80 years; from thence\n to the Ionic migration, 60 years; then, farther on, to the\n guardianship of Lykurgus, 159 years; then to the first year\n of the first Olympiad, 108 years; from which Olympiad to the\n invasion of Xerx\u00eas, 297 years; from whence to the beginning of\n the Peloponnesian war, 48 years,\u201d etc. But here is no difference\n between upward reckoning as high as the first Olympiad, and\n then downward reckoning for the intervals of time above it.\n Eratosthen\u00eas first found or made some upward reckoning to the\n Trojan capture, either from his own time or from some time at\n a known distance from his own: he then assumes the capture\n of Troy as an era, and gives statements of intervals going\n downwards to the Peloponnesian war: amongst other statements,\n he assigns clearly that interval which Mr. Clinton pronounces\n to be undiscoverable, viz. the space of time between the Ionic\n emigration and the first Olympiad, interposing one epoch between\n them. I reject the computation of Eratosthen\u00eas, or any other\n computation, to determine the supposed date of the Trojan war;\n but, if I admitted it, I could have no hesitation in admitting\n also the space which he defines between the Ionic migration and\n the first Olympiad. Eusebius (Pr\u00e6p. Ev. x. 9, p. 485) reckons\n upwards from the birth of Christ, making various halts, but never\n breaking off, to the initial phenomena of Grecian antiquity,\u2014the\n deluge of Deukalion and the conflagration of Pha\u00ebt\u00f4n.\n\nThe whole question, as to the value of the reckoning from the\nOlympiads up to Phor\u00f4neus, does in truth turn upon this point: Are\nthose genealogies, which profess to cover the space between the two,\nauthentic and trustworthy, or not? Mr. Clinton appears to feel that\nthey are not so, when he admits the essential difference in the\ncharacter of the evidence and the necessity of altering the method\nof computation, before and after the first recorded Olympiad; yet,\nin his Preface, he labors to prove that they possess historical\nworth and are in the main correctly set forth: moreover, that the\nfictitious persons, wherever any such are intermingled, may be\ndetected and eliminated. The evidences upon which he relies, are: 1.\nInscriptions; 2. The early poets.\n\n1. An inscription, being nothing but a piece of writing on marble,\ncarries evidentiary value under the same conditions as a published\nwriting on paper. If the inscriber reports a contemporary fact which\nhe had the means of knowing, and if there be no reason to suspect\nmisrepresentation, we believe his assertion: if, on the other hand,\nhe records facts belonging to a long period before his own time, his\nauthority counts for little, except in so far as we can verify and\nappreciate his means of knowledge.\n\nIn estimating, therefore, the probative force of any inscription,\nthe first and most indispensable point is to assure ourselves of its\ndate. Amongst all the public registers and inscriptions alluded to\nby Mr. Clinton, there is not one which can be positively referred\nto a date anterior to 776 B. C. The quoit of Iphitus,\u2014the public\nregisters at Sparta, Corinth, and Elis,\u2014the list of the priestesses\nof Juno at Argos,\u2014are all of a date completely uncertified. O. M\u00fcller\ndoes, indeed, agree with Mr. Clinton (though in my opinion without\nany sufficient proof) in assigning the quoit of Iphitus to the age\nascribed to that prince: and if we even grant thus much, we shall\nhave an inscription as old (adopting Mr. Clinton\u2019s determination\nof the age of Iphitus) as 828 B. C. But when Mr. Clinton quotes O.\nM\u00fcller as admitting the registers of Sparta, Corinth, and Elis, it\nis right to add that the latter does not profess to guarantee the\nauthenticity of these documents, or the age at which such registers\nbegan to be kept. It is not to be doubted that there were registers\nof the kings of Sparta carrying them up to H\u00earakl\u00eas, and of the\nkings of Elis from Oxylus to Iphitus; but the question is, at what\ntime did these lists begin to be kept continuously? This is a point\nwhich we have no means of deciding, nor can we accept Mr. Clinton\u2019s\nunsupported conjecture, when he tells us: \u201c_Perhaps_ these were begun\nto be written as early as B. C. 1048, the probable time of the Dorian\nconquest.\u201d Again, he tells us: \u201cAt Argos, a register was preserved\nof the priestesses of Juno, which _might_ be more ancient than the\ncatalogues of the kings of Sparta or Corinth. That register, from\nwhich Hellanikus composed his work, contained the priestesses from\nthe earliest times down to the age of Hellanikus himself.... But\nthis catalogue _might have_ been commenced as early as the Trojan\nwar itself, and even at a still earlier date.\u201d (pp. x. xi.) Again,\nrespecting the inscriptions quoted by Herodotus from the temple of\nthe Ismenian Apollo at Th\u00eabes, in which Amphitryo and Laodamas are\nnamed, Mr. Clinton says, \u201cThey were ancient in the time of Herodotus,\nwhich _may_ perhaps carry them back 400 years before his time: and\nin that case they _might_ approach within 300 years of Laodamas\nand within 400 years of the probable time of Kadmus himself.\u201d\u2014\u201cIt\nis granted (he adds, in a note,) that these inscriptions were _not\ngenuine_, that is, not of the date to which they were assigned by\nHerodotus himself. But that they were ancient, cannot be doubted,\u201d &c.\n\nThe time when Herodotus saw the temple of the Ismenian Apollo\nat Th\u00eabes can hardly have been earlier than 450 B. C. reckoning\nupwards from hence to 776 B. C., we have an interval of 326 years:\nthe inscriptions which Herodotus saw may well therefore have been\n_ancient_, without being earlier than the first recorded Olympiad.\nMr. Clinton does, indeed, tell us that _ancient_ \u201cmay perhaps\u201d be\nconstrued as 400 years earlier than Herodotus. But no careful reader\ncan permit himself to convert such bare possibility into a ground\nof inference, and to make it available, in conjunction with other\nsimilar possibilities before enumerated, for the purpose of showing\nthat there really existed inscriptions in Greece of a date anterior\nto 776 B. C. Unless Mr. Clinton can make out this, he can derive no\nbenefit from inscriptions, in his attempt to substantiate the reality\nof the mythical persons or of the mythical events.\n\nThe truth is, that the Herakleid pedigree of the Spartan kings\n(as has been observed in a former chapter) is only one out of the\nnumerous divine and heroic genealogies with which the Hellenic world\nabounded,[75]\u2014a class of documents which become historical evidence\nonly so high in the ascending series as the names composing them are\nauthenticated by contemporary, or nearly contemporary, enrolment. At\nwhat period this practice of enrolment began, we have no information.\nTwo remarks, however, may be made, in reference to any approximative\nguess as to the time when actual registration commenced: First, that\nthe number of names in the pedigree, or the length of past time which\nit professes to embrace, affords no presumption of any superior\nantiquity in the time of registration: Secondly, that, looking to\nthe acknowledged paucity and rudeness of Grecian writing, even down\nto the 60th Olympiad (540 B. C.), and to the absence of the habit\nof writing, as well as the low estimate of its value, which such a\nstate of things argues, the presumption is, that written enrolment\nof family genealogies, did not commence until a long time after 776\nB. C., and the obligation of proof falls upon him who maintains\nthat it commenced earlier. And this second remark is farther borne\nout, when we observe that there is no registered list, except that\nof the Olympic victors, which goes up even so high as 776 B. C. The\nnext list which O. M\u00fcller and Mr. Clinton produce, is that of the\nKarneonic\u00e6, or victors at the Karneian festival, which reaches only\nup to 676 B. C.\n\n [75] See the string of fabulous names placed at the head of the\n Halikarnassian Inscription, professing to enumerate the series of\n priests of Poseid\u00f4n from the foundation of the city (Inscript.\n No. 2655, Boeckh), with the commentary of the learned editor:\n compare, also, what he pronounces to be an inscription of a\n genealogy partially fabulous at Hierapytna in Kr\u00eate (No. 2563).\n\n The memorable Parian marble is itself an inscription, in which\n legend and history\u2014gods, heroes, and men\u2014are blended together\n in the various successive epochs without any consciousness of\n transition in the mind of the inscriber.\n\n That the Catalogue of Priestesses of H\u00ear\u00ea at Argos went back to\n the extreme of fabulous times, we may discern by the Fragments of\n Hellanikus (Frag. 45-53). So also did the registers at Siky\u00f4n:\n they professed to record Amphion, son of Zeus and Antiop\u00ea, as the\n inventor of harp-music (Plutarch, De Music\u00e2, c. 3, p. 1132).\n\n I remarked in the preceding page, that Mr. Clinton erroneously\n cites K. O. M\u00fcller as a believer in the chronological\n _authenticity_ of the lists of the early Spartan kings: he says\n (vol. iii. App. vi. p. 330), \u201cMr. M\u00fcller is of opinion that an\n _authentic_ account of the years of each Laced\u00e6monian reign from\n the return of the Heraclid\u00e6 to the Olympiad of Kor\u0153bus had been\n preserved to the time of Eratosthen\u00eas and Apollod\u00f4rus.\u201d But this\n is a mistake; for M\u00fcller expressly disavows any belief in the\n _authenticity_ of the lists (Dorians, i. p. 146): he says: \u201cI do\n not contend that the chronological accounts in the Spartan lists\n form _an authentic document_, more than those in the catalogue\n of the priestesses of H\u00ear\u00ea and in the list of Halikarnassian\n priests. The chronological statements in the Spartan lists may\n have been formed from imperfect memorials: but the Alexandrine\n chronologists must have found such tables in existence,\u201d &c.\n\n The discrepancies noticed in Herodotus (vi. 52) are alone\n sufficient to prove that continuous registers of the names of the\n Laced\u00e6monian kings did not begin to be kept until very long after\n the date here assigned by Mr. Clinton.\n\n Xenoph\u00f4n (Agesilaus, viii. 7) agrees with what Herodotus mentions\n to have been the native Laced\u00e6monian story,\u2014that Aristod\u00eamus (and\n not his sons) was the king who conducted the Dorian invaders\n to Sparta. What is farther remarkable is, that Xenoph\u00f4n calls\n him\u2014\u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. The reasonable inference here is,\n that Xenoph\u00f4n believed Aristod\u00eamus to be the _son_ of H\u00earakl\u00eas,\n and that this was one of the various genealogical stories\n current. But here the critics interpose; \u201c\u1f41 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1f11\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (observes\n Schneider,) non \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, sed \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, ut ex Herodoto, viii. 131,\n admonuit Weiske.\u201d Surely, if Xenoph\u00f4n had meant this, he would\n have said \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n Perhaps particular exceptional cases might be quoted, wherein\n the very common phrase of \u1f41, followed by a genitive, means\n _descendant_, and not _son_. But if any doubt be allowed upon\n this point, chronological computations, founded on genealogies,\n will be exposed to a serious additional suspicion. Why are we to\n assume that Xenoph\u00f4n _must_ give the same story as Herodotus,\n unless his words naturally tell us so?\n\nIf Mr. Clinton then makes little out of inscriptions to sustain his\nview of Grecian history and chronology anterior to the recorded\nOlympiads, let us examine the inferences which he draws from his\nether source of evidence,\u2014the early poets. And here it will be\nfound, First, that in order to maintain the credibility of these\nwitnesses, he lays down positions respecting historical evidence\nboth indefensible in themselves, and especially inapplicable to the\nearly times of Greece: Secondly, that his reasoning is at the same\ntime inconsistent,\u2014inasmuch as it includes admissions, which, if\nproperly understood and followed out, exhibit these very witnesses as\nhabitually, indiscriminately, and unconsciously mingling truth and\nfiction; and therefore little fit to be believed upon their solitary\nand unsupported testimony.\n\nTo take the second point first, he says, Introduction, p. ii-iii:\n\u201cThe authority even of the genealogies has been called in question\nby many able and learned persons, who reject Danaus, Kadmus,\nHercules, Th\u00easeus, and many others, as fictitious persons. It\nis evident that any fact would come from the hands of the poets\nembellished with many fabulous additions: and fictitious genealogies\nwere undoubtedly composed. Because, however, some genealogies\nwere fictitious, we are not justified in concluding that all were\nfabulous.... In estimating, then, the historical value of the\ngenealogies transmitted by the early poets, we may take a middle\ncourse; not rejecting them as wholly false, nor yet implicitly\nreceiving all as true. The genealogies _contain many real persons_,\nbut these are _incorporated with many fictitious names_. The\nfictions, however, will have a basis of truth: the genealogical\nexpression may be false, but the connection which it describes is\nreal. Even to those who reject the whole as fabulous, the exhibition\nof the early times which is presented in this volume may still be not\nunacceptable: because it is necessary to the right understanding of\nantiquity that the opinions of the Greeks concerning their own origin\nshould be set before us, even if these are erroneous opinions, and\nthat their story should be told as they have told it themselves. The\nnames preserved by the ancient genealogies may be considered of three\nkinds; either they were the name of a race or clan converted into\nthe name of an individual, or they were altogether fictitious, or\nlastly, they were real historical names. An attempt is made, in the\nfour genealogical tables inserted below, to distinguish these three\nclasses of names.... Of those who are left in the third class (_i.\ne._ the real) all are not entitled to remain there. But I have only\nplaced in the third class those names concerning which there seemed\nto be little doubt. The rest are left to the judgment of the reader.\u201d\n\nPursuant to this principle of division, Mr. Clinton furnishes four\ngenealogical tables,[76] in which the names of persons representing\nraces are printed in capital letters, and those of purely fictitious\npersons in italics. And these tables exhibit a curious sample of the\nintimate commixture of fiction with that which he calls truth: real\nson and mythical father, real husband and mythical wife, or _vice\nvers\u00e2_.\n\n [76] See Mr. Clinton\u2019s work, pp. 32, 40, 100.\n\nUpon Mr. Clinton\u2019s tables we may remark:\u2014\n\n1. The names singled out as fictitious are distinguished by no common\ncharacter, nor any mark either assignable or defensible, from those\nwhich are left as real. To take an example (p. 40), why is It\u00f4nus the\nfirst pointed out as a fiction, while It\u00f4nus the second, together\nwith Physcus, Cynus, Salm\u00f4neus, Ormenus, etc., in the same page, are\npreserved as real, all of them being eponyms of towns just as much as\nIt\u00f4nus?\n\n2. If we are to discard Hell\u00ean, D\u00f4rus, \u00c6olus, I\u00f4n, etc., as not being\nreal individual persons, but expressions for personified races, why\nare we to retain Kadmus, Danaus, Hyllus, and several others, who are\njust as much eponyms of races and tribes as the four above mentioned?\nHyllus, Pamphylus, and Dymas are the eponyms of the three Dorian\ntribes,[77] just as Hopl\u00eas and the other three sons of I\u00f4n were of\nthe four Attic tribes: Kadmus and Danaus stand in the same relation\nto the Kadmeians and Danaans, as Argus and Ach\u00e6us to the Argeians and\nAch\u00e6ans. Besides, there are many other names really eponymous, which\nwe cannot now recognize to be so, in consequence of our imperfect\nacquaintance with the subdivisions of the Hellenic population, each\nof which, speaking generally, had its god or hero, to whom the\noriginal of the name was referred. If, then, eponymous names are to\nbe excluded from the category of reality, we shall find that the\nranks of the real men will be thinned to a far greater extent than is\nindicated by Mr. Clinton\u2019s tables.\n\n [77] \u201cFrom these three\u201d (Hyllus, Pamphylus, and Dymas,) says Mr.\n Clinton, vol. i. ch. 5, p. 109, \u201cthe three Dorian tribes derived\n their names.\u201d\n\n3. Though Mr. Clinton does not carry out consistently either of\nhis disfranchising qualifications among the names and persons of\nthe old mythes, he nevertheless presses them far enough to strike\nout a sensible proportion of the whole. By conceding thus much\nto modern scepticism, he has departed from the point of view of\nHellanikus and Herodotus, and the ancient historians generally;\nand it is singular that the names, which he has been the most\nforward to sacrifice, are exactly those to which they were most\nattached, and which it would have been most painful to their faith\nto part with,\u2014I mean the eponymous heroes. Neither Herodotus, nor\nHellanikus, nor Eratosthen\u00eas, nor any one of the chronological\nreckoners of antiquity, would have admitted the distinction which\nMr. Clinton draws between persons real and persons fictitious in\nthe old mythical world, though they might perhaps occasionally, on\nspecial grounds, call in question the existence of some individual\ncharacters amongst the mythical ancestry of Greece; but they never\ndreamed of that general severance into real and fictitious persons,\nwhich forms the principle of Mr. Clinton\u2019s \u201cmiddle course.\u201d Their\nchronological computations for Grecian antiquity assumed that the\nmythical characters, in their full and entire sequence, were all real\npersons. Setting up the entire list as real, they calculated so many\ngenerations to a century, and thus determined the number of centuries\nwhich separated themselves from the gods, the heroes, or the\nautochthonous men who formed in their view the historical starting\npoint. But as soon as it is admitted that the personages in the\nmythical world are divisible into two classes, partly real and partly\nfictitious, the integrity of the series is broken up, and it can be\nno longer employed as a basis for chronological calculation. In the\nestimate of the ancient chronologers, three succeeding persons of the\nsame lineage\u2014grandfather, father, and son,\u2014counted for a century;\nand this may pass in a rough way, so long as you are thoroughly\nsatisfied that they are all real persons: but if, in the succession\nof persons A, B, C, you strike out B as a fiction, the continuity\nof data necessary for chronological computation disappears. Now Mr.\nClinton is inconsistent with himself in this,\u2014that, while he abandons\nthe unsuspecting historical faith of the Grecian chronologers, he\nnevertheless continues his chronological computations upon the data\nof that ancient faith,\u2014upon the assumed reality of all the persons\nconstituting his ante-historical generations. What becomes, for\nexample, of the Herakleid genealogy of the Spartan kings, when it\nis admitted that eponymous persons are to be cancelled as fictions;\nseeing that Hyllus, through whom those kings traced their origin to\nH\u00earakl\u00eas comes in the most distinct manner under that category, as\nmuch so as Hopl\u00eas the son of I\u00f4n? It will be found that, when we\nonce cease to believe in the mythical world as an uninterrupted and\nunalloyed succession of real individuals, it becomes unfit to serve\nas a basis for chronological computations, and that Mr. Clinton, when\nhe mutilated the data of the ancient chronologists, ought at the\nsame time to have abandoned their problems as insoluble. Genealogies\nof real persons, such as Herodotus and Eratosthen\u00eas believed in,\nafford a tolerable basis for calculations of time, within certain\nlimits of error: \u201cgenealogies containing many real persons, but\nincorporated with many fictitious names,\u201d (to use the language just\ncited from Mr. Clinton,) are essentially unavailable for such a\npurpose.\n\nIt is right here to add, that I agree in Mr. Clinton\u2019s view of\nthese eponymous persons: I admit, with him, that \u201cthe genealogical\nexpression may often be false, when the connection which it describes\nis real.\u201d Thus, for example, the adoption of Hyllus by \u00c6gimius, the\nfather of Pamphylus and Dymas, to the privileges of a son and to a\nthird fraction of his territories, may reasonably be construed as\na mythical expression of the fraternal union of the three Dorian\ntribes, Hyll\u00eais, Pamphyli, and Dymanes: so about the relationship of\nI\u00f4n and Ach\u00e6us, of D\u00f4rus and \u00c6olus. But if we put this construction\non the name of Hyllus, or I\u00f4n, or Ach\u00e6us, we cannot at the same time\nemploy either of these persons as units in chronological reckoning:\nnor is it consistent to recognize them in the lump as members of\na distinct class, and yet to enlist them as real individuals in\nmeasuring the duration of past time.\n\n4. Mr. Clinton, while professing a wish to tell the story of the\nGreeks as they have told it themselves, seems unconscious how\ncapitally his point of view differs from theirs. The distinction\nwhich he draws between real and fictitious persons would have\nappeared unreasonable, not to say offensive, to Herodotus or\nEratosthen\u00eas. It is undoubtedly right that the early history (if so\nit is to be called) of the Greeks should be told as they have told\nit themselves, and with that view I have endeavored in the previous\nnarrative, as far as I could, to present the primitive legends in\ntheir original color and character,\u2014pointing out at the same time the\nmanner in which they were transformed and distilled into history by\npassing through the retort of later annalists. It is the legend, as\nthus transformed, which Mr. Clinton seems to understand as the story\ntold by the Greeks themselves,\u2014which cannot be admitted to be true,\nunless the meaning of the expression be specially explained. In his\ngeneral distinction, however, between the real and fictitious persons\nof the mythical world, he departs essentially from the point of\nview even of the later Greeks. And if he had consistently followed\nout that distinction in his particular criticisms, he would have\nfound the ground slipping under his feet in his upward march even\nto Troy,\u2014not to mention the series of eighteen generations farther\nup, to Phor\u00f4neus; but he does _not_ consistently follow it out, and\ntherefore, in practice, he deviates little from the footsteps of the\nancients.\n\nEnough has been said to show that the witnesses upon whom Mr. Clinton\nrelies, blend truth and fiction habitually, indiscriminately, and\nunconsciously, even upon his own admission. Let us now consider the\npositions which he lays down respecting historical evidence. He says\n(Introduct. pp. vi-vii):\u2014\n\n\u201cWe may acknowledge as real persons all those whom there is no reason\nfor rejecting. The presumption is in favor of the early tradition,\nif no argument can be brought to overthrow it. The persons may be\nconsidered real, when the description of them is consonant with\nthe state of the country at that time: when no national prejudice\nor vanity could be concerned in inventing them: when the tradition\nis consistent and general: when rival or hostile tribes concur in\nthe leading facts: when the acts ascribed to the person (divested\nof their poetical ornament) enter into the political system of the\nage, or form the basis of other transactions which fall within known\nhistorical times. Kadmus and Danaus appear to be real persons: for\nit is conformable to the state of mankind, and perfectly credible,\nthat Ph\u0153nician and Egyptian adventurers, in the ages to which these\npersons are ascribed, should have found their way to the coasts of\nGreece: and the Greeks (as already observed) had no motive from any\nnational vanity to feign these settlements. Hercules was a real\nperson. His acts were recorded by those who were not friendly to\nthe Dorians; by Ach\u00e6ans and \u00c6olians, and Ionians, who had no vanity\nto gratify in celebrating the hero of a hostile and rival people.\nHis descendants in many branches remained in many states down to\nthe historical times. His son Tlepolemus, and his grandson and\ngreat-grandson Cleod\u00e6us and Aristomachus, are acknowledged (_i. e._\nby O. M\u00fcller) to be real persons: and there is no reason that can be\nassigned for receiving these, which will not be equally valid for\nestablishing the reality both of Hercules and Hyllus. Above all,\nHercules is authenticated by the testimonies both of the Iliad and\nOdyssey.\u201d\n\nThese positions appear to me inconsistent with any sound views of the\nconditions of historical testimony. According to what is here laid\ndown, we are bound to accept as real all the persons mentioned by\nHomer, Arktinus, Lesch\u00eas, the Hesiodic poets, Eum\u00ealus, Asius, etc.,\nunless we can adduce some positive ground in each particular case\nto prove the contrary. If this position be a true one, the greater\npart of the history of England, from Brute the Trojan down to Julius\nC\u00e6sar, ought at once to be admitted as valid and worthy of credence.\nWhat Mr. Clinton here calls the _early tradition_, is in point of\nfact, the narrative of these early poets. The word _tradition_ is\nan equivocal word, and begs the whole question; for while in its\nobvious and literal meaning it implies only something handed down,\nwhether truth or fiction,\u2014it is tacitly understood to imply a tale\ndescriptive of some real matter of fact, taking its rise at the time\nwhen that fact happened, and originally accurate, but corrupted\nby subsequent oral transmission. Understanding, therefore, by Mr.\nClinton\u2019s words _early tradition_, the tales of the old poets, we\nshall find his position totally inadmissible,\u2014that we are bound to\nadmit the persons or statements of Homer and Hesiod as real unless\nwhere we can produce reasons to the contrary. To allow this, would\nbe to put them upon a par with good contemporary witnesses; for no\ngreater privilege can be claimed in favor even of Thucydid\u00eas, than\nthe title of his testimony to be believed unless where it can be\ncontradicted on special grounds. The presumption in favor of an\nasserting witness is either strong or weak, or positively nothing,\naccording to the compound ratio of his means of knowledge, his moral\nand intellectual habits, and his motive to speak the truth. Thus,\nfor instance, when Hesiod tells us that his father quitted the \u00c6olic\nKym\u00ea, and came to Askra in B\u0153\u00f4tia, we may fully believe him; but\nwhen he describes to us the battles between the Olympic gods and the\nTitans, or between H\u00earakl\u00eas and Cycnus,\u2014or when Homer depicts the\nefforts of Hect\u00f4r, aided by Apollo, for the defence of Troy, and\nthe struggles of Achilles and Odysseus, with the assistance of H\u00ear\u00ea\nand Poseid\u00f4n, for the destruction of that city, events professedly\nlong past and gone,\u2014we cannot presume either of them to be in any\nway worthy of belief. It cannot be shown that they possessed any\nmeans of knowledge, while it is certain that they could have no\nmotive to consider historical truth: their object was to satisfy an\nuncritical appetite for narrative, and to interest the emotions of\ntheir hearers. Mr. Clinton says, that \u201cthe persons may be considered\nreal when the description of them is consistent with the state of\nthe country at that time.\u201d But he has forgotten, first, that we know\nnothing of the state of the country except what these very poets tell\nus; next, that fictitious persons may be just as consonant to the\nstate of the country as real persons. While, therefore, on the one\nhand, we have no independent evidence either to affirm or to deny\nthat Achilles or Agamemn\u00f4n are consistent with the state of Greece or\nAsia Minor, at a certain supposed date 1183 B. C., so, on the other\nhand, even assuming such consistency to be made out, this of itself\nwould not prove them to be real persons.\n\nMr. Clinton\u2019s reasoning altogether overlooks the existence of\n_plausible fiction_,\u2014fictitious stories which harmonize perfectly\nwell with the general course of facts, and which are distinguished\nfrom matters of fact not by any internal character, but by the\ncircumstance that matter of fact has some competent and well-informed\nwitness to authenticate it, either directly or through legitimate\ninference. Fiction may be, and often is, extravagant and incredible;\nbut it may also be plausible and specious, and in that case there\nis nothing but the want of an attesting certificate to distinguish\nit from truth. Now all the tests, which Mr. Clinton proposes as\nguarantees of the reality of the Homeric persons, will be just as\nwell satisfied by plausible fiction as by actual matter of fact:\nthe plausibility of the fiction consists in its satisfying those\nand other similar conditions. In most cases, the tales of the\npoets _did_ fall in with the existing current of feelings in their\naudience: \u201cprejudice and vanity\u201d are not the only feelings, but\ndoubtless prejudice and vanity were often appealed to, and it was\nfrom such harmony of sentiment that they acquired their hold on men\u2019s\nbelief. Without any doubt, the Iliad appealed most powerfully to the\nreverence for ancestral gods and heroes among the Asiatic colonists\nwho first heard it: the temptation of putting forth an interesting\ntale is quite a sufficient stimulus to the invention of the poet, and\nthe plausibility of the tale a sufficient passport to the belief of\nthe hearers. Mr. Clinton talks of \u201cconsistent and general tradition.\u201d\nBut that the tale of a poet, when once told with effect and beauty,\nacquired general belief,\u2014is no proof that it was founded on fact:\notherwise, what are we to say to the divine legends, and to the large\nportion of the Homeric narrative which Mr. Clinton himself sets\naside as untrue, under the designation of \u201cpoetical ornament?\u201d When\na mythical incident is recorded as \u201cforming the basis\u201d of some known\nhistorical fact or institution,\u2014as, for instance, the successful\nstratagem by which Melanthus killed Xanthus, in the battle on the\nboundary, as recounted in my last chapter,\u2014we may adopt one of two\nviews; we may either treat the incident as real, and as having\nactually given occasion to what is described as its effect,\u2014or we\nmay treat the incident as a legend imagined in order to assign some\nplausible origin of the reality,\u2014\u201cAut ex re nomen, aut ex vocabulo\nfabula.\u201d[78] In cases where the legendary incident is referred to\na time long anterior to any records,\u2014as it commonly is,\u2014the second\nmode of proceeding appears to me far more consonant to reason and\nprobability than the first. It is to be recollected that all the\npersons and facts, here defended as matter of real history, by Mr.\nClinton, are referred to an age long preceding the first beginning of\nrecords.\n\n [78] Pomponius Mela, iii. 7.\n\nI have already remarked that Mr. Clinton shrinks from his own rule\nin treating Kadmus and Danaus as real persons, since they are as\nmuch eponyms of tribes or races as D\u00f4rus and Hell\u00ean. And if he can\nadmit H\u00earakl\u00eas to be a real man, I cannot see upon what reason he\ncan consistently disallow any one of the mythical personages, for\nthere is not one whose exploits are more strikingly at variance with\nthe standard of historical probability. Mr. Clinton reasons upon the\nsupposition that \u201cHercul\u00eas was a _Dorian_ hero:\u201d but he was Ach\u00e6an\nand Kadmeian as well as Dorian, though the legends respecting him are\ndifferent in all the three characters. Whether his son Tlepolemus and\nhis grandson Cleod\u00e6us belong to the category of historical men, I\nwill not take upon me to say, though O. M\u00fcller (in my opinion without\nany warranty) appears to admit it; but Hyllus certainly is not a real\nman, if the canon of Mr. Clinton himself respecting the eponyms is\nto be trusted. \u201cThe descendants of Hercul\u00eas (observes Mr. Clinton)\nremained in many states down to the historical times.\u201d So did those\nof Zeus and Apollo, and of that god whom the historian Hekat\u00e6us\nrecognized as his progenitor in the sixteenth generation; the titular\nkings of Ephesus, in the historical times, as well as Peisistratus,\nthe despot of Athens, traced their origin up to \u00c6olus and Hell\u00ean,\nyet Mr. Clinton does not hesitate to reject \u00c6olus and Hell\u00ean as\nfictitious persons. I dispute the propriety of quoting the Iliad and\nOdyssey (as Mr. Clinton does) in evidence of the historic personality\nof Hercul\u00eas. For, even with regard to the ordinary men who figure\nin those poems, we have no means of discriminating the real from\nthe fictitious; while the Homeric H\u00earakl\u00eas is unquestionably more\nthan an ordinary man,\u2014he is the favorite son of Zeus, from his birth\npredestined to a life of labor and servitude, as preparation for a\nglorious immortality. Without doubt, the poet himself believed in the\nreality of Hercul\u00eas, but it was a reality clothed with superhuman\nattributes.\n\nMr. Clinton observes (Introd. p. ii.), that \u201cbecause some genealogies\nwere fictitious, we are not justified in concluding that all were\nfabulous.\u201d It is no way necessary that we should maintain so\nextensive a position: it is sufficient that all are fabulous so\nfar as concerns gods and heroes,\u2014_some_ fabulous throughout,\u2014and\nnone ascertainably true, for the period anterior to the recorded\nOlympiads. How much, or what particular portions, may be true, no\none can pronounce. The gods and heroes are, from our point of view,\nessentially fictitious; but from the Grecian point of view they were\nthe most real (if the expression may be permitted, _i. e._ clung to\nwith the strongest faith) of all the members of the series. They\nnot only formed parts of the genealogy as originally conceived,\nbut were in themselves the grand reason why it was conceived,\u2014as a\ngolden chain to connect the living man with a divine ancestor. The\ngenealogy, therefore, taken as a whole, (and its value consists in\nits being taken as a whole,) was from the beginning a fiction; but\nthe names of the father and grandfather of the living man, in whose\nday it first came forth, were doubtless those of real men. Wherever,\ntherefore, we can verify the date of a genealogy, as applied to some\nliving person, we may reasonably presume the two lowest members of\nit to be also those of real persons: but this has no application\nto the time anterior to the Olympiads,\u2014still less to the pretended\ntimes of the Trojan war, the Kalyd\u00f4nian boar-hunt, or the deluge of\nDeukalion. To reason (as Mr. Clinton does, Introd. p. vi.),\u2014\u201cBecause\nAristomachus was a real man, therefore his father Cleod\u00e6us, his\ngrandfather Hyllus, and so farther upwards, etc., must have been\nreal men,\u201d\u2014is an inadmissible conclusion. The historian Hekat\u00e6us was\na real man, and doubtless his father Hegesander, also,\u2014but it would\nbe unsafe to march up his genealogical ladder fifteen steps, to the\npresence of the ancestorial god of whom he boasted: the upper steps\nof the ladder will be found broken and unreal. Not to mention that\nthe inference, from real son to real father, is inconsistent with the\nadmissions in Mr. Clinton\u2019s own genealogical tables; for he there\ninserts the names of several mythical fathers as having begotten real\nhistorical sons.\n\nThe general authority of Mr. Clinton\u2019s book, and the sincere respect\nwhich I entertain for his elucidations of the later chronology,\nhave imposed upon me the duty of assigning those grounds on which I\ndissent from his conclusions prior to the first recorded Olympiad.\nThe reader who desires to see the numerous and contradictory guesses\n(they deserve no better name) of the Greeks themselves in the attempt\nto chronologize their mythical narratives, will find them in the\ncopious notes annexed to the first half of his first volume. As I\nconsider all such researches not merely as fruitless, in regard to\nany trustworthy result, but as serving to divert attention from the\ngenuine form and really illustrative character of Grecian legend, I\nhave not thought it right to go over the same ground in the present\nwork. Differing as I do, however, from Mr. Clinton\u2019s views on\nthis subject, I concur with him in deprecating the application of\netymology (Intr. pp. xi-xii.) as a general scheme of explanation to\nthe characters and events of Greek legend. Amongst the many causes\nwhich operated as suggestives and stimulants to Greek fancy in the\ncreation of these interesting tales, doubtless etymology has had its\nshare; but it cannot be applied (as Hermann, above all others, has\nsought to apply it) for the purpose of imparting supposed sense and\nsystem to the general body of mythical narrative. I have already\nremarked on this topic in a former chapter.\n\nIt would be curious to ascertain at what time, or by whom, the\nearliest continuous genealogies, connecting existing persons with\nthe supposed antecedent age of legend, were formed and preserved.\nNeither Homer nor Hesiod mentioned any verifiable _present_ persons\nor circumstances: had they done so, the age of one or other of them\ncould have been determined upon good evidence, which we may fairly\npresume to have been impossible, from the endless controversies upon\nthis topic among ancient writers. In the Hesiodic Works and Days, the\nheroes of Troy and Th\u00eabes are even presented as an extinct race,[79]\nradically different from the poet\u2019s own contemporaries, who are a new\nrace, far too depraved to be conceived as sprung from the loins of\nthe heroes; so that we can hardly suppose Hesiod (though his father\nwas a native of the \u00c6olic Kym\u00ea) to have admitted the pedigree of the\n\u00c6olic chiefs, as reputed descendants of Agamemn\u00f4n. Certain it is,\nthat the earliest poets did not attempt to measure or bridge over\nthe supposed interval, between their own age and the war of Troy, by\nany definite series of fathers and sons: whether Eum\u00ealus or Asius\nmade any such attempt, we cannot tell, but the earliest continuous\nbackward genealogies which we find mentioned are those of Pherekyd\u00eas,\nHellanikus, and Herodotus. It is well known that Herodotus, in his\nmanner of computing the upward genealogy of the Spartan kings,\nassigns the date of the Trojan war to a period 800 years earlier than\nhimself, equivalent about to B. C. 1270-1250; while the subsequent\nAlexandrine chronologists, Eratosthen\u00eas and Apollod\u00f4rus, place that\nevent in 1184 and 1183 B. C.; and the Parian marble refers it to\nan intermediate date, different from either,\u20141209 B. C. Ephorus,\nPhanias, Tim\u00e6us, Kleitarchus, and Duris, had each his own conjectural\ndate; but the computations of the Alexandrine chronologists was\nthe most generally followed by those who succeeded them, and seems\nto have passed to modern times as the received date of this great\nlegendary event,\u2014though some distinguished inquirers have adopted\nthe epoch of Herodotus, which Larcher has attempted to vindicate\nin an elaborate but feeble dissertation.[80] It is unnecessary to\nstate that, in my view, the inquiry has no other value except to\nillustrate the ideas which guided the Greek mind, and to exhibit\nits progress from the days of Homer to those of Herodotus. For it\nargues a considerable mental progress when men begin to methodize\nthe past, even though they do so on fictitious principles, being as\nyet unprovided with those records which alone could put them on a\nbetter course. The Homeric man was satisfied with feeling, imagining,\nand believing particular incidents of a supposed past, without any\nattempt to graduate the line of connection between them and himself:\nto introduce fictitious hypotheses and media of connection is the\nbusiness of a succeeding age, when the stimulus of rational curiosity\nis first felt, without any authentic materials to supply it. We have,\nthen, the form of history operating upon the matter of legend,\u2014the\ntransition-state between legend and history; less interesting,\nindeed, than either separately, yet necessary as a step between the\ntwo.\n\n [79] See the preceding volume of this History, Chap. ii. p. 66.\n\n [80] Larcher, Chronologie d\u2019H\u00e9rodote, chap. xiv. pp. 352-401.\n\n From the capture of Troy down to the passage of Alexander with\n his invading army into Asia, the latter a known date of 334 B.\n C., the following different reckonings were made:\u2014\n\n Phanias gave 715 years.\n Ephorus \u201d 735 \u201d\n Eratosthen\u00eas \u201d 774 \u201d\n Tim\u00e6us } \u201d 820 \u201d\n Kleitarchus }\n Duris \u201d 1000 \u201d\n\n (Clemens Alexand. Strom. i. p. 337.)\n\n Democritus estimated a space of seven hundred and thirty\n years between his composition of the \u039c\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 and the\n capture of Troy (Diogen. La\u00ebrt. ix. 41). Isokrat\u00eas believed the\n Laced\u00e6monians to have been established in Peloponn\u00easus seven\n hundred years, and he repeats this in three different passages\n (Archidam. p. 118; Panathen. p. 275; De Pace, p. 178). The dates\n of these three orations themselves differ by twenty-four years,\n the Archidamus being older than the Panathena\u00efc by that interval;\n yet he employs the same number of years for each in calculating\n backwards to the Trojan war, (see Clinton, vol. i. Introd. p.\n v.) In round numbers, his calculation coincides pretty nearly\n with the eight hundred years given by Herodotus in the preceding\n century.\n\n The remarks of Boeckh on the Parian marble generally, in his\n Corpus Inscriptionum Gr\u00e6c. t. ii. pp. 322-336, are extremely\n valuable, but especially his criticism on the epoch of the Trojan\n war, which stands the twenty-fourth in the Marble. The ancient\n chronologists, from Damast\u00eas and Hellanikus downwards, professed\n to fix not only the exact year, but the exact month, day, and\n hour in which this celebrated capture took place. [Mr. Clinton\n pretends to no more than the possibility of determining the event\n within fifty years, Introduct. p. vi.] Boeckh illustrates the\n manner of their argumentation.\n\n O. M\u00fcller observes (History of the Dorians, t. ii. p. 442, Eng.\n Tr.), \u201cIn reckoning from the migration of the Heraklid\u00e6 downward,\n we follow the Alexandrine chronology, of which it should be\n observed, that our materials only enable us to restore it to its\n original state, _not to examine its correctness_.\u201d\n\n But I do not see upon what evidence even so much as this can be\n done. Mr. Clinton, admitting that Eratosthen\u00eas fixed his date by\n conjecture, supposes him to have chosen \u201ca middle point between\n the longer and shorter computations of his predecessors.\u201d Boeckh\n thinks this explanation unsatisfactory (_l. c._ p. 328).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nSTATE OF SOCIETY AND MANNERS AS EXHIBITED IN GRECIAN LEGEND.\n\n\nThough the particular persons and events, chronicled in the legendary\npoems of Greece, are not to be regarded as belonging to the province\nof real history, those poems are, nevertheless, full of instruction\nas pictures of life and manners; and the very same circumstances,\nwhich divest their composers of all credibility as historians,\nrender them so much the more valuable as unconscious expositors of\ntheir own contemporary society. While professedly describing an\nuncertified past, their combinations are involuntarily borrowed\nfrom the surrounding present: for among communities, such as those\nof the primitive Greeks, without books, without means of extended\ntravel, without acquaintance with foreign languages and habits, the\nimagination, even of highly gifted men, was naturally enslaved by\nthe circumstances around them to a far greater degree than in the\nlater days of Sol\u00f4n or Herodotus; insomuch that the characters which\nthey conceived and the scenes which they described would for that\nreason bear a stronger generic resemblance to the realities of their\nown time and locality. Nor was the poetry of that age addressed\nto lettered and critical authors, watchful to detect plagiarism,\nsated with simple imagery, and requiring something of novelty or\npeculiarity in every fresh production. To captivate their emotions,\nit was sufficient to depict, with genius and fervor, the more obvious\nmanifestations of human adventure or suffering, and to idealize that\ntype of society, both private and public, with which the hearers\naround were familiar. Even in describing the gods, where a great\ndegree of latitude and deviation might have been expected,[81] we see\nthat Homer introduces into Olympus the passions, the caprices, the\nlove of power and patronage, the alternation of dignity and weakness,\nwhich animated the bosom of an ordinary Grecian chief; and this\ntendency, to reproduce in substance the social relations to which he\nhad been accustomed, would operate still more powerfully when he had\nto describe simply human characters,\u2014the chief and his people, the\nwarrior and his comrades, the husband, wife, father, and son,\u2014or the\nimperfect rudiments of judicial and administrative proceeding. That\nhis narrative on all these points, even with fictitious characters\nand events, presents a close approximation to general reality,\nthere can be no reason to doubt.[82] The necessity under which he\nlay of drawing from a store, then happily unexhausted, of personal\nexperience and observation, is one of the causes of that freshness\nand vivacity of description for which he stands unrivalled, and which\nconstituted the imperishable charm of the Iliad and Odyssey from the\nbeginning to the end of Grecian literature.\n\n [81] \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n \u1f6d\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd (Aristot. Politic. i. 1. 7).\n\n [82] In the pictures of the Homeric Heroes, there is no material\n difference of character recognized between one race of Greeks\n and another,\u2014or even between Greeks and Trojans. See Helbig, Die\n Sittlichen Zust\u00e4nde des Griechischen Heldenalters, part ii. p. 53.\n\nWhile, therefore, we renounce the idea of chronologizing or\nhistoricizing the events of Grecian legend, we may turn them to\nprofit as valuable memorials of that state of society, feeling, and\nintelligence, which must be to us the starting-point of the history\nof the people. Of course, the legendary age, like all those which\nsucceeded it, had its antecedent causes and determining conditions;\nbut of these we know nothing, and we are compelled to assume it\nas a primary fact, for the purpose of following out its subsequent\nchanges. To conceive absolute beginning or origin (as Niebuhr has\njustly remarked) is beyond the reach of our faculties: we can neither\napprehend nor verify anything beyond progress, or development, or\ndecay,[83]\u2014change from one set of circumstances to another, operated\nby some definite combination of physical or moral laws. In the case\nof the Greeks, the legendary age, as the earliest in any way known\nto us, must be taken as the initial state from which this series of\nchanges commences. We must depict its prominent characteristics as\nwell as we can, and show,\u2014partly how it serves to prepare, partly\nhow it forms a contrast to set off,\u2014the subsequent ages of Sol\u00f4n, of\nPerikl\u00eas, and of Demosthen\u00eas.\n\n [83] Niebuhr, R\u00f6mische Geschichte, vol. i. p. 55, 2d edit.\n \u201cErkennt man aber, dass aller Ursprung jenseits unserer nur\n Entwickelung und Fortgang fassenden Begriffe liegt; und\n beschr\u00e4nkt sich von Stufe auf Stufe im Umfang der Geschichte\n zur\u00fcckzugehen, so wird man V\u00f6lker eines Stammes (das heisst,\n durch eigenth\u00fcmliche Art und Sprache identisch) vielfach eben\n an sich entgegenliegenden K\u00fcstenl\u00e4ndern antreffen ... ohne dass\n irgend etwas die Voraussetzung erheischte, eine von diesen\n getrennten Landschaften sei die urspr\u00fcngliche Heimath gewesen\n von wo ein Theil nach der andern gewandert w\u00e4re.... Dies ist der\n Geographie der Thiergeschlechter und der Vegetation analog: deren\n grosse Bezirke durch Geb\u00fcrge geschieden werden, and beschr\u00e4nkte\n Meere einschliessen.\u201d\n\n \u201cWhen we once recognize, however, that _all absolute beginning\n lies out of the reach of our mental conceptions, which comprehend\n nothing beyond development and progress_, and when we attempt\n nothing more than to go back from the later to the earlier stages\n in the compass of history, we shall often find, on opposite\n coasts of the same sea, people of one stock (that is, of the\n same peculiar customs and language,) without being warranted in\n supposing that either of these separate coasts was the primitive\n home from whence emigrants crossed over to the other. This is\n analogous to the geography of animals and plants, whose wide\n districts are severed by mountains and inclose internal seas.\u201d\n\n1. The political condition, which Grecian legend everywhere presents\nto us, is in its principal features strikingly different from\nthat which had become universally prevalent among the Greeks in\nthe time of the Peloponn\u00easian war. Historical oligarchy, as well\nas democracy, agreed in requiring a certain established system of\ngovernment, comprising the three elements of specialized functions,\ntemporary functionaries, and ultimate responsibility (under some\nforms or other) to the mass of qualified citizens\u2014either a Senate\nor an Ecclesia, or both. There were, of course, many and capital\ndistinctions between one government and another, in respect to the\nqualification of the citizen, the attributes and efficiency of the\ngeneral assembly, the admissibility to power, etc.; and men might\noften be dissatisfied with the way in which these questions were\ndetermined in their own city. But in the mind of every man, some\ndetermining rule or system\u2014something like what in modern times is\ncalled a _constitution_\u2014was indispensable to any government entitled\nto be called legitimate, or capable of creating in the mind of a\nGreek a feeling of moral obligation to obey it. The functionaries\nwho exercised authority under it might be more or less competent\nor popular; but his personal feelings towards them were commonly\nlost in his attachment or aversion to the general system. If any\nenergetic man could by audacity or craft break down the constitution,\nand render himself permanent ruler according to his own will and\npleasure,\u2014even though he might govern well, he could never inspire\nthe people with any sentiment of duty towards him. His sceptre was\nillegitimate from the beginning, and even the taking of his life,\nfar from being interdicted by that moral feeling which condemned the\nshedding of blood in other cases, was considered meritorious. Nor\ncould he be mentioned in the language except by a name[84] (\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n_despot_,) which branded him as an object of mingled fear and dislike.\n\n [84] The Greek name \u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 cannot be properly rendered\n _tyrant_; for many of the \u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 by no means deserved to be so\n called, nor is it consistent with the use of language to speak\n of a mild and well-intentioned tyrant. The word _despot_ is the\n nearest approach which we can make to it, since it is understood\n to imply that a man has got more power than he ought to have,\n while it does not exclude a beneficent use of such power by some\n individuals. It is, however, very inadequate to express the full\n strength of Grecian feeling which the original word called forth.\n\nIf we carry our eyes back from historical to legendary Greece, we\nfind a picture the reverse of what has been here sketched. We discern\na government in which there is little or no scheme or system,\u2014still\nless any idea of responsibility to the governed,\u2014but in which the\nmainspring of obedience on the part of the people consists in their\npersonal feeling and reverence towards the chief. We remark, first\nand foremost, the king: next, a limited number of subordinate kings\nor chiefs; afterwards, the mass of armed freemen, husbandmen,\nartisans, freebooters, etc.; lowest of all, the free laborers for\nhire, and the bought slaves. The king is not distinguished by any\nbroad or impassable boundary from the other chiefs, to each of\nwhom the title _basileus_ is applicable as well as to himself: his\nsupremacy has been inherited from his ancestors, and passes by\ndescent, as a general rule, to his eldest son, having been conferred\nupon the family as a privilege by the favor of Zeus.[85] In war,\nhe is the leader, foremost in personal prowess, and directing all\nmilitary movements; in peace, he is the general protector of the\ninjured and oppressed; he farther offers up those public prayers\nand sacrifices which are intended to obtain for the whole people\nthe favor of the gods. An ample domain is assigned to him as an\nappurtenance of his lofty position, while the produce of his fields\nand his cattle is consecrated in part to an abundant, though rude\nhospitality. Moreover, he receives frequent presents, to avert his\nenmity, to conciliate his favor,[86] or to buy off his exactions;\nand when plunder is taken from the enemy, a large previous share,\ncomprising probably the most alluring female captive, is reserved for\nhim, apart from the general distribution.[87]\n\n [85] The Ph\u00e6akian king Alkinous (Odyss. vii. 55-65): there are\n twelve other Ph\u00e6akian \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2, he is himself the thirteenth\n (viii. 391).\n\n The chief men in the Iliad, and the suitors of Penelop\u00ea in the\n Odyssey, are called usually and indiscriminately both \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2\n and \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; the latter word, however, designates them as men of\n property and masters of slaves, (analogous to the subsequent word\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, which word does not occur in Homer, though \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n is found in the Odyssey,) while the former word marks them as\n persons of conspicuous station in the tribe (see Odyss. i.\n 393-401; xiv. 63). A chief could only be \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 of freemen; but\n he might be \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b1\u03be either of freemen or of slaves.\n\n Agamemn\u00f4n and Menelaus belong to the _most kingly_ race (\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd: compare Tyrt\u00e6us, Fragm. ix. v. 8, p. 9, ed.\n Schneidewin) of the Pelopids, to whom the sceptre originally\n made for Zeus has been given by Herm\u00eas (Iliad, ii. 101; ix.\n 160; x. 239); compare Odyss. xv. 539. The race of Dardanus are\n the favorite offspring of Zeus, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd among the Trojans\n (Iliad, xx. 304). These races are the parallels of the kingly\n _prosapi\u00e6_ called Amali, Asdingi, Gungingi, and Lithingi, among\n the Goths, Vandals, and Lombards (Jornandes, De Rebus Geticis, c.\n 14-22; Paul Warnefrid, Gest. Langob. c. 14-21); and the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 among the Chaonian Epirots (Thucyd. ii. 80).\n\n [86] Odyss. i. 392; xi. 184; xiii. 14; xix. 109.\u2014\n\n \u039f\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c8\u03ac \u03c4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1ff6\n \u1f0c\u03c6\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n Iliad, ix. 154-297 (when Agamemn\u00f4n is promising seven townships\n to Achilles, as a means of appeasing his wrath):\u2014\n\n \u1f18\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u1fe4\u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u039f\u1f35 \u03ba\u03ad \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f63\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9,\n \u039a\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n See Iliad, xii. 312; and the reproaches of Thersit\u00eas (ii.\n 226)\u2014\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (Hesiod, Opp. Di. 38-264).\n\n The Roman kings had a large \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 assigned to them,\u2014\u201cagri,\n arva, et arbusta et pascui l\u00e6ti atque uberes\u201d (Cicero, De Republ.\n v. 2): the German kings received presents: \u201cMos est civitatibus\n (observes Tacitus, respecting the Germans whom he describes, M.\n G. 15) ultro ac viritim conferre principibus, vel armentorum vel\n frugum, quod pro honore acceptum etiam necessitatibus subvenit.\u201d\n\n The revenue of the Persian kings before Darius consisted only\n of what were called \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03b1, or presents (Herod. iii. 89): Darius\n first introduced both the name of tribute and the determinate\n assessment. King Polydekt\u00eas, in Seriphos, invites his friends\n to a festival, the condition of which is that each guest shall\n contribute to an \u1f14\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 for his benefit (Pherekyd\u00eas, Fragm. 26,\n ed. Didot); a case to which the Thracian banquet prepared by\n Seuth\u00eas affords an exact parallel (Xenoph\u00f4n, Anab. vii. 3, 16-32:\n compare Thucyd. ii. 97, and Welcker, \u00c6schyl. Trilogie, p. 381).\n Such Aids, or Benevolences, even if originally voluntary, became\n in the end compulsory. In the European monarchies of the Middle\n Ages, what were called free gifts were more ancient than public\n taxes: \u201cThe feudal Aids (observes Mr. Hallam) are the beginning\n of taxation, of which they for a long time answered the purpose.\u201d\n (Middle Ages, ch. ii. part i. p. 189.) So about the Aides in the\n old French Monarchy, \u201cLa Cour des Aides avoit \u00e9t\u00e9 institu\u00e9e,\n et sa jurisdiction s\u2019\u00e9toit form\u00e9e, lorsque le domaine des Rois\n suffisoit \u00e0 toutes les d\u00e9penses de l\u2019Etat, les droits d\u2019Aides\n \u00e9toient alors des suppl\u00e9mens peu consid\u00e9rables et toujours\n temporaires. Depuis, le domaine des Rois avoit \u00e9t\u00e9 an\u00e9anti: les\n Aides, au contraire, \u00e9toient devenues permanentes et formoient\n presque la totalit\u00e9 des ressources du tr\u00e9sor.\u201d (Histoire de la\n Fronde, par M. de St. Aulaire, ch. iii. p. 124.)\n\n [87] \u1f18\u03c0\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, is the description\n which Thucydid\u00eas gives of these heroic governments (i. 13).\n\n The language of Aristotle (Polit. iii. 10, 1) is much the same: \u1f29\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u2014\u1f21 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f21\u03c1\u03c9\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u2014\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f26\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f61\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f26\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n It can hardly be said correctly, however, that the king\u2019s\n authority was _defined_: nothing can well be more indefinite.\n\n Agamemn\u00f4n enjoyed or assumed the power of putting to death a\n disobedient soldier (Aristot. Polit. iii. 9, 2). The words which\n Aristotle read in the speech of Agamemn\u00f4n in the Iliad\u2014\u03a0\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u2014are not in our present copies: the Alexandrine\n critics effaced many traces of the old manners.\n\nSuch is the position of the king, in the heroic times of Greece,\u2014the\nonly person (if we except the heralds and priests, each both\nspecial and subordinate,) who is then presented to us as clothed\nwith any individual authority,\u2014the person by whom all the executive\nfunctions, then few in number, which the society requires, are either\nperformed or directed. His personal ascendency\u2014derived from divine\ncountenance, bestowed both upon himself individually and upon his\nrace, and probably from accredited divine descent\u2014is the salient\nfeature in the picture. The people hearken to his voice, embrace\nhis propositions, and obey his orders: not merely resistance, but\neven criticism upon his acts, is generally exhibited in an odious\npoint of view, and is, indeed, never heard of except from some\none or more of the subordinate princes. To keep alive and justify\nsuch feelings in the public mind, however, the king must himself\npossess various accomplishments, bodily and mental, and that too in\na superior degree.[88] He must be brave in the field, wise in the\ncouncil, and eloquent in the agora; he must be endued with bodily\nstrength and activity above other men, and must be an adept, not\nonly in the use of his arms, but also in those athletic exercises\nwhich the crowd delight to witness. Even the more homely varieties\nof manual acquirements are an addition to his character,\u2014such as the\ncraft of the carpenter or shipwright, the straight furrowing of the\nploughman, or the indefatigable persistence of the mower without\nrepose or refreshment throughout the longest day.[89] The conditions\nof voluntary obedience, during the Grecian heroic times, are family\ndescent with personal force and superiority mental as well as bodily,\nin the chief, coupled with the favor of the gods: an old chief, such\nas P\u00ealeus and La\u00ebrtes, cannot retain his position.[90] But, on the\nother hand, where these elements of force are present, a good deal of\nviolence, caprice, and rapacity is tolerated: the ethical judgment is\nnot exact in scrutinizing the conduct of individuals so pre\u00ebminently\nendowed. As in the case of the gods, the general epithets of\n_good_, _just_, etc., are applied to them as euphemisms arising\nfrom submission and fear, being not only not suggested, but often\npointedly belied, by their particular acts. These words signify[91]\nthe man of birth, wealth, influence, and daring, whose arm is strong\nto destroy or to protect, whatever may be the turn of his moral\nsentiments; while the opposite epithet, _bad_, designates the poor,\nlowly, and weak; from whose dispositions, be they ever so virtuous,\nsociety has little either to hope or to fear.\n\n [88] Striking phrases on this head are put into the mouth of\n Sarp\u00ead\u00f4n (Iliad, xii. 310-322).\n\n Kings are named and commissioned by Zeus,\u2014\u1f18\u03ba \u03b4\u1f72 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2\n (Hesiod, Theogon. 96; Callimach. Hymn. ad Jov. 79): \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 is a sort of paraphrase for the kingly dignity in\n the case of Pelias and N\u00ealeus (Odyss. xi. 255; compare Iliad, ii.\n 204).\n\n [89] Odysseus builds his own bed and bedchamber, and his own raft\n (Odyss. xxiii. 188; v. 246-255): he boasts of being an excellent\n mower and ploughman (xviii. 365-375): for his astonishing\n proficiency in the athletic contests, see viii. 180-230. Paris\n took a share in building his own house (Iliad, vi. 314).\n\n [90] Odyss. xi. 496; xxiv. 136-248.\n\n [91] See this prominent meaning of the words \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, etc. copiously illustrated in Welcker\u2019s excellent\n Prolegomena to Theognis, sect. 9-16. Camerarius, in his notes on\n that poet (v. 19,), had already conceived clearly the sense in\n which these words are used. Iliad, xv. 323. \u039f\u1f36\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03b5\u03c2. Compare Hesiod, Opp. Di. 216, and the line in\n Athen\u00e6us, v. p. 178, \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f34\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n \u201c_Moralis_ illarum vocum vis, et _civilis_\u2014quarum h\u00e6c a\n lexicographis et commentatoribus plurimis fere neglecta est\u2014probe\n discernend\u00e6 erunt. Quod quo facilius fieret, nescio an ubi\n posterior intellectus valet, majuscul\u00e2 scribendum fuisset \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1f76\n et \u039a\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76.\u201d\n\n If this advice of Welcker could have been followed, much\n misconception would have been obviated. The reference of these\n words to power and not to worth, is their primitive import in\n the Greek language, descending from the Iliad downward, and\n determining the habitual designation of parties during the\n period of active political dispute. The ethical meaning of the\n word hardly appears until the discussions raised by Socrates,\n and prosecuted by his disciples; but the primitive import still\n continued to maintain concurrent footing.\n\n I shall have occasion to touch more largely on this subject, when\n I come to expound the Grecian political parties. At present, it\n is enough to remark that the epithets of _good men_, _best men_,\n habitually applied afterwards to the aristocratical parties,\n descend from the rudest period of Grecian society.\n\nAristotle, in his general theory of government,[92] lays down the\nposition, that the earliest sources of obedience and authority\namong mankind are personal, exhibiting themselves most perfectly\nin the type of paternal supremacy; and that therefore the kingly\ngovernment, as most conformable to this stage of social sentiment,\nbecame probably the first established everywhere. And in fact it\nstill continued in his time to be generally prevalent among the\nnon-Hellenic nations, immediately around; though the Ph\u0153nician\ncities and Carthage, the most civilized of all non-Hellenic states,\nwere republics. Nevertheless, so completely were the feelings about\nkingship reversed among his contemporary Greeks, that he finds\nit difficult to enter into the voluntary obedience paid by his\nancestors to their early heroic chiefs. He cannot explain to his\nown satisfaction how any one man should have been so much superior\nto the companions around him as to maintain such immense personal\nascendency: he suspects that in such small communities great merit\nwas very rare, so that the chief had few competitors.[93] Such\nremarks illustrate strongly the revolution which the Greek mind had\nundergone during the preceding centuries, in regard to the internal\ngrounds of political submission. But the connecting link, between\nthe Homeric and the republican schemes of government, is to be\nfound in two adjuncts of the Homeric royalty, which are now to be\nmentioned,\u2014the boul\u00ea, or council of chiefs, and the agora, or general\nassembly of freemen.\n\n [92] Aristot. Polit. i. 1, 7.\n\n [93] \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 (Polit. iii. 10, 7); also the same treatise, v.\n 8, 5, and v. 8, 22. \u039f\u1f50 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd, etc.\n\n Aristotle handles monarchy far less copiously than either\n oligarchy or democracy: the tenth and eleventh chapters of his\n third book, in which he discusses it, are nevertheless very\n interesting to peruse.\n\n In the conception of Plato, also, the kingly government, if it is\n to work well, implies a breed superior to humanity to hold the\n sceptre (Legg. iv. 6. p. 713).\n\n The Athenian dramatic poets (especially Euripid\u00eas) often put into\n the mouths of their heroic characters popular sentiments adapted\n to the democratical atmosphere of Athens\u2014very different from what\n we find in Homer.\n\nThese two meetings, more or less frequently convoked, and interwoven\nwith the earliest habits of the primitive Grecian communities, are\nexhibited in the monuments of the legendary age as opportunities for\nadvising the king, and media for promulgating his intentions to the\npeople, rather than as restraints upon his authority. Unquestionably,\nthey must have conduced in practice to the latter result as well as\nto the former; but this is not the light in which the Homeric poems\ndescribe them. The chiefs, kings, princes, or gerontes\u2014for the same\nword in Greek designates both an old man and a man of conspicuous\nrank and position\u2014compose the council,[94] in which, according to the\nrepresentations in the Iliad, the resolutions of Agamemn\u00f4n on the\none side, and of Hect\u00f4r on the other, appear uniformly to prevail.\nThe harshness and even contempt with which Hect\u00f4r treats respectful\nopposition from his ancient companion Polydamas,\u2014the desponding tone\nand conscious inferiority of the latter, and the unanimous assent\nwhich the former obtains, even when quite in the wrong\u2014all this is\nclearly set forth in the poem:[95] while in the Grecian camp we see\nNest\u00f4r tendering his advice in the most submissive and delicate\nmanner to Agamemn\u00f4n, to be adopted or rejected, as \u201cthe king of men\u201d\nmight determine.[96] The council is a purely consultative body,\nassembled, not with any power of peremptorily arresting mischievous\nresolves of the king, but solely for his information and guidance. He\nhimself is the presiding (bouleph\u014frus, or) member[97] of council; the\nrest, collectively as well as individually, are his subordinates.\n\n [94] \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f37\u03b6\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (Iliad, ii. 53):\n compare x. 195-415. \u1f3c\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 ~\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2~ (xi. 371).\n\n [95] Iliad, xviii. 313.\u2014\n\n \u1f1d\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1fc4\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9,\n \u03a0\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03c1\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n Also, xii. 213, where Polydamas says to Hect\u00f4r,\u2014\n\n ... \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\n \u0394\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f72\u03be \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc7,\n \u039f\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u1ff3, \u03c3\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n [96] Iliad, ix. 95-101.\n\n [97] Iliad, vii. 126, \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\u2014\u1f18\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03c5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b4\u1fbd\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nWe proceed from the council to the agora: according to what seems the\nreceived custom, the king, after having talked over his intentions\nwith the former, proceeds to announce them to the people. The heralds\nmake the crowd sit down in order,[98] and enforce silence: any one\nof the chiefs or councillors\u2014but as it seems, no one else[99]\u2014is\nallowed to address them: the king first promulgates his intentions,\nwhich are then open to be commented upon by others. But in the\nHomeric agora, no division of affirmative or negative voices ever\ntakes place, nor is any formal resolution ever adopted. The nullity\nof positive function strikes us even more in the agora than in the\ncouncil. It is an assembly for talk, communication, and discussion,\nto a certain extent, by the chiefs, in presence of the people as\nlisteners and sympathizers,\u2014often for eloquence, and sometimes for\nquarrel,\u2014but here its ostensible purposes end.\n\n [98] Considerable stress seems to be laid on the necessity that\n the people in the agora should _sit_ down (Iliad, ii. 96): a\n _standing_ agora is a symptom of tumult or terror (Iliad, xviii,\n 246); an evening agora, to which men come elevated by wine, is\n also the forerunner of mischief (Odyss. iii. 138).\n\n Such evidences of regular formalities observed in the agora are\n not without interest.\n\n [99] Iliad, ii. 100.\u2014\n\n ... \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03cb\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03a3\u03c7\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd, \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n Nitzsch (ad Odyss. ii. 14) controverts this restriction of\n individual manifestation to the chiefs: the view of O. M\u00fcller\n (Hist. Dorians, b. iii. c. 3) appears to me more correct: such\n was also the opinion of Aristotle\u2014\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41\n \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (Schol. Iliad, ix. 17): compare the same statement in his\n Nikomachean Ethics, iii. 5.\n\nThe agora in Ithaka, in the second book of the Odyssey, is convened\nby the youthful Telemachus, at the instigation of Ath\u00ean\u00ea, not for the\npurpose of submitting any proposition, but in order to give formal\nand public notice to the suitors to desist from their iniquitous\nintrusion and pillage of his substance, and to absolve himself\nfarther, before gods and men, from all obligations towards them, if\nthey refuse to comply. For the slaughter of the suitors, in all the\nsecurity of the festive hall and banquet (which forms the catastrophe\nof the Odyssey), was a proceeding involving much that was shocking to\nGrecian feeling,[100] and therefore required to be preceded by such\nample formalities, as would leave both the delinquents themselves\nwithout the shadow of excuse, and their surviving relatives without\nany claim to the customary satisfaction. For this special purpose,\nTelemachus directs the heralds to summon an agora: but what seems\nmost of all surprising is, that none had ever been summoned or\nheld since the departure of Odysseus himself,\u2014an interval of twenty\nyears. \u201cNo agora or session has taken place amongst us (says the\ngray-headed \u00c6gyptius, who opens the proceedings) since Odysseus\nwent on shipboard: and now, who is he that has called us together?\nwhat man, young or old, has felt such a strong necessity? Has he\nreceived intelligence from our absent warriors, or has he other\npublic news to communicate? He is our good friend for doing this:\nwhatever his projects may be, I pray Zeus to grant him success.\u201d[101]\nTelemachus, answering the appeal forthwith, proceeds to tell the\nassembled Ithakans that he has no public news to communicate, but\nthat he has convoked them upon his own private necessities. Next, he\nsets forth, pathetically, the wickedness of the suitors, calls upon\nthem personally to desist, and upon the people to restrain them, and\nconcludes by solemnly warning them, that, being henceforward free\nfrom all obligation towards them, he will invoke the avenging aid of\nZeus, so \u201cthat they may be slain in the interior of his own house,\nwithout bringing upon him any subsequent penalty.\u201d[102]\n\n [100] See Iliad, ix. 635; Odyss. xi. 419.\n\n [101] Odyss. ii. 25-40.\n\n [102] Odyss. ii. 43, 77, 145.\u2014\n\n \u039d\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03af \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 ~\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd~ \u1f44\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5.\n\nWe are not of course to construe the Homeric description as anything\nmore than an _id\u00e9al_, approximating to actual reality. But, allowing\nall that can be required for such a limitation, it exhibits the agora\nmore as a special medium of publicity and intercommunication,[103]\nfrom the king to the body of the people, than as including any idea\nof responsibility on the part of the former or restraining force\non the part of the latter, however such consequences may indirectly\ngrow out of it. The primitive Grecian government is essentially\nmonarchical, reposing on personal feeling and divine right: the\nmemorable dictum in the Iliad is borne out by all that we hear of the\nactual practice; \u201cThe ruler of many is not a good thing: let us have\none ruler only,\u2014one king,\u2014him to whom Zeus has given the sceptre and\nthe tutelary sanctions.\u201d[104]\n\n [103] A similar character is given of the public assemblies of\n the early Franks and Lombards (Pfeffel, Histoire du Droit Public\n en Allemagne, t. i. p. 18; Sismondi, Histoire des R\u00e9publiques\n Italiennes, t. i. c. 2, p. 71).\n\n Dionysius of Halikarnassus (ii. 12) pays rather too high a\n compliment to the moderation of the Grecian heroic kings.\n\n The kings at Rome, like the Grecian heroic kings, began with an\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2: the words of Pomponius (De Origine Juris, i.\n 2,) would be perhaps more exactly applicable to the latter than\n to the former: \u201cInitio civitatis nostr\u00e6 Populus sine cert\u00e2 lege,\n sine jure certo, primum agere instituit: omniaque manu a Regibus\n gubernabantur.\u201d Tacitus says (Ann. iii. 26), \u201cNobis Romulus,\n ut libitum, imperitaverat: dein Numa religionibus et divino\n jure populum devinxit, repertaque qu\u00e6dam a Tullo et Anco: sed\n pr\u00e6cipuus Servius Tullius sanctor legum fuit, quis etiam Reges\n obtemperarent.\u201d The appointment of a Dictator under the Republic\n was a reproduction, for a short and definite interval, of this\n old unbounded authority (Cicero, De Repub. ii. 32; Zonaras, Ann.\n vii. 13; Dionys. Hal. v. 75).\n\n See Rubino, Untersuchungen \u00fcber R\u00f6mische Verfassung und\n Geschichte, Cassel, 1839, buch i. abschnitt 2, pp. 112-132; and\n Wachsmuth, Hellenische Alterthumskunde, i. sect. 18, pp. 81-91.\n\n [104] Iliad, ii. 204. Agamemn\u00f4n promises to make over to Achilles\n seven well-peopled cities, with a body of wealthy inhabitants\n (Iliad, ix. 153); and Menelaus, if he could have induced Odysseus\n to quit Ithaka, and settle near him in Argos, would have\n depopulated one of his neighboring towns in order to make room\n for him (Odyss. iv. 176).\n\n Manso (Sparta, i. 1, p. 34) and Nitzsch (ad Odyss. iv. 171) are\n inclined to exclude these passages as spurious,\u2014a proceeding, in\n my opinion, inadmissible, without more direct grounds than they\n are able to produce.\n\nThe second book of the Iliad, full as it is of beauty and vivacity,\nnot only confirms our idea of the passive, recipient, and listening\ncharacter of the agora, but even presents a repulsive picture\nof the degradation of the mass of the people before the chiefs.\nAgamemn\u00f4n convokes the agora for the purpose of immediately arming\nthe Grecian host, under a full impression that the gods have at\nlast determined forthwith to crown his arms with complete victory.\nSuch impression has been created by a special visit of Oneirus\n(the Dream-god), sent by Zeus during his sleep,\u2014being, indeed, an\nintentional fraud on the part of Zeus, though Agamemn\u00f4n does not\nsuspect its deceitful character. At this precise moment, when he\nmay be conceived to be more than usually anxious to get his army\ninto the field and snatch the prize, an unaccountable fancy seizes\nhim, that, instead of inviting the troops to do what he really\nwishes, and encouraging their spirits for this one last effort, he\nwill adopt a course directly contrary: he will try their courage by\nprofessing to believe that the siege had become desperate, and that\nthere was no choice except to go on shipboard and flee. Announcing\nto Nest\u00f4r and Odysseus, in preliminary council, his intention to\nhold this strange language, he at the same time tells them that he\nrelies upon them to oppose it and counterwork its effect upon the\nmultitude.[105] The agora is presently assembled, and the king of\nmen pours forth a speech full of dismay and despair, concluding by\na distinct exhortation to all present to go aboard and return home\nat once. Immediately the whole army, chiefs as well as people, break\nup and proceed to execute his orders: every one rushes off to get\nhis ship afloat, except Odysseus, who looks on in mournful silence\nand astonishment. The army would have been quickly on its voyage\nhome, had not the goddesses H\u00ear\u00ea and Ath\u00ean\u00ea stimulated Odysseus\nto an instantaneous interference. He hastens among the dispersing\ncrowd and diverts them from their purpose of retreat: to the chiefs\nhe addresses flattering words, trying to shame them by gentle\nexpostulation: but the people he visits with harsh reprimand and\nblows from his sceptre,[106] thus driving them back to their seats in\nthe agora.\n\n [105] Iliad, ii. 74. \u03a0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, etc.\n\n [106] Iliad, ii. 188-196.\u2014\n\n \u1f4d\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b7,\n \u03a4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2....\n \u1f4d\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f56 \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f34\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b2\u03bf\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9,\n \u03a4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u1ff3, etc.\n\nAmidst the dissatisfied crowd thus unwillingly brought back, the\nvoice of Thersit\u00eas is heard the longest and the loudest,\u2014a man ugly,\ndeformed, and unwarlike, but fluent in speech, and especially severe\nand unsparing in his censure of the chiefs, Agamemn\u00f4n, Achilles, and\nOdysseus. Upon this occasion, he addresses to the people a speech\ndenouncing Agamemn\u00f4n for selfish and greedy exaction generally,\nbut particularly for his recent ill-treatment of Achilles,\u2014and he\nendeavors, moreover, to induce them to persist in their scheme of\ndeparture. In reply, Odysseus not only rebukes Thersit\u00eas sharply\nfor his impudence in abusing the commander-in-chief, but threatens\nthat, if ever such behavior is repeated, he will strip him naked, and\nthrash him out of the assembly with disgraceful blows; as an earnest\nof which, he administers to him at once a smart stroke with the\nstudded sceptre, imprinting its painful mark in a bloody weal across\nhis back. Thersit\u00eas, terrified and subdued, sits down weeping; while\nthe surrounding crowd deride him, and express the warmest approbation\nof Odysseus for having thus by force put the reviler to silence.[107]\n\n [107] Iliad, ii. 213-277.\n\nBoth Odysseus and Nest\u00f4r then address the agora, sympathizing with\nAgamemn\u00f4n for the shame which the retreat of the Greeks is about to\ninflict upon him, and urging emphatically upon every one present\nthe obligation of persevering until the siege shall be successfully\nconsummated. Neither of them animadverts at all upon Agamemn\u00f4n,\neither for his conduct towards Achilles, or for his childish freak of\ntrying the temper of the army.[108]\n\n [108] Iliad, ii. 284-340. Nor does Thersit\u00eas, in his criminatory\n speech against Agamemn\u00f4n, touch in any way upon this anomalous\n point, though, in the circumstances under which his speech is\n made, it would seem to be of all others the most natural,\u2014and the\n sharpest thrust against the commander-in-chief.\n\nThere cannot be a clearer indication than this description\u2014so graphic\nin the original poem\u2014of the true character of the Homeric agora. The\nmultitude who compose it are listening and acquiescent, not often\nhesitating, and never refractory[109] to the chief. The fate which\nawaits a presumptuous critic, even where his virulent reproaches are\nsubstantially well-founded, is plainly set forth in the treatment of\nThersit\u00eas; while the unpopularity of such a character is attested\neven more by the excessive pains which Homer takes to heap upon\nhim repulsive personal deformities, than by the chastisement of\nOdysseus;\u2014he is lame, bald, crook-backed, of misshapen head, and\nsquinting vision.\n\n [109] See this illustrated in the language of Theseus, Eurip.\n Supplic. 349-352.\n\n \u0394\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03b6\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u00b7\n \u0394\u03cc\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd, \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u1fbd \u1f02\u03bd \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nBut we cease to wonder at the submissive character of the agora,\nwhen we read the proceedings of Odysseus towards the people\nthemselves;\u2014his fine words and flattery addressed to the chiefs, and\nhis contemptuous reproof and manual violence towards the common men,\nat a moment when both were doing exactly the same thing,\u2014fulfilling\nthe express bidding of Agamemn\u00f4n, upon whom Odysseus does not\noffer a single comment. This scene, which excited a sentiment of\nstrong displeasure among the democrats of historical Athens,[110]\naffords a proof that the feeling of personal dignity, of which\nphilosophic observers in Greece\u2014Herodotus, Xenoph\u00f4n, Hippocrat\u00eas,\nand Aristotle\u2014boasted, as distinguishing the free Greek citizen from\nthe slavish Asiatic, was yet undeveloped in the time of Homer.[111]\nThe ancient epic is commonly so filled with the personal adventures\nof the chiefs, and the people are so constantly depicted as simple\nappendages attached to them, that we rarely obtain a glimpse of the\ntreatment of the one apart from the other, such as this memorable\nHomeric agora affords.\n\n [110] Xenoph\u00f4n, Memorab. i. 2, 9.\n\n [111] Aristot. Polit. vii. 6, 1; Hippocrat. De A\u00ebre, Loc. et Aq.\n v. 85-86; Herodot. vii. 135.\n\nThere remains one other point of view in which we are to regard\nthe agora of primitive Greece,\u2014as the scene in which justice was\nadministered. The king is spoken of as constituted by Zeus the great\njudge of society: he has received from Zeus the sceptre, and along\nwith it the powers of command and sanction: the people obey these\ncommands and enforce these sanctions, under him, enriching him at\nthe same time with lucrative presents and payments.[112] Sometimes\nthe king separately, sometimes the kings or chiefs or gerontes in\nthe plural number, are named as deciding disputes and awarding\nsatisfaction to complainants; always, however, in public, in the\nmidst of the assembled agora.[113] In one of the compartments of the\nshield of Achilles, the details of a judicial scene are described.\nWhile the agora is full of an eager and excited crowd, two men are\ndisputing about the fine of satisfaction for the death of a murdered\nman,\u2014one averring, the other denying, that the fine had already been\npaid, and both demanding an inquest. The gerontes are ranged on\nstone seats,[114] in the holy circle, with two talents of gold lying\nbefore them, to be awarded to such of the litigants as shall make\nout his case to their satisfaction. The heralds with their sceptres,\nrepressing the warm sympathies of the crowd in favor of one or other\nof the parties, secure an alternate hearing to both.[115] This\ninteresting picture completely harmonizes with the brief allusion\nof Hesiod to the judicial trial\u2014doubtless a real trial\u2014between\nhimself and his brother Pers\u00eas. The two brothers disputed about\ntheir paternal inheritance, and the cause was carried to be tried\nby the chiefs in agora; but Pers\u00eas bribed them, and obtained an\nunjust verdict for the whole.[116] So at least Hesiod affirms, in the\nbitterness of his heart; earnestly exhorting his brother not to waste\na precious time, required for necessary labors, in the unprofitable\noccupation of witnessing and abetting litigants in the agora,\u2014for\nwhich (he adds) no man has proper leisure, unless his subsistence for\nthe year beforehand be safely treasured up in his garners.[117] He\nrepeats, more than once, his complaints of the crooked and corrupt\njudgments of which the kings were habitually guilty; dwelling upon\nabuse of justice as the crying evil of his day, and predicting as\nwell as invoking the vengeance of Zeus to repress it. And Homer\nascribes the tremendous violence of the autumnal storms to the wrath\nof Zeus against those judges who disgrace the agora with their wicked\nverdicts.[118]\n\n [112] The \u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, or \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, and \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, go together,\n under the presiding superintendence of the gods. The goddess\n Themis both convokes and dismisses the agora (see Iliad, xi. 806;\n Odyss. ii. 67; Iliad, xx. 4).\n\n The \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, commandments and sanctions, belong properly to Zeus\n (Odyss. xvi. 403); from him they are given in charge to earthly\n kings along with the sceptre (Iliad, i. 238; ii. 206).\n\n The commentators on Homer recognized \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, rather too strictly,\n as \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03bd (see Eustath. ad Odyss. xvi. 403).\n\n The presents and the \u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (Iliad, ix. 156).\n\n [113] Hesiod, Theogon. 85; the single person judging seems to be\n mentioned (Odyss. xii. 439).\n\n It deserves to be noticed that, in Sparta, the senate decided\n accusations of homicide (Aristot. Polit. iii. 1, 7): in\n historical Athens, the senate of Areiopagus originally did the\n same, and retained, even when its powers were much abridged, the\n trial of accusations of intentional homicide and wounding.\n\n Respecting the judicial functions of the early Roman kings,\n Dionys. Hal. A. R. x. 1. \u03a4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd (compare iv. 25; and Cicero, Republic. v. 2;\n Rubino, Untersuchungen, i. 2, p. 122).\n\n [114] Iliad, xviii. 504.\u2014\n\n \u039f\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u0395\u1f35\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3.\n\n Several of the old northern Sagas represent the old men,\n assembled for the purpose of judging, as sitting on great stones\n in a circle, called the Urtheilsring, or Gerichtsring (Leitfaden\n der N\u00f6rdischen Alterth\u00fcmer, p. 31, Copenhag. 1837).\n\n [115] Homer, Iliad, xviii. 497-510.\n\n [116] Hesiod, Opp. Di. 37.\n\n [117] Hesiod, Opp. Di. 27-33.\n\n [118] Hesiod, Opp. Di. 250-263; Homer, Iliad, xvi. 387.\n\nThough it is certain that, in every state of society, the feelings\nof men when assembled in multitude will command a certain measure of\nattention, yet we thus find the agora, in judicial matters still more\nthan in political, serving merely the purpose of publicity. It is the\nking who is the grand personal mover of Grecian heroic society.[119]\nHe is on earth, the equivalent of Zeus in the agora of the gods: the\nsupreme god of Olympus is in the habit of carrying on his government\nwith frequent publicity, of hearing some dissentient opinions, and\nof allowing himself occasionally to be wheedled by Aphrodit\u00ea, or\nworried into compliance by H\u00ear\u00ea: but his determination is at last\nconclusive, subject only to the overruling interference of the M\u0153r\u00e6,\nor Fates.[120] Both the society of gods, and the various societies of\nmen, are, according to the conceptions of Grecian legend, carried on\nby the personal rule of a legitimate sovereign, who does not derive\nhis title from the special appointment of his subjects, though he\ngoverns with their full consent. In fact, Grecian legend presents to\nus hardly anything else, except these great individual personalities.\nThe race, or nation, is as it were absorbed into the prince:\neponymous persons, especially, are not merely princes, but fathers\nand representative unities, each the equivalent of that greater or\nless aggregate to which he gives name.\n\n [119] Tittmann (Darstellung der Griechischen Staatsverfassungen,\n book ii. p. 63) gives too lofty an idea, in my judgment, of the\n condition and functions of the Homeric agora.\n\n [120] Iliad, i. 520-527; iv. 14-56; especially the agora of the\n gods (xx. 16).\n\nBut though, in the primitive Grecian government, the king is the\nlegitimate as well as the real sovereign, he is always conceived as\nacting through the council and agora. Both the one and the other\nare established and essential media through which his ascendency is\nbrought to bear upon the society: the absence of such assemblies\nis the test and mark of savage men, as in the case of the\nCycl\u00f4pes.[121] Accordingly, he must possess qualities fit to act\nwith effect upon these two assemblies: wise reason for the council,\nunctuous eloquence for the agora.[122] Such is the _id\u00e9al_ of the\nheroic government: a king, not merely full of valor and resource\nas a soldier, but also sufficiently superior to those around him\nto insure both the deliberate concurrence of the chiefs, and the\nhearty adhesion of the masses.[123] That this picture is not, in all\nindividual cases, realized, is unquestionable; but the endowments so\noften predicated of good kings show it to have been the type present\nto the mind of the describer.[124] Xenoph\u00f4n, in his Cyrop\u00e6dia,\ndepicts Cyrus as an improved edition of the Homeric Agamemn\u00f4n,\u2014\u201ca\ngood king and a powerful soldier,\u201d thus idealizing the perfection of\npersonal government.\n\n [121] Odyss. ix. 114.\u2014\n\n \u03a4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd (the Cycl\u00f4pes) \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f35\u03b3\u1fbd \u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\n \u1f18\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n These lines illustrate the meaning of \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n [122] See this point set forth in the prolix discourse of\n Aristeides, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1fec\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 (Or. xlv. vol. ii. p. 99): \u1f29\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 ...\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f49\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd ... \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f21 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2, etc.\n\n [123] _P\u00ealeus_, king of the Myrmidons, is called (Iliad, vii.\n 126) \u1f18\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03c5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2\u2014_Diomedes_,\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 (iv. 400)\u2014_Nest\u00f4r_, \u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2\u2014_Sarp\u00ead\u00f4n_, \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5 (v. 633); and _Idomeneus_,\n \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5 (xiii. 219).\n\n Hesiod (Theogon. 80-96) illustrates still more amply the _id\u00e9al_\n of the king governing by persuasion and inspired by the Muses.\n\n [124] See the striking picture in Thucydid\u00eas (ii. 65). Xenoph\u00f4n,\n in the Cyrop\u00e6dia, puts into the mouth of his hero the Homeric\n comparison between the good king and the good shepherd, implying\n as it does immense superiority of organization, morality, and\n intelligence (Cyrop\u00e6d. viii. p. 450, Hutchinson).\n\n Volney observes, respecting the emirs of the Druses in Syria:\n \u201cEverything depends on circumstances: if the governor be a man of\n ability, he is absolute;\u2014if weak, he is a cipher. This proceeds\n from the want of fixed laws; a want common to all Asia.\u201d (Travels\n in Egypt and Syria, vol. ii. p. 66.) Such was pretty much the\n condition of the king in primitive Greece.\n\nIt is important to point out these fundamental conceptions of\ngovernment, discernible even before the dawn of Grecian history,\nand identified with the social life of the people. It shows us that\nthe Greeks, in their subsequent revolutions, and in the political\nexperiments which their countless autonomous communities presented,\nworked upon pre\u00ebxisting materials,\u2014developing and exalting elements\nwhich had been at first subordinate, and suppressing, or remodelling\non a totally new principle, that which had been originally\npredominant. When we approach historical Greece, we find that (with\nthe exception of Sparta) the primitive hereditary, unresponsible\nmonarch, uniting in himself all the functions of government, has\nceased to reign,\u2014while the feeling of legitimacy, which originally\ninduced his people to obey him willingly, has been exchanged for\none of aversion towards the character and title generally. The\nmultifarious functions which he once exercised, have been parcelled\nout among temporary nominees. On the other hand, the council, or\nsenate, and the agora, originally simple media through which the\nking acted, are elevated into standing and independent sources of\nauthority, controlling and holding in responsibility the various\nspecial officers to whom executive duties of one kind or another\nare confided. The general principle here indicated is common both\nto the oligarchies and the democracies which grew up in historical\nGreece: much as these two governments differed from each other, and\nmany as were the varieties even between one oligarchy or democracy\nand another, they all stood in equal contrast with the principle of\nthe heroic government. Even in Sparta, where the hereditary kingship\nlasted, it was preserved with lustre and influence exceedingly\ndiminished,[125] and such timely diminution of its power seems to\nhave been one of the essential conditions of its preservation.[126]\nThough the Spartan kings had the hereditary command of the military\nforces, yet, even in all foreign expeditions, they habitually acted\nin obedience to orders from home; while in affairs of the interior,\nthe superior power of the ephors sensibly overshadowed them. So that,\nunless possessed of more than ordinary force of character, they seem\nto have exercised their chief influence as presiding members of the\nsenate.\n\n [125] Nevertheless, the question put by Leotychides to the\n deposed Spartan king Demaratus,\u2014\u1f45\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (Herodot. vi. 65), and the poignant insult which those\n words conveyed, afford one among many other evidences of the\n lofty estimate current in Sparta respecting the regal dignity, of\n which Aristotle, in the Politica, seems hardly to take sufficient\n account.\n\n [126] O. M\u00fcller (Hist. Dorians, book iii. i. 3) affirms that the\n fundamental features of the royalty were maintained in the Dorian\n states, and obliterated only in the Ionian and democratical. In\n this point, he has been followed by various other authors (see\n Helbig, Die Sittlich. Zust\u00e4nde des Heldenalters, p. 73), but his\n position appears to me substantially incorrect, even as regards\n Sparta; and strikingly incorrect, in regard to the other Dorian\n states.\n\nThere is yet another point of view in which it behoves us to take\nnotice of the council and the agora as integral portions of the\nlegendary government of the Grecian communities. We are thus enabled\nto trace the employment of public speaking, as the standing engine\nof government and the proximate cause of obedience, to the social\ninfancy of the nation. The power of speech in the direction of public\naffairs becomes more and more obvious, developed, and irresistible,\nas we advance towards the culminating period of Grecian history, the\ncentury preceding the battle of Ch\u00e6roneia. That its development was\ngreatest among the most enlightened sections of the Grecian name, and\nsmallest among the more obtuse and stationary, is matter of notorious\nfact; nor is it less true, that the prevalence of this habit was\none of the chief causes of the intellectual eminence of the nation\ngenerally. At a time when all the countries around were plunged\ncomparatively in mental torpor, there was no motive sufficiently\npresent and powerful to multiply so wonderfully the productive minds\nof Greece, except such as arose from the rewards of public speaking.\nThe susceptibility of the multitude to this sort of guidance, their\nhabit of requiring and enjoying the stimulus which it supplied, and\nthe open discussion, combining regular forms with free opposition,\nof practical matters, political as well as judicial,\u2014are the\ncreative causes which formed such conspicuous adepts in the art of\npersuasion. Nor was it only professed orators who were thus produced;\ndidactic aptitude was formed in the background, and the speculative\ntendencies were supplied with interesting phenomena for observation\nand combination, at a time when the truths of physical science were\nalmost inaccessible. If the primary effect was to quicken the powers\nof expression, the secondary, but not less certain result, was to\ndevelop the habits of scientific thought. Not only the oratory of\nDemosthen\u00eas and Perikl\u00eas, and the colloquial magic of Socrat\u00eas, but\nalso the philosophical speculations of Plato, and the systematic\npolitics, rhetoric, and logic of Aristotle, are traceable to the\nsame general tendencies in the minds of the Grecian people: and we\nfind the germ of these expansive forces in the senate and agora of\ntheir legendary government. The poets, first epic and then lyric,\nwere the precursors of the orators, in their power of moving the\nfeelings of an assembled crowd; whilst the Homeric poems\u2014the general\ntraining-book of educated Greeks\u2014constituted a treasury of direct and\nanimated expression, full of concrete forms, and rare in the use of\nabstractions, and thence better suited to the workings of oratory.\nThe subsequent critics had no difficulty in selecting from the Iliad\nand Odyssey, samples of eloquence in all its phases and varieties.\n\nOn the whole, then, the society depicted in the old Greek poems is\nloose and unsettled, presenting very little of legal restraint, and\nstill less of legal protection,\u2014but concentrating such political\npower as does exist in the hands of a legitimate hereditary king,\nwhose ascendency over the other chiefs is more or less complete\naccording to his personal force and character. Whether that\nascendency be greater or less, however, the mass of the people is\nin either case politically passive and of little account. Though\nthe Grecian freeman of the heroic age is above the degraded level\nof the Gallic _plebs_, as described by C\u00e6sar,[127] he is far from\nrivalling the fierce independence and sense of dignity, combined with\nindividual force, which characterize the Germanic tribes before their\nestablishment in the Roman empire. Still less does his condition, or\nthe society in which he moves, correspond to those pleasing dreams\nof spontaneous rectitude and innocence, in which Tacitus and Seneca\nindulge with regard to primitive man.[128]\n\n [127] C\u00e6sar, Bell. Gallic. vi. 12.\n\n [128] Seneca, Epist. xc.; Tacitus. Annal. iii. 26. \u201cVetustissimi\n mortalium (says the latter), null\u00e2 adhuc mal\u00e2 libidine, sine\n probro, scelere, eoque sine p\u0153n\u00e2 aut co\u00ebrcitione, agebant: neque\n pr\u00e6miis opus erat, cum honesta suopte ingenio peterentur; et\n ubi nihil contra morem cuperent, nihil per metum vetabantur. At\n postquam exui \u00e6qualitas, et pro modesti\u00e2 et pudore ambitio et vis\n incedebat, proven\u00eare dominationes, multosque apud populos \u00e6ternum\n mansere,\u201d etc. Compare Strabo, vii. p. 301.\n\n These are the same fancies so eloquently set forth by Rousseau,\n in the last century. A far more sagacious criticism pervades the\n preface of Thucydid\u00eas.\n\n2. The state of moral and social feeling, prevalent in legendary\nGreece, exhibits a scene in harmony with the rudimentary political\nfabrics just described. Throughout the long stream of legendary\nnarrative on which the Greeks looked back as their past history, the\nlarger social motives hardly ever come into play: either individual\nvalor and cruelty, or the personal attachments and quarrels of\nrelatives and war-companions, or the feuds of private enemies, are\never before us. There is no sense of obligation then existing,\nbetween man and man as such,\u2014and very little between each man and\nthe entire community of which he is a member; such sentiments are\nneither operative in the real world, nor present to the imaginations\nof the poets. Personal feelings, either towards the gods, the\nking, or some near and known individual, fill the whole of a man\u2019s\nbosom: out of them arise all the motives to beneficence, and all\nthe internal restraints upon violence, antipathy, or rapacity: and\nspecial communion, as well as special solemnities, are essential to\ntheir existence. The ceremony of an oath, so imposing, so paramount,\nand so indispensable in those days, illustrates strikingly this\nprinciple. And even in the case of the stranger suppliant,\u2014in which\nan apparently spontaneous sympathy manifests itself,\u2014the succor and\nkindness shown to him arise mainly from his having gone through the\nconsecrated formalities of supplication, such as that of sitting down\nin the ashes by the sacred hearth, thus obtaining a sort of privilege\nof sanctuary.[129] That ceremony exalts him into something more than\na mere suffering man,\u2014it places him in express fellowship with the\nmaster of the house, under the tutelary sanctions of Zeus Hiket\u00easios.\nThere is great difference between one form of supplication and\nanother; the suppliant, however, in any form, becomes more or less\nthe object of a particular sympathy.\n\n [129] Seuth\u00eas, in the Anabasis of Xenoph\u00f4n (vii. 2, 33),\n describes how, when an orphan youth, he formerly supplicated\n M\u00eadokos, the Thracian king, to grant him a troop of followers,\n in order that he might recover his lost dominions, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03af\u03c6\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n Thucydid\u00eas gives an interesting description of the arrival of\n the exile Themistokl\u00eas, then warmly pursued by the Greeks on\n suspicion of treason, at the house of Adm\u00eatus, king of the\n Epirotic Molossians. The wife of Adm\u00eatus herself instructed\n the fugitive how to supplicate her husband in form: the child\n of Adm\u00eatus was placed in his arms, and he was directed to sit\n down in this guise close by the consecrated hearth, which was\n of the nature of an altar. While so seated, he addressed his\n urgent entreaties to Adm\u00eatus for protection: the latter raised\n him up from the ground and promised what was asked. \u201cThat (says\n the historian) was the most powerful form of supplication.\u201d\n Adm\u00eatus,\u2014\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 ~\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1~ \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf (Thuc.\n i. 136). So T\u00ealephus, in the lost drama of \u00c6schylus called\n \u039c\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u1f76, takes up the child Orest\u00eas. See Bothe\u2019s Fragm. 44; Schol.\n Aristoph. Ach. 305.\n\n In the Odyssey, both Nausikaa and the goddess Ath\u00ean\u00ea instruct\n Odysseus in the proper form of supplicating Alkinous: he first\n throws himself down at the feet of queen Ar\u00eat\u00ea, embracing her\n knees and addressing to her his prayer, and then, without waiting\n for a reply, sits down among the ashes on the hearth,\u2014\u1f63\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f15\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9,\u2014Alkinous is dining with a\n large company: for some time both he and the guests are silent:\n at length the ancient Echen\u00eaus remonstrates with him on his\n tardiness in raising the stranger up from the ashes. At his\n exhortation, the Ph\u00e6akian king takes Odysseus by the hand, and,\n raising him up, places him on a chair beside him: he then directs\n the heralds to mix a bowl of wine, and to serve it to every one\n round, in order that all may make libations to Zeus Hiket\u00easios.\n This ceremony clothes the stranger with the full rights and\n character of a suppliant (Odyss. vi. 310; vii. 75, 141, 166):\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u00c6schyl. Supplic. 242.\n\n That the form counted for a great deal, we see evidently marked:\n but of course supplication is often addressed, and successfully\n addressed, in circumstances where this form cannot be gone\n through.\n\n It is difficult to accept the doctrine of Eustathius (ad Odyss.\n xvi. 424), that \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is a _vox media_ (like \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), applied\n as well to the \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 as to the \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, properly so called:\n but the word \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, in the passage just cited, does seem to\n justify his observation: yet there is no direct authority for\n such use of the word in Homer.\n\n The address of Theoclymenos, on first preferring his supplication\n to Telemachus, is characteristic of the practice (Odyss. xv.\n 260); compare also Iliad, xvi. 574, and Hesiod. Scut. Hercul.\n 12-85.\n\n The idea of the \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and the \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 run very much together. I\n can hardly persuade myself that the reading \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 (Odyss. xi.\n 520) is truly Homeric: implying as it does the idea of a pitiable\n sufferer, it is altogether out of place when predicated of the\n proud and impetuous Neoptolemus: we should rather have expected\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5. (See Odyss. x. 15.)\n\n The constraining efficacy of special formalities of supplication,\n among the Scythians, is powerfully set forth in the Toxaris\n of Lucian: the suppliant sits upon an ox-hide, with his hands\n confined behind him (Lucian, Toxaris c. 48, vol. iii. p. 69,\n Tauchn.)\u2014the \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 among that people.\n\nThe sense of obligation towards the gods manifests itself separately\nin habitual acts of worship, sacrifice, and libations, or by votive\npresents, such as that of the hair of Achilles, which he has pledged\nto the river-god Spercheius,[130] and such as the constant dedicated\nofferings which men who stand in urgent need of the divine aid first\npromise and afterwards fulfil. But the feeling towards the gods\nalso appears, and that not less frequently, as mingling itself with\nand enforcing obligations towards some particular human person. The\ntie which binds a man to his father, his kinsman, his guest, or any\nspecial promisee towards whom he has taken the engagement of an\noath, is conceived in conjunction with the idea of Zeus, as witness\nand guarantee; and the intimacy of the association is attested by\nsome surname or special appellation of the god.[131] Such personal\nfeelings composed all the moral influences of which a Greek of that\nday was susceptible,\u2014a state of mind which we can best appreciate\nby contrasting it with that of the subsequent citizen of historical\nAthens. In the view of the latter, the great impersonal authority,\ncalled \u201cThe Laws,\u201d stood out separately, both as guide and sanction,\ndistinct from religious duty or private sympathies: but of this\ndiscriminated conception of positive law and positive morality,[132]\nthe germ only can be detected in the Homeric poems. The appropriate\nGreek word for human laws never occurs. Amidst a very wavering\nphraseology,[133] we can detect a gradual transition from the\nprimitive idea of a personal goddess Themis, attached to Zeus, first\nto his sentences or orders called Themistes, and next by a still\nfarther remove to various established customs, which those sentences\nwere believed to sanctify,\u2014the authority of religion and that of\ncustom coalescing into one indivisible obligation.\n\n [130] Iliad, xxiii. 142.\n\n [131] Odyss. xiv. 389.\u2014\n\n \u039f\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u1fbd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03c3\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9,\n \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n [132] N\u00e4gelsbach (Homerische Theologie, Abschn. v. s. 23) gives\n a just and well-sustained view of the Homeric ethics: \u201cEs ist\n der charakteristische Standpunkt der Homerischen Ethik, dass die\n Sph\u00e4ren des Rechts, der Sittlichkeit, und Religiosit\u00e4t, bey dem\n Dichter, durchaus noch nicht auseinander fallen, so dass der\n Mensch z. B. \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 seyn konnte ohne \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u1f74\u03c2 zu seyn\u2014sondern in\n unentwickelter Einheit beysammen sind.\u201d\n\n [133] \u039d\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, _laws_, is not an Homeric word; \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, _law_, in the\n singular, occurs twice in the Hesiodic Works and Days (276, 388).\n\n The employment of the words \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7, \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, in\n Homer, is curious as illustrating the early moral associations,\n but would require far more space than can be given to it in\n a note; we see that the sense of each of these words was\n essentially fluctuating. _Themis_, in Homer, is sometimes\n decidedly a _person_, who exercises the important function of\n opening and closing the agora, both of gods and men (Iliad, xx.\n 4: Odyss. ii. 68), and who, besides that, acts and speaks (Iliad,\n xiv. 87-93): always the associate and companion of Zeus, the\n highest god. In Hesiod, (Theog. 901,) she is the wife of Zeus:\n in \u00c6schylus, (Prometh. 209,) she is the same as \u0393\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1: even in\n Plato, (Legg. xi. p. 936,) witnesses swear (to want of knowledge\n of matters under inquest) by Zeus, Apollo, and Themis. Themis _as\n a person_ is probably the oldest sense of the word: then we have\n the plural \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (connected with the verb \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9, like \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2\n and \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2), which are (not persons, but) special appurtenances\n or emanations of the supreme god, or of a king acting under him,\n analogous to and joined with the sceptre. The sceptre, and the\n \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 or the \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 constantly go together (Iliad, ii. 209;\n ix. 99): Zeus or the king is a judge, not a lawmaker; he issues\n decrees or special orders to settle particular disputes, or to\n restrain particular men; and, agreeable to the concrete forms\n of ancient language, the decrees are treated as if they were a\n collection of ready-made substantive things, actually in his\n possession, like the sceptre, and prepared for being delivered\n out when the proper occasion arose: \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03cd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (Il. i. 238), compared with the two passages\n last cited: \u1f0c\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 (Il.\n v. 761), \u1f0c\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f56 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 (Odyss. ix.\n 215). The plural number \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 is more commonly used in Homer\n than the singular: \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7 is rarely used to denote Justice, an\n an abstract conception; it more often denotes a special claim\n of right on the part of some given man (Il. xviii. 508). It\n sometimes also denotes, simply, established custom, or the known\n lot,\u2014\u03b4\u03bc\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7, \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd (see Damm\u2019s\n Lexicon, _ad voc._) \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 is used in the same manner.\n\n See, upon this matter, Platner, De Notione Juris ap. Homerum, p.\n 81, and O. M\u00fcller, Prolegg. Mythol. p. 121.\n\nThe family relations, as we might expect, are set forth in our\npictures of the legendary world as the grand sources of lasting union\nand devoted attachment. The paternal authority is highly reverenced:\nthe son who lives to years of maturity, repays by affection to his\nparents the charge of his maintenance in infancy, which the language\nnotes by a special word; whilst on the other hand, the Erinnys, whose\navenging hand is put in motion by the curse of a father or mother, is\nan object of deep dread.[134]\n\n [134] \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u0398\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 (Il. iv. 477): \u03b8\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\n or \u03b8\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 (compare Il. ix. 454; Odyss. ii. 134; Hesiod, Opp.\n Di. 186).\n\nIn regard to marriage, we find the wife occupying a station of\ngreat dignity and influence, though it was the practice for the\nhusband to purchase her by valuable presents to her parents,\u2014a\npractice extensively prevalent among early communities, and treated\nby Aristotle as an evidence of barbarism. She even seems to live\nless secluded and to enjoy a wider sphere of action than was\nallotted to her in historical Greece.[135] Concubines are frequent\nwith the chiefs, and occasionally the jealousy of the wife breaks\nout in reckless excess against her husband, as may be seen in the\ntragical history of Ph\u0153nix. The continence of La\u00ebrt\u00eas, from fear of\ndispleasing his wife Antikleia, is especially noticed.[136] A large\nportion of the romantic interest which Grecian legend inspires is\nderived from the women: Penelop\u00ea, Andromach\u00ea, Helen, Klyt\u00e6mn\u00eastra,\nEriphyl\u00ea, Iokasta, Hekab\u00ea, etc., all stand in the foreground of the\npicture, either from their virtues, their beauty, their crimes, or\ntheir sufferings.\n\n [135] Aristot. Polit. ii. 5, 11. The \u1f14\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1, or present given by\n the suitor to the father, as an inducement to grant his daughter\n in marriage, are spoken of as very valuable,\u2014\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f14\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1 (Il.\n xi. 244; xvi. 178; xxii. 472): to grant a daughter without \u1f14\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1\n was a high compliment to the intended son-in-law (Il. ix. 141:\n compare xiii. 366). Among the ancient Germans of Tacitus, the\n husband gave presents, not to his wife\u2019s father, but to herself\n (Tacit. Germ. c. 18): the customs of the early Jews were in this\n respect completely Homeric; see the case of Shechem and Dinah\n (Genesis, xxxiv. 12) and others, etc.; also Mr. Catlin\u2019s Letters\n on the North American Indians, vol. i. Lett. 26, p. 213.\n\n The Greek \u1f14\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1 correspond exactly to the _mundium_ of the Lombard\n and Alemannic laws, which is thus explained by Mr. Price (Notes\n on the Laws of King Ethelbert, in the Ancient Laws and Institutes\n of England, translated and published by Mr. Thorpe, vol. i. p.\n 20): \u201cThe Longobardic law is the most copious of all the barbaric\n codes in its provisions respecting marriage, and particularly\n so on the subject of the Mund. From that law it appears that\n the Mundium was a sum paid over to the family of the bride, for\n transferring the tutelage which they possessed over her to the\n family of the husband: \u2018Si quis pro muliere liber\u00e2 aut puell\u00e2\n mundium dederit et ei tradita fuerit ad uxorem,\u2019 etc. (ed.\n Rotharis, c. 183.) In the same sense in which the term occurs in\n these dooms, it is also to be met with in the Alemannic law: it\n was also common in Denmark and in Sweden, where the bride was\n called a mund-bought or a mund-given woman.\u201d\n\n According to the 77th Law of King Ethelbert (p. 23), this _mund_\n was often paid in cattle: the Saxon daughters were \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 (Iliad, xviii. 593).\n\n [136] Odyss. i. 430: Iliad, ix. 450: see also Terpstra,\n Antiquitas Homerica, capp. 17 and 18.\n\n Polygamy appears to be ascribed to Priam, but to no one else\n (Iliad, xxi. 88).\n\nNot only brothers, but also cousins, and the more distant\nblood-relations and clansmen, appear connected together by a strong\nfeeling of attachment, sharing among them universally the obligation\nof mutual self-defence and revenge, in the event of injury to any\nindividual of the race. The legitimate brothers divide between them\nby lot the paternal inheritance,\u2014a bastard brother receiving only a\nsmall share; he is, however, commonly very well treated,[137] though\nthe murder of Phokus, by Telamon and P\u00ealeus, constitutes a flagrant\nexception. The furtive pregnancy of young women, often by a god,\nis one of the most frequently recurring incidents in the legendary\nnarratives; and the severity with which such a fact, when discovered,\nis visited by the father, is generally extreme. As an extension\nof the family connection, we read of larger unions, called the\nphratry and the tribe, which are respectfully, but not frequently,\nmentioned.[138]\n\n [137] Odyss. xiv. 202-215: compare Iliad, xi. 102. The primitive\n German law of succession divided the paternal inheritance among\n the sons of a deceased father, under the implied obligation to\n maintain and portion out their sisters (Eichhorn, _Deutsches\n Privat-Recht_. sect. 330).\n\n [138] Iliad, ii. 362.\u2014\n\n \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, \u1f00\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n \u1f4b\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, etc. (Il. ix. 63.)\n\n These three epithets include the three different classes of\n personal sympathy and obligation: 1. The Phratry, in which\n a man is connected with father, mother, brothers, cousins,\n brothers-in-law, clansmen, etc.; 2. The \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, whereby he is\n connected with his fellow-men who visit the same agora; 3. His\n Hestia, or Hearth, whereby he becomes accessible to the \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n and the \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2:\u2014\n\n \u03a4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03be\u03af\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03be\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd,\n ~\u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd~ \u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03b6\u1fc3\n \u0393\u03bd\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd. (Odyss. xxi. 34.)\n\nThe generous readiness with which hospitality is afforded to the\nstranger who asks for it,[139] the facility with which he is allowed\nto contract the peculiar connection of guest with his host, and the\npermanence with which that connection, when created by partaking of\nthe same food and exchanging presents, is maintained even through\na long period of separation, and even transmitted from father to\nson\u2014these are among the most captivating features of the heroic\nsociety. The Homeric chief welcomes the stranger who comes to ask\nshelter in his house, first gives him refreshment, and then inquires\nhis name and the purpose of his voyage.[140] Though not inclined\nto invite strangers to his house, he cannot repel them when they\nspontaneously enter it craving a lodging.[141] The suppliant is also\ncommonly a stranger, but a stranger under peculiar circumstances;\nwho proclaims his own calamitous and abject condition, and seeks to\nplace himself in a relation to the chief whom he solicits, something\nlike that in which men stand to the gods. Onerous as such special\ntie may become to him, the chief cannot decline it, if solicited in\nthe proper form: the ceremony of supplication has a binding effect,\nand the Erinnys punish the hardhearted person who disallows it.\nA conquered enemy may sometimes throw himself at the feet of his\nconqueror, and solicit mercy, but he cannot by doing so acquire the\ncharacter and claims of a suppliant properly so called: the conqueror\nhas free discretion either to kill him, or to spare him and accept a\nransom.[142]\n\n [139] It must be mentioned, however, that when a chief received a\n stranger and made presents to him, he reimbursed to himself the\n value of the presents by collections among the people (Odyss.\n xiii. 14; xix. 197): \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, says\n Alkinous.\n\n [140] Odyss. i. 123; iii. 70, etc.\n\n [141] Odyss. xvii. 383.\u2014\n\n \u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd\n \u1f0c\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b4\u1fbd, \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03cc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f14\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, etc.;\n\n which breathes the plain-spoken shrewdness of the Hesiodic Works\n and Days, v. 355.\n\n [142] See the illustrative case of Lykaon, in vain craving mercy\n from Achilles. (Iliad, xxi. 64-97. \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bc\u1fbd \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03bf, etc.)\n\n Menelaus is about to spare the life of the Trojan Adrastus, who\n clasps his knees and craves mercy, offering a large ransom,\u2014when\n Agamemn\u00f4n repels the idea of quarter, and kills Adrastus with his\n own hand: his speech to Menelaus displays the extreme of violent\n enmity, yet the poet says,\u2014\n\n \u1f6b\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2,\n ~\u0391\u1f34\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd~, etc.\n\n Adrastus is not called an \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, nor is the expression used in\n respect to Dolon (Il. x. 456), nor in the equally striking case\n of Odysseus (Odyss. xiv. 279), when begging for his life.\n\nThere are in the legendary narratives abundant examples of\nindividuals who transgress in particular acts even the holiest of\nthese personal ties, but the savage Cyclops is the only person\ndescribed as professedly indifferent to them, and careless of that\nsanction of the gods which in Grecian belief accompanied them\nall.[143] In fact, the tragical horror which pervades the lineage\nof Athamas or Kadmus, and which attaches to many of the acts of\nH\u00earakl\u00eas, of P\u00ealeus and Telamon, of Jas\u00f4n and M\u00eadea, of Atreus and\nThyest\u00eas, etc., is founded upon a deep feeling and sympathy with\nthose special obligations, which conspicuous individuals, under the\ntemporary stimulus of the maddening At\u00ea, are driven to violate.\nIn such conflict of sentiments, between the obligation generally\nreverenced and the exceptional deviation in an individual otherwise\nadmired, consists the pathos of the story.\n\n [143] Odyss. ix. 112-275.\n\nThese feelings\u2014of mutual devotion between kinsmen and companions\nin arms\u2014of generous hospitality to the stranger, and of helping\nprotection to the suppliant,\u2014constitute the bright spots in a dark\nage. We find them very generally prevalent amongst communities\nessentially rude and barbarous,\u2014amongst the ancient Germans as\ndescribed by Tacitus, the Druses in Lebanon,[144] the Arabian tribes\nin the desert, and even the North American Indians.\n\n [144] Tacit. German. c. 21. \u201cQuemeunque mortalium arcere tecto,\n nefas habetur: pro fortun\u00e2 quisque apparatis epulis excipit: cum\n defec\u00eare qui modo hospes fuerat, monstratur hospitii et comes,\n proximam domum non invitati adeunt: nec interest\u2014pari humanitate\n accipiuntur. Notum ignotumque, quantum ad jus hospitii, nemo\n discernit.\u201d Compare C\u00e6sar, B. G. vi. 22.\n\n See about the Druses and Arabians, Volney, Travels in Egypt and\n Syria, vol. ii. p. 76, Engl. Transl.; Niebuhr, Beschreibung von\n Arabien, Copenh. 1772, pp. 46-49.\n\n Pomponius Mela describes the ancient Germans in language not\n inapplicable to the Homeric Greeks: \u201cJus in viribus habent,\n adeo ut ne latrocinii quidem pudeat: _tantum_ hospitibus boni,\n mitesque supplicibus.\u201d (iii. 3.)\n\n \u201cThe hospitality of the Indians is well known. It extends even\n to strangers who take refuge among them. They count it a most\n sacred duty, from which no one is exempted. Whoever refuses\n relief to any one, commits a grievous offence, and not only makes\n himself detested and abhorred by all, but liable to revenge from\n the offended person. In their conduct towards their enemies\n they are cruel and inexorable, and, when enraged, bent upon\n nothing but murder and bloodshed. They are, however, remarkable\n for concealing their passions, and waiting for a convenient\n opportunity of gratifying them. But then their fury knows no\n bounds. If they cannot satisfy their resentment, they will even\n call upon their friends and posterity to do it. The longest space\n of time cannot cool their wrath, nor the most distant place of\n refuge afford security to their enemy.\u201d (Loskiel, History of the\n Mission of the United Brethren among the North American Indians,\n Part I. ch. 2, p. 15.)\n\n \u201cCharlevoix observes, (says Dr. Ferguson, Essay on Civil\n Society, Part II. \u00a7 2, p. 145,) that the nations among whom he\n travelled in North America never mentioned acts of generosity or\n kindness under the notion of duty. They acted from affection, as\n they acted from appetite, without regard to its consequences.\n When they had done a kindness, they had gratified a desire:\n the business was finished, and it passed from the memory. The\n spirit with which they give or receive presents is the same as\n that which Tacitus remarks among the ancient Germans: \u2018Gaudent\n muneribus, sed nec data imputant, nec acceptis obligantur.\u2019 Such\n gifts are of little consequence, except when employed as the seal\n of a bargain or a treaty.\u201d\n\n Respecting the Morlacchi (Illyrian Sclavonians), the Abb\u00e9 Fortis\n says (Travels in Dalmatia, pp. 55-58):\u2014\n\n \u201cThe hospitality of the Morlachs is equally conspicuous among\n the poor as among the opulent. The rich prepares a roasted lamb\n or sheep, and the poor, with equal cordiality, gives his turkey,\n milk, honey,\u2014whatever he has. Nor is their generosity confined\n to strangers, but generally extends to all who are in want....\n Friendship is lasting among the Morlacchi. They have even made\n it a kind of religious point, and tie the sacred bond at the\n foot of the altar. The Sclavonian ritual contains a particular\n benediction, for the solemn union of two male or two female\n friends, in presence of the whole congregation. The male friends\n thus united are called Pobratimi, and the females Posestreme,\n which means half-brothers and half-sisters. The duties of the\n Pobratimi are, to assist each other in every case of need and\n danger, to revenge mutual wrongs, etc.: their enthusiasm is often\n carried so far as to risk, and even lose their life.... But as\n the friendships of the Morlacchi are strong and sacred, so their\n quarrels are commonly unextinguishable. They pass from father to\n son, and the mothers fail not to put their children in mind of\n their duty to revenge their father, if he has had the misfortune\n to be killed, and to show them often the bloody shirt of the\n deceased.... A Morlach is implacable, if injured or insulted.\n With him, revenge and justice have exactly the same meaning,\n and truly it is the primitive idea, and I have been told that\n in Albania the effects of revenge are still more atrocious and\n more lasting. There, a man of the mildest character is capable\n of the most barbarous revenge, believing it to be his positive\n duty.... A Morlach who has killed another of a powerful family is\n commonly obliged to save himself by flight, and keep out of the\n way for several years. If during that time he has been fortunate\n enough to escape the search of his pursuers, and has got a small\n sum of money, he endeavors to obtain pardon and peace.... It is\n the custom in some places for the offended party to threaten the\n criminal, holding all sorts of arms to his throat, and at last to\n consent to accept his ransom.\u201d\n\n Concerning the influence of these two distinct tendencies\u2014devoted\n personal friendship and implacable animosities\u2014among the\n Illyrico-Sclavonian population, see Cyprien Robert, Les Slaves de\n la Turquie, ch. vii. pp. 42-46, and Dr. Joseph M\u00fcller, Albanien,\n Rumelien, und die \u0152sterreichisch-Montenegrenische Gr\u00e4nze, Prag.\n 1844, pp. 24-25.\n\n \u201cIt is for the virtue of hospitality (observes Goguet, Origin of\n Laws, etc. vol. i. book vi. ch. iv.), that the primitive times\n are chiefly famed. But, in my opinion, hospitality was then\n exercised, not so much from generosity and greatness of soul,\n as from necessity. Common interest probably gave rise to that\n custom. In remote antiquity, there were few or no public inns:\n they entertained strangers, in order that they might render\n them the same service, if they happened to travel into their\n country. Hospitality was reciprocal. When they received strangers\n into their houses, they acquired a right of being received into\n theirs again. This right was regarded by the ancients as sacred\n and inviolable, and extended not only to those who had acquired\n it, but to their children and posterity. Besides, hospitality\n in these times could not be attended with much expense: men\n travelled but little. In a word, the modern Arabians prove that\n hospitality may consist with the greatest vices, and that this\n species of generosity is no decisive evidence of goodness of\n heart, or rectitude of manners.\u201d\n\n The book of Genesis, amidst many other features of resemblance\n to the Homeric manners, presents that of ready and exuberant\n hospitality to the stranger.\n\nThey are the instinctive manifestations of human sociality, standing\nat first alone, and for that reason appearing to possess a greater\ntutelary force than really belongs to them,\u2014beneficent, indeed,\nin a high degree, with reference to their own appropriate period,\nbut serving as a very imperfect compensation for the impotence of\nthe magistrate, and for the absence of any all-pervading sympathy\nor sense of obligation between man and man. We best appreciate\ntheir importance when we compare the Homeric society with that\nof barbarians like the Thracians, who tattooed their bodies, as\nthe mark of a generous lineage,\u2014sold their children for export as\nslaves,\u2014considered robbery, not merely as one admissible occupation\namong others, but as the only honorable mode of life; agriculture\nbeing held contemptible,\u2014and above all, delighted in the shedding of\nblood as a luxury. Such were the Thracians in the days of Herodotus\nand Thucydid\u00eas: and the Homeric society forms a mean term between\nthat which these two historians yet saw in Thrace, and that which\nthey witnessed among their own civilized countrymen.[145]\n\n [145] Respecting the Thracians, compare Herodot. v. 11;\n Thucydid. vii. 29-30. The expression of the latter historian\n is remarkable,\u2014\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0398\u03c1\u1fb3\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6, ~\u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3, \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9~.\n\n Compare Herodot. viii. 116; the cruelty of the Thracian king of\n the Bisalt\u00e6 towards his own sons.\n\n The story of Odysseus to Eum\u00e6us in the Odyssey (xiv. 210-226)\n furnishes a valuable comparison for this predatory disposition\n among the Thracians. Odysseus there treats the love of living by\n war and plunder as his own peculiar taste: he did not happen to\n like regular labor, but the latter is not treated in any way mean\n or unbecoming a freeman:\u2014\n\n \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03b5\u03bd\n \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b7, \u1f25 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1, etc.\n\nWhen, however, among the Homeric men we pass beyond the influence\nof the private ties above enumerated, we find scarcely any other\nmoralizing forces in operation. The acts and adventures commemorated\nimply a community wherein neither the protection nor the restraints\nof law are practically felt, and wherein ferocity, rapine, and the\naggressive propensities generally, seem restrained by no internal\ncounterbalancing scruples. Homicide, especially, is of frequent\noccurrence, sometimes by open violence, sometimes by fraud:\nexpatriation for homicide is among the most constantly recurring acts\nof the Homeric poems: and savage brutalities are often ascribed, even\nto admired heroes, with apparent indifference. Achilles sacrifices\ntwelve Trojan prisoners on the tomb of Patroklus, while his son\nNeoptolemus not only slaughters the aged Priam, but also seizes by\nthe leg the child Astyanax (son of the slain Hector) and hurls him\nfrom one of the lofty towers of Troy.[146] Moreover, the celebrity\nof Autolykus, the maternal grandfather of Odysseus, in the career of\nwholesale robbery and perjury, and the wealth which it enabled him\nto acquire, are described with the same unaffected admiration as the\nwisdom of Nest\u00f4r or the strength of Ajax.[147] Achilles, Menelaus,\nOdysseus, pillage in person, wherever they can find an opportunity,\nemploying both force and stratagem to surmount resistance.[148]\nThe vocation of a pirate is recognized and honorable, so that a\nhost, when he asks his guest what is the purpose of his voyage,\nenumerates enrichment by indiscriminate maritime plunder as among\nthose projects which may naturally enter into his contemplation.[149]\nAbduction of cattle, and expeditions for unprovoked ravage as well\nas for retaliation, between neighboring tribes, appear ordinary\nphenomena;[150] and the established inviolability of heralds seems\nthe only evidence of any settled feeling of obligation between one\ncommunity and another. While the house and property of Odysseus,\nduring his long absence, enjoys no public protection,[151] those\nunprincipled chiefs, who consume his substance, find sympathy rather\nthan disapprobation among the people of Ithaka. As a general rule,\nhe who cannot protect himself finds no protection from society: his\nown kinsmen and immediate companions are the only parties to whom\nhe can look with confidence for support. And in this respect, the\nrepresentation given by Hesiod makes the picture even worse. In his\nemphatic denunciation of the fifth age, that poet deplores not only\nthe absence of all social justice and sense of obligation among his\ncontemporaries, but also the relaxation of the ties of family and\nhospitality.[152] There are marks of querulous exaggeration in the\npoem of the Works and Days; yet the author professes to describe the\nreal state of things around him, and the features of his picture,\nsoften them as we may, will still appear dark and calamitous. It is,\nhowever, to be remarked, that he contemplates a state of peace,\u2014thus\nforming a contrast with the Homeric poems. His copious catalogue of\nsocial evils scarcely mentions liability to plunder by a foreign\nenemy, nor does he compute the chances of predatory aggression as a\nsource of profit.\n\n [146] Ilias Minor, Fragm. 7, p. 18, ed. D\u00fcntzer; Iliad, xxiii.\n 175. Odysseus is mentioned once as obtaining poison for his\n arrows (Odyss. i. 160), but no poisoned arrows are ever employed\n in either of the two poems.\n\n The anecdotes recounted by the Scythian Toxaris in Lucian\u2019s\n work so entitled (vol. ii. c. 36, p. 544, _seqq._ ed. Hemst.)\n afford a vivid picture of this combination of intense and devoted\n friendship between individuals, with the most revolting cruelty\n of manners. \u201cYou Greeks live in peace and tranquillity,\u201d observes\n the Scythian,\u2014\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f22 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f22 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u00b7 ~\u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd~, etc.\n\n [147] Odyss. xxi. 397; Pherekyd\u00eas, Fragm. 63, ed. Didot;\n Autolykus, \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03bd. The Homeric Hymn to\n Herm\u00eas (the great patron-god of Autolykus) is a farther specimen\n of the admiration which might be made to attach to clever\n thieving.\n\n The \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1, likely to rob the farm, is one great\n enemy against whom Hesiod advises precaution to be taken,\u2014a\n sharp-toothed dog, well-fed, to serve as guard (Opp. Di. 604).\n\n [148] Iliad, xi. 624; xx. 189. Odyss. iv. 81-90; ix. 40; xiv.\n 230; and the indirect revelation (Odyss. xix. 284), coupled with\n a compliment to the dexterity of Odysseus.\n\n [149] Even in the century prior to Thucydid\u00eas, undistinguishing\n plunder at sea, committed by Greek ships against ships not Greek,\n seems not to have been held discreditable. The Phok\u00e6an Dionysius,\n after the ill-success of the Ionic revolt, goes with his three\n ships of war to Sicily, and from thence plunders Tyrrhenians and\n Carthaginians (Herod. vi. 17).\u2014\u03bb\u03b7\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b5, \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2, \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd. Compare the conduct of the\n Phok\u00e6an settlers at Alalia in Corsica, after the conquest of\n Ionia by Harpagus (Herodot. i. 166).\n\n In the treaty between the Romans and Carthaginians, made at\n some period subsequent to 509 B. C., it is stipulated,\u2014\u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u039c\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03a4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b7\u0390\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bb\u03b7\u0390\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (Polyb. iii. 24,\n 4). Plunder, commerce, and colonization, are here assumed as\n the three objects which the Roman ships would pursue, unless\n they were under special obligation to abstain, in reference\n to foreigners. This morality approaches nearer to that of the\n Homeric age, than to the state of sentiment which Thucydides\n indicates as current in his day among the Greeks.\n\n [150] See the interesting boastfulness of Nest\u00f4r, Iliad, xi.\n 670-700; also Odyss. xxi. 18; Odyss. iii. 71; Thucyd. i. 5.\n\n [151] Odyss. iv. 165, among many other passages. Telemachus\n laments the misfortune of his race, in respect that himself,\n Odysseus, and La\u00ebrt\u00eas were all only sons of their fathers: there\n were no brothers to serve as mutual auxiliaries (Odyss. xvi. 118).\n\n [152] Opp. Di. 182-199:\u2014\n\n \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u0390\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2,\n \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u1ff3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1ff3,\n \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1,\n \u0391\u1f36\u03c8\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u1fc6\u03b1\u03c2, etc.\n\nThere are two special veins of estimable sentiment, on which it may\nbe interesting to contrast heroic and historical Greece, and which\nexhibit the latter as an improvement on the former, not less in the\naffections than in the intellect.\n\nThe law of Athens was peculiarly watchful and provident with\nrespect both to the persons and the property of orphan minors;\nbut the description given in the Iliad of the utter and hopeless\ndestitution of the orphan boy, despoiled of his paternal inheritance,\nand abandoned by all the friends of his father, whom he urgently\nsupplicates, and who all harshly cast him off, is one of the most\npathetic morsels in the whole poem.[153] In reference again to the\ntreatment of the dead body of an enemy we find all the Greek chiefs\nwho come near (not to mention the conduct of Achilles himself)\npiercing with their spears the corpse of the slain Hect\u00f4r, while\nsome of them even pass disgusting taunts upon it. We may add, from\nthe lost epics, the mutilation of the dead bodies of Paris and\nDeiphobus by the hand of Menelaus.[154] But at the time of the\nPersian invasion, it was regarded as unworthy of a right-minded\nGreek to maltreat in any way the dead body of an enemy, even where\nsuch a deed might seem to be justified on the plea of retaliation.\nAfter the battle of Plat\u00e6a, a proposition was made to the Spartan\nking Pausanias, to retaliate upon the dead body of Mardonius the\nindignities which Xerx\u00eas had heaped upon that of Leonidas at\nThermopyl\u00e6. He indignantly spurned the suggestion, not without a\nsevere rebuke, or rather a half-suppressed menace, towards the\nproposer: and the feeling of Herodotus himself goes heartily along\nwith him.[155]\n\n [153] Iliad, xxii. 487-500. Hesiod dwells upon injury to orphan\n children, however, as a heinous offence (Opp. Di. 330).\n\n [154] Iliad, xxii. 371. \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7.\n Argument of Iliad. Minor. ap. D\u00fcntzer, Epp. Fragm. p. 17; Virgil,\n \u00c6neid, vi. 520.\n\n Both Agamemn\u00f4n and the Oiliad Ajax cut off the heads of slain\n warriors, and send them rolling like a ball or like a mortar\n among the crowd of warriors (Iliad, xi. 147; xiii. 102).\n\n The ethical maxim preached by Odysseus in the Odyssey, not to\n utter boastful shouts over a slain enemy (\u039f\u1f50\u03ba \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03b7, \u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, xxii. 412), is abundantly violated in\n the Iliad.\n\n [155] Herodot. ix. 78-79. Contrast this strong expression from\n Pausanias, with the conduct of the Carthaginians towards the\n end of the Peloponnesian war, after their capture of Selinus in\n Sicily, where, after having put to death 16,000 persons, they\n mutilated the dead bodies,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 (Diod\u00f4r. xiii.\n 57-86).\n\nThe different manner of dealing with homicide presents a third test,\nperhaps more striking yet, of the change in Grecian feelings and\nmanners during the three centuries preceding the Persian invasion.\nThat which the murderer in the Homeric times had to dread, was, not\npublic prosecution and punishment, but the personal vengeance of\nthe kinsmen and friends of the deceased, who were stimulated by the\nkeenest impulses of honor and obligation to avenge the deed, and were\nconsidered by the public as specially privileged to do so.[156] To\nescape from this danger, he is obliged to flee the country, unless\nhe can prevail upon the incensed kinsmen to accept of a valuable\npayment (we must not speak of coined money, in the days of Homer)\nas satisfaction for their slain comrade. They may, if they please,\ndecline the offer, and persist in their right of revenge; but if\nthey accept, they are bound to leave the offender unmolested, and he\naccordingly remains at home without farther consequences. The chiefs\nin agora do not seem to interfere, except to insure payment of the\nstipulated sum.\n\n [156] The Mosaic law recognizes this habit and duty on the part\n of the relatives of the murdered man, and provides cities of\n refuge for the purpose of sheltering the offender in certain\n cases (Deuteron. xxxv. 13-14; Bauer, Handbuch der Hebra\u00efschen\n Alterth\u00fcmer, sect. 51-52).\n\n The relative who inherited the property of a murdered man was\n specially obliged to avenge his death (H. Leo, Vorlesungen \u00fcber\n die Geschichte des J\u00fcdischen Staats.\u2014Vorl. iii. p. 35).\n\nHere we recognize once more the characteristic attribute of the\nGrecian heroic age,\u2014the omnipotence of private force, tempered and\nguided by family sympathies, and the practical nullity of that\ncollective sovereign afterwards called _The City_,\u2014who in historical\nGreece becomes the central and paramount source of obligation, but\nwho appears yet only in the background, as a germ of promise for the\nfuture. And the manner in which, in the case of homicide, that germ\nwas developed into a powerful reality, presents an interesting field\nof comparison with other nations.\n\nFor the practice, here designated, of leaving the party guilty of\nhomicide to compromise by valuable payment with the relatives of\nthe deceased, and also of allowing to the latter a free choice\nwhether they would accept such compromise or enforce their right of\npersonal revenge,\u2014has been remarked in many rude communities, but\nis particularly memorable among the early German tribes.[157] Among\nthe many separate Teutonic establishments which rose upon the ruins\nof the Western Empire of Rome, the right as well as duty of private\nrevenge, for personal injury or insult offered to any member of a\nfamily,\u2014and the endeavor to avert its effects by means of a pecuniary\ncomposition levied upon the offender, chiefly as satisfaction to the\nparty injured, but partly also as perquisite to the king,\u2014was adopted\nas the basis of their legislation. This fundamental idea was worked\nout in elaborate detail as to the valuation of the injury inflicted,\nwherein one main circumstance was the rank, condition, and power\nof the sufferer. The object of the legislator was to preserve the\nsociety from standing feuds, but at the same time to accord such\nfull satisfaction as would induce the injured person to waive his\nacknowledged right of personal revenge,\u2014the full luxury of which, as\nit presented itself to the mind of an Homeric Greek, may be read in\nmore than one passage of the Iliad.[158] The German codes begin by\ntrying to bring about the acceptance of a fixed pecuniary composition\nas a constant voluntary custom, and proceed ultimately to enforce it\nas a peremptory necessity: the idea of society is at first altogether\nsubordinate, and its influence passes only by slow degrees from\namicable arbitration into imperative control.\n\n [157] \u201cSuscipere tam inimicitias, seu patris, seu propinqui, quam\n amicitias, necesse est. Nec implacabiles durant: luitur enim\n etiam homicidium certo pecorum armentorumque numero, recipitque\n satisfactionem universa domus.\u201d (Tacit. German. 21.) Niebuhr,\n Beschreibung von Arabien, p. 32.\n\n \u201cAn Indian feast (says Loskiel, Mission of the United Brethren\n in North America,) is seldom concluded without bloodshed. For\n the murder of a man one hundred yards of wampum, and for that of\n a woman two hundred yards, must be paid by the murderer. If he\n is too poor, which is commonly the case, and his friends cannot\n or will not assist him, he must fly from the resentment of the\n relations.\u201d\n\n Rogge (Gerichtswesen der Germanen, capp. 1, 2, 3), Grimm\n (Deutsche Rechtsalterth\u00fcmer, book v. cap. 1-2), and Eichhorn\n (Deutsches Privat-Recht. sect. 48) have expounded this idea, and\n the consequences deduced from it among the ancient Germans.\n\n Aristotle alludes, as an illustration of the extreme silliness\n of ancient Greek practices (\u03b5\u1f50\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd), to a custom which\n he states to have still continued at the \u00c6olic Kym\u00ea, in cases\n of murder. If the accuser produced in support of his charge a\n certain number of witnesses from his own kindred, the person\n was held peremptorily guilty,\u2014\u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03bc\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f14\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (Polit. ii.\n 5, 12). This presents a curious parallel with the old German\n institution of the Eideshelfern, or conjurators, who, though most\n frequently required and produced in support of the party accused,\n were yet also brought by the party accusing. See Rogge, sect. 36,\n p. 186; Grimm, p. 862.\n\n [158] The word \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 indicates this _satisfaction by valuable\n payment_ for wrong done, especially for homicide: that the Latin\n word _p\u0153na_ originally meant the same thing, may be inferred\n from the old phrases _dare p\u0153nas, pendere p\u0153nas_. The most\n illustrative passage in the Iliad is that in which Ajax, in the\n embassy undertaken to conciliate Achilles, censures by comparison\n the inexorable obstinacy of the latter in setting at naught the\n proffered presents of Agamemn\u00f4n (Il. ix. 627):\u2014\n\n \u039d\u03b7\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03a0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n \u039a\u03b1\u03af \u1fe5\u1fbd \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1,\n \u03a0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5....\n\n The \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 is, in its primitive sense, a genuine payment in\n valuable commodities serving as compensation (Iliad, iii. 290; v.\n 266; xiii. 659): but it comes by a natural metaphor to signify\n the death of one or more Trojans, as a satisfaction for that of\n a Greek warrior who had just fallen (or _vice vers\u00e2_, Iliad,\n xiv. 483; xvi. 398); sometimes even the notion of compensation\n generally (xvii. 207). In the representation on the shield of\n Achilles, the genuine proceeding about \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 clearly appears:\n the question there tried is, whether the payment stipulated as\n satisfaction for a person slain, has really been made or not,\u2014\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\n \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f35\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, etc. (xviii.\n 498.)\n\n The danger of an act of homicide is proportioned to the number\n and power of the surviving relatives of the slain; but even a\n small number is sufficient to necessitate flight (Odyss. xxiii.\n 120): on the other hand, a large body of relatives was the grand\n source of encouragement to an insolent criminal (Odyss. xviii.\n 141).\n\n An old law of Tralles in Lydia, enjoining a nominal \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 of a\n medimnus of beans to the relatives of a murdered person belonging\n to a contemptible class of citizens, is noticed by Plutarch,\n Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. c. 46, p. 302. Even in the century preceding\n Herodotus, too, the Delphians gave a \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 as satisfaction for\n the murder of the fabulist \u00c6sop; which \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 was claimed and\n received by the grandson of \u00c6sop\u2019s master (Herodot. ii. 134.\n Plutarch. Ser. Num. Vind. p. 556).\n\nThe Homeric society, in regard to this capital point in human\nprogression, is on a level with that of the German tribes as\ndescribed by Tacitus. But the subsequent course of Grecian\nlegislation takes a direction completely different from that of\nthe German codes: the primitive and acknowledged right of private\nrevenge (unless where bought off by pecuniary payment), instead\nof being developed into practical working, is superseded by more\ncomprehensive views of a public wrong requiring public intervention,\nor by religious fears respecting the posthumous wrath of the murdered\nperson. In historical Athens, this right of private revenge was\ndiscountenanced and put out of sight, even so early as the Drakonian\nlegislation,[159] and at last restricted to a few extreme and\nspecial cases; while the murderer came to be considered, first as\nhaving sinned against the gods, next as having deeply injured the\nsociety, and thus at once as requiring absolution and deserving\npunishment. On the first of these two grounds, he is interdicted\nfrom the agora and from all holy places, as well as from public\nfunctions, even while yet untried and simply a suspected person;\nfor if this were not done, the wrath of the gods would manifest\nitself in bad crops and other national calamities. On the second\nground, he is tried before the council of Areiopagus, and if found\nguilty, is condemned to death, or perhaps to disfranchisement and\nbanishment.[160] The idea of a propitiatory payment to the relatives\nof the deceased has ceased altogether to be admitted: it is the\nprotection of society which dictates, and the force of society which\ninflicts, a measure of punishment calculated to deter for the future.\n\n [159] See Lysias, De C\u00e6de Eratosthen. Orat. i. p. 94; Plutarch.\n Solon, c. 23; Demosthen. cont. Aristokrat. pp. 632-637.\n\n Plato (De Legg. ix. pp. 871-874), in his copious penal\n suggestions to deal with homicide, both intentional and\n accidental, concurs in general with the old Attic law (see\n Matthi\u00e6, Miscellanea Philologica, vol. i. p. 151): and as\n he states with sufficient distinctness the grounds of his\n propositions, we see how completely the idea of a right to\n private or family revenge is absent from his mind. In one\n particular case, he confers upon kinsmen the privilege of\n avenging their murdered relative (p. 871); but generally, he\n rather seeks to enforce upon them strictly the duty of bringing\n the suspected murderer to trial before the court. By the Attic\n law, it was only the kinsmen of the deceased who had the right\n of prosecuting for murder,\u2014or the master, if the deceased was\n an \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (Demosthen. cont. Euerg. et Mnesibul. c. 18); they\n might by forgiveness shorten the term of banishment for the\n unintentional murderer (Demosth. cont. Makart. p. 1069). They\n seem to have been regarded, generally speaking, as religiously\n obliged, but not legally compellable, to undertake this duty;\n compare Plato, Euthyphro, capp. 4 and 5.\n\n [160] Lysias, cont. Agorat. Or. xiii. p. 137. Antiphon. Tetralog.\n i. 1, p. 629. \u1f08\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5, \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f05\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03b6\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f30\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7\n \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b8\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n The three Tetralogies of Antipho are all very instructive\n respecting the legal procedure in cases of alleged homicide: as\n also the Oration De C\u00e6de Herodis (see capp. 1 and 2)\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, etc.\n\n The case of the Spartan Drakontius, one of the Ten Thousand\n Greeks who served with Cyrus the younger, and permanently\n exiled from his country in consequence of an involuntary murder\n committed during his boyhood, presents a pretty exact parallel\n to the fatal quarrel of Patroklus at dice, when a boy, with the\n son of Amphidamas, in consequence of which he was forced to seek\n shelter under the roof of P\u00ealeus (compare Iliad, xxiii. 85, with\n Xenoph. Anabas. iv. 8, 25).\n\n3. The society of legendary Greece includes, besides the chiefs,\nthe general mass of freemen (\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03af), among whom stand out by special\nnames certain professional men, such as the carpenter, the smith,\nthe leather-dresser, the leech, the prophet, the bard, and the\nfisherman.[161] We have no means of appreciating their condition.\nThough lots of arable land were assigned in special property to\nindividuals, with boundaries both carefully marked and jealously\nwatched,[162] yet the larger proportion of surface was devoted to\npasture. Cattle formed both the chief item in the substance of a\nwealthy man, the chief means of making payments, and the common\nground of quarrels,\u2014bread and meat, in large quantities, being the\nconstant food of every one.[163] The estates of the owners were\ntilled, and their cattle tended, mostly by bought slaves, but to a\ncertain degree also by poor freemen called Th\u00eates, working for hire\nand for stated periods. The principal slaves, who were intrusted with\nthe care of large herds of oxen, swine, or goats, were of necessity\nmen worthy of confidence, their duties placing them away from their\nmaster\u2019s immediate eye.[164] They had other slaves subordinate to\nthem, and appear to have been well-treated: the deep and unshaken\nattachment of Eum\u00e6us the swineherd and Phil\u0153tius the neatherd to\nthe family and affairs of the absent Odysseus, is among the most\ninteresting points in the ancient epic. Slavery was a calamity,\nwhich in that period of insecurity might befall any one: the chief\nwho conducted a freebooting expedition, if he succeeded, brought\nback with him a numerous troop of slaves, as many as he could\nseize,[165]\u2014if he failed, became very likely a slave himself: so that\nthe slave was often by birth of equal dignity with his master: Eum\u00e6us\nwas himself the son of a chief, conveyed away when a child by his\nnurse, and sold by Ph\u0153nician kidnappers to La\u00ebrt\u00eas. A slave of this\ncharacter, if he conducted himself well, might often expect to be\nenfranchised by his master and placed in an independent holding.[166]\n\n [161] Odyss. xvii. 384; xix. 135. Iliad, iv. 187; vii. 221. I\n know nothing which better illustrates the idea of the Homeric\n \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03af,\u2014the herald, the prophet, the carpenter, the leech,\n the bard, etc.,\u2014than the following description of the structure\n of an East Indian village (Mill\u2019s History of British India, b.\n ii. c. 5, p. 266): \u201cA village, politically considered, resembles\n a corporation or township. Its proper establishment of _officers\n and servants_ consists of the following descriptions: the potail,\n or head inhabitant, who settles disputes and collects the\n revenue, etc.; the curnum, who keeps the accounts of cultivation,\n etc.; the tallier; the boundary-man; the superintendent of\n tanks and water-courses; the Brahman, who performs the village\n worship; the schoolmaster; the calendar Brahman, or astrologer,\n who proclaims the lucky or unpropitious periods for sowing or\n thrashing; the smith and carpenter; the potter; the washerman;\n the barber; the cowkeeper; the doctor; the dancing-girl, who\n attends at rejoicings; the musician, and the poet.\u201d\n\n Each of these officers and servants (\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03af) is remunerated\n by a definite perquisite\u2014so much landed produce\u2014out of the\n general crop of the village (p. 264).\n\n [162] Iliad, xii. 421; xxi. 405.\n\n [163] Iliad, i. 155; ix. 154; xiv. 122.\n\n [164] Odysseus and other chiefs of Ithaka had oxen, sheep, mules,\n etc., on the continent and in Peloponn\u00easus, under the care of\n herdsmen (Odyss. iv. 636; xiv. 100).\n\n Leukanor, king of Bosporus, asks the Scythian Arsakomas\u2014\u03a0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f22 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5;\n (Lucian, Toxaris, c. 45.) The enumeration of the property of\n Odysseus would have placed the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in the front line.\n\n [165] \u0394\u03bc\u03c9\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f03\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 ~\u03bb\u03b7\u0390\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf~ (Iliad, xviii. 28: compare\n also Odyss. i. 397; xxiii. 357; particularly xvii. 441).\n\n [166] Odyss. xiv. 64; xv. 412; see also xix. 78: Eurykleia was\n also of dignified birth (i. 429). The questions put by Odysseus\n to Eum\u00e6us, to which the speech above referred to is an answer,\n indicate the proximate causes of slavery: \u201cWas the city of your\n father sacked? or were you seized by pirates when alone with your\n sheep and oxen?\u201d (Odyss. xv. 385.)\n\n Eum\u00e6us had purchased a slave for himself (Odyss. xiv. 448).\n\nOn the whole, the slavery of legendary Greece does not present itself\nas existing under a peculiarly harsh form, especially if we consider\nthat all the classes of society were then very much upon a level in\npoint of taste, sentiment, and instruction.[167] In the absence of\nlegal security or an effective social sanction, it is probable that\nthe condition of a slave under an average master, may have been as\ngood as that of the free Th\u00eate. The class of slaves whose lot appears\nto have been the most pitiable were the females,\u2014more numerous than\nthe males, and performing the principal work in the interior of the\nhouse. Not only do they seem to have been more harshly treated than\nthe males, but they were charged with the hardest and most exhausting\nlabor which the establishment of a Greek chief required: they brought\nin water from the spring, and turned by hand the house-mills, which\nground the large quantity of flour consumed in his family.[168]\nThis oppressive task was performed generally by female slaves, in\nhistorical as well as legendary Greece.[169] Spinning and weaving\nwas the constant occupation of women, whether free or slave, of\nevery rank and station: all the garments worn both by men and women\nwere fashioned at home, and Helen as well as Penelop\u00ea is expert and\nassiduous at the occupation.[170] The daughters of Keleos at Eleusis\ngo to the well with their basins for water, and Nausikaa, daughter of\nAlkinous,[171] joins her female slaves in the business of washing her\ngarments in the river. If we are obliged to point out the fierceness\nand insecurity of an early society, we may at the same time note with\npleasure its characteristic simplicity of manners: Rebecca, Rachel,\nand the daughters of Jethro, in the early Mosaic narrative, as well\nas the wife of the native Macedonian chief (with whom the Temenid\nPerdiccas, ancestor of Philip and Alexander, first took service\non retiring from Argos), baking her own cakes on the hearth,[172]\nexhibit a parallel in this respect to the Homeric pictures.\n\n [167] Tacitus, Mor. Germ. 21. \u201cDominum ac servum nullis\n educationis deliciis dignoscas: inter eadem pecora, in e\u00e2dem\n humo, degunt,\u201d etc. (Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 167.)\n\n [168] Odyss. vii. 104; xx. 116; Iliad vi. 457; compare the Book\n of Genesis, ch. xi. 5. The expression of Telemachus, when he is\n proceeding to hang up the female slaves who had misbehaved, is\n bitterly contemptuous:\u2014\n\n \u039c\u1f74 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 ~\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3~ \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03a4\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd, etc. (Odyss. xxii. 464.)\n\n The humble establishment of Hesiod\u2019s farmer does not possess a\n mill; he has nothing better than a wooden pestle and mortar for\n grinding or bruising the corn; both are constructed, and the wood\n cut from the trees, by his own hand (Opp. Di. 423), though it\n seems that a professional carpenter (\u201cthe servant of Ath\u00ean\u00ea,\u201d)\n is required to put together the plough (v. 430). The Virgilian\n poem _Moretum_, (v. 24,) assigns a hand-mill even to the humblest\n rural establishment. The instructive article \u201cCorn Mills,\u201d in\n Beckmann\u2019s Hist. of Inventions (vol. i. p. 227, Eng. transl.),\n collects all the information available about this subject.\n\n [169] See Lysias, Or. 1, p. 93 (De C\u00e6de Eratosthenis).\n Plutarch (Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, c. 21,\n p. 1101),\u2014~\u03a0\u03b1\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u1f74\u03c2~ \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7,\u2014and\n Kallimachus, (Hymn. ad Delum, 242,)\u2014\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f45\u03b8\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2,\u2014notice the overworked condition of these\n women.\n\n The \u201cgrinding slaves\u201d (\u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2) are expressly named in one of\n the Laws of Ethelbert, king of Kent, and constitute the second\n class in point of value among the female slaves (Law xi. Thorpe\u2019s\n Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, vol. i. p. 7).\n\n [170] Odyss. iv. 131; xix. 235.\n\n [171] Odyss. vi. 96; Hymn, ad D\u00eam\u00eatr. 105.\n\n [172] Herodot. viii. 137.\n\nWe obtain no particulars respecting either the common freemen\ngenerally, or the particular class of them called Th\u00eates. These\nlatter, engaged for special jobs, or at the harvest and other busy\nseasons of field labor, seem to have given their labor in exchange\nfor board and clothing: they are mentioned in the same line with\nthe slaves,[173] and were (as has been just observed) probably on\nthe whole little better off. The condition of a poor freeman in\nthose days, without a lot of land of his own, going about from one\ntemporary job to another, and having no powerful family and no social\nauthority to look up to for protection, must have been sufficiently\nmiserable. When Eum\u00e6us indulged his expectation of being manumitted\nby his masters, he thought at the same time that they would give him\na wife, a house, and a lot of land near to themselves;[174] without\nwhich collateral advantages, simple manumission might perhaps have\nbeen no improvement in his condition. To be Th\u00eate in the service of\na very poor farmer is selected by Achilles as the maximum of human\nhardship: such a person could not give to his Th\u00eate the same ample\nfood, and good shoes and clothing, as the wealthy chief Eurymachus,\nwhile he would exact more severe labor.[175] It was probably among\nsuch smaller occupants, who could not advance the price necessary to\npurchase slaves, and were glad to save the cost of keep when they\ndid not need service, that the Th\u00eates found employment: though we\nmay conclude that the brave and strong amongst these poor freemen\nfound it preferable to accompany some freebooting chief and to live\nby the plunder acquired.[176] The exact Hesiod advises his farmer,\nwhose work is chiefly performed by slaves, to employ and maintain the\nTh\u00eate during summer-time, but to dismiss him as soon as the harvest\nis completely got in, and then to take into his house for the winter\na woman \u201cwithout any child;\u201d who would of course be more useful than\nthe Th\u00eate for the indoor occupations of that season.[177]\n\n [173] Odyss. iv. 643.\n\n [174] Odyss. xiv. 64.\n\n [175] Compare Odyss. xi. 490, with xviii. 358. Klyt\u00e6mn\u00eastra,\n in the _Agamemn\u00f4n_ of \u00c6schylus, preaches a something similar\n doctrine to Kassandra,\u2014how much kinder the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76\n were towards their slaves, than masters who had risen by\n unexpected prosperity (Agamemn. 1042).\n\n [176] Thucydid. i. 5, \u1f10\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u1fc4\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n [177] Hesiod, Opp. Di. 459\u2014\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f41\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bc\u1ff6\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\u2014and 603:\u2014\n\n ... \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74\n \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5,\n \u0398\u1fc6\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\n \u0394\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1f74 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n The two words ~\u1f04\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9~ seem here to be taken together\n in the sense of \u201cdismiss the Th\u00eate,\u201d or \u201cmake him houseless;\u201d\n for when put out of his employer\u2019s house, he had no residence of\n his own. G\u00f6ttling (_ad loc._), Nitzsch (ad Odyss. iv. 643), and\n Lehrs (Qu\u00e6st. Epic. p. 205) all construe \u1f04\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd with \u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1, and\n represent Hesiod as advising that the houseless Th\u00eate should be\n at that moment _taken on_, just at the time when the summer\u2019s\n work was finished. Lehrs (and seemingly G\u00f6ttling also), sensible\n that this can never have been the real meaning of the poet,\n would throw out the two lines as spurious. I may remark farther\n that the translation of \u03b8\u1f74\u03c2 given by G\u00f6ttling\u2014_villicus_\u2014is\n inappropriate: it includes the idea of superintendence over other\n laborers, which does not seem to have belonged to the Th\u00eate in\n any case.\n\n There were a class of poor free women who made their living by\n taking in wool to spin and perhaps to weave: the exactness of\n their dealing, as well as the poor profit which they made, are\n attested by a touching Homeric simile (Iliad, xiii. 434). See\n Iliad, vi. 289; xxiii. 742. Odyss. xv. 414.\n\nIn a state of society such as that which we have been describing,\nGrecian commerce was necessarily trifling and restricted. The Homeric\npoems mark either total ignorance or great vagueness of apprehension\nrespecting all that lies beyond the coasts of Greece and Asia Minor,\nand the islands between or adjoining them. Libya and Egypt are\nsupposed so distant as to be known only by name and hearsay: indeed,\nwhen the city of Kyrene was founded, a century and a half after the\nfirst Olympiad, it was difficult to find anywhere a Greek navigator\nwho had ever visited the coast of Libya, or was fit to serve as guide\nto the colonists.[178] The mention of the Sikels in the Odyssey,[179]\nleads us to conclude that Korkyra, Italy, and Sicily were not\nwholly unknown to the poet: among seafaring Greeks, the knowledge\nof the latter implied the knowledge of the two former,\u2014since the\nhabitual track, even of a well-equipped Athenian trireme during the\nPeloponnesian war, from Peloponn\u00easus to Sicily, was by Korkyra and\nthe Gulf of Tarentum. The Phok\u00e6ans, long afterwards, were the first\nGreeks who explored either the Adriatic or Tyrrhenian sea.[180]\nOf the Euxine sea no knowledge is manifested in Homer, who, as a\ngeneral rule, presents to us the names of distant regions only in\nconnection with romantic or monstrous accompaniments. The Kretans,\nand still more the Taphians (who are supposed to have occupied the\nwestern islands off the coast of Acarnania), are mentioned as skilful\nmariners, and the Taphian Ment\u00eas professes to be conveying iron to\nTemesa to be there exchanged for copper;[181] but both Taphians and\nKretans are more corsairs than traders.[182] The strong sense of the\ndangers of the sea, expressed by the poet Hesiod, and the imperfect\nstructure of the early Grecian ship, attested by Thucydid\u00eas (who\npoints out the more recent date of that improved ship-building which\nprevailed in his time), concur to demonstrate the then narrow range\nof nautical enterprise.[183]\n\n [178] Herodot. iv. 151. Compare Ukert, Geographie der Griechen\n und R\u00f6mer, part i. pp. 16-19.\n\n [179] Odyss. xx. 383; xxiv. 210. The identity of the Homeric\n Scheria with Korkyra, and that of the Homeric Thrinakia with\n Sicily, appear to me not at all made out. Both Welcker and\n Klausen treat the Ph\u00e6akians as purely mythical persons (see W. C.\n M\u00fcller, De Corcyr\u00e6orum Republic\u00e2, G\u00f6tting. 1835, p. 9).\n\n [180] Herodot. i. 163.\n\n [181] Nitzsch. ad Odyss. i. 181; Strabo, i. p. 6. The situation\n of Temesa, whether it is to be placed in Italy or in Cyprus, has\n been a disputed point among critics, both ancient and modern.\n\n [182] Odyss. xv. 426. \u03a4\u03ac\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bb\u03b7\u0390\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2; and xvi. 426.\n Hymn to D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear, v. 123.\n\n [183] Hesiod. Opp. Di. 615-684; Thucyd. i. 13.\n\nSuch was the state of the Greeks, as traders, at a time when Babylon\ncombined a crowded and industrious population with extensive\ncommerce, and when the Ph\u0153nician merchant-ships visited in one\ndirection the southern coast of Arabia, perhaps even the island of\nCeylon,\u2014in another direction, the British islands.\n\nThe Ph\u0153nician, the kinsman of the ancient Jew, exhibits the type\nof character belonging to the latter,\u2014with greater enterprise and\ningenuity, and less of religious exclusiveness, yet still different\nfrom, and even antipathetic to, the character of the Greeks. In\nthe Homeric poems, he appears somewhat like the Jew of the Middle\nAges, a crafty trader, turning to profit the violence and rapacity\nof others,\u2014bringing them ornaments, decorations, the finest and\nbrightest products of the loom, gold, silver, electrum, ivory, tin,\netc., in exchange for which he received landed produce, skins,\nwool, and slaves, the only commodities which even a wealthy Greek\nchief of those early times had to offer,\u2014prepared at the same\ntime for dishonest gain, in any manner which chance might throw\nin his way.[184] He is, however, really a trader, not undertaking\nexpeditions with the deliberate purpose of surprise and plunder,\nand standing distinguished in this respect from the Tyrrhenian,\nKretan, or Taphian pirate. Tin, ivory, and electrum, all of which are\nacknowledged in the Homeric poems, were the fruit of Ph\u0153nician trade\nwith the West as well as with the East.[185]\n\n [184] Odyss. xiv. 290; xv. 416.\u2014\n\n \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03c2,\n \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ac\u03ba\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ce\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n The interesting narrative given by Eum\u00e6us, of the manner in\n which he fell into slavery, is a vivid picture of Ph\u0153nician\n dealing (compare Herodot. i. 2-4. Iliad, vi. 290; xxiii. 743).\n Paris is reported to have visited Sidon, and brought from thence\n women eminent for skill at the loom. The Cyprian Verses (see the\n Argument. ap. D\u00fcntzer, p. 17) affirmed that Paris had landed\n at Sidon, and attacked and captured the city. Taphian corsairs\n kidnapped slaves at Sidon (Odyss. xv. 424).\n\n The ornaments or trinkets (\u1f00\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) which the Ph\u0153nician merchant\n carries with him, seem to be the same as the \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70,\n \u03a0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03b8\u1fbd \u1f15\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, etc. which H\u00eaph\u00e6stus was employed\n in fabricating (Iliad, xviii. 400) under the protection of Thetis.\n\n \u201cFallacissimum esse genus Ph\u0153nicum omnia monumenta vetustatis\n atque omnes histori\u00e6 nobis prodiderunt.\u201d (Cicero, Orat. Trium.\n partes inedit\u00e6, ed. Maii, 1815, p. 13.)\n\n [185] Ivory is frequently mentioned in Homer, who uses the word\n \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2 exclusively to mean that substance, not to signify the\n animal.\n\n The art of dyeing, especially with the various shades of\n purple, was in after-ages one of the special excellences of the\n Ph\u0153nicians: yet Homer, where he alludes in a simile to dyeing or\n staining, introduces a M\u00e6onian or Karian woman as the performer\n of the process, not a Ph\u0153nician (Iliad, iv. 141).\n\n What the _electrum_ named in the Homeric poems really is cannot\n be positively determined. The word in antiquity meant two\n different things: 1, amber; 2, an impure gold, containing as\n much as one-fifth or more of silver (Pliny, H. N. xxxiii. 4).\n The passages in which we read the word in the Odyssey do not\n positively exclude either of these meanings; but they present to\n us electrum so much in juxtaposition with gold and silver each\n separately, that perhaps the second meaning is more probable than\n the first. Herodotus understands it to mean _amber_ (iii. 115):\n Sophokl\u00eas, on the contrary, employs it to designate a metal akin\n to gold (Antigone, 1033).\n\n See the dissertation of Buttmann, appended to his collection of\n essays called _Mythologus_, vol. ii. p. 337; also, Beckmann,\n History of Inventions, vol. iv. p. 12, Engl. Transl. \u201cThe\n ancients (observes the latter) used as a peculiar metal a mixture\n of gold and silver, because they were not acquainted with the\n art of separating them, and gave it the name of _electrum_.\u201d\n Dr. Thirlwall (Hist. of Greece, vol. i. p. 241) thinks that the\n Homeric _electrum_ is amber; on the contrary, H\u00fcllmann thinks\n that it was a metallic substance (Handels, Geschichte der\n Griechen, pp. 63-81).\n\n Beckmann doubts whether the oldest \u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 of the Greeks was\n really _tin_: he rather thinks that it was \u201cthe _stannum_ of the\n Romans, the _werk_ of our smelting-houses,\u2014that is, a mixture of\n lead, silver, and other accidental metals.\u201d (_Ibid._ p. 20). The\n Greeks of Massalia procured tin from Britain, through Gaul, by\n the Seine, the Saone, and the Rhone (Diod\u00f4r. v. 22).\n\nThucydid\u00eas tells us that the Ph\u0153nicians and Karians, in very early\nperiods, occupied many of the islands of the \u00c6gean, and we know, from\nthe striking remnant of their mining works which Herodotus himself\nsaw in Thasus, off the coast of Thrace, that they had once extracted\ngold from the mountains of that island,\u2014at a period indeed very far\nback, since their occupation must have been abandoned prior to the\nsettlement of the poet Archilochus.[186] Yet few of the islands in\nthe \u00c6gean were rich in such valuable products, nor was it in the\nusual course of Ph\u0153nician proceeding to occupy islands, except where\nthere was an adjoining mainland with which trade could be carried\non. The traffic of these active mariners required no permanent\nsettlement, but as occasional visitors they were convenient, in\nenabling a Greek chief to turn his captives to account,\u2014to get rid\nof slaves or friendless Th\u00eates who were troublesome,\u2014and to supply\nhimself with the metals, precious as well as useful.[187] The halls\nof Alkinous and Menelaus glitter with gold, copper, and electrum;\nwhile large stocks of yet unemployed metal\u2014gold, copper, and iron\u2014are\nstored up in the treasure-chamber of Odysseus and other chiefs.[188]\nCoined money is unknown to the Homeric age,\u2014the trade carried on\nbeing one of barter. In reference also to the metals, it deserves to\nbe remarked that the Homeric descriptions universally suppose copper,\nand not iron, to be employed for arms, both offensive and defensive.\nBy what process the copper was tempered and hardened, so as to serve\nthe purposes of the warrior, we do not know;[189] but the use of iron\nfor these objects belongs to a later age, though the Works and Days\nof Hesiod suppose this change to have been already introduced.[190]\n\n [186] Herodot. ii. 44; vi. 47. Archiloch. Fragm. 21-22, ed.\n Gaisf. \u0152nomaus ap. Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Ev. vi. 7. Thucyd. i. 12.\n\n The Greeks connected this Ph\u0153nician settlement in Thasus with the\n legend of Kadmus and his sister Eur\u00f4pa: Thasus, the eponymus of\n the island, was brother of Kadmus. (Herod. _ib._)\n\n [187] The angry Laomed\u00f4n threatens when Poseid\u00f4n and Apollo ask\n from him (at the expiration of their term of servitude) the\n stipulated wages of their labor, to cut off their ears and send\n them off to some distant islands (Iliad, xxi. 454). Compare xxiv.\n 752. Odyss. xx. 383: xviii. 83.\n\n [188] Odyss. iv. 73; vii. 85; xxi. 61. Iliad, ii. 226; vi. 47.\n\n [189] See Millin, Min\u00e9ralogie Homerique, p. 74. That there are,\n however, modes of tempering copper, so as to impart to it the\n hardness of steel, has been proved by the experiments of the\n Comte de Caylus.\n\n The Massaget\u00e6 employed only copper\u2014no iron\u2014for their weapons\n (Herodot. i. 215).\n\n [190] Hesiod, Opp. Di. 150-420. The examination of the various\n matters of antiquity discoverable throughout the north of Europe,\n as published by the Antiquarian Society of Copenhagen, recognizes\n a distinction of three successive ages: 1. Implements and arms\n of stone, bone, wood, etc.: little or no use of metals at all;\n clothing made of skins. 2. Implements and arms of copper and\n gold, or rather bronze and gold; little or no silver or iron.\n Articles of gold and electrum are found belonging to this age,\n but none of silver, nor any evidences of writing. 3. The age\n which follows this has belonging to it arms of iron, articles\n of silver, and some Runic inscriptions: it is the last age of\n northern paganism, immediately preceding the introduction of\n Christianity (Leitfaden zur N\u00f6rdischen Alterthumskunde, pp. 31,\n 57, 63, Copenhagen, 1837).\n\n The Homeric age coincides with the second of these two periods.\n Silver is comparatively little mentioned in Homer, while both\n bronze and gold are familiar metals. Iron also is rare, and seems\n employed only for agricultural purposes\u2014\u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5, \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\n \u1f05\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u1fbd \u1f51\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd (Iliad, vi. 48; Odyss. ii. 338; xiii.\n 136). The \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 and the \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 are both mentioned in Homer,\n but workers in silver and iron are not known by any special name\n (Odyss. iii. 425-436).\n\n \u201cThe hatchet, wimble, plane, and level, are the tools mentioned\n by Homer, who appears to have been unacquainted with the saw, the\n square, and the compass.\u201d (Gillies, Hist. of Greece, chap. ii. p.\n 61.)\n\n The Gauls, known to Polybius, seemingly the Cisalpine Gauls only,\n possessed all their property in cattle and gold,\u2014\u03b8\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u1f78\u03c2,\u2014on account of the easy transportability of both (Polyb.\n ii. 17).\n\nThe mode of fighting among the Homeric heroes is not less different\nfrom the historical times, than the material of which their arms\nwere composed. The Hoplites, or heavy-armed infantry of historical\nGreece, maintained a close order and well-dressed line, charging the\nenemy with their spears protended at even distance, and coming thus\nto close conflict without breaking their rank: there were special\ntroops, bowmen, slingers, etc. armed with missiles, but the hoplite\nhad no weapon to employ in this manner. The heroes of the Iliad and\nOdyssey, on the contrary, habitually employ the spear as a missile,\nwhich they launch with tremendous force: each of them is mounted in\nhis war-chariot, drawn by two horses, and calculated to contain the\nwarrior and his charioteer; in which latter capacity a friend or\ncomrade will sometimes consent to serve. Advancing in his chariot at\nfull speed, in front of his own soldiers, he hurls his spear against\nthe enemy: sometimes, indeed, he will fight on foot, and hand to\nhand, but the chariot is usually near to receive him if he chooses,\nor to insure his retreat. The mass of the Greeks and Trojans, coming\nforward to the charge, without any regular step or evenly-maintained\nline, make their attack in the same way by hurling their spears.\nEach chief wears habitually a long sword and a short dagger, besides\nhis two spears to be launched forward,\u2014the spear being also used, if\noccasion serves, as a weapon for thrust. Every man is protected by\nshield, helmet, breastplate, and greaves: but the armor of the chiefs\nis greatly superior to that of the common men, while they themselves\nare both stronger and more expert in the use of their weapons. There\nare a few bowmen, as rare exceptions, but the general equipment and\nproceeding is as here described.\n\nSuch loose array, immortalized as it is in the Iliad, is familiar to\nevery one; and the contrast which it presents, with those inflexible\nranks, and that irresistible simultaneous charge which bore down the\nPersian throng at Plat\u00e6a and Kunaxa,[191] is such as to illustrate\nforcibly the general difference between heroic and historical\nGreece. While in the former, a few splendid figures stand forward,\nin prominent relief, the remainder being a mere unorganized and\nineffective mass,\u2014in the latter, these units have been combined into\na system, in which every man, officer and soldier, has his assigned\nplace and duty, and the victory, when gained, is the joint work of\nall. Pre\u00ebminent individual prowess is indeed materially abridged, if\nnot wholly excluded,\u2014no man can do more than maintain his station in\nthe line:[192] but on the other hand, the grand purposes, aggressive\nor defensive, for which alone arms are taken up, become more assured\nand easy, and long-sighted combinations of the general are rendered\nfor the first time practicable, when he has a disciplined body of\nmen to obey him. In tracing the picture of civil society, we have to\nremark a similar transition\u2014we pass from H\u00earakl\u00eas, Th\u00easeus, Jas\u00f4n,\nAchilles, to Solon, Pythagoras, and Perikl\u00eas\u2014from \u201cthe shepherd of\nhis people,\u201d (to use the phrase in which Homer depicts the good\nside of the heroic king,) to the legislator who introduces, and the\nstatesman who maintains, a preconcerted system by which willing\ncitizens consent to bind themselves. If commanding individual talent\nis not always to be found, the whole community is so trained as to\nbe able to maintain its course under inferior leaders; the rights as\nwell as the duties of each citizen being predetermined in the social\norder, according to principles more or less wisely laid down. The\ncontrast is similar, and the transition equally remarkable, in the\ncivil as in the military picture. In fact, the military organization\nof the Grecian republics is an element of the greatest importance\nin respect to the conspicuous part which they have played in human\naffairs,\u2014their superiority over other contemporary nations in this\nrespect being hardly less striking than it is in many others, as we\nshall have occasion to see in a subsequent stage of this history.\n\n [191] Tyrt\u00e6us, in his military expressions, seems to conceive\n the Homeric mode of hurling the spear as still prevalent,\u2014\u03b4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5\n \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 ~\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2~ (Fragm. ix. Gaisford). Either he had his\n mind prepossessed with the Homeric array, or else the close order\n and conjunct spears of the hoplites had not yet been introduced\n during the second Messenian war.\n\n Thiersch and Schneidewin would substitute \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in place of\n \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Euripid\u00eas (Androm. 695) has a similar expression, yet\n it does not apply well to hoplites; for one of the virtues of the\n hoplite consisted in carrying his spear steadily: \u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n betokens a disorderly march, and the want of steady courage and\n self-possession. See the remarks of Brasidas upon the ranks of\n the Athenians under Kleon at Amphipolis (Thucyd. v. 6).\n\n [192] Euripid. Andromach. 696.\n\nEven at the most advanced point of their tactics, the Greeks could\neffect little against a walled city, whilst the heroic weapons and\narray were still less available for such an undertaking as a siege.\nFortifications are a feature of the age deserving considerable\nnotice. There was a time, we are told, in which the primitive Greek\ntowns or villages derived a precarious security, not from their\nwalls, but merely from sites lofty and difficult of access. They were\nnot built immediately upon the shore, or close upon any convenient\nlanding-place, but at some distance inland, on a rock or elevation\nwhich could not be approached without notice or scaled without\ndifficulty. It was thought sufficient at that time to guard against\npiratical or marauding surprise: but as the state of society became\nassured,\u2014as the chance of sudden assault comparatively diminished\nand industry increased,\u2014these uninviting abodes were exchanged for\nmore convenient sites on the plain or declivity beneath; or a portion\nof the latter was inclosed within larger boundaries and joined on\nto the original foundation, which thus became the Acropolis of the\nnew town. Th\u00eabes, Athens, Argos, etc., belonged to the latter class\nof cities; but there were in many parts of Greece deserted sites on\nhilltops, still retaining, even in historical times, the traces of\nformer habitation, and some of them still bearing the name of the old\ntowns. Among the mountainous parts of Kr\u00eate, in \u00c6gina and Rhodes,\nin portions of Mount Ida and Parnassus, similar remnants might be\nperceived.[193]\n\n [193] \u1f29 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 in \u00c6gina (Herodot. vi. 88); \u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 in\n Samus (Poly\u00e6n. i. 23. 2; Etymol. Magn. v. \u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1): it became\n seemingly the acropolis of the subsequent city.\n\n About the deserted sites in the lofty regions of Kr\u00eate, see\n Theophrastus, De Ventis, v. 13, ed. Schneider, p. 762.\n\n The site of \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 in Mount Ida,\u2014\u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u039a\u03ad\u03b2\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f3c\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 (Strabo, xiii. p. 607); \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f11\u03be\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff3\u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. Paphos in\n Cyprus was the same distance below the ancient Pal\u00e6-Paphos\n (Strabo, xiv. p. 683).\n\n Near Mantineia in Arcadia was situated \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3, \u03c4\u1f70\n \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u039c\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 (Pausan. viii. 12, 4). See a similar statement\n about the lofty sites of the ancient town of Orchomenus (in\n Arcadia) (Paus. viii. 13, 2), of Nonakris (viii. 17, 5,) of Lusi\n (viii. 18, 3), Lykoreia on Parnassus (Paus. x. 6, 2; Strabo, ix.\n p. 418).\n\n Compare also Plato, Legg. iii. 2, pp. 678-679, who traces\n these lofty and craggy dwellings, general among the earliest\n Grecian townships, to the commencement of human society after an\n extensive deluge, which had covered all the lower grounds and\n left only a few survivors.\n\nProbably, in such primitive hill villages, a continuous circle of\nwall would hardly be required as an additional means of defence, and\nwould often be rendered very difficult by the rugged nature of the\nground. But Thucydid\u00eas represents the earliest Greeks\u2014those whom he\nconceives anterior to the Trojan war\u2014as living thus universally in\nunfortified villages, chiefly on account of their poverty, rudeness,\nand thorough carelessness for the morrow. Oppressed, and held apart\nfrom each other by perpetual fear, they had not yet contracted\nthe sentiment of fixed abodes: they were unwilling even to plant\nfruit-trees because of the uncertainty of gathering the produce,\u2014and\nwere always ready to dislodge, because there was nothing to gain by\nstaying, and a bare subsistence might be had any where. He compares\nthem to the mountaineers of \u00c6tolia and of the Ozolian Lokris in his\nown time, who dwelt in their unfortified hill villages with little\nor no intercommunication, always armed and fighting, and subsisting\non the produce of their cattle and their woods,[194]\u2014clothed in\nundressed hides, and eating raw meat.\n\n [194] Thucyd. i. 2. \u03a6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b2\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u1ff6\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b6\u1fc7\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f04\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f42\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1fc7.\n\n About the distant and unfortified villages and rude habits of the\n \u00c6tolians and Lokrians, see Thucyd. iii. 94; Pausan. x. 38, 3:\n also of the Cisalpine Gauls, Polyb. ii. 17.\n\n Both Thucydid\u00eas and Aristotle seem to have conceived the Homeric\n period as mainly analogous to the \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 of their own day\u2014\u039b\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f4d\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u00b7\n \u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bf\u1f37\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 (Schol.\n Iliad. x. 151).\n\nThe picture given by Thucydid\u00eas, of these very early and unrecorded\ntimes, can only be taken as conjectural,\u2014the conjectures, indeed, of\na statesman and a philosopher,\u2014generalized too, in part, from the\nmany particular instances of contention and expulsion of chiefs which\nhe found in the old legendary poems. The Homeric poems, however,\npresent to us a different picture. They recognize walled towns, fixed\nabodes, strong local attachments, hereditary individual property in\nland, vineyards planted and carefully cultivated, established temples\nof the gods, and splendid palaces of the chiefs.[195] The description\nof Thucydid\u00eas belongs to a lower form of society, and bears more\nanalogy to that which the poet himself conceives as antiquated\nand barbarous,\u2014to the savage Cyclopes, who dwell on the tops of\nmountains, in hollow caves, without the plough, without vine or fruit\nculture, without arts or instruments,\u2014or to the primitive settlement\nof Dardanus son of Zeus, on the higher ground of Ida, while it was\nreserved for his descendants and successors to found the holy Ilium\non the plain.[196] Ilium or Troy represents the perfection of Homeric\nsociety. It is a consecrated spot, containing temples of the gods as\nwell as the palace of Priam, and surrounded by walls which are the\nfabric of the gods; while the antecedent form of ruder society, which\nthe poet briefly glances at, is the parallel of that which the theory\nof Thucydid\u00eas ascribes to his own early semi-barbarous ancestors.\n\n [195] Odyss. vi. 10; respecting Nausithous, past king of the\n Ph\u00e6akians:\n\n \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\n \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b7\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n The vineyard, olive-ground, and garden of La\u00ebrtes, is a model of\n careful cultivation (Odyss. xxiv. 245); see also the shield of\n Achilles (Iliad, xvii. 541-580), and the Kalyd\u00f4nian plain (Iliad,\n ix. 575).\n\n [196] Odyss. x. 106-115; Iliad, xx. 216.\n\nWalled towns serve thus as one of the evidences, that a large part\nof the population of Greece had, even in the Homeric times, reached\na level higher than that of the \u00c6tolians and Lokrians of the days of\nThucydid\u00eas. The remains of Myk\u00ean\u00e6 and Tiryns demonstrate the massy\nand Cyclopian style of architecture employed in those early days:\nbut we may remark that, while modern observers seem inclined to\ntreat the remains of the former as very imposing, and significant\nof a great princely family, Thucydid\u00eas, on the contrary, speaks\nof it as a small place, and labors to elude the inference, which\nmight be deduced from its insignificant size, in disproof of the\ngrandeur of Agamemn\u00f4n.[197] Such fortifications supplied a means of\ndefence incomparably superior to those of attack. Indeed, even in\nhistorical Greece, and after the invention of battering engines, no\ncity could be taken except by surprise or blockade, or by ruining the\ncountry around, and thus depriving the inhabitants of their means of\nsubsistence. And in the two great sieges of the legendary time, Troy\nand Th\u00eabes, the former is captured by the stratagem of the wooden\nhorse, while the latter is evacuated by its citizens, under the\nwarning of the gods, after their defeat in the field.\n\n [197] Thucyd. i. 10. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u039c\u03c5\u03ba\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd, \u1f22 \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, etc.\n\nThis decided superiority of the means of defence over those of\nattack, in rude ages, has been one of the grand promotive causes\nboth of the growth of civic life and of the general march of human\nimprovement. It has enabled the progressive portions of mankind not\nonly to maintain their acquisitions against the predatory instincts\nof the ruder and poorer, and to surmount the difficulties of\nincipient organization,\u2014but ultimately, when their organization has\nbeen matured, both to acquire predominance, and to uphold it until\ntheir own disciplined habits have in part passed to their enemies.\nThe important truth here stated is illustrated not less by the\nhistory of ancient Greece, than by that of modern Europe during the\nMiddle Ages. The Homeric chief, combining superior rank with superior\nforce, and ready to rob at every convenient opportunity, greatly\nresembles the feudal baron of the Middle Ages, but circumstances\nabsorb him more easily into a city life, and convert the independent\npotentate into the member of a governing aristocracy.[198] Traffic\nby sea continued to be beset with danger from pirates, long after\nit had become tolerably assured by land: the \u201cwet ways\u201d have always\nbeen the last resort of lawlessness and violence, and the \u00c6gean, in\nparticular, has in all times suffered more than other waters under\nthis calamity.\n\n [198] N\u00e4gelsbach, Homerische Theologie, Abschn. v. sect. 54.\n Hesiod strongly condemns robbery,\u2014\u0394\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f74, \u1f05\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74,\n \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 (Opp. Di. 356, comp. 320); but the sentiment\n of the Grecian heroic poetry seems not to go against it,\u2014it is\n looked upon as a natural employment of superior force,\u2014\u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f34\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (Athen\u00e6. v. p. 178; comp.\n Pindar, Fragm. 48, ed. Dissen.): the long spear, sword, and\n breastplate, of the Kretan Hybreas, constitute his wealth\n (Skolion 27, p. 877; Poet. Lyric. ed. Bergk), wherewith he\n ploughs and reaps,\u2014while the unwarlike, who dare not or cannot\n wield these weapons, fall at his feet, and call him The Great\n King. The feeling is different in the later age of Dem\u00eatrius\n Poliork\u00eat\u00eas (about 310 B. C.): in the Ithyphallic Ode, addressed\n to him at his entrance into Athens, robbery is treated as worthy\n only of \u00c6tolians:\u2014\n\n \u0391\u1f30\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03b3 \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u039d\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cc\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03c9.\u2014\n\n (Poet. Lyr. xxv. p. 453, ed. Schneid.)\n\n The robberies of powerful men, and even highway robbery generally\n found considerable approving sentiment in the Middle Ages. \u201cAll\n Europe (observes Mr. Hallam, Hist. Mid. Ag. ch. viii. part 3, p.\n 247) was a scene of intestine anarchy during the Middle Ages: and\n though England was far less exposed to the scourge of private\n war than most nations on the continent, we should find, could we\n recover the local annals of every country, such an accumulation\n of petty rapine and tumult, as would almost alienate us from the\n liberty which served to engender it.... Highway robbery was from\n the earliest times a sort of national crime.... We know how long\n the outlaws of Sherwood lived in tradition; men who, like some of\n their betters, have been permitted to redeem, by a few acts of\n generosity, the just ignominy of extensive crimes. These, indeed,\n were the heroes of vulgar applause; but when such a judge as Sir\n John Fortescue could exult, that more Englishmen were hanged\n for robbery in one year than French in seven,\u2014and that, _if an\n Englishman be poor, and see another having riches, which may be\n taken from him by might, he will not spare to do so_,\u2014it may be\n perceived how thoroughly these sentiments had pervaded the public\n mind.\u201d\n\n The robberies habitually committed by the noblesse of France\n and Germany during the Middle Ages, so much worse than anything\n in England,\u2014and those of the highland chiefs even in later\n times,\u2014are too well known to need any references: as to France,\n an ample catalogue is set forth in Dulaure\u2019s Histoire de la\n Noblesse (Paris, 1792). The confederations of the German cities\n chiefly originated in the necessity of keeping the roads and\n rivers open for the transit of men and goods against the nobles\n who infested the high roads. Scaliger might have found a parallel\n to the \u03bb\u1fc3\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 of the heroic ages in the noblesse of la Rouergue,\n as it stood even in the 16th century, which he thus describes:\n \u201cIn Comitatu Rodez pessimi sunt; nobilitas ibi latrocinatur: nec\n possunt reprimi.\u201d (ap. Dulaure, c. 9.)\n\nAggressions of the sort here described were of course most numerous\nin those earliest times when the \u00c6gean was not yet an Hellenic sea,\nand when many of the Cyclades were occupied, not by Greeks, but by\nKarians,\u2014perhaps by Ph\u0153nicians: the number of Karian sepulchres\ndiscovered in the sacred island of Delus seems to attest such\noccupation as an historical fact.[199] According to the legendary\naccount, espoused both by Herodotus and by Thucydid\u00eas, it was the\nKretan Min\u00f4s who subdued these islands and established his sons\nas rulers in them; either expelling the Karians, or reducing them\nto servitude and tribute.[200] Thucydid\u00eas presumes that he must\nof course have put down piracy, in order to enable his tribute\nto be remitted in safety, like the Athenians during the time of\ntheir hegemony.[201] Upon the legendary thalassocraty of Min\u00f4s,\nI have already remarked in another place:[202] it is sufficient\nhere to repeat, that, in the Homeric poems (long subsequent to\nMin\u00f4s in the current chronology), we find piracy both frequent and\nheld in honorable estimation, as Thucydid\u00eas himself emphatically\ntells us,\u2014remarking, moreover, that the vessels of those early\ndays were only half-decked, built and equipped after the piratical\nfashion,[203] in a manner upon which the nautical men of his time\nlooked back with disdain. Improved and enlarged ship-building, and\nthe trireme, or ship with three banks of oars, common for warlike\npurposes during the Persian invasion, began only with the growing\nskill, activity, and importance of the Corinthians, three quarters\nof a century after the first Olympiad.[204] Corinth, even in the\nHomeric poems, is distinguished by the epithet of wealthy, which it\nacquired principally from its remarkable situation on the Isthmus,\nand from its two harbors of Lech\u00e6um and Kenchre\u00e6, the one on the\nCorinthian, the other on the Sar\u00f4nic gulf. It thus supplied a\nconvenient connection between Epirus and Italy on the one side, and\nthe \u00c6gean sea on the other, without imposing upon the unskilful and\ntimid navigator of those days the necessity of circumnavigating\nPeloponn\u00easus.\n\n [199] Thucyd. i. 4-8. \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n [200] Herodot. i. 171; Thucyd. i. 4-8. Isokrat\u00eas (Panathenaic.\n p. 241) takes credit to Athens for having finally expelled the\n Karians out of these islands at the time of the Ionic emigration.\n\n [201] Thucyd. i. 4. \u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u1fc3\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, ~\u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2~, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7.\n\n [202] See the preceding volume of this History, Chap. xii. p. 227.\n\n [203] Thucyd. i. 10. \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03bb\u1fc3\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n [204] Thucyd. i. 13.\n\nThe extension of Grecian traffic and shipping is manifested by\na comparison of the Homeric with the Hesiodic poems; in respect\nto knowledge of places and countries,\u2014the latter being probably\nreferable to dates between B. C. 740 and B. C. 640. In Homer,\nacquaintance is shown (the accuracy of such acquaintance, however,\nbeing exaggerated by Strabo and other friendly critics) with\ncontinental Greece and its neighboring islands, with Kr\u00eate and the\nprincipal islands of the \u00c6gean, and with Thrace, the Troad, the\nHellespont, and Asia Minor between Paphlagonia northward and Lykia\nsouthward. The Sikels are mentioned in the Odyssey, and Sikania in\nthe last book of that poem, but nothing is said to evince a knowledge\nof Italy or the realities of the western world. Libya, Egypt, and\nPh\u0153nike, are known by name and by vague hearsay, but the Nile is\nonly mentioned as \u201cthe river Egypt:\u201d while the Euxine sea is not\nmentioned at all.[205] In the Hesiodic poems, on the other hand, the\nNile, the Ister, the Phasis, and the Eridanus, are all specified by\nname;[206] Mount \u00c6tna, and the island of Ortygia near to Syracuse,\nthe Tyrrhenians and Ligurians in the west, and the Scythians in the\nnorth, were also noticed.[207] Indeed, within forty years after the\nfirst Olympiad, the cities of Korkyra and Syracuse were founded from\nCorinth,\u2014the first of a numerous and powerful series of colonies,\ndestined to impart a new character both to the south of Italy and to\nSicily.\n\n [205] See Voelcker, Homerische Geographie, ch. iii. sect. 55-63.\n He has brought to bear much learning and ingenuity to identify\n the places visited by Odysseus with real lands, but the attempt\n is not successful. Compare also Ukert, Hom. Geog. vol. i. p.\n 14, and the valuable treatises of J. H. Voss, _Alte Weltkunde_,\n annexed to the second volume of his Kritische Bl\u00e4tter (Stuttgart,\n 1828), pp. 245-413. Voss is the father of just views respecting\n Homeric geography.\n\n [206] Hesiod. Theog. 338-340.\n\n [207] Hesiod. Theogon. 1016; Hesiod. Fragm. 190-194, ed.\n G\u00f6ttling; Strabo, i. p. 16; vii. p. 300. Compare Ukert,\n Geographie der Griechen und R\u00f6mer, i. p. 37.\n\nIn reference to the astronomy and physics of the Homeric Greek, it\nhas already been remarked that he connected together the sensible\nphenomena which form the subject matter of these sciences by threads\nof religious and personifying fancy, to which the real analogies\namong them were made subordinate; and that these analogies did\nnot begin to be studied by themselves, apart from the religious\nelement by which they had been at first overlaid, until the age\nof Thales,\u2014coinciding as that period did with the increased\nopportunities for visiting Egypt and the interior of Asia. The\nGreeks obtained access in both of these countries to an enlarged\nstock of astronomical observations, to the use of the gnomon, or\nsundial,[208] and to a more exact determination of the length of\nthe solar year,[209] than that which served as the basis of their\nvarious lunar periods. It is pretended that Thales was the first who\npredicted an eclipse of the sun,\u2014not, indeed, accurately, but with\nlarge limits of error as to the time of its occurrence,\u2014and that\nhe also possessed so profound an acquaintance with meteorological\nphenomena and probabilities, as to be able to foretell an abundant\ncrop of olives for the coming year, and to realize a large sum of\nmoney by an olive speculation.[210]\n\n [208] The Greeks learned from the Babylonians, \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 (Herodot. ii. 109). In\n my first edition, I had interpreted the word \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd in Herodotus\n erroneously. I now believe it to mean the same as _horologium_,\n the circular plate upon which the vertical gnomon projected its\n shadow, marked so as to indicate the hour of the day,\u2014twelve\n hours between sunrise and sunset: see Ideler, Handbuch der\n Chronologie, vol. i. p. 233. Respecting the opinions of Thales,\n see the same work, part ii. pp. 18-57; Plutarch. de Placit.\n Philosophor. ii. c. 12; Aristot. de C\u0153lo, ii. 13. Costard, Rise\n and Progress of Astronomy among the Ancients, p. 99.\n\n [209] We have very little information respecting the early\n Grecian mode of computing time, and we know that though all the\n different states computed by lunar periods, yet most, if not\n all, of them had different names of months as well as different\n days of beginning and ending their months. All their immediate\n computations, however, were made by months: the lunar period\n was their immediate standard of reference for determining their\n festivals, and for other purposes, the solar period being\n resorted to only as a corrective, to bring the same months\n constantly into the same seasons of the year. Their original\n month had thirty days, and was divided into three decades,\n as it continued to be during the times of historical Athens\n (Hesiod. Opp. Di. 766). In order to bring this lunar period more\n nearly into harmony with the sun, they intercalated every year\n an additional month: so that their years included alternately\n twelve months and thirteen months, each month of thirty days.\n This period was called a Dieteris,\u2014sometimes a Trieteris. Solon\n is said to have first introduced the fashion of months differing\n in length, varying alternately from thirty to twenty-nine days.\n It appears, however, that Herodotus had present to his mind the\n Dieteric cycle, or years alternating between thirteen months and\n twelve months (each month of thirty days), and no other (Herodot.\n i. 32; compare ii. 104). As astronomical knowledge improved,\n longer and more elaborate periods were calculated, exhibiting a\n nearer correspondence between an integral number of lunations and\n an integral number of solar years. First, we find a period of\n four years; next, the Octa\u00ebteris, or period of eight years, or\n seventy-nine lunar months; lastly, the Metonic period of nineteen\n years, or 235 lunar months. How far any of these larger periods\n were ever legally authorized, or brought into civil usage,\n even at Athens, is matter of much doubt. See Ideler, Uber die\n Astronomischen Beobachtungen der Alten, pp. 175-195; Macrobius,\n Saturnal. i. 13.\n\n [210] Herodot. i. 74; Aristot. Polit. i. 4, 5.\n\nFrom Thales downward we trace a succession of astronomical and\nphysical theories, more or less successful, into which I do not\nintend here to enter: it is sufficient at present to contrast the\nfather of the Ionic philosophy with the times preceding him, and\nto mark the first commencement of scientific prediction among the\nGreeks, however imperfect at the outset, as distinguished from the\ninspired dicta of prophets or oracles, and from those special signs\nof the purposes of the gods, which formed the habitual reliance of\nthe Homeric man.[211] We shall see these two modes of anticipating\nthe future,\u2014one based upon the philosophical, the other upon\nthe religious appreciation of nature,\u2014running simultaneously on\nthroughout Grecian history, and sharing between them in unequal\nportions the empire of the Greek mind; the former acquiring both\ngreater predominance and wider application among the intellectual\nmen, and partially restricting, but never abolishing, the spontaneous\nemployment of the latter among the vulgar.\n\n [211] Odyss. iii. 173.\u2014\n\n \u1f28\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f45\u03b3\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\n \u0394\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03bd\u03ce\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0395\u1f54\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03a4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, etc.\n\n Compare Odyss. xx. 100; Iliad, i. 62; Eurip. Suppl. 216-230.\n\nNeither coined money, nor the art of writing,[212] nor painting,\nnor sculpture, nor imaginative architecture, belong to the Homeric\nand Hesiodic times. Such rudiments of arts, destined ultimately to\nacquire so great a development in Greece, as may have existed in\nthese early days, served only as a sort of nucleus to the fancy of\nthe poet, to shape out for himself the fabulous creations ascribed\nto Heph\u00e6stus or D\u00e6dalus. No statues of the gods, not even of wood,\nare mentioned in the Homeric poems. All the many varieties, in\nGrecian music, poetry, and dancing,\u2014the former chiefly borrowed\nfrom Lydia and Phrygia,\u2014date from a period considerably later than\nthe first Olympiad: Terpander, the earliest musician whose date is\nassigned, and the inventor of the harp with seven strings instead of\nthat with four strings, does not come until the 26th Olympiad, or 676\nB. C.: the poet Archilochus is nearly of the same date. The iambic\nand elegiac metres\u2014the first deviations from the primitive epic\nstrain and subject\u2014do not reach up to the year 700 B. C.\n\n [212] The \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u1f70 mentioned in the Iliad, vi. 168, if they\n prove anything, are rather an evidence against, than for, the\n existence of alphabetical writing at the times when the Iliad was\n composed.\n\nIt is this epic poetry which forms at once both the undoubted\nprerogative and the solitary jewel of the earliest era of Greece. Of\nthe many epic poems which existed in Greece during the eight century\nbefore the Christian era, none have been preserved except the Iliad\nand Odyssey: the \u00c6thiopis of Arktinus, the Ilias Minor of Lesches,\nthe Cyprian Verses, the Capture of \u0152chalia, the Returns of the Heroes\nfrom Troy, the Th\u00eaba\u00efs and the Epigoni,\u2014several of them passing in\nantiquity under the name of Homer,\u2014have all been lost. But the two\nwhich remain are quite sufficient to demonstrate in the primitive\nGreeks, a mental organization unparalleled in any other people,\nand powers of invention and expression which prepared, as well as\nforeboded, the future eminence of the nation in all the various\ndepartments to which thought and language can be applied. Great as\nthe power of thought afterwards became among the Greeks, their power\nof expression was still greater: in the former, other nations have\nbuilt upon their foundations and surpassed them,\u2014in the latter,\nthey still remained unrivalled. It is not too much to say that this\nflexible, emphatic, and transparent character of the language as an\ninstrument of communication,\u2014its perfect aptitude for narrative and\ndiscussion, as well as for stirring all the veins of human emotion\nwithout ever forfeiting that character of simplicity which adapts\nit to all men and all times,\u2014may be traced mainly to the existence\nand the wide-spread influence of the Iliad and Odyssey. To us, these\ncompositions are interesting as beautiful poems, depicting life and\nmanners, and unfolding certain types of character with the utmost\nvivacity and artlessness: to their original hearer, they possessed\nall these sources of attraction, together with others more powerful\nstill, to which we are now strangers. Upon him, they bore with the\nfull weight and solemnity of history and religion combined, while the\ncharm of the poetry was only secondary and instrumental. The poet was\nthen the teacher and preacher of the community, not simply the amuser\nof their leisure hours: they looked to him for revelations of the\nunknown past and for expositions of the attributes and dispensations\nof the gods, just as they consulted the prophet for his privileged\ninsight into the future. The ancient epic comprised many different\npoets and poetical compositions, which fulfilled this purpose with\nmore or less completeness: but it is the exclusive prerogative of\nthe Iliad and Odyssey, that, after the minds of men had ceased to\nbe in full harmony with their original design, they yet retained\ntheir empire by the mere force of secondary excellences: while the\nremaining epics\u2014though serving as food for the curious, and as\nstorehouses for logographers, tragedians, and artists\u2014never seem to\nhave acquired very wide popularity even among intellectual Greeks.\n\nI shall, in the succeeding chapter, give some account of the epic\ncycle, of its relation to the Homeric poems, and of the general\nevidences respecting the latter, both as to antiquity and authorship.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nGRECIAN EPIC.\u2014HOMERIC POEMS.\n\n\nAt the head of the once abundant epical compositions of Greece,\nmost of them unfortunately lost, stand the Iliad and Odyssey, with\nthe immortal name of Homer attached to each of them, embracing\nseparate portions of the comprehensive legend of Troy. They form\nthe type of what may be called the heroic epic of the Greeks, as\ndistinguished from the genealogical, in which latter species some\nof the Hesiodic poems\u2014the Catalogue of Women, the Eoiai, and the\nNaupaktia\u2014stood conspicuous. Poems of the Homeric character (if so\nit may be called, though the expression is very indefinite,)\u2014being\nconfined to one of the great events, or great personages of Grecian\nlegendary antiquity, and comprising a limited number of characters,\nall contemporaneous, made some approach, more or less successful, to\na certain poetical unity; while the Hesiodic poems, tamer in their\nspirit, and unconfined both as to time and as to persons, strung\ntogether distinct events without any obvious view to concentration\nof interest,\u2014without legitimate beginning or end.[213] Between these\ntwo extremes there were many gradations: biographical poems, such\nas the Herakleia, or These\u00efs, recounting all the principal exploits\nperformed by one single hero, present a character intermediate\nbetween the two, but bordering more closely on the Hesiodic. Even the\nhymns to the gods, which pass under the name of Homer, are epical\nfragments, narrating particular exploits or adventures of the god\ncommemorated.\n\n [213] Aristot. Poet. c. 17-37. He points out and explains the\n superior structure of the Iliad and Odyssey, as compared with the\n semi Homeric and biographical poems: but he takes no notice of\n the Hesiodic, or genealogical.\n\nBoth the didactic and the mystico-religious poetry of Greece began in\nHexameter verse,\u2014the characteristic and consecrated measure of the\nepic:[214] but they belong to a different species, and burst out from\na different vein in the Grecian mind. It seems to have been the more\ncommon belief among the historical Greeks, that such mystic effusions\nwere more ancient than their narrative poems, and that Orpheus,\nMus\u00e6us, Linus, Ol\u00ean, Pamphus, and even Hesiod, etc., etc., the\nreputed composers of the former, were of earlier date than Homer. But\nthere is no evidence to sustain this opinion, and the presumptions\nare all against it. Those compositions, which in the sixth century\nbefore the Christian era passed under the name of Orpheus and Mus\u00e6us,\nseem to have been unquestionably post-Homeric, nor can we even admit\nthe modified conclusion of Hermann, Ulrici, and others, that the\nmystic poetry as a genus (putting aside the particular compositions\nfalsely ascribed to Orpheus and others) preceded in order of time the\nnarrative.[215]\n\n [214] Aristot. Poetic. c. 41. He considers the Hexameter to be\n the _natural_ measure of narrative poetry: any other would be\n unseemly.\n\n [215] Ulrici, Geschichte des Griechischen Epos, 5te Vorlesung,\n pp. 96-108; G. Hermann, Ueber Homer und Sappho, in his Opuscula,\n tom. vi. p. 89.\n\n The superior antiquity of Orpheus as compared with Homer passed\n as a received position to the classical Romans (Horat. Art. Poet.\n 392).\n\nBesides the Iliad and Odyssey, we make out the titles of about thirty\nlost epic poems, sometimes with a brief hint of their contents.\n\nConcerning the legend of Troy there were five: the Cyprian Verses,\nthe \u00c6thiopis, and the Capture of Troy, both ascribed to Arktinus; the\nlesser Iliad, ascribed to Lesch\u00eas; the Returns (of the Heroes from\nTroy), to which the name of Hagias of Tr\u0153z\u00ean is attached; and the\nTelegonia, by Eugamm\u00f4n, a continuation of the Odyssey. Two poems,\u2014the\nTheba\u00efs and the Epigoni (perhaps two parts of one and the same poem)\nwere devoted to the legend of Theb\u00eas,\u2014the two sieges of that city by\nthe Argeians. Another poem, called \u0152dipodia, had for its subject the\ntragical destiny of \u0152dipus and his family; and perhaps that which is\ncited as Eur\u00f4pia, or verses on Eur\u00f4pa, may have comprehended the tale\nof her brother Kadmus, the mythical founder of Theb\u00eas.[216]\n\n [216] Respecting these lost epics, see D\u00fcntzer, Collection of the\n Fragmenta Epicor. Gr\u00e6corum; W\u00fcllner, De Cyclo Epico, pp. 43-66;\n and Mr. Fynes Clinton\u2019s Chronology, vol. iii. pp. 349-359.\n\nThe exploits of H\u00earakl\u00eas were celebrated in two compositions, each\ncalled H\u00earakleia, by Kin\u00e6th\u00f4n and Pisander,\u2014probably also in many\nothers, of which the memory has not been preserved. The capture\nof \u0152chalia, by H\u00earakl\u00eas, formed the subject of a separate epic.\nTwo other poems, the \u00c6gimius and the Minyas, are supposed to have\nbeen founded on other achievements of this hero,\u2014the effective aid\nwhich he lent to the Dorian king \u00c6gimius against the Lapith\u00e6, his\ndescent to the under-world for the purpose of rescuing the imprisoned\nTh\u00easeus, and his conquest of the city of the Miny\u00e6, the powerful\nOrchomenus.[217]\n\n [217] Welcker, Der Epische Kyklus, pp. 256-266; Apollod\u00f4r. ii. 7,\n 7; Diod\u00f4r. iv. 37; O. M\u00fcller, Dorians, i. 28.\n\nOther epic poems\u2014the Phor\u00f4nis, the Dana\u00efs, the Alkm\u00e6\u00f4nis, the Atthis,\nthe Amazonia\u2014we know only by name, and can just guess obscurely at\ntheir contents so far as the name indicates.[218] The Titanomachia,\nthe Gigantomachia, and the Corinthiaca, three compositions all\nascribed to Eum\u00ealus, afford by means of their titles an idea somewhat\nclearer of the matter which they comprised. The Theogony ascribed\nto Hesiod still exists, though partially corrupt and mutilated: but\nthere seem to have been other poems, now lost, of the like import and\ntitle.\n\n [218] Welcker (Der Epische Kyklus, p. 209) considers the\n Alkm\u00e6\u00f4nis as the same with the Epigoni, and the Atthis of\n Hegesinous the same with the Amazonia: in Suidas (v. \u1f4d\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2) the\n latter is among the poems ascribed to Homer.\n\n Leutsch (Thebaidos Cyclic\u00e6 Reliqui\u00e6, pp. 12-14) views the Theba\u00efs\n and the Epigoni as different parts of the same poem.\n\nOf the poems composed in the Hesiodic style, diffusive and full of\ngenealogical detail, the principal were, the Catalogue of Women and\nthe Great Eoiai; the latter of which, indeed, seems to have been a\ncontinuation of the former. A large number of the celebrated women of\nheroic Greece were commemorated in these poems, one after the other,\nwithout any other than an arbitrary bond of connection. The Marriage\nof K\u00eayx,\u2014the Melampodia,\u2014and a string of fables called Astronomia,\nare farther ascribed to Hesiod: and the poem above mentioned, called\n\u00c6gimius, is also sometimes connected with his name, sometimes with\nthat of Kerkops. The Naupaktian Verses (so called, probably, from\nthe birthplace of their author), and the genealogies of Kin\u00e6th\u00f4n and\nAsius, were compositions of the same rambling character, as far as we\ncan judge from the scanty fragments remaining.[219] The Orchomenian\nepic poet Chersias, of whom two lines only are preserved to us by\nPausanias, may reasonably be referred to the same category.[220]\n\n [219] See the Fragments of Hesiod, Eum\u00ealus, Kin\u00e6th\u00f4n, and Asius,\n in the collections of Marktscheffel, D\u00fcntzer, G\u00f6ttling, and\n Gaisford.\n\n I have already, in going over the ground of Grecian legend,\n referred to all these lost poems, in their proper places.\n\n [220] Pausan. ix. 38, 6; Plutarch, Sept. Sap. Conv. p. 156.\n\nThe oldest of the epic poets, to whom any date, carrying with it the\nsemblance of authority, is assigned, is Arktinus of Mil\u00eatus, who\nis placed by Eusebius in the first Olympiad, and by Suidas in the\nninth. Eugamm\u00f4n, the author of the Telegonia, and the latest of the\ncatalogue, is placed in the fifty-third Olympiad, B. C. 566. Between\nthese two we find Asius and Lesch\u00eas, about the thirtieth Olympiad,\u2014a\ntime when the vein of the ancient epic was drying up, and when other\nforms of poetry\u2014elegiac, iambic, lyric, and choric\u2014had either already\narisen, or were on the point of arising, to compete with it.[221]\n\n [221] See Mr. Clinton\u2019s Fasti Hellenici, about the date of\n Arktinus, vol i. p. 350.\n\nIt has already been stated in a former chapter, that in the early\ncommencements of prose-writing, Hekat\u00e6us, Pherekyd\u00eas, and other\nlogographers, made it their business to extract from the ancient fables\nsomething like a continuous narrative, chronologically arranged. It\nwas upon a principle somewhat analogous that the Alexandrine literati,\nabout the second century before the Christian era,[222] arranged the\nmultitude of old epic poets into a series founded on the supposed order\nof time in the events narrated,\u2014beginning with the intermarriage of\nUranus and G\u00e6a, and the Theogony,\u2014and concluding with the death of\nOdysseus by the hands of his son Telegonus. This collection passed\nby the name of the Epic Cycle, and the poets, whose compositions\nwere embodied in it, were termed Cyclic poets. Doubtless, the epical\ntreasures of the Alexandrine library were larger than had ever before\nbeen brought together and submitted to men both of learning and\nleisure: so that multiplication of such compositions in the same museum\nrendered it advisable to establish some fixed order of perusal, and\nto copy them in one corrected and uniform edition.[223] It pleased\nthe critics to determine precedence, neither by antiquity nor by\nexcellence of the compositions themselves, but by the supposed sequence\nof narrative, so that the whole taken together constituted a readable\naggregate of epical antiquity.\n\n [222] Perhaps Zenodotus, the superintendent of the Alexandrine\n library under Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the third century B.\n C.: there is a Scholion on Plautus, published not many years\n ago by Osann, and since more fully by Ritschl,\u2014\u201cC\u00e6cius in\n commento Com\u0153diarum Aristophanis in Pluto,\u2014Alexander \u00c6tolus, et\n Lycophron Chalcidensis, et Zenodotus Ephesius, impulsu regis\n Ptolem\u00e6i, Philadelphi cognomento, artis poetices libros in unum\n collegerunt et in ordinem redegerunt. Alexander trag\u0153dias,\n Lycophron com\u0153dias, Zenodotus vero Homeri poemata et reliquorum\n illustrium poetarum.\u201d See Lange, Ueber die Kyklischen Dichter, p.\n 56 (Mainz. 1837); Welcker, Der Epische Kyklus, p. 8; Ritschl, Die\n Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken, p. 3 (Breslau, 1838).\n\n Lange disputes the sufficiency of this passage as proof that\n Zenodotus was the framer of the Epic Cycle: his grounds are,\n however, unsatisfactory to me.\n\n [223] That there existed a cyclic copy or edition of the Odyssey\n (\u1f21 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74) is proved by two passages in the Scholia (xvi. 195;\n xvii. 25), with Boeckh\u2019s remark in Buttmann\u2019s edition: this was\n the Odyssey copied or edited along with the other poems of the\n cycle.\n\n Our word to _edit_\u2014or _edition_\u2014suggests ideas not exactly suited\n to the proceedings of the Alexandrine library, in which we cannot\n expect to find anything like what is now called _publication_.\n That magnificent establishment, possessing a large collection of\n epical manuscripts, and ample means of every kind at command,\n would naturally desire to have these compositions put in order\n and corrected by skilful hands, and then carefully copied for the\n use of the library. Such copy constitutes the cyclic _edition_:\n they might perhaps cause or permit duplicates to be made, but the\n \u1f14\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or edition was complete without them.\n\nMuch obscurity[224] exists, and many different opinions have been\nexpressed, respecting this Epic Cycle: I view it, not as an exclusive\ncanon, but simply as an all-comprehensive classification, with a new\nedition founded thereupon. It would include all the epic poems in the\nlibrary older than the Telegonia, and apt for continuous narrative;\nit would exclude only two classes,\u2014first, the recent epic poets, such\nas Panyasis and Antimachus; next, the genealogical and desultory\npoems, such as the Catalogue of Women, the Eoiai, and others,\nwhich could not be made to fit in to any chronological sequence of\nevents.[225] Both the Iliad and the Odyssey were comprised in the\nCycle, so that the denomination of cyclic poet did not originally\nor designedly carry with it any association of contempt. But as the\ngreat and capital poems were chiefly spoken of by themselves, or\nby the title of their own separate authors, so the general name of\n_poets of the Cycle_ came gradually to be applied only to the worst,\nand thus to imply vulgarity or common-place; the more so, as many of\nthe inferior compositions included in the collection seem to have\nbeen anonymous, and their authors in consequence describable only\nunder some such common designation as that of the cyclic poets. It\nis in this manner that we are to explain the disparaging sentiment\nconnected by Horace and others with the idea of a cyclic writer,\nthough no such sentiment was implied in the original meaning of the\nEpic Cycle.\n\n [224] Respecting the great confusion in which the Epic Cycle\n is involved, see the striking declaration of Buttmann, Addenda\n ad Scholia in Odysseum, p. 575: compare the opinions of the\n different critics, as enumerated at the end of Welcker\u2019s\n treatise, Episch. Kyk. pp. 420-453.\n\n [225] Our information respecting the Epic Cycle is derived from\n Eutychius Proclus, a literary man of Sicca during the second\n century of the Christian era, and tutor of Marcus Antoninus (Jul.\n Capitolin. Vit. Marc. c. 2),\u2014not from Proclus, called Diadochus,\n the new-Platonic philosopher of the fifth century, as Heyne,\n Mr. Clinton, and others have imagined. The fragments from his\n work called Chrestomathia, give arguments of several of the lost\n cyclic poems connected with the Siege of Troy, communicating the\n important fact that the Iliad and Odyssey were included in the\n cycle, and giving the following description of the principle upon\n which it was arranged: \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039f\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0393\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2.... \u039b\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f61\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ce\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd ~\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd~ (ap. Photium, cod. 239).\n\n This much-commented passage, while it clearly marks out the\n cardinal principle of the Epic Cycle (\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd),\n neither affirms nor denies anything respecting the excellence of\n the constituent poems. Proclus speaks of the taste common in his\n own time (\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2): there was not much relish in\n his time for these poems as such, but people were much interested\n in the sequence of epical events. The abstracts which he himself\n drew up in the form of arguments of several poems, show that he\n adapted himself to this taste. We cannot collect from his words\n that he intended to express any opinion of his own respecting the\n goodness or badness of the cyclic poems.\n\nThe poems of the Cycle were thus mentioned in contrast and antithesis\nwith Homer,[226] though originally the Iliad and Odyssey had both\nbeen included among them: and this alteration of the meaning of the\nword has given birth to a mistake as to the primary purpose of the\nclassification, as if it had been designed especially to part off\nthe inferior epic productions from Homer. But while some critics\nare disposed to distinguish the cyclic poets too pointedly from\nHomer, I conceive that Welcker goes too much into the other extreme,\nand identifies the Cycle too closely with that poet. He construes\nit as a classification deliberately framed to comprise all the\nvarious productions of the Homeric epic, with its unity of action\nand comparative paucity, both of persons and adventures,\u2014as opposed\nto the Hesiodic epic, crowded with separate persons and pedigrees,\nand destitute of central action as well as of closing catastrophe.\nThis opinion does, indeed, coincide to a great degree with the fact,\ninasmuch as few of the Hesiodic epics appear to have been included in\nthe Cycle: to say that _none_ were included, would be too much, for\nwe cannot venture to set aside either the Theogony or the \u00c6gimius;\nbut we may account for their absence perfectly well without supposing\nany design to exclude them, for it is obvious that their rambling\ncharacter (like that of the Metamorphoses of Ovid) forbade the\npossibility of interweaving them in any continuous series. Continuity\nin the series of narrated events, coupled with a certain degree of\nantiquity in the poems, being the principle on which the arrangement\ncalled the Epic Cycle was based, the Hesiodic poems generally were\nexcluded, not from any preconceived intention, but because they could\nnot be brought into harmony with such orderly reading.\n\n [226] The gradual growth of a contemptuous feeling towards the\n _scriptor cyclicus_ (Horat. Ars. Poetic. 136), which was not\n originally implied in the name, is well set forth by Lange (Ueber\n die Kyklisch. Dicht. pp. 53-56).\n\n Both Lange (pp. 36-41), however, and Ulrici (Geschichte des\n Griech. Epos, 9te Vorles. p. 418) adopt another opinion\n with respect to the cycle, which I think unsupported and\n inadmissible,\u2014that the several constituent poems were not\n received into it entire (_i. e._ with only such changes as were\n requisite for a corrected text), but cut down and abridged in\n such manner as to produce an _exact_ continuity of narrative.\n Lange even imagines that the cyclic Odyssey was thus dealt\n with. But there seems no evidence to countenance this theory,\n which would convert the Alexandrine literati from critics into\n logographers. That the cyclic Iliad and Odyssey were the same in\n the main (allowing for corrections of text) as the common Iliad\n and Odyssey, is shown by the fact, that Proclus merely names them\n in the series without giving any abstract of their contents: they\n were too well known to render such a process necessary. Nor does\n either the language of Proclus, or that of C\u00e6cius as applied to\n Zenodotus, indicate any transformation applied to the poets whose\n works are described to have been brought together and put into a\n certain order.\n\n The hypothesis of Lange is founded upon the idea that the\n (\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) continuity of narrated events must\n necessarily have been exact and without break, as if the\n whole constituted one work. But this would not be possible,\n let the framers do what they might: moreover, in the attempt,\n the individuality of all the constituent poets must have been\n sacrificed, in such manner that it would be absurd to discuss\n their separate merits.\n\n The continuity of narrative in the Epic Cycle could not have been\n more than approximate,\u2014as complete as the poems composing it\n would admit: nevertheless, it would be correct to say that the\n poems were arranged in series upon this principle and upon no\n other. The librarians might have arranged in like manner the vast\n mass of tragedies in their possession (if they had chosen to do\n so) upon the principle of sequence in the subjects: had they done\n so, the series would have formed a _Tragic Cycle_.\n\nWhat were the particular poems which it comprised, we cannot now\ndetermine with exactness. Welcker arranges them as follows:\nTitanomachia, Dana\u00efs, Amazonia (or Atthis), \u0152dipodia, Theba\u00efs (or\nExpedition of Amphiar\u00e4us), Epigoni (or Alkm\u00e6\u00f4nis), Minyas (or\nPhoka\u00efs), Capture of \u0152chalia, Cyprian Verses, Iliad, \u00c6thiopis,\nLesser Iliad, Iliupersis or the Taking of Troy, Returns of the\nHeroes, Odyssey, and Telegonia. Wuellner, Lange, and Mr. Fynes\nClinton enlarge the list of cyclic poems still farther.[227] But\nall such reconstructions of the Cycle are conjectural and destitute\nof authority: the only poems which we can affirm on positive\ngrounds to have been comprehended in it, are, first, the series\nrespecting the heroes of Troy, from the Cypria to the Telegonia,\nof which Proclus has preserved the arguments, and which includes\nthe Iliad and Odyssey,\u2014next, the old Theba\u00efs, which is expressly\ntermed cyclic,[228] in order to distinguish it from the poem of the\nsame name composed by Antimachus. In regard to other particular\ncompositions, we have no evidence to guide us, either for admission\nor exclusion, except our general views as to the scheme upon\nwhich the Cycle was framed. If my idea of that scheme be correct,\nthe Alexandrine critics arranged therein _all_ their old epical\ntreasures, down to the Telegonia,\u2014the good as well as the bad; gold,\nsilver, and iron,\u2014provided only they could be pieced in with the\nnarrative series. But I cannot venture to include, as Mr. Clinton\ndoes, the Eur\u00f4pia, the Phor\u00f4nis, and other poems of which we know\nonly the names, because it is uncertain whether their contents were\nsuch as to fulfil their primary condition: nor can I concur with him\nin thinking that, where there were two or more poems of the same\ntitle and subject, one of them must necessarily have been adopted\ninto the Cycle to the exclusion of the others. There may have been\ntwo Theogonies, or two Herakleias, both comprehended in the Cycle;\nthe purpose being (as I before remarked), not to sift the better from\nthe worse, but to determine some fixed order, convenient for reading\nand reference, amidst a multiplicity of scattered compositions, as\nthe basis of a new, entire, and corrected edition.\n\n [227] Welcker, Der Epische Kyklus, pp. 37-41; Wuellner, De Cyclo\n Epico, p. 43, _seq._; Lange, Ueber die Kyklischen Dichter, p. 47;\n Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. p. 349.\n\n [228] Schol. Pindar. Olymp. vi. 26; Athen\u00e6. xi. p. 465.\n\nWhatever may have been the principle on which the cyclic poems were\noriginally strung together, they are all now lost, except those two\nunrivalled diamonds, whose brightness, dimming all the rest, has\nalone sufficed to confer imperishable glory even upon the earliest\nphase of Grecian life. It has been the natural privilege of the Iliad\nand Odyssey, from the rise of Grecian philology down to the present\nday, to provoke an intense curiosity, which, even in the historical\nand literary days of Greece, there were no assured facts to satisfy.\nThese compositions are the monuments of an age essentially religious\nand poetical, but essentially also unphilosophical, unreflecting, and\nunrecording: the nature of the case forbids our having any authentic\ntransmitted knowledge respecting such a period; and the lesson must\nbe learned, hard and painful though it be, that no imaginable reach\nof critical acumen will of itself enable us to discriminate fancy\nfrom reality, in the absence of a tolerable stock of evidence. After\nthe numberless comments and acrimonious controversies[229] to which\nthe Homeric poems have given rise, it can hardly be said that any of\nthe points originally doubtful have obtained a solution such as to\ncommand universal acquiescence. To glance at all these controversies,\nhowever briefly, would far transcend the limits of the present work;\nbut the most abridged Grecian history would be incomplete without\nsome inquiry respecting _the Poet_ (so the Greek critics in their\nveneration denominated Homer), and the productions which pass now, or\nhave heretofore passed, under his name.\n\n [229] It is a memorable illustration of that bitterness which has\n so much disgraced the controversies of literary men in _all_ ages\n (I fear, we can make no exception), when we find Pausanias saying\n that he had examined into the ages of Hesiod and Homer with the\n most laborious scrutiny, but that he knew too well the calumnious\n dispositions of contemporary critics and poets, to declare what\n conclusion he had come to (Paus. ix. 30, 2): \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f29\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5\n \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f49\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u1f7a \u1f26\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f25\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\n \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nWho or what was Homer? What date is to be assigned to him? What were\nhis compositions?\n\nA person, putting these questions to Greeks of different towns\nand ages, would have obtained answers widely discrepant and\ncontradictory. Since the invaluable labors of Aristarchus and the\nother Alexandrine critics on the text of the Iliad and Odyssey,\nit has, indeed, been customary to regard those two (putting aside\nthe Hymns, and a few other minor poems) as being the only genuine\nHomeric compositions: and the literary men called Chorizontes, or the\nSeparators, at the head of whom were Xen\u00f4n and Hellanikus, endeavored\nstill farther to reduce the number by disconnecting the Iliad and\nOdyssey, and pointing out that both could not be the work of the\nsame author. Throughout the whole course of Grecian antiquity, the\nIliad and the Odyssey, and the Hymns, have been received as Homeric:\nbut if we go back to the time of Herodotus, or still earlier, we\nfind that several other epics also were ascribed to Homer,\u2014and there\nwere not wanting[230] critics, earlier than the Alexandrine age,\nwho regarded the whole Epic Cycle, together with the satirical poem\ncalled Margit\u00eas, the Batrachomyomachia, and other smaller pieces, as\nHomeric works. The cyclic Theba\u00efs and the Epigoni (whether they be\ntwo separate poems, or the latter a second part of the former) were\nin early days currently ascribed to Homer: the same was the case\nwith the Cyprian Verses: some even attributed to him several other\npoems,[231] the Capture of \u0152chalia, the Lesser Iliad, the Phoka\u00efs,\nand the Amazonia. The title of the poem called Theba\u00efs to be styled\nHomeric, depends upon evidence more ancient than any which can be\nproduced to authenticate the Iliad and Odyssey: for Kallinus, the\nancient elegiac poet (B. C. 640), mentioned Homer as the author of\nit,\u2014and his opinion was shared by many other competent judges.[232]\nFrom the remarkable description given by Herodotus, of the expulsion\nof the rhapsodes from Siky\u00f4n, by the despot Kleisthen\u00eas, in the time\nof Sol\u00f4n (about B. C. 580), we may form a probable judgment that the\nTheba\u00efs and the Epigoni were then rhapsodized at Siky\u00f4n as Homeric\nproductions.[233] And it is clear from the language of Herodotus,\nthat in his time the general opinion ascribed to Homer both the\nCyprian Verses and the Epigoni, though he himself dissents.[234] In\nspite of such dissent, however, that historian must have conceived\nthe names of Homer and Hesiod to be nearly coextensive with the\nwhole of the ancient epic; otherwise, he would hardly have delivered\nhis memorable judgment, that they two were the framers of Grecian\ntheogony.\n\n [230] See the extract of Proclus, in Photius Cod. 239.\n\n [231] Suidas, v. \u1f4d\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2; Eustath. ad Iliad. ii. p. 330.\n\n [232] Pausan. ix. 9, 3. The name of Kallinus in that passage\n seems certainly correct: \u03a4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 (the Theba\u00efs) \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f4d\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7\n \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. \u1f18\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac \u03b3\u03b5 \u1f38\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f48\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n To the same purpose the author of the Certamen of Hesiod and\n Homer, and the pseudo-Herodotus (Vit. Homer, c. 9). The \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\n \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, alluded to in Suidas as the production of Homer, may be\n reasonably identified with the Theba\u00efs (Suidas, v. \u1f4d\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2).\n\n The cyclographer Dionysius, who affirmed that Homer had lived\n both in the Theban and the Trojan wars, must have recognized that\n poet as author of the Theba\u00efs as well as of the Iliad (ap. Procl.\n ad Hesiod. p. 3).\n\n [233] Herodot. v. 67. \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd, \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c8\u1ff3\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03c5\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f49\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f35\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03b4\u1f72, \u1f21\u03c1\u1ff4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03c5\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f08\u03b4\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u1f41 \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2. Herodotus then goes on to relate\n how Kleisthen\u00eas carried into effect his purpose of banishing\n the hero Adrastus: first, he applied to the Delphian Apollo,\n for permission to do so directly, and avowedly; next, on that\n permission being refused, he made application to the Thebans,\n to allow him to introduce into Siky\u00f4n their hero Melanippus,\n the bitter enemy of Adrastus in the old Theban legend; by their\n consent, he consecrated a chapel to Melanippus in the most\n commanding part of the Sikyonian agora, and then transferred to\n the newly-imported hero the rites and festivals which had before\n been given to Adrastus.\n\n Taking in conjunction all the points of this very curious tale, I\n venture to think that the rhapsodes incurred the displeasure of\n Kleisthen\u00eas by reciting, not the Homeric Iliad, but the _Homeric\n Theba\u00efs and Epigoni_. The former does not answer the conditions\n of the narrative: the latter fulfils them accurately.\n\n 1. It cannot be said, even by the utmost latitude of speech,\n that, in the Iliad, \u201cLittle else is sung except Argos and the\n Argeians,\u201d\u2014(\u201cin illis ubique fere nonnisi Argos et Argivi\n celebrantur,\u201d)\u2014is the translation of Schweigh\u00e4user: Argos is\n rarely mentioned in it, and never exalted into any primary\n importance: the Argeians, as inhabitants of Argos separately,\n are never noticed at all: that name is applied in the Iliad, in\n common with the _Ach\u00e6ans_ and _Danaans_, only to the general body\n of Greeks,\u2014and even applied to them much less frequently than the\n name of _Ach\u00e6ans_.\n\n 2. Adrastus is twice, and only twice, mentioned in the Iliad,\n as master of the wonderful horse Areion, and as father-in-law\n of Tydeus; but he makes no figure in the poem, and attracts no\n interest.\n\n Wherefore, though Kleisthen\u00eas might have been ever so much\n incensed against Argos and Adrastus, there seems no reason why he\n should have interdicted the rhapsodes from reciting the Iliad. On\n the other hand, the Theba\u00efs and Epigoni could not fail to provoke\n him especially. For,\n\n 1. Argos and its inhabitants were the grand subject of the poem,\n and the proclaimed assailants in the expedition against Th\u00eabes.\n Though the poem itself is lost, the first line of it has been\n preserved (Leutsch, Theb. Cycl. Reliq. p. 5; compare Sophocl\u00eas,\n \u0152d. Col. 380 with Scholia),\u2014\n\n \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f70, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03af\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, etc.\n\n 2. Adrastus was king of Argos, and the chief of the expedition.\n It is therefore literally true, that Argos and the Argeians were\n \u201cthe burden of the song\u201d in these two poems.\n\n To this we may add\u2014\n\n 1. The rhapsodes would have the strongest motive to recite the\n Theba\u00efs and Epigoni at Siky\u00f4n, where Adrastus was worshipped and\n enjoyed so vast a popularity, and where he even attracted to\n himself the choric solemnities which in other towns were given to\n Dionysus.\n\n 2. The means which Kleisthen\u00eas took to get rid of Adrastus\n indicates a special reference to the Theba\u00efs: he invited from\n Th\u00eabes the hero Melanippus, the _Hector_ of Th\u00eabes, in that very\n poem.\n\n For these reasons, I think we may conclude that the \u1f49\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7,\n alluded to in this very illustrative story of Herodotus, are the\n Theba\u00efs and the Epigoni, not the Iliad.\n\n [234] Herodot. ii. 117; iv. 32. The words in which Herodotus\n intimates his own dissent from the reigning opinion, are treated\n as spurious by F. A. Wolf, and vindicated by Schweigh\u00e4user:\n whether they be admitted or not, the general currency of the\n opinion adverted to is equally evident.\n\nThe many different cities which laid claim to the birth of Homer\n(seven is rather below the truth, and Smyrna and Chios are the most\nprominent among them,) is well known, and most of them had legends\nto tell respecting his romantic parentage, his alleged blindness,\nand his life of an itinerant bard, acquainted with poverty and\nsorrow.[235] The discrepancies of statement respecting the date of\nhis reputed existence are no less worthy of remark; for out of the\neight different epochs assigned to him, the oldest differs from the\nmost recent by a period of four hundred and sixty years.\n\n [235] The Life of Homer, which passes falsely under the name of\n Herodotus, contains a collection of these different stories: it\n is supposed to have been written about the second century after\n the Christian era, but the statements which it furnishes are\n probably several of them as old as Ephorus (compare also Proclus\n ap. Photium, c. 239).\n\n The belief in the blindness of Homer is doubtless of far more\n ancient date, since the circumstance appears mentioned in the\n Homeric Hymn to the Delian Apollo where the bard of Chios, in\n some very touching lines, recommends himself and his strains\n to the favor of the Delian maidens employed in the worship of\n Apollo. This hymn is cited by Thucydid\u00eas as unquestionably\n authentic, and he doubtless accepted the lines as a description\n of the personal condition and relations of the author of the\n Iliad and Odyssey (Thucyd. iii. 104): Simonid\u00eas of Ke\u00f4s also\n calls Homer a Chian (Frag. 69, Schneidewin).\n\n There were also tales which represented Homer as the\n contemporary, the cousin, and the rival in recited composition,\n of Hesiod, who (it was pretended) had vanquished him. See the\n Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi, annexed to the works of the latter\n (p. 314, ed. G\u00f6ttling; and Plutarch, Conviv. Sept. Sapient. c.\n 10), in which also various stories respecting the Life of Homer\n are scattered. The emperor Hadrian consulted the Delphian oracle\n to know who Homer was: the answer of the priestess reported him\n to be a native of Ithaca, the son of Telemachus and Epikast\u00ea,\n daughter of Nest\u00f4r (Certamen Hom. et Hes. p. 314). The author of\n this Certamen tells us that the authority of the Delphian oracle\n deserves implicit confidence.\n\n Hellanikus, Damastes, and Pherekyd\u00eas traced both Homer and\n Hesiod up to Orpheus, through a pedigree of ten generations\n (see Sturz, Fragment. Hellanic. fr. 75-144; compare also\n Lobeck\u2019s remarks\u2014_Aglaophamus_, p. 322\u2014on the subject of these\n genealogies). The computations of these authors earlier than\n Herodotus are of value, because they illustrate the habits of\n mind in which Grecian chronology began: the genealogy might be\n easily continued backward to any length in the past. To trace\n Homer up to Orpheus, however, would not have been consonant to\n the belief of the Hom\u00earids.\n\n The contentions of the different cities which disputed for\n the birth of Homer, and, indeed, all the legendary anecdotes\n circulated in antiquity respecting the poet, are copiously\n discussed in Welcker, Der Epische Kyklos (pp. 194-199).\n\nThus conflicting would have been the answers returned in different\nportions of the Grecian world to any questions respecting the person\nof Homer. But there were a poetical gens (fraternity or guild) in\nthe Ionic island of Chios, who, if the question had been put to\nthem, would have answered in another manner. To them, Homer was not\na mere antecedent man, of kindred nature with themselves, but a\ndivine or semi-divine eponymus and progenitor, whom they worshipped\nin their gentile sacrifices, and in whose ascendent name and glory\nthe individuality of every member of the gens was merged. The\ncompositions of each separate Hom\u00earid, or the combined efforts of\nmany of them in conjunction, were the works of Homer: the name of the\nindividual bard perishes and his authorship is forgotten, but the\ncommon gentile father lives and grows in renown, from generation to\ngeneration, by the genius of his self-renewing sons.\n\nSuch was the conception entertained of Homer by the poetical gens\ncalled Hom\u00earid\u00e6, or Hom\u00earids; and in the general obscurity of the\nwhole case, I lean towards it as the most plausible conception.\nHomer is not only the reputed author of the various compositions\nemanating from the gentile members, but also the recipient of the\nmany different legends and of the divine genealogy, which it pleases\ntheir imagination to confer upon him. Such manufacture of fictitious\npersonality, and such perfect incorporation of the entities of\nreligion and fancy with the real world, is a process familiar, and\neven habitual, in the retrospective vision of the Greeks.[236]\n\n [236] Even Aristotle ascribed to Homer a divine parentage: a\n damsel of the isle of Ios, pregnant by some god, was carried\n off by pirates to Smyrna, at the time of the Ionic emigration,\n and there gave birth to the poet (Aristotel. ap. Plutarch. Vit.\n Homer. p. 1059).\n\n Plato seems to have considered Homer as having been an itinerant\n rhapsode, poor and almost friendless (Republ. p. 600).\n\nIt is to be remarked, that the poetical gens here brought to view,\nthe Hom\u00earids, are of indisputable authenticity. Their existence and\ntheir considerations were maintained down to the historical times in\nthe island of Chios.[237] If the Hom\u00earids were still conspicuous,\neven in the days of Akusilaus, Pindar, Hellanikus, and Plato, when\ntheir productive invention had ceased, and when they had become\nonly guardians and distributors, in common with others, of the\ntreasures bequeathed by their predecessors,\u2014far more exalted must\ntheir position have been three centuries before, while they were\nstill the inspired creators of epic novelty, and when the absence\nof writing assured to them the undisputed monopoly of their own\ncompositions.[238]\n\n [237] Pindar, Nem. ii. 1, and Scholia; Akusilaus, Fragm. 31,\n Didot; Harpokration, v. \u1f49\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9; Hellanic. Fr. 55, Didot;\n Strabo, xiv. p. 645.\n\n It seems by a passage of Plato (Ph\u00e6drus, p. 252), that the\n Hom\u00earid\u00e6 professed to possess unpublished verses of their\n ancestral poet\u2014\u1f14\u03c0\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1. Compare Plato, Republic, p. 599, and\n Isocrat. Helen, p. 218.\n\n [238] Nitzsch (De Histori\u00e2 Homeri, Fascic. 1, p. 128, Fascic.\n 2, p. 71), and Ulrici (Geschichte der Episch. Poesie, vol. i.\n pp. 240-381) question the antiquity of the Hom\u00earid gens, and\n limit their functions to simple reciters, denying that they ever\n composed songs or poems of their own. Yet these _gentes_, such\n as the Euneid\u00e6, the Lykomid\u00e6, the Butad\u00e6, the Talthybiad\u00e6, the\n descendants of Cheir\u00f4n at Peli\u00f4n, etc., the Hesychid\u00e6 (Schol.\n Sophocl. \u0152dip. Col. 489), (the acknowledged parallels of the\n Hom\u00earid\u00e6), may be surely all considered as belonging to the\n earliest known elements of Grecian history: rarely, at least,\n if ever, can such gens, with its tripartite character of civil,\n religious, and professional, be shown to have commenced at any\n recent period. And in the early times, composer and singer were\n one person: often at least, though probably not always, the\n bard combined both functions. The Homeric \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 sings his own\n compositions; and it is reasonable to imagine that many of the\n early Hom\u00earids did the same.\n\n See Niebuhr, R\u00f6misch. Gesch. vol. i. p. 324; and the treatise,\n Ueber die Sikeler in der Odyssee,\u2014in the Rheinisches Museum,\n 1828, p. 257; and Boeckh, in the Index of Contents to his\n Lectures of 1834.\n\n \u201cThe sage Vyasa (observes Professor Wilson, System of Hindu\n Mythology, Int. p. lxii.) is represented, not as the author, but\n as the arranger and compiler of the Vedas and the Pur\u00e1n\u00e1s. His\n name denotes his character, meaning _the arranger or distributor_\n (Welcker gives the same meaning to the name _Homer_); and the\n recurrence of many Vyasas,\u2014many individuals who new-modelled the\n Hindu scriptures,\u2014has nothing in it that is improbable, except\n the fabulous intervals by which their labors are separated.\u201d\n Individual authorship and the thirst of personal distinction, are\n in this case also buried under one great and common name, as in\n the case of Homer.\n\nHomer, then, is no individual man, but the divine or heroic father\n(the ideas of worship and ancestry coalescing, as they constantly did\nin the Grecian mind) of the gentile Hom\u00earids, and he is the author of\nthe Theba\u00efs, the Epigoni, the Cyprian Verses, the Pro\u0153ms, or Hymns,\nand other poems, in the same sense in which he is the author of the\nIliad and Odyssey,\u2014assuming that these various compositions emanate,\nas perhaps they may, from different individuals numbered among the\nHom\u00earids. But this disallowance of the historical personality of\nHomer is quite distinct from the question, with which it has been\noften confounded, whether the Iliad and Odyssey are originally\nentire poems, and whether by one author or otherwise. To us, the\nname of Homer means these two poems, and little else: we desire to\nknow as much as can be learned respecting their date, their original\ncomposition, their preservation, and their mode of communication to\nthe public. All these questions are more or less complicated one with\nthe other.\n\nConcerning the date of the poems, we have no other information except\nthe various affirmations respecting the age of Homer, which differ\namong themselves (as I have before observed) by an interval of four\nhundred and sixty years, and which for the most part determine the\ndate of Homer by reference to some other event, itself fabulous\nand unauthenticated,\u2014such as the Trojan war, the Return of the\nH\u00earakleids, or the Ionic migration. Krat\u00eas placed Homer earlier than\nthe Return of the H\u00earakleids, and less than eighty years after the\nTrojan war: Eratosthen\u00eas put him one hundred years after the Trojan\nwar: Aristotle, Aristarchus, and Castor made his birth contemporary\nwith the Ionic migration, while Apollod\u00f4rus brings him down to one\nhundred years after that event, or two hundred and forty years after\nthe taking of Troy. Thucydid\u00eas assigns to him a date much subsequent\nto the Trojan war.[239] On the other hand, Theopompus and Euphori\u00f4n\nrefer his age to the far more recent period of the Lydian king,\nGyges, (Ol. 18-23, B. C. 708-688,) and put him five hundred years\nafter the Trojan epoch.[240] What were the grounds of these various\nconjectures, we do not know; though in the statements of Krat\u00eas\nand Eratosthen\u00eas, we may pretty well divine. But the oldest dictum\npreserved to us respecting the date of Homer,\u2014meaning thereby the\ndate of the Iliad and Odyssey,\u2014appears to me at the same time the\nmost credible, and the most consistent with the general history of\nthe ancient epic. Herodotus places Homer four hundred years before\nhimself; taking his departure, not from any fabulous event, but from\na point of real and authentic time.[241] Four centuries anterior to\nHerodotus would be a period commencing with 880 B. C. so that the\ncomposition of the Homeric poems would thus fall in a space between\n850 and 800 B. C. We may gather from the language of Herodotus that\nthis was his own judgment, opposed to a current opinion, which\nassigned the poet to an earlier epoch.\n\n [239] Thucyd. i. 3.\n\n [240] See the statements and citations respecting the age of\n Homer, collected in Mr. Clinton\u2019s Chronology, vol. i. p. 146. He\n prefers the view of Aristotle, and places the Iliad and Odyssey a\n century earlier than I am inclined to do,\u2014940-927 B. C.\n\n Krat\u00eas, probably placed the poet anterior to the Return of the\n H\u00earakleids, because the Iliad makes no mention of Dorians in\n Peloponn\u00easus: Eratosthen\u00eas may be supposed to have grounded\n his date on the passage of the Iliad, which mentions the three\n generations descended from \u00c6neas. We should have been glad to\n know the grounds of the very low date assigned by Theopompus and\n Euphori\u00f4n.\n\n The pseudo-Herodotus, in his life of Homer, puts the birth of the\n poet one hundred and sixty-eight years after the Trojan war.\n\n [241] Herodot. ii. 53. H\u00earakleides Ponticus affirmed that\n Lykurgus had brought into Peloponn\u00easus the Homeric poems, which\n had before been unknown out of Ionia. The supposed epoch of\n Lykurgus has sometimes been employed to sustain the date here\n assigned to the Homeric poems; but everything respecting Lykurgus\n is too doubtful to serve as evidence in other inquiries.\n\nTo place the Iliad and Odyssey at some periods between 850 B. C. and\n776 B. C., appears to me more probable than any other date, anterior\nor posterior,\u2014more probable than the latter, because we are justified\nin believing these two poems to be older than Arktinus, who comes\nshortly after the first Olympiad;\u2014more probable than the former,\nbecause, the farther we push the poems back, the more do we enhance\nthe wonder of their preservation, already sufficiently great, down\nfrom such an age and society to the historical times.\n\nThe mode in which these poems, and indeed all poems, epic as well as\nlyric, down to the age (probably) of Peisistratus, were circulated\nand brought to bear upon the public, deserves particular attention.\nThey were not read by individuals alone and apart, but sung or\nrecited at festivals or to assembled companies. This seems to be one\nof the few undisputed facts with regard to the great poet: for even\nthose who maintain that the Iliad and Odyssey were preserved by means\nof writing, seldom contend that they were read.\n\nIn appreciating the effect of the poems, we must always take\naccount of this great difference between early Greece and our own\ntimes,\u2014between the congregation mustered at a solemn festival,\nstimulated by community of sympathy, listening to a measured and\nmusical recital from the lips of trained bards or rhapsodes, whose\nmatter was supposed to have been inspired by the Muse,\u2014and the\nsolitary reader, with a manuscript before him; such manuscript\nbeing, down to a very late period in Greek literature, indifferently\nwritten, without division into parts, and without marks of\npunctuation. As in the case of dramatic performances, in all ages,\nso in that of the early Grecian epic,\u2014a very large proportion of its\nimpressive effect was derived from the talent of the reciter and\nthe force of the general accompaniments, and would have disappeared\naltogether in solitary reading. Originally, the bard sung his own\nepical narrative, commencing with a pro\u0153mium or hymn to one of the\ngods:[242] his profession was separate and special, like that of the\ncarpenter, the leech, or the prophet: his manner and enunciation\nmust have required particular training no less than his imaginative\nfaculty. His character presents itself in the Odyssey as one highly\nesteemed; and in the Iliad, even Achilles does not disdain to\ntouch the lyre with his own hands, and to sing heroic deeds.[243]\nNot only did the Iliad and Odyssey, and the poems embodied in the\nEpic Cycle, produce all their impression and gain all their renown\nby this process of oral delivery, but even the lyric and choric\npoets who succeeded them were known and felt in the same way by\nthe general public, even after the full establishment of habits\nof reading among lettered men. While in the case of the epic, the\nrecitation or singing had been extremely simple, and the measure\ncomparatively little diversified, with no other accompaniment than\nthat of the four-stringed harp,\u2014all the variations superinduced upon\nthe original hexameter, beginning with the pentameter and iambus,\nand proceeding step by step to the complicated stroph\u00eas of Pindar\nand the tragic writers, still left the general effect of the poetry\ngreatly dependent upon voice and accompaniments, and pointedly\ndistinguished from mere solitary reading of the words. And in the\ndramatic poetry, the last in order of time, the declamation and\ngesture of the speaking actor alternated with the song and dance of\nthe chorus, and with the instruments of musicians, the whole being\nset off by imposing visible decorations. Now both dramatic effect\nand song are familiar in modern times, so that every man knows the\ndifference between reading the words and hearing them under the\nappropriate circumstances: but poetry, as such, is, and has now\nlong been, so exclusively enjoyed by reading, that it requires an\nespecial memento to bring us back to the time when the Iliad and\nOdyssey were addressed only to the ear and feelings of a promiscuous\nand sympathizing multitude. Readers there were none, at least\nuntil the century preceding Sol\u00f4n and Peisistratus: from that time\nforward, they gradually increased both in number and influence;\nthough doubtless small, even in the most literary period of Greece,\nas compared with modern European society. So far as the production\nof beautiful epic poetry was concerned, however, the select body\nof instructed readers, furnished a less potent stimulus than the\nunlettered and listening crowd of the earlier periods. The poems of\nCh\u0153rilus and Antimachus, towards the close of the Peloponnesian war,\nthough admired by erudite men, never acquired popularity; and the\nemperor Hadrian failed in his attempt to bring the latter poet into\nfashion at the expense of Homer.[244]\n\n [242] The Homeric hymns are pro\u0153ms of this sort, some very short,\n consisting only of a few lines,\u2014others of considerable length.\n The Hymn (or, rather, one of the two hymns) to Apollo is cited by\n Thucydid\u00eas as the Pro\u0153m of Apollo.\n\n The Hymns to Aphrodit\u00ea, Apollo, Herm\u00eas, D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear, and Dionysus,\n are genuine epical narratives. Hermann (Pr\u00e6f. ad Hymn. p.\n lxxxix.) pronounces the Hymn to Aphrodit\u00ea to be the oldest and\n most genuine: portions of the Hymn to Apollo (Herm. p. xx.) are\n also very old, but both that hymn and the others are largely\n interpolated. His opinion respecting these interpolations,\n however, is disputed by Franke (Pr\u00e6fat. ad Hymn. Homeric. p.\n ix-xix.); and the distinction between what is genuine and what is\n spurious, depends upon criteria not very distinctly assignable.\n Compare Ulrici, Gesch. der Ep. Poes. pp. 385-391.\n\n [243] Phemius, Demodokus, and the nameless bard who guarded the\n fidelity of Klyt\u00e6mn\u00eastra, bear out this position (Odyss. i. 155;\n iii. 267; viii. 490; xxi. 330; Achilles in Iliad, ix. 190).\n\n A degree of inviolability seems attached to the person of the\n bard as well as to that of the herald (Odyss. xxii. 355-357).\n\n [244] Spartian. Vit. Hadrian. p. 8; Dio Cass. lxix. 4: Plut. Tim.\n c. 36.\n\n There are some good observations on this point in N\u00e4ke\u2019s comments\n on Ch\u0153rilus, ch. viii. p. 59:\u2014\n\n \u201cHabet hoc epica poesis, vera illa, cujus perfectissimam normam\n agnoscimus Homericam\u2014habet hoc proprium, ut non in possessione\n virorum eruditorum, sed quasi viva sit et coram populo recitanda:\n ut cum populo crescat, et si populus Deorum et antiquorum heroum\n facinora, quod pr\u00e6cipium est epic\u00e6 poeseos argumentum, audire\n et secum repetere dedidicerit, obmutescat. Id vero tum factum\n est in Gr\u00e6ci\u00e2, quum populus e\u00e2 \u00e6tate, quam pueritiam dicere\n possis, peract\u00e2, partim ad res serias tristesque, politicas\n maxime\u2014easque multo, quam antea, impeditiores\u2014abstrahebatur:\n partim epic\u00e6 poeseos pert\u00e6sus, ex aliis poeseos generibus, qu\u00e6\n tum nascebantur, novum et diversum oblectamenti genus primo\n pr\u00e6sagire, sibi, deinde haurire, c\u0153pit.\u201d\n\n N\u00e4ke remarks, too, that the \u201csplendidissima et propria Homeric\u00e6\n poeseos \u00e6tas, ea qu\u00e6 sponte quasi su\u00e2 inter populum et quasi cum\n populo viveret,\u201d did not reach below Peisistratus. It did not, I\n think, reach even so low as that period.\n\nIt will be seen by what has been here stated, that that class of men,\nwho formed the medium of communication between the verse and the ear,\nwere of the highest importance in the ancient world, and especially\nin the earlier periods of its career,\u2014the bards and rhapsodes for the\nepic, the singers for the lyric, the actors and singers jointly with\nthe dancers for the chorus and drama. The lyric and dramatic poets\ntaught with their own lips the delivery of their compositions, and\nso prominently did this business of teaching present itself to the\nview of the public, that the name Didaskalia, by which the dramatic\nexhibition was commonly designated, derived from thence its origin.\n\nAmong the number of rhapsodes who frequented the festivals at a\ntime when Grecian cities were multiplied and easy of access, for\nthe recitation of the ancient epic, there must have been of course\ngreat differences of excellence; but that the more considerable\nindividuals of the class were elaborately trained and highly\naccomplished in the exercise of their profession, we may assume as\ncertain. But it happens that Socrates, with his two pupils Plato and\nXenophon, speak contemptuously of their merits; and many persons\nhave been disposed, somewhat too readily, to admit this sentence\nof condemnation as conclusive, without taking account of the point\nof view from which it was delivered.[245] These philosophers\nconsidered Homer and other poets with a view to instruction, ethical\ndoctrine, and virtuous practice: they analyzed the characters whom\nthe poet described, sifted the value of the lessons conveyed, and\noften struggled to discover a hidden meaning, where they disapproved\nthat which was apparent. When they found a man like the rhapsode,\nwho professed to impress the Homeric narrative upon an audience,\nand yet either never meddled at all, or meddled unsuccessfully,\nwith the business of exposition, they treated him with contempt;\nindeed, Socrates depreciates the poets themselves, much upon the same\nprinciple, as dealing with matters of which they could render no\nrational account.[246] It was also the habit of Plato and Xenoph\u00f4n to\ndisparage generally professional exertion of talent for the purpose\nof gaining a livelihood, contrasting it often in an indelicate manner\nwith the gratuitous teaching and ostentatious poverty of their\nmaster. But we are not warranted in judging the rhapsodes by such\na standard. Though they were not philosophers or moralists, it was\ntheir province\u2014and it had been so, long before the philosophical\npoint of view was opened\u2014to bring their poet home to the bosoms and\nemotions of an assembled crowd, and to penetrate themselves with his\nmeaning so far as was suitable for that purpose, adapting to it the\nappropriate graces of action and intonation. In this their genuine\ntask they were valuable members of the Grecian community, and seem to\nhave possessed all the qualities necessary for success.\n\n [245] Xenoph. Memorab. iv. 2, 10; and Sympos. iii. 6. \u039f\u1f36\u03c3\u03b8\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\n \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c8\u1ff4\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd; ... \u0394\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u03a3\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03bb\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5.\n\n These \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 are the hidden meanings, or allegories, which a\n certain set of philosophers undertook to discover in Homer, and\n which the rhapsodes were no way called upon to study.\n\n The Platonic dialogue, called I\u00f4n, ascribes to I\u00f4n the double\n function of a rhapsode, or impressive reciter, and a critical\n expositor of the poet (Isokrat\u00eas also indicates the same double\n character, in the rhapsodes of his time,\u2014Panathenaic, p. 240);\n but it conveys no solid grounds for a mean estimate of the class\n of rhapsodes, while it attests remarkably the striking effect\n produced by their recitation (c. 6, p. 535). That this class of\n men came to combine the habit of expository comment on the poet\n with their original profession of reciting, proves the tendencies\n of the age; probably, it also brought them into rivalry with the\n philosophers.\n\n The grounds taken by Aristotle (Problem. xxx. 10; compare Aul.\n Gellius, xx. 14) against the actors, singers, musicians, etc. of\n his time, are more serious, and have more the air of truth.\n\n If it be correct in Lehrs (de Studiis Aristarchi, Diss. ii.\n p. 46) to identify those early glossographers of Homer, whose\n explanations the Alexandrine critics so severely condemned, with\n the rhapsodes, this only proves that the rhapsodes had come to\n undertake a double duty, of which their predecessors before Sol\u00f4n\n would never have dreamed.\n\n [246] Plato, Apolog. Socrat. p. 22, c. 7.\n\nThese rhapsodes, the successors of the primitive a\u0153di, or bards,\nseem to have been distinguished from them by the discontinuance of\nall musical accompaniment. Originally, the bard sung, enlivening the\nsong with occasional touches of the simple four-stringed harp: his\nsuccessor, the rhapsode, recited, holding in his hand nothing but a\nbranch of laurel and depending for effect upon voice and manner,\u2014a\nspecies of musical and rhythmical declamation,[247] which gradually\nincreased in vehement emphasis and gesticulation until it approached\nto that of the dramatic actor. At what time this change took place,\nor whether the two different modes of enunciating the ancient epic\nmay for a certain period have gone on simultaneously, we have no\nmeans of determining. Hesiod receives from the Muse a branch of\nlaurel, as a token of his ordination into their service, which marks\nhim for a rhapsode; while the ancient bard with his harp is still\nrecognized in the Homeric Hymn to the Delian Apollo, as efficient\nand popular at the Panionic festivals in the island of Delos.[248]\nPerhaps the improvements made in the harp, to which three strings,\nin addition to the original four, were attached by Terpander (B. C.\n660), and the growing complication of instrumental music generally,\nmay have contributed to discredit the primitive accompaniment, and\nthus to promote the practice of recital: the story, that Terpander\nhimself composed music, not only for hexameter poems of his own,\nbut also for those of Homer, seems to indicate that the music which\npreceded him was ceasing to find favor.[249] By whatever steps the\nchange from the bard to the rhapsode took place, certain it is that\nbefore the time of Sol\u00f4n, the latter was the recognized and exclusive\norgan of the old Epic; sometimes in short fragments before private\ncompanies, by single rhapsodes,\u2014sometimes several rhapsodes in\ncontinuous succession at a public festival.\n\n [247] Aristotel. Poetic. c. 47; Welcker, Der Episch. Kyklos;\n Ueber den Vortrag der Homerischen Gedichte, pp. 340-406, which\n collects all the facts respecting the a\u0153di and the rhapsodes.\n Unfortunately, the ascertained points are very few.\n\n The laurel branch in the hand of the singer or reciter (for the\n two expressions are often confounded) seems to have been peculiar\n to the recitation of Homer and Hesiod (Hesiod, Theog. 30: Schol.\n ad Aristophan. Nub. 1367. Pausan. x. 7, 2). \u201cPoemata omne genus\n (says Apuleius, Florid. p. 122, Bipont.) apta _virg\u00e6_, lyr\u00e6,\n socco, cothurno.\u201d\n\n Not only Homer and Hesiod, but also Archilochus, were recited\n by rhapsodes (Athen\u00e6, xii. 620; also Plato, Legg. ii. p. 658).\n Consult, besides, Nitzsch, De Histori\u00e2 Homeri, Fascic. 2, p. 114,\n _seq._, respecting the rhapsodes; and O. M\u00fcller, History of the\n Literature of Ancient Greece, ch. iv. s. 3.\n\n The ideas of singing and speech are, however, often confounded,\n in reference to any verse solemnly and emphatically delivered\n (Thucydid. ii. 53)\u2014\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 ~\u1f84\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9~,\n \u1f2d\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bc\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7. And the rhapsodes\n are said to _sing_ Homer (Plato, Eryxias, c. 13; Hesych. v.\n \u0392\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2); Strabo (i. p. 18) has a good passage upon song and\n speech.\n\n William Grimm (Deutsche Heldensage, p. 373) supposes the ancient\n German heroic romances to have been recited or declaimed in a\n similar manner with a simple accompaniment of the harp, as the\n Servian heroic lays are even at this time delivered.\n\n Fauriel also tells us, respecting the French Carlovingian Epic\n (Romans de Chevalerie, Revue des Deux Mondes, xiii. p. 559):\n \u201cThe romances of the 12th and 13th centuries were really sung:\n the _jongleur_ invited his audience to hear a _belle chanson\n d\u2019histoire_,\u2014\u2018le mot chanter ne manque jamais dans la formule\n initiale,\u2019\u2014and it is to be understood literally: the music was\n simple and intermittent, more like a recitative; the jongleur\n carried a rebek, or violin with three strings, an Arabic\n instrument; when he wished to rest his voice, he played an air or\n ritournelle upon this; he went thus about from place to place,\n and the romances had no existence among the people, except\n through the aid and recitation of these jongleurs.\u201d\n\n It appears that there had once been rhapsodic exhibitions at the\n festivals of Dionysus, but they were discontinued (Klearchus ap.\n Athen\u00e6. vii. p. 275)\u2014probably superseded by the dithyramb and the\n tragedy.\n\n The etymology of \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c8\u1ff3\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 is a disputed point: Welcker traces it\n to \u1fe5\u03ac\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, most critics derive it from \u1fe5\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74\u03bd, which\n O. M\u00fcller explains \u201cto denote the coupling together of verses\n without any considerable divisions or pauses,\u2014the even, unbroken,\n continuous flow of the epic poem,\u201d as contrasted with the\n strophic or choric periods (_l. c._).\n\n [248] Homer, Hymn to Apoll. 170. The \u03ba\u03af\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74, \u1f40\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2,\n are constantly put together in that hymn: evidently, the\n instrumental accompaniment was essential to the hymns at the\n Ionic festival. Compare also the Hymn to Herm\u00eas (430), where\n the function ascribed to the Muses can hardly be understood to\n include non-musical recitation. The Hymn to Herm\u00eas is more recent\n than Terpander, inasmuch as it mentions the seven strings of the\n lyre, v. 50.\n\n [249] Terpander,\u2014see Plutarch, de Music\u00e2, c. 3-4; the facts\n respecting him are collected in Plehn\u2019s Lesbiaca, pp. 140-160;\n but very little can be authenticated.\n\n Stesander at the Pythian festivals sang the Homeric battles, with\n a harp accompaniment of his own composition (Athen\u00e6. xiv. p. 638).\n\n The principal testimonies respecting the rhapsodizing of the\n Homeric poems at Athens, chiefly at the Panathenaic festival, are\n Isokrat\u00eas, Panegyric. p. 74; Lycurgus contra Leocrat. p. 161;\n Plato, Hipparch. p. 228; Diogen. La\u00ebrt. Vit. Solon. i. 57.\n\n Inscriptions attest that rhapsodizing continued in great esteem,\n down to a late period of the historical age, both at Chios and\n Te\u00f4s, especially the former: it was the subject of competition\n by trained youth, and of prizes for the victor, at periodical\n religious solemnities: see Corp. Inscript. Boeckh, No. 2214-3088.\n\nRespecting the mode in which the Homeric poems were preserved,\nduring the two centuries (or as some think, longer interval)\nbetween their original composition and the period shortly preceding\nSol\u00f4n,\u2014and respecting their original composition and subsequent\nchanges,\u2014there are wide differences of opinion among able critics.\nWere they preserved with or without being written? Was the Iliad\noriginally composed as one poem, and the Odyssey in like manner, or\nis each of them an aggregation of parts originally self-existent\nand unconnected? Was the authorship of each poem single-headed or\nmany-headed?\n\nEither tacitly or explicitly, these questions have been generally\ncoupled together and discussed with reference to each other,\nby inquiries into the Homeric poems; though Mr. Payne Knight\u2019s\nProlegomena have the merit of keeping them distinct. Half a century\nago, the acute and valuable Prolegomena of F. A. Wolf, turning to\naccount the Venetian Scholia which had then been recently published,\nfirst opened philosophical discussion as to the history of the\nHomeric text. A considerable part of that dissertation (though by no\nmeans the whole) is employed in vindicating the position, previously\nannounced by Bentley, among others, that the separate constituent\nportions of the Iliad and Odyssey had not been cemented together\ninto any compact body and unchangeable order until the days of\nPeisistratus, in the sixth century before Christ. As a step towards\nthat conclusion, Wolf maintained that no written copies of either\npoem could be shown to have existed during the earlier times to which\ntheir composition is referred,\u2014and that without writing, neither the\nperfect symmetry of so complicated a work could have been originally\nconceived by any poet, nor, if realized by him, transmitted with\nassurance to posterity. The absence of easy and convenient writing,\nsuch as must be indispensably supposed for long manuscripts, among\nthe early Greeks, was thus one of the points in Wolf\u2019s case against\nthe primitive integrity of the Iliad and Odyssey. By Nitzsch and\nother leading opponents of Wolf, the connection of the one with the\nother seems to have been accepted as he originally put it; and it\nhas been considered incumbent on those, who defended the ancient\naggregate character of the Iliad and Odyssey, to maintain that they\nwere written poems from the beginning.\n\nTo me it appears that the architectonic functions ascribed by Wolf to\nPeisistratus and his associates, in reference to the Homeric poems,\nare nowise admissible. But much would undoubtedly be gained towards\nthat view of the question, if it could be shown that, in order to\ncontrovert it, we were driven to the necessity of admitting long\nwritten poems in the ninth century before the Christian era. Few\nthings, in my opinion, can be more improbable: and Mr. Payne Knight,\nopposed as he is to the Wolfian hypothesis, admits this no less than\nWolf himself.[250] The traces of writing in Greece, even in the\nseventh century before the Christian era, are exceedingly trifling.\nWe have no remaining inscription earlier than the 40th Olympiad,\nand the early inscriptions are rude and unskilfully executed: nor\ncan we even assure ourselves whether Archilochus, Simonid\u00eas of\nAmorgus, Kallinus, Tyrt\u00e6us, Xanthus, and the other early elegiac and\nlyric poets, committed their compositions to writing, or at what\ntime the practice of doing so became familiar. The first positive\nground, which authorizes us to presume the existence of a manuscript\nof Homer, is in the famous ordinance of Sol\u00f4n with regard to the\nrhapsodes at the Panathen\u00e6a; but for what length of time, previously,\nmanuscripts had existed, we are unable to say.\n\n [250] Knight, Prolegom. Hom. c. xxxviii-xl. \u201cHaud tamen ullum\n Homericorum carminum exemplar Pisistrati seculo antiquius\n extitisse, aut sexcentesimo prius anno ante C. N. scriptum\n fuisse, facile credam: rara enim et perdifficilis erat iis\n temporibus scriptura ob penuriam materi\u00e6 scribendo idone\u00e6, quum\n literas aut lapidibus exarare, aut tabulis ligneis aut laminis\n metalli alicujus insculpere oporteret.... Atque ideo memoriter\n retenta sunt, et h\u00e6c et alia veterum poetarum carmina, et per\n urbes et vicos et in principum virorum \u00e6dibus, decantata a\n rhapsodis. Neque mirandum est, ea per tot s\u00e6cula sic integra\n conservata esse, quoniam\u2014per eos tradita erant, qui ab omnibus\n Gr\u00e6ci\u00e6 et coloniarum regibus et civitatibus mercede satis ampl\u00e2\n conducti, omnia sua studia in iis ediscendis, retinendis, et rite\n recitandis, conferebant.\u201d Compare Wolf, Prolegom. xxiv-xxv.\n\n The evidences of early writing among the Greeks, and of written\n poems even anterior to Homer, may be seen collected in Kreuser\n (Vorfragen ueber Homeros, pp. 127-159, Frankfort, 1828). His\n proofs appear to me altogether inconclusive. Nitzsch maintains\n the same opinion (Histor. Homeri, Fasc. i. sect. xi. xvii.\n xviii.),\u2014in my opinion, not more successfully: nor does Franz\n (Epigraphic\u00ea Gr\u00e6c. Introd. s. iv.) produce any new arguments.\n\n I do not quite subscribe to Mr. Knight\u2019s language, when he says\n that _there is nothing wonderful_ in the long preservation of\n the Homeric poems _unwritten_. It is enough to maintain that the\n existence, and practical use of long manuscripts, by all the\n rhapsodes, under the condition and circumstances of the 8th and\n 9th centuries among the Greeks, would be a greater wonder.\n\nThose who maintain the Homeric poems to have been written from\nthe beginning, rest their case, not upon positive proofs,\u2014nor yet\nupon the existing habits of society with regard to poetry, for\nthey admit generally that the Iliad and Odyssey were not read,\nbut recited and heard,\u2014but upon the supposed necessity that there\nmust have been manuscripts,[251] to insure the preservation of the\npoems,\u2014the unassisted memory of reciters being neither sufficient\nnor trustworthy. But here we only escape a smaller difficulty by\nrunning into a greater; for the existence of trained bards, gifted\nwith extraordinary memory, is far less astonishing than that of long\nmanuscripts in an age essentially non-reading and non-writing, and\nwhen even suitable instruments and materials for the process are not\nobvious. Moreover, there is a strong positive reason for believing\nthat the bard was under no necessity for refreshing his memory by\nconsulting a manuscript. For if such had been the fact, blindness\nwould have been a disqualification for the profession, which we\nknow that it was not; as well from the example of Demodokus in the\nOdyssey, as from that of the blind bard of Chios, in the hymn to\nthe Delian Apollo, whom Thucydid\u00eas, as well as the general tenor of\nGrecian legend, identifies with Homer himself.[252] The author of\nthat Hymn, be he who he may, could never have described a blind\nman as attaining the utmost perfection in his art, if he had been\nconscious that the memory of the bard was only maintained by constant\nreference to the manuscript in his chest.\n\n [251] See this argument strongly put by Nitzsch, in the prefatory\n remarks at the beginning of his second volume of Commentaries on\n the Odyssey (pp. x-xxix). He takes great pains to discard all\n idea that the poems were written in order to be read. To the same\n purpose, Franz (Epigraphic\u00ea Gr\u00e6c. Introd. p. 32), who adopts\n Nitzsch\u2019s positions,\u2014\u201cAudituris enim, non lecturis, carmina\n parabant.\u201d\n\n [252] Odyss. viii. 65; Hymn. ad Apoll. 172: Pseudo-Herodot. Vit.\n Homer. c. 3; Thucyd. iii. 104.\n\n Various commentators on Homer imagined that, under the misfortune\n of Demodokus, the poet in reality described his own (Schol. ad\n Odyss. 1. 1; Maxim. Tyr. xxxviii. 1).\n\nNor will it be found, after all, that the effort of memory required,\neither from bards or rhapsodes, even for the longest of these old\nEpic poems,\u2014though doubtless great, was at all superhuman. Taking the\ncase with reference to the entire Iliad and Odyssey, we know that\nthere were educated gentlemen at Athens who could repeat both poems\nby heart:[253] but in the professional recitations, we are not to\nimagine that the same person did go through the whole: the recitation\nwas essentially a joint undertaking, and the rhapsodes who visited a\nfestival would naturally understand among themselves which part of\nthe poem should devolve upon each particular individual. Under such\ncircumstances, and with such means of preparation beforehand, the\nquantity of verse which a rhapsode could deliver would be measured,\nnot so much by the exhaustion of his memory, as by the physical\nsufficiency of his voice, having reference to the sonorous, emphatic,\nand rhythmical pronunciation required from him.[254]\n\n [253] Xenoph. Sympos. iii. 5. Compare, respecting the laborious\n discipline of the Gallic Druids, and the number of unwritten\n verses which they retained in their memories, C\u00e6sar, B. G. vi.\n 14; Mela. iii. 2; also Wolf, Prolegg. s. xxiv. and Herod. ii. 77,\n about the prodigious memory of the Egyptian priests at Heliopolis.\n\n I transcribe, from the interesting Discours of M. Fauriel\n (prefixed to his Chants Populaires de la Gr\u00e8ce Moderne, Paris\n 1824), a few particulars respecting the number, the mnemonic\n power, and the popularity of those itinerant singers or rhapsodes\n who frequent the festivals or _paneghyris_ of modern Greece: it\n is curious to learn that this profession is habitually exercised\n by _blind_ men (p. xc. _seq._).\n\n \u201cLes aveugles exercent en Gr\u00e8ce une profession qui les rend\n non seulement agr\u00e9ables, mais n\u00e9cessaires; le caract\u00e8re,\n l\u2019imagination, et la condition du peuple, \u00e9tant ce qu\u2019ils sont:\n c\u2019est la profession de chanteurs ambulans.... Ils sont dans\n l\u2019usage, tant sur le continent que dans les \u00eeles, de la Gr\u00e8ce,\n d\u2019apprendre par c\u0153ur le plus grand nombre qu\u2019ils peuvent de\n chansons populaires de tout genre et de toute \u00e9poque. Quelques\n uns finissent par en savoir une quantit\u00e9 prodigieuse, et tous\n en savent beaucoup. Avec ce tr\u00e9sor dans leur m\u00e9moire, ils sont\n toujours en marche, traversent la Gr\u00e8ce en tout sens; ils s\u2019en\n vont de ville en ville, de village en village, chantant \u00e0\n l\u2019auditoire qui se forme aussit\u00f4t autour d\u2019eux, partout o\u00f9 ils\n se montrent, celles de leurs chansons qu\u2019ils jugent convenir le\n mieux, soit \u00e0 la localit\u00e9, soit \u00e0 la circonstance, et re\u00e7oivent\n une petite r\u00e9tribution qui fait tout leur revenu. Ils ont l\u2019air\n de chercher de pr\u00e9f\u00e9rence, en tout lieu, la partie la plus\n inculte de la population, qui en est toujours la plus curieuse,\n la plus avide d\u2019impressions, et la moins difficile dans le\n choix de ceux qui leur sont offertes. Les Turcs seuls ne les\n \u00e9coutent pas. C\u2019est aux r\u00e9unions nombreuses, aux f\u00eates de village\n connues sous le nom de _Paneghyris_, que ces chanteurs ambulans\n accourent le plus volontiers. Ils chantent en s\u2019accompagnant d\u2019un\n instrument \u00e0 cordes que l\u2019on touche avec un archet, et qui est\n exactement l\u2019ancienne lyre des Grecs, dont il a conserv\u00e9 le nom\n comme la forme.\n\n \u201cCette lyre, pour \u00eatre enti\u00e8re, doit avoir cinq cordes: mais\n souvent elle n\u2019en a que deux ou trois, dont les sons, comme\n il est ais\u00e9 de pr\u00e9sumer, n\u2019ont rien de bien harmonieux. Les\n chanteurs aveugles vont ordinairement isol\u00e9s, et chacun d\u2019eux\n chante \u00e0 part des autres: mais quelquefois aussi ils se\n r\u00e9unissent par groupes de deux ou de trois, pour dire ensemble\n les m\u00eames chansons.... Ces modernes rhapsodes doivent \u00eatre\n divis\u00e9s en deux classes. Les uns (et ce sont, selon toute\n apparence, les plus nombreux) se bornent \u00e0 la function de\n recueillir, d\u2019apprendre par c\u0153ur, et de mettre en circulation,\n des pi\u00e8ces qu\u2019ils n\u2019ont point compos\u00e9es. Les autres (et ce sont\n ceux qui forment l\u2019ordre le plus distingu\u00e9 de leur corps), \u00e0\n cette fonction de r\u00e9p\u00e9titeurs et de colporteurs des po\u00e9sies\n d\u2019autrui, joignent celle de po\u00ebtes, et ajoutent \u00e0 la masse des\n chansons apprises d\u2019autres chants de leur fa\u00e7on.... Ces rhapsodes\n aveugles sont les nouvellistes et les historiens, en m\u00eame temps\n que les po\u00ebtes du peuple, en cela parfaitement semblables aux\n rhapsodes anciens de la Gr\u00e8ce.\u201d\n\n To pass to another country\u2014Persia, once the great rival of\n Greece: \u201cThe Kurroglian rhapsodes are called _Kurroglou-Khans_,\n from _khaunden_, to sing. Their duty is, to know by heart all the\n _mejjlisses_ (meetings) of Kurroglou, narrate them, or sing them\n with the accompaniment of the favorite instrument of Kurroglou,\n the chungur, or sitar, a three-stringed guitar. Ferdausi has\n also his _Shah-nama-Khans_, and the prophet Mohammed his _Koran\n Khans_. The memory of those singers is truly astonishing. At\n every request, they recite in one breath for some hours, without\n stammering, beginning the tale at the passage or verse pointed\n out by the hearers.\u201d (Specimens of the Popular Poetry of Persia,\n as found in the Adventures and Improvisations of Kurroglou, the\n Bandit Minstrel of Northern Persia, by Alexander Chodzko: London\n 1842, Introd. p. 13)\n\n \u201cOne of the songs of the Calmuck national bards sometimes lasts a\n whole day.\u201d (_Ibid._ p. 372.)\n\n [254] There are just remarks of Mr. Mitford on the possibility\n that the Homeric poems might have been preserved without writing\n (History of Greece, vol. i. pp. 135-137).\n\nBut what guarantee have we for the exact transmission of the text for\na space of two centuries by simply oral means? It may be replied,\nthat oral transmission would hand down the text as exactly as in\npoint of fact it was handed down. The great lines of each poem,\u2014the\norder of parts,\u2014the vein of Homeric feeling, and the general style\nof locution, and, for the most part, the true words,\u2014would be\nmaintained: for the professional training of the rhapsode, over and\nabove the precision of his actual memory, would tend to Homerize his\nmind (if the expression may be permitted), and to restrain him within\nthis magic circle. On the other hand, in respect to the details of\nthe text, we should expect that there would be wide differences and\nnumerous inaccuracies: and so there really were, as the records\ncontained in the Scholia, together with the passages cited in ancient\nauthors, but not found in our Homeric text, abundantly testify.[255]\n\n [255] Villoison, Prolegomen. pp. xxxiv-lvi; Wolf, Prolegomen.\n p. 37. D\u00fcntzer, in the Epicor. Gr\u00e6c. Fragm. pp. 27-29, gives\n a considerable list of the Homeric passages cited by ancient\n authors, but not found either in the Iliad or Odyssey. It is\n hardly to be doubted, however, that many of these passages\n belonged to other epic poems which passed under the name of\n Homer. Welcker (Der Episch. Kyklus, pp. 20-133) enforces this\n opinion very justly, and it harmonizes with his view of the name\n of Homer as coextensive with the whole Epic cycle.\n\nMoreover, the state of the Iliad and Odyssey, in respect to the\nletter called the Digamma, affords a proof that they were recited for\na considerable period before they were committed to writing, insomuch\nthat the oral pronunciation underwent during the interval a sensible\nchange.[256] At the time when these poems were composed, the Digamma\nwas an effective consonant, and figured as such in the structure of\nthe verse: at the time when they were committed to writing, it had\nceased to be pronounced, and therefore never found a place in any\nof the manuscripts,\u2014insomuch that the Alexandrine critics, though\nthey knew of its existence in the much later poems of Alk\u00e6us and\nSapph\u00f4, never recognized it in Homer. The hiatus, and the various\nperplexities of metre, occasioned by the loss of the Digamma, were\ncorrected by different grammatical stratagems. But the whole history\nof this lost letter is very curious, and is rendered intelligible\nonly by the supposition that the Iliad and Odyssey belonged for a\nwide space of time to the memory, the voice, and the ear, exclusively.\n\n [256] See this argument strongly maintained in Giese (Ueber\n den \u00c6olischen Dialekt, sect. 14. p. 160, _seqq._). He notices\n several other particulars in the Homeric language,\u2014the\n plenitude and variety of interchangeable grammatical forms,\u2014the\n numerous metrical licenses, set right by appropriate oral\n intonations,\u2014which indicate a language as yet not constrained by\n the fixity of written authority.\n\n The same line of argument is taken by O. M\u00fcller (History of the\n Literature of Ancient Greece, ch. iv. s. 5).\n\n Giese has shown also, in the same chapter, that all the\n manuscripts of Homer mentioned in the Scholia, were written in\n the Ionic alphabet (with \u0397 and \u03a9 as marks for the long vowels,\n and no special mark for the rough breathing), in so far as the\n special citations out of them enable us to verify.\n\nAt what period these poems, or, indeed, any other Greek poems, first\nbegan to be written, must be matter of conjecture, though there\nis ground for assurance that it was before the time of Sol\u00f4n. If,\nin the absence of evidence, we may venture upon naming any more\ndeterminate period, the question at once suggests itself, what were\nthe purposes which, in that stage of society, a manuscript at its\nfirst commencement must have been intended to answer? For whom was\na written Iliad necessary? Not for the rhapsodes; for with them it\nwas not only planted in the memory, but also interwoven with the\nfeelings, and conceived in conjunction with all those flexions and\nintonations of voice, pauses, and other oral artifices, which were\nrequired for emphatic delivery, and which the naked manuscript\ncould never reproduce. Not for the general public,\u2014_they_ were\naccustomed to receive it with its rhapsodic delivery, and with its\naccompaniments of a solemn and crowded festival. The only persons\nfor whom the written Iliad would be suitable, would be a select few;\nstudious and curious men,\u2014a class of readers, capable of analyzing\nthe complicated emotions which they had experienced as hearers in the\ncrowd, and who would, on perusing the written words, realize in their\nimaginations a sensible portion of the impression communicated by the\nreciter.[257]\n\n [257] Nitzsch and Welcker argue, that because the Homeric poems\n were _heard_ with great delight and interest, therefore the\n first rudiments of the art of writing, even while beset by a\n thousand mechanical difficulties, would be employed to record\n them. I cannot adopt this opinion, which appears to me to derive\n all its plausibility from our present familiarity with reading\n and writing. The first step from the recited to the written\n poem is really one of great violence, as well as useless for\n any want then actually felt. I much more agree with Wolf when\n he says: \u201cDiu enim illorum hominum vita et simplicitas nihil\n admodum habuit, quod scriptur\u00e2 dignum videretur: in aliis omnibus\n occupati agunt illi, qu\u00e6 posteri scribunt, vel (ut de quibusdam\n populis accepimus) etiam monstratam operam hanc spernunt tanquam\n indecori otii: carmina autem qu\u00e6 pangunt, longo usu sic ore\n fundere et excipere consueverunt, ut cantu et recitatione cum\n maxime vigentia deducere ad mutas notas, ex illius \u00e6tatis sensu\n nihil aliud esset, quam perimere ea et vitali vi ac spiritu\n privare.\u201d (Prolegom. s. xv. p. 59.)\n\n Some good remarks on this subject are to be found in William\n Humboldt\u2019s Introduction to his elaborate treatise _Ueber die\n Kawi-Sprache_, in reference to the oral tales current among the\n Basques. He, too, observes how great and repulsive a proceeding\n it is, to pass at first from verse sung, or recited, to verse\n written; implying that the words are conceived detached from\n the _Vortrag_, the accompanying music, and the surrounding\n and sympathizing assembly. The Basque tales have no charm for\n the people themselves, when put in Spanish words and read\n (Introduction, sect. xx. p. 258-259).\n\n Unwritten prose tales, preserved in the memory, and said to be\n repeated nearly in the same words from age to age, are mentioned\n by Mariner, in the Tonga Islands (Mariner\u2019s Account, vol. ii. p.\n 377).\n\n The Druidical poems were kept unwritten by design, after writing\n was in established use for other purposes (C\u00e6sar, B. G. vi. 13).\n\nIncredible as the statement may seem in an age like the present,\nthere is in all early societies, and there was in early Greece, a\ntime when no such reading class existed. If we could discover at\nwhat time such a class first began to be formed, we should be able\nto make a guess at the time when the old Epic poems were first\ncommitted to writing. Now the period which may with the greatest\nprobability be fixed upon as having first witnessed the formation\neven of the narrowest reading class in Greece, is the middle of\nthe seventh century before the Christian era (B. C. 660 to B. C.\n630),\u2014the age of Terpander, Kallinus, Archilochus, Simonid\u00eas of\nAmorgus, etc. I ground this supposition on the change then operated\nin the character and tendencies of Grecian poetry and music,\u2014the\nelegiac and iambic measures having been introduced as rivals to\nthe primitive hexameter, and poetical compositions having been\ntransferred from the epical past to the affairs of present and real\nlife. Such a change was important at a time when poetry was the only\nknown mode of publication (to use a modern phrase not altogether\nsuitable, yet the nearest approaching to the sense). It argued a new\nway of looking at the old epical treasures of the people, as well\nas a thirst for new poetical effect; and the men who stood forward\nin it may well be considered as desirous to study, and competent to\ncriticize, from their own individual point of view, the written words\nof the Homeric rhapsodes, just as we are told that Kallinus both\nnoticed and eulogized the Theba\u00efs as the production of Homer. There\nseems, therefore, ground for conjecturing, that (for the use of this\nnewly-formed and important, but very narrow class) manuscripts of\nthe Homeric poems and other old epics\u2014the Theba\u00efs and the Cypria as\nwell as the Iliad and the Odyssey\u2014began to be compiled towards the\nmiddle of the seventh century B. C.:[258] and the opening of Egypt\nto Grecian commerce, which took place about the same period, would\nfurnish increased facilities for obtaining the requisite papyrus\nto write upon. A reading class, when once formed, would doubtless\nslowly increase, and the number of manuscripts along with it; so that\nbefore the time of Sol\u00f4n, fifty years afterwards, both readers and\nmanuscripts, though still comparatively few, might have attained a\ncertain recognized authority, and formed a tribunal of reference,\nagainst the carelessness of individual rhapsodes.\n\n [258] Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. pp. 368-373)\n treats it as a matter of _certainty_ that Archilochus and\n Alkman _wrote_ their poems. I am not aware of any evidence for\n announcing this as positively known,\u2014except, indeed, an admission\n of Wolf, which is, doubtless, good as an _argumentum ad hominem_,\n but is not to be received as proof (Wolf, Proleg. p. 50). The\n evidences mentioned by Mr. Clinton (p. 368) certainly cannot be\n regarded as proving anything to the point.\n\n Giese (Ueber den \u00c6olischen Dialekt, p. 172) places the first\n writing of the separate rhapsodies composing the Iliad in the\n seventh century B. C.\n\nWe may, I think, consider the Iliad and Odyssey to have been\npreserved without the aid of writing, for a period near upon two\ncenturies.[259] But is it true, as Wolf imagined, and as other\nable critics have imagined, also, that the separate portions of\nwhich these two poems are composed were originally distinct epical\nballads, each constituting a separate whole and intended for separate\nrecitation? Is it true, that they had not only no common author, but\noriginally, neither common purpose nor fixed order, and that their\nfirst permanent arrangement and integration was delayed for three\ncenturies, and accomplished at last only by the taste of Peisistratus\nconjoined with various lettered friends?[260]\n\n [259] The songs of the Icelandic Skalds were preserved orally for\n a period longer than two centuries,\u2014P. A. M\u00fcller thinks very much\n longer,\u2014before they were collected, or embodied in written story\n by Snorro and S\u00e6mund (Lange, Untersuchungen \u00fcber die Gesch. der\n N\u00f6rdischen Heldensage. p. 98; also, Introduct. pp. xx-xxviii).\n He confounds, however, often, the preservation of the songs from\n old time,\u2014with the question, whether they have or have not an\n historical basis.\n\n And there were, doubtless, many old bards and rhapsodes in\n ancient Greece, of whom the same might be said which Saxo\n Grammaticus affirms of an Englishman named Lucas, that he was\n \u201cliteris quidem tenuiter instructus, sed historiarum scienti\u00e2\n apprime eruditus.\u201d (Dahlmann, Historische Forschungen, vol. ii.\n p. 176.)\n\n [260] \u201cHomer wrote a sequel of songs and rhapsodies, to be sung\n by himself for small earnings and good cheer, at festivals and\n other days of merriment; the Iliad he made for the men, the\n Odysseus for the other sex. These loose songs were not collected\n together into the form of an epic poem until 500 years after.\u201d\n\n Such is the naked language in which Wolf\u2019s main hypothesis had\n been previously set forth by Bentley, in his \u201cRemarks on a\n late Discourse of Freethinking, by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,\u201d\n published in 1713: the passage remained unaltered in the seventh\n edition of that treatise published in 1737. See Wolf\u2019s Proleg.\n xxvii. p. 115.\n\n The same hypothesis may be seen more amply developed, partly in\n the work of Wolfs pupil and admirer, William M\u00fcller, _Homerische\n Vorschule_ (the second edition of which was published at\n Leipsic, 1836, with an excellent introduction and notes by\n Baumgarten-Crusius, adding greatly to the value of the original\n work by its dispassionate review of the whole controversy),\n partly in two valuable Dissertations of Lachmann, published in\n the Philological Transactions of the Berlin Academy for 1837 and\n 1841.\n\nThis hypothesis\u2014to which the genius of Wolf first gave celebrity, but\nwhich has been since enforced more in detail by others, especially\nby William M\u00fcller and Lachmann\u2014appears to me not only unsupported by\nany sufficient testimony, but also opposed to other testimony as well\nas to a strong force of internal probability. The authorities quoted\nby Wolf are Josephus, Cicero, and Pausanias:[261] Josephus mentions\nnothing about Peisistratus, but merely states (what we may accept as\nthe probable fact) that the Homeric poems were originally unwritten,\nand preserved only in songs or recitations, from which they were at a\nsubsequent period put into writing: hence many of the discrepancies\nin the text. On the other hand, Cicero and Pausanias go farther, and\naffirm that Peisistratus both collected, and arranged in the existing\norder, the rhapsodies of the Iliad and Odyssey, (implied as poems\noriginally entire, and subsequently broken into pieces,) which he\nfound partly confused and partly isolated from each other,\u2014each part\nbeing then remembered only in its own portion of the Grecian world.\nRespecting Hipparchus the son of Peisistratus, too, we are told in\nthe Pseudo-Platonic dialogue which bears his name, that he was the\nfirst to introduce into Attica, the poetry of Homer, and that he\nprescribed to the rhapsodes to recite the parts of the Panathenaic\nfestival in regular sequence.[262]\n\n [261] Joseph, cont. Apion. i. 2; Cicero de Orator, iii. 34;\n Pausan. vii. 26, 6: compare the Scholion on Plautus in Ritschl,\n Die Alexandrin. Bibliothek, p. 4. \u00c6lian (V. II. xiii. 14),\n who mentions both the introduction of the Homeric poems into\n Peloponnesus by Lykurgus, and the compilation by Peisistratus,\n can hardly be considered as adding to the value of the testimony:\n still less, Libanius and Suidas. What we learn is, that some\n literary and critical men of the Alexandrine age (more or fewer,\n as the case may be; but Wolf exaggerates when he talks of an\n _unanimous_ conviction) spoke of Peisistratus as having first\n put together the fractional parts of the Iliad and Odyssey into\n entire poems.\n\n [262] Plato, Hipparch. p. 228.\n\nWolf and William M\u00fcller occasionally speak as if they admitted\nsomething like an Iliad and Odyssey as established aggregates prior\nto Peisistratus; but for the most part they represent him or his\nassociates as having been the first to put together Homeric poems\nwhich were before distinct and self-existent compositions. And\nLachmann, the recent expositor of the same theory, ascribes to\nPeisistratus still more unequivocally this original integration of\nparts in reference to the Iliad,\u2014distributing the first twenty-two\nbooks of the poem into sixteen separate songs, and treating it\nas ridiculous to imagine that the fusion of these songs, into\nan order such as we now read, belongs to any date earlier than\nPeisistratus.[263]\n\n [263] \u201cDoch ich komme mir bald l\u00e4cherlich vor, wenn ich noch\n immer die M\u00f6glichkeit gelten lasse, dass unsere Ilias in dem\n gegenw\u00e4rtigen Zusammenhange der bedeutenden Theile, und nicht\n blos der wenigen bedeutendsten, jemals vor der Arbeit des\n Pisistratus gedacht worden sey.\u201d (Lachmann, Fernere Betrachtungen\n \u00fcber die Ilias, sect. xxviii. p. 32; Abhandlungen Berlin. Academ.\n 1841.) How far this admission\u2014that for the _few most important_\n portions of the Iliad, there _did_ exist an established order\n of succession prior to Peisistratus\u2014is intended to reach, I do\n not know; but the language of Lachmann goes farther than either\n Wolf or William M\u00fcller. (See Wolf, Prolegomen. pp. cxli-cxlii,\n and W. M\u00fcller, Homerische Vorschule, Abschnitt vii. pp. 96, 98,\n 100, 102.) The latter admits that neither Peisistratus nor the\n Diaskeuasts could have made any considerable changes in the Iliad\n and Odyssey, either in the way of addition or of transposition;\n the poems as aggregates being too well known, and the Homeric\n vein of invention too completely extinct, to admit of such\n novelties.\n\n I confess, I do not see how these last-mentioned admissions\n can be reconciled with the main doctrine of Wolf, in so far as\n regards Peisistratus.\n\nUpon this theory we may remark, first, that it stands opposed to the\ntestimony existing respecting the regulations of Sol\u00f4n; who, before\nthe time of Peisistratus, had enforced a fixed order of recitation\non the rhapsodes of the Iliad at the Panathenaic festival; not only\ndirecting that they should go through the rhapsodies _seriatim_, and\nwithout omission or corruption, but also establishing a prompter\nor censorial authority to insure obedience,[264]\u2014which implies\nthe existence (at the same time that it proclaims the occasional\ninfringement) of an orderly aggregate, as well as of manuscripts\nprofessedly complete. Next, the theory ascribes to Peisistratus a\ncharacter not only materially different from what is indicated by\nCicero and Pausanias,\u2014who represent him, not as having put together\natoms originally distinct, but as the renovator of an ancient\norder subsequently lost,\u2014but also in itself unintelligible, and\ninconsistent with Grecian habit and feeling. That Peisistratus should\ntake pains to repress the license, or make up for the unfaithful\nmemory, of individual rhapsodes, and to ennoble the Panathenaic\nfestival by the most correct recital of a great and venerable\npoem, according to the standard received among the best judges in\nGreece,\u2014this is a task both suitable to his position, and requiring\nnothing more than an improved recension, together with exact\nadherence to it on the part of the rhapsodes. But what motive had he\nto string together several poems, previously known only as separate,\ninto one new whole? What feeling could he gratify by introducing\nthe extensive changes and transpositions surmised by Lachmann, for\nthe purpose of binding together sixteen songs, which the rhapsodes\nare assumed to have been accustomed to recite, and the people to\nhear, each by itself apart? Peisistratus was not a poet, seeking to\ninterest the public mind by new creations and combinations, but a\nruler, desirous to impart solemnity to a great religious festival in\nhis native city. Now such a purpose would be answered by selecting,\namidst the divergences of rhapsodes in different parts of Greece,\nthat order of text which intelligent men could approve as a return to\nthe pure and pristine Iliad; but it would be defeated if he attempted\nlarge innovations of his own, and brought out for the first time\na new Iliad by blending together, altering, and transposing, many\nold and well-known songs. A novelty so bold would have been more\nlikely to offend than to please both the critics and the multitude.\nAnd if it were even enforced, by authority, at Athens, no probable\nreason can be given why all the other towns, and all the rhapsodes\nthroughout Greece, should abnegate their previous habits in favor of\nit, since Athens at that time enjoyed no political ascendency such\nas she acquired during the following century. On the whole, it will\nappear that the character and position of Peisistratus himself go far\nto negative the function which Wolf and Lachmann put upon him. His\ninterference presupposes a certain foreknown and ancient aggregate,\nthe main lineaments of which were familiar to the Grecian public,\nalthough many of the rhapsodes in their practice may have deviated\nfrom it both by omission and interpolation. In correcting the\nAthenian recitations conformably with such understood general type,\nhe might hope both to procure respect for Athens, and to constitute\na fashion for the rest of Greece. But this step of \u201ccollecting the\ntorn body of sacred Homer,\u201d is something generically different from\nthe composition of a new Iliad out of pre\u00ebxisting songs the former\nis as easy, suitable, and promising, as the latter is violent and\ngratuitous.[265]\n\n [264] Diogen. La\u00ebrt. i. 57.\u2014\u03a4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f49\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 ~\u1f10\u03be \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2~ \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\n (\u03a3\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd) \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c8\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b7\u03be\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f14\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n Respecting Hipparchus, son of Peisistratus, the Pseudo-Plato\n tells us (in the dialogue so called, p. 228),\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f49\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u1f76, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c8\u1ff3\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 ~\u1f10\u03be \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2~ \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ca\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, ~\u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9~\n \u03bf\u1f35\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n These words have provoked multiplied criticisms from all the\n learned men who have touched upon the theory of the Homeric\n poems,\u2014to determine what was the practice which Solon found\n existing, and what was the change which he introduced. Our\n information is too scanty to pretend to certainty, but I think\n the explanation of Hermann the most satisfactory (\u201cQuid sit\n ~\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74~ et ~\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd~.\u201d\u2014_Opuscula_, tom. v. p. 300, tom. vii.\n p. 162).\n\n \u1f59\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 is the technical term for the prompter at a theatrical\n representation (Plutarch, Pr\u00e6cept. gerend. Reip. p. 813);\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 and \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd have corresponding meanings, of aiding\n the memory of a speaker and keeping him in accordance with a\n certain standard, in possession of the prompter: see the words\n \u1f10\u03be \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2, Xenophon. Cyrop\u00e6d. iii. 3, 37. \u1f59\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74, therefore,\n has no necessary connection with a series of rhapsodes, but would\n apply just as much to one alone; although it happens in this\n case to be brought to bear upon several in succession. \u1f59\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2,\n again, means \u201cthe taking up in succession of one rhapsode by\n another:\u201d though the two words, therefore, have not the same\n meaning, yet the proceeding described in the two passages,\n in reference both to Sol\u00f4n and Hipparchus, appears to be in\n substance the same,\u2014_i. e._ to insure, by compulsory supervision,\n a correct and orderly recitation by the successive rhapsodes who\n went through the different parts of the poem.\n\n There is good reason to conclude from this passage that the\n rhapsodes before Sol\u00f4n were guilty both of negligence and of\n omission in their recital of Homer, but no reason to imagine\n either that they transposed the books, or that the legitimate\n order was not previously recognized.\n\n The appointment of a systematic \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, or prompter, plainly\n indicates the existence of complete manuscripts.\n\n The direction of Sol\u00f4n, that Homer should be rhapsodized under\n the security of a prompter with his manuscript, appears just the\n same as that of the orator Lykurgus in reference to \u00c6schylus,\n Sophokl\u00eas, and Euripid\u00eas (Pseudo-Plutarch. Vit. x. Rhetor.\n Lycurgi Vit.)\u2014\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u2014\u1f61\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n (\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2) \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. The word \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2, which occurs last but one,\n is introduced by the conjecture of Grysar, who has cited and\n explained the above passage of the Pseudo-Plutarch in a valuable\n dissertation\u2014_De Gr\u00e6corum Trag\u0153di\u00e2, qualis fuit circa tempora\n Demosthenis_ (Cologne, 1830). All the critics admit the text\n as it now stands to be unintelligible, and various corrections\n have been proposed, among which that of Grysar seems the best.\n From his Dissertation, I transcribe the following passage, which\n illustrates the rhapsodizing of Homer \u1f10\u03be \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2:\u2014\n\n \u201cQuum histriones fabulis interpolandis \u00e6gre abstinerent, Lycurgus\n legem supra indicatam eo tulit consilio, ut recitationes\n histrionum cum publico illo exemplo omnino congruas redderet.\n Quod ut assequeretur, constituit, ut dum fabul\u00e6 in scen\u00e2\n recitarentur, scriba publicus simul exemplum civitatis\n inspiceret, juxta sive in theatro sive in postscenio sedens. H\u00e6c\n enim verbi \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd est significatio, posita pr\u00e6cipue\n in pr\u00e6positione \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70, ut idem sit, quod _contra_ sive _juxta_\n legere; id quod faciunt ii, _qui lecta ab altero vel recitata cum\n suis conferre cupiunt_.\u201d (Grysar, p. 7.)\n\n [265] That the Iliad or Odyssey were ever recited with all the\n parts entire, at any time anterior to Sol\u00f4n, is a point which\n Ritschl denies (Die Alexandrin. Bibliothek, pp. 67-70). He thinks\n that before Sol\u00f4n, they were always recited in parts, and without\n any fixed order among the parts. Nor did Sol\u00f4n determine (as he\n thinks) the order of the parts: he only checked the license of\n the rhapsodes as to the recitation of the separate books: it\n was Pesistratus, who, with the help of Onomakritus and others,\n first settled the order of the parts and bound each poem into a\n whole, with some corrections and interpolations. Nevertheless,\n he admits that the parts were originally composed by the same\n poet, and adapted to form a whole amongst each other: but this\n primitive entireness (he asserts) was only maintained as a sort\n of traditional belief, never realized in recitation, and never\n reduced to an obvious, unequivocal, and permanent fact,\u2014until the\n time of Peisistratus.\n\n There is no sufficient ground, I think, for denying all entire\n recitation previous to Sol\u00f4n, and we only interpose a new\n difficulty, both grave and gratuitous, by doing so.\n\nTo sustain the inference, that Peisistratus was the first architect\nof the Iliad and Odyssey, it ought at least to be shown that no other\nlong and continuous poems existed during the earlier centuries.\nBut the contrary of this is known to be the fact. The \u00c6thiopis of\nArktinus, which contained nine thousand one hundred verses, dates\nfrom a period more than two centuries earlier than Peisistratus:\nseveral other of the lost cyclic epics, some among them of\nconsiderable length, appear during the century succeeding Arktinus;\nand it is important to notice that three or four at least of these\npoems passed currently under the name of Homer.[266] There is no\ngreater intrinsic difficulty in supposing long epics to have begun\nwith the Iliad and Odyssey than with the \u00c6thiopis: the ascendency\nof the name of Homer and the subordinate position of Arktinus, in\nthe history of early Grecian poetry, tend to prove the former in\npreference to the latter.\n\n [266] The \u00c6thiopis of Arktinus contained nine thousand one\n hundred verses, as we learn from the Tabula Iliaca: yet Proklus\n assigns to it only four books. The Ilias Minor had _four_ books,\n the Cyprian Verses _eleven_, though we do not know the number of\n lines in either.\n\n Nitzsch states it as a certain matter of fact, that Arktinus\n recited his own poem _alone_, though it was too long to admit of\n his doing so without interruption. (See his Vorrede to the second\n vol. of the Odyssey, p. xxiv.) There is no evidence for this\n assertion, and it appears to me highly improbable.\n\n In reference to the Romances of the Middle Ages, belonging to the\n Cycle of the Round Table, M. Fauriel tells us that the German\n _Perceval_ has nearly twenty-five thousand verses (more than\n half as long again as the Iliad); the _Perceval_ of Christian\n of Troyes, probably more; the German _Tristan_, of Godfrey of\n Strasburg, has more than twenty-three thousand; sometimes, the\n poem is begun by one author, and continued by another. (Fauriel,\n Romans de Chevalerie, Revue des Deux Mondes, t. xiii. pp.\n 695-697.)\n\n The ancient unwritten poems of the Icelandic Skalds are as\n much lyric as epic: the longest of them does not exceed eight\n hundred lines, and they are for the most part much shorter\n (Untersuchungen \u00fcber die Geschichte der N\u00f6rdischen Heldensage,\n aus P. A. M\u00fcller\u2019s Sagabibliothek von G. Lange, Frankf. 1832,\n Introduct. p. xlii.).\n\nMoreover, we find particular portions of the Iliad, which expressly\npronounce themselves, by their own internal evidence, as belonging to\na large whole, and not as separate integers. We can hardly conceive\nthe Catalogue in the second book, except as a fractional composition,\nand with reference to a series of approaching exploits; for, taken\napart by itself, such a barren enumeration of names could have\nstimulated neither the fancy of the poet, nor the attention of the\nlisteners. But the Homeric Catalogue had acquired a sort of canonical\nauthority even in the time of Sol\u00f4n, insomuch that he interpolated a\nline into it, or was accused of doing so, for the purpose of gaining\na disputed point against the Megarians, who, on their side, set forth\nanother version.[267] No such established reverence could have been\nfelt for this document, unless there had existed for a long time\nprior to Peisistratus, the habit of regarding and listening to the\nIliad as a continuous poem. And when the philosopher Xenophan\u00eas,\ncontemporary with Peisistratus, noticed Homer as the universal\nteacher, and denounced him as an unworthy describer of the gods, he\nmust have connected this great mental sway, not with a number of\nunconnected rhapsodies, but with an aggregate Iliad and Odyssey;\nprobably with other poems, also, ascribed to the same author, such as\nthe Cypria, Epigoni, and Theba\u00efs.\n\n [267] Plutarch, Sol\u00f4n, 10.\n\nWe find, it is true, references in various authors to portions of\nthe Iliad, each by its own separate name, such as the Teichomachy,\nthe Aristeia (pre\u00ebminent exploits) of Diomed\u00eas, or Agamemn\u00f4n, the\nDoloneia, or Night-expedition (of Dolon as well as of Odysseus\nand Diomed\u00eas), etc., and hence, it has been concluded, that these\nportions originally existed as separate poems, before they were\ncemented together into an Iliad. But such references prove nothing\nto the point; for until the Iliad was divided by Aristarchus and his\ncolleagues into a given number of books, or rhapsodies, designated\nby the series of letters in the alphabet, there was no method of\ncalling attention to any particular portion of the poem except by\nspecial indication of its subject-matter.[268] Authors subsequent\nto Peisistratus, such as Herodotus and Plato, who unquestionably\nconceived the Iliad as a whole, cite the separate fractions of it by\ndesignations of this sort.\n\n [268] The Homeric Scholiast refers to Quintus Calaber \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u1f08\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u1fb3, which was only one portion of his long poem (Schol.\n ad Iliad. ii. 220).\n\nThe foregoing remarks on the Wolfian hypothesis respecting the text\nof the Iliad, tend to separate two points which are by no means\nnecessarily connected, though that hypothesis, as set forth by\nWolf himself, by W. M\u00fcller, and by Lachmann, presents the two in\nconjunction. First, was the Iliad originally projected and composed\nby one author, and as one poem, or were the different parts composed\nseparately and by unconnected authors, and subsequently strung\ntogether into an aggregate? Secondly, assuming that the internal\nevidences of the poem negative the former supposition, and drive us\nupon the latter, was the construction of the whole poem deferred,\nand did the parts exist only in their separate state, until a period\nso late as the reign of Peisistratus? It is obvious that these two\nquestions are essentially separate, and that a man may believe the\nIliad to have been put together out of pre\u00ebxisting songs, without\nrecognizing the age of Peisistratus as the period of its first\ncompilation. Now, whatever may be the steps through which the poem\npassed to its ultimate integrity, there is sufficient reason for\nbelieving that they had been accomplished long before that period:\nthe friends of Peisistratus found an Iliad already existing and\nalready ancient in their time, even granting that the poem had not\nbeen originally born in a state of unity. Moreover, the Alexandrine\ncritics, whose remarks are preserved in the Scholia, do not even\nnotice the Peisistratic recension among the many manuscripts which\nthey had before them: and Mr. Payne Knight justly infers from their\nsilence that either they did not possess it, or it was in their eyes\nof no great authority;[269] which could never have been the case if\nit had been the prime originator of Homeric unity.\n\n [269] Knight, Prolegg. Homer, xxxii. xxxvi. xxxvii. That\n Peisistratus caused a corrected MS. of the Iliad to be prepared,\n there seems good reason to believe, and the Scholion on Plautus\n edited by Ritschl (see Die Alexandrinische Bibliothek, p. 4)\n specifies the four persons (Onomakritus was one) employed on the\n task. Ritschl fancies that it served as a sort of Vulgate for the\n text of the Alexandrine critics, who named specially other MSS.\n (of Chios, Sin\u00f4p\u00ea, Massalia, etc.) only when they diverged from\n this Vulgate: he thinks, also, that it formed the original from\n whence those other MSS. were first drawn, which are called in the\n Homeric Scholia \u03b1\u1f31 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76, \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 (pp. 59-60).\n\n Welcker supposes the Peisistratic MS. to have been either lost\n or carried away when Xerx\u00eas took Athens (Der Epische Kyklus, pp.\n 382-388).\n\n Compare Nitzsch, Histor. Homer. Fasc. i. pp. 165-167; also his\n commentary on Odyss. xi. 604, the alleged interpolation of\n Onomakritus; and Ulrici, Geschichte der Hellen. Poes. Part i. s.\n vii. pp. 252-255.\n\n The main facts respecting the Peisistratic recension are\n collected and discussed by Gr\u00e4fenhan, Geschichte der Philologie,\n sect. 54-64, vol. i. pp. 266-311. Unfortunately, we cannot get\n beyond mere conjecture and possibility.\n\nThe line of argument, by which the advocates of Wolf\u2019s hypothesis\nnegative the primitive unity of the poem, consists in exposing gaps,\nincongruities, contradictions, etc., between the separate parts.\nNow, if in spite of all these incoherences, standing mementos of\nan antecedent state of separation, the component poems were made\nto coalesce so intimately as to appear as if they had been one\nfrom the beginning, we can better understand the complete success\nof the proceeding and the universal prevalence of the illusion,\nby supposing such coalescence to have taken place at a very early\nperiod, during the productive days of epical genius, and before the\ngrowth of reading and criticism. The longer the aggregation of the\nseparate poems was deferred, the harder it would be to obliterate\nin men\u2019s minds the previous state of separation, and to make them\naccept the new aggregate as an original unity. The bards or rhapsodes\nmight have found comparatively little difficulty in thus piecing\ntogether distinct songs, during the ninth or eighth century before\nChrist; but it we suppose the process to be deferred until the\nlatter half of the sixth century,\u2014if we imagine that Sol\u00f4n, with\nall his contemporaries and predecessors, knew nothing about any\naggregate Iliad, but was accustomed to read and hear only those\nsixteen distinct epical pieces into which Lachmann would dissect\nthe Iliad, each of the sixteen bearing a separate name of its\nown,\u2014no compilation then for the first time made by the friends of\nPeisistratus could have effaced the established habit, and planted\nitself in the general convictions of Greece as the primitive\nHomeric production. Had the sixteen pieces remained disunited and\nindividualized down to the time of Peisistratus, they would in\nall probability have continued so ever afterwards; nor could the\nextensive changes and transpositions which (according to Lachmann\u2019s\ntheory) were required to melt them down into our present Iliad, have\nobtained at that late period universal acceptance. Assuming it to\nbe true that such changes and transpositions did really take place,\nthey must at least be referred to a period greatly earlier than\nPeisistratus or Sol\u00f4n.\n\nThe whole tenor of the poems themselves confirms what is here\nremarked. There is nothing either in the Iliad or Odyssey which\nsavors of _modernism_, applying that term to the age of Peisistratus;\nnothing which brings to our view the alterations, brought about by\ntwo centuries, in the Greek language, the coined money, the habits\nof writing and reading, the despotisms and republican governments,\nthe close military array, the improved construction of ships, the\nAmphiktyonic convocations, the mutual frequentation of religious\nfestivals, the Oriental and Egyptian veins of religion, etc.,\nfamiliar to the latter epoch. These alterations Onomakritus and the\nother literary friends of Peisistratus, could hardly have failed\nto notice even without design, had they then for the first time\nundertaken the task of piecing together many self-existent epics into\none large aggregate.[270] Everything in the two great Homeric poems,\nboth in substance and in language, belongs to an age two or three\ncenturies earlier than Peisistratus. Indeed, even the interpolations\n(or those passages which on the best grounds are pronounced to be\nsuch) betray no trace of the sixth century before Christ, and may\nwell have been heard by Archilochus and Kallinus,\u2014in some cases\neven by Arktinus and Hesiod,\u2014as genuine Homeric matter. As far as\nthe evidences on the case, as well internal as external, enable us\nto judge, we seem warranted in believing that the Iliad and Odyssey\nwere recited substantially as they now stand, (always allowing for\npartial divergences of text, and interpolations,) in 776 B. C., our\nfirst trustworthy mark of Grecian time. And this ancient date,\u2014let\nit be added,\u2014as it is the best-authenticated fact, so it is also\nthe most important attribute of the Homeric poems, considered in\nreference to Grecian history. For they thus afford us an insight into\nthe ante-historical character of the Greeks,\u2014enabling us to trace\nthe subsequent forward march of the nation, and to seize instructive\ncontrasts between their former and their later condition.\n\n [270] Wolf allows both the uniformity of coloring, and the\n antiquity of coloring, which pervade the Homeric poems; also,\n the strong line by which they stand distinguished from the other\n Greek poets: \u201cImmo congruunt in iis omnia ferme in idem ingenium,\n in eosdem mores, in eandem formam sentiendi et loquendi.\u201d\n (Prolegom. p. cclxv; compare p. cxxxviii.)\n\n He thinks, indeed, that this harmony was _restored_ by the\n ability and care of Aristarchus, (\u201cmirificum illum concentum\n revocatum Aristarcho imprimis debemus.\u201d) This is a very\n exaggerated estimate of the interference of Aristarchus: but\n at any rate the _concentus_ itself was ancient and original,\n and Aristarchus only _restored_ it, when it had been spoiled\n by intervening accidents; at least, if we are to construe\n _revocatum_ strictly, which, perhaps, is hardly consistent with\n Wolf\u2019s main theory.\n\nRejecting, therefore, the idea of compilation by Peisistratus, and\nreferring the present state of the Iliad and Odyssey to a period\nmore than two centuries earlier, the question still remains, by what\nprocess, or through whose agency, they reached that state? Is each\npoem the work of one author, or of several? If the latter, do all the\nparts belong to the same age? What ground is there for believing,\nthat any or all of these parts existed before, as separate poems, and\nhave been accommodated to the place in which they now appear, by more\nor less systematic alteration?\n\nThe acute and valuable Prolegomena of Wolf, half a century ago,\npowerfully turned the attention of scholars to the necessity of\nconsidering the Iliad and Odyssey with reference to the age and\nsociety in which they arose, and to the material differences in\nthis respect between Homer and more recent epic poets.[271] Since\nthat time, an elaborate study has been bestowed upon the early\nmanifestations of poetry (Sagen-poesie) among other nations; and the\nGerman critics especially, among whom this description of literatures\nhas been most cultivated, have selected it as the only appropriate\nanalogy for the Homeric poems. Such poetry, consisting for the\nmost part of short, artless effusions, with little of deliberate\nor far-sighted combination, has been assumed by many critics as a\nfit standard to apply for measuring the capacities of the Homeric\nage; an age exclusively of speakers, singers, and hearers, not of\nreaders or writers. In place of the unbounded admiration which was\nfelt for Homer, not merely as a poet of detail, but as constructor\nof a long epic, at the time when Wolf wrote his Prolegomena, the\ntone of criticism passed to the opposite extreme, and attention was\nfixed entirely upon the defects in the arrangement of the Iliad and\nOdyssey. Whatever was to be found in them of symmetry or pervading\nsystem, was pronounced to be decidedly post-Homeric. Under such\npreconceived anticipations, Homer seems to have been generally\nstudied in Germany, during the generation succeeding Wolf, the\nnegative portion of whose theory was usually admitted, though as to\nthe positive substitute,\u2014what explanation was to be given of the\nhistory and present constitution of the Homeric poems,\u2014there was by\nno means the like agreement. During the last ten years, however, a\ncontrary tendency has manifested itself; the Wolfian theory has been\nre\u00ebxamined and shaken by Nitzsch, who, as well as O. M\u00fcller, Welcker,\nand other scholars, have revived the idea of original Homeric\nunity, under certain modifications. The change in Goethe\u2019s opinion,\ncoincident with this new direction, is recorded in one of his latest\nworks.[272] On the other hand, the original opinion of Wolf has\nalso been reproduced within the last five years, and fortified with\nseveral new observations on the text of the Iliad, by Lachmann.\n\n [271] See Wolf, Prolegg. c. xii. p. xliii. \u201cNondum enim prorsus\n ejecta et explosa est eorum ratio, qui Homerum et Callimachum\n et Virgilium et Nonnum et Miltonum eodem animo legunt, nec\n quid uniuscujusque \u00e6tas ferat, expendere legendo et computare\n laborant,\u201d etc.\n\n A similar and earlier attempt to construe the Homeric poems with\n reference to their age, is to be seen in the treatise called _Il\n Vero Omero_ of Vico,\u2014marked with a good deal of original thought,\n but not strong in erudition (Opere di Vico, ed. Milan, vol. v.\n pp. 437-497).\n\n [272] In the forty-sixth volume of his collected works, in the\n little treatise \u201c_Homer, noch einmal_:\u201d compare G. Lange, Ueber\n die Kyklischen Dichter (Mainz, 1837), Preface, p. vi.\n\nThe point is thus still under controversy among able scholars, and is\nprobably destined to remain so. For, in truth, our means of knowledge\nare so limited, that no man can produce arguments sufficiently cogent\nto contend against opposing preconceptions; and it creates a painful\nsentiment of diffidence when we read the expressions of equal and\nabsolute persuasion with which the two opposite conclusions have\nboth been advanced.[273] We have nothing to teach us the history of\nthese poems except the poems themselves. Not only do we possess no\ncollateral information respecting them or their authors, but we\nhave no one to describe to us the people or the age in which they\noriginated; our knowledge respecting contemporary Homeric society, is\ncollected exclusively from the Homeric compositions themselves. We\nare ignorant whether any other, or what other, poems preceded them,\nor divided with them the public favor; nor have we anything better\nthan conjecture to determine either the circumstances under which\nthey were brought before the hearers, or the conditions which a bard\nof that day was required to satisfy. On all these points, moreover,\nthe age of Thucydid\u00eas[274] and Plato seems to have been no better\ninformed than we are, except in so far as they could profit by the\nanalogies of the cyclic and other epic poems, which would doubtless\nin many cases have afforded valuable aid.\n\n [273] \u201cNon esse totam Iliadem aut Odysseam unius poet\u00e6 opus,\n ita extra dubitationem positam puto, ut qui secus sentiat, eum\n non satis lectitasse illa carmina contendam.\u201d (Godf. Hermann,\n Pr\u00e6fat. ad Odysseam, Lips. 1825, p. iv.) See the language of the\n same eminent critic in his treatise \u201cUeber Homer und Sappho,\u201d\n Opuscula, vol. v. p. 74.\n\n Lachmann, after having dissected the two thousand two hundred\n lines in the Iliad, between the beginning of the eleventh book,\n and line five hundred and ninety of the fifteenth, into four\n songs, \u201cin the highest degree different in their spirit,\u201d (\u201cihrem\n Geiste nach h\u00f6chst verschiedene Lieder,\u201d) tells us that whosoever\n thinks this difference of spirit inconsiderable,\u2014whosoever does\n not feel it at once when pointed out,\u2014whosoever can believe\n that the parts as they stand now belong to one artistically\n constructed Epos,\u2014\u201cwill do well not to trouble himself any more\n either with my criticisms or with epic poetry, because he is\n too weak to understand anything about it,\u201d (\u201cweil er zu schwach\n ist etwas darin zu verstehen:\u201d) Fernere Betrachtungen Ueber die\n Ilias: Abhandl. Berlin. Acad. 1841, p. 18, \u00a7 xxiii.\n\n On the contrary, Ulrici, after having shown (or tried to show)\n that the composition of Homer satisfies perfectly, in the main,\n all the exigencies of an artistic epic,\u2014adds, that this will\n make itself at once evident to all those who have any sense of\n artistical symmetry; but that, for those to whom that sense is\n wanting, no conclusive demonstration can be given. He warns the\n latter, however, that they are not to deny the existence of\n that which their shortsighted vision cannot distinguish, for\n everything cannot be made clear to children, which the mature man\n sees through at a glance (Ulrici, Geschichte des Griechischen\n Epos, Part i. ch. vii. pp. 260-261). Read also Payne Knight,\n Proleg. c. xxvii, about the insanity of the Wolfian school,\n obvious even to the \u201chomunculus e trivio.\u201d\n\n I have the misfortune to dissent from both Lachmann and Ulrici;\n for it appears to me a mistake to put the Iliad and Odyssey on\n the same footing, as Ulrici does, and as is too frequently done\n by others.\n\n [274] Plato, Aristotle, and their contemporaries generally, read\n the most suspicious portions of the Homeric poems as genuine\n (Nitzsch, Plan und Gang der Odyssee, in the Preface to his second\n vol. of Comments on the Odyssey, pp. lx-lxiv).\n\n Thucydid\u00eas accepts the Hymn to Apollo as a composition by the\n author of the Iliad.\n\nNevertheless, no classical scholar can be easy without _some_ opinion\nrespecting the authorship of these immortal poems. And the more\ndefective the evidence we possess, the more essential is it that\nall that evidence should be marshalled in the clearest order, and\nits bearing upon the points in controversy distinctly understood\nbeforehand. Both these conditions seem to have been often neglected,\nthroughout the long-continued Homeric discussion.\n\nTo illustrate the first point: Since two poems are comprehended in\nthe problem to be solved, the natural process would be, first, to\nstudy the easier of the two, and then to apply the conclusions thence\ndeduced as a means of explaining the other. Now, the Odyssey, looking\nat its aggregate character, is incomparably more easy to comprehend\nthan the Iliad. Yet most Homeric critics apply the microscope at\nonce, and in the first instance, to the Iliad.\n\nTo illustrate the second point: What evidence is sufficient to\nnegative the supposition that the Iliad or the Odyssey is a poem\noriginally and intentionally one? Not simply particular gaps and\ncontradictions, though they be even gross and numerous; but the\npreponderance of these proofs of mere unprepared coalescence over the\nother proofs of designed adaptation scattered throughout the whole\npoem. For the poet (or the co\u00f6perating poets, if more than one) may\nhave intended to compose an harmonious whole, but may have realized\ntheir intention incompletely, and left partial faults; or, perhaps,\nthe contradictory lines may have crept in through a corrupt text. A\nsurvey of the whole poem is necessary to determine the question; and\nthis necessity, too, has not always been attended to.\n\nIf it had happened that the Odyssey had been preserved to us alone,\nwithout the Iliad, I think the dispute respecting Homeric unity would\nnever have been raised. For the former is, in my judgment, pervaded\nalmost from beginning to end by marks of designed adaptation; and\nthe special faults which Wolf, W. M\u00fcller, and B. Thiersch,[275] have\nsingled out for the purpose of disproving such unity of intention,\nare so few, and of so little importance, that they would have been\nuniversally regarded as mere instances of haste or unskilfulness on\nthe part of the poet, had they not been seconded by the far more\npowerful battery opened against the Iliad. These critics, having\nlaid down their general presumptions against the antiquity of the\nlong epopee, illustrate their principles by exposing the many flaws\nand fissures in the Iliad, and then think it sufficient if they can\nshow a few similar defects in the Odyssey,\u2014as if the breaking up of\nHomeric unity in the former naturally entailed a similar necessity\nwith regard to the latter; and their method of proceeding, contrary\nto the rule above laid down, puts the more difficult problem in the\nforeground, as a means of solution for the easier. We can hardly\nwonder, however, that they have applied their observations in the\nfirst instance to the Iliad, because it is in every man\u2019s esteem\nthe more marked, striking, and impressive poem of the two,\u2014and the\ncharacter of Homer is more intimately identified with it than with\nthe Odyssey. This may serve as an explanation of the course pursued;\nbut be the case as it may in respect to comparative poetical merit,\nit is not the less true, that, as an aggregate, the Odyssey is more\nsimple and easily understood, and, therefore, ought to come first in\nthe order of analysis.\n\n [275] Bernhard Thiersch, Ueber das Zeitalter und Vaterland des\n Homer (Halberstadt, 1832), Einleitung, pp. 4-18.\n\nNow, looking at the Odyssey by itself, the proofs of an unity of\ndesign seem unequivocal and everywhere to be found. A premeditated\nstructure, and a concentration of interest upon one prime hero, under\nwell-defined circumstances, may be traced from the first book to the\ntwenty-third. Odysseus is always either directly or indirectly kept\nbefore the reader, as a warrior returning from the fulness of glory\nat Troy, exposed to manifold and protracted calamities during his\nreturn home, on which his whole soul is so bent that he refuses even\nthe immortality offered by Calyps\u00f4;\u2014a victim, moreover, even after\nhis return, to mingled injury and insult from the suitors, who have\nlong been plundering his property, and dishonoring his house; but\nat length obtaining, by valor and cunning united, a signal revenge,\nwhich restores him to all that he had lost. All the persons and all\nthe events in the poem are subsidiary to this main plot: and the\ndivine agency, necessary to satisfy the feeling of the Homeric man,\nis put forth by Poseid\u00f4n and Ath\u00ean\u00ea, in both cases from dispositions\ndirectly bearing upon Odysseus. To appreciate the unity of the\nOdyssey, we have only to read the objections taken against that of\nthe Iliad,\u2014especially in regard to the long withdrawal of Achilles,\nnot only from the scene, but from the memory,\u2014together with the\nindependent prominence of Ajax, Diom\u00ead\u00eas, and other heroes. How\nfar we are entitled from hence to infer the want of premeditated\nunity in the Iliad, will be presently considered; but it is certain\nthat the constitution of the Odyssey, in this respect, everywhere\ndemonstrates the presence of such unity. Whatever may be the interest\nattached to Penelop\u00ea, Telemachus, or Eum\u00e6us, we never disconnect\nthem from their association with Odysseus. The present is not the\nplace for collecting the many marks of artistical structure dispersed\nthroughout this poem; but it may be worth while to remark, that the\nfinal catastrophe realized in the twenty-second book,\u2014the slaughter\nof the suitors in the very house which they were profaning,\u2014is\ndistinctly and prominently marked out in the first and second books,\npromised by Teiresias in the eleventh, by Ath\u00ean\u00ea in the thirteenth,\nand by Helen in the fifteenth, and gradually matured by a series of\nsuitable preliminaries, throughout the eight books preceding its\noccurrence.[276] Indeed, what is principally evident, and what has\nbeen often noticed, in the Odyssey, is, the equable flow both of\nthe narrative and the events; the absence of that rise and fall of\ninterest which is sufficiently conspicuous in the Iliad.\n\n [276] Compare i, 295; ii. 145 (\u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03af \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n \u1f44\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5); xi. 118; xiii. 395; xv. 178; also xiv. 162.\n\nTo set against these evidences of unity, there ought, at least,\nto be some strong cases produced of occasional incoherence\nor contradiction. But it is remarkable how little of such\ncounter-evidence is to be found, although the arguments of Wolf,\nW. M\u00fcller, and B. Thiersch stand so much in need of it. They have\ndiscovered only one instance of undeniable inconsistency in the\nparts,\u2014the number of days occupied by the absence of Telemachus at\nPylus and Sparta. That young prince, though represented as in great\nhaste to depart, and refusing pressing invitations to prolong his\nstay, must, nevertheless, be supposed to have continued for thirty\ndays the guest of Menelaus, in order to bring his proceedings into\nchronological harmony with those of Odysseus, and to explain the\nfirst meeting of father and son in the swine-fold of Eum\u00e6us. Here is\nundoubtedly an inaccuracy, (so Nitzsch[277] treats it, and I think\njustly) on the part of the poet, who did not anticipate, and did not\nexperience in ancient times, so strict a scrutiny; an inaccuracy\ncertainly not at all wonderful; the matter of real wonder is, that it\nstands almost alone, and that there are no others in the poem.\n\n [277] Nitzsch, Plan und Gang der Odyssee, p. xliii, prefixed to\n the second vol. of his Commentary on the Odysseis.\n\n \u201cAt carminum primi auditores non adeo curiosi erant (observes\n Mr. Payne Knight, Proleg. c. xxiii.), ut ejusmodi rerum\n rationes aut exquirerent aut expenderent; neque eorum fides e\n subtilioribus congruentiis omnino pendebat. Monendi enim sunt\n etiam atque etiam Homericorum studiosi, veteres illos \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n non lingu\u00e2 professori\u00e2 inter viros criticos et grammaticos, aut\n alios quoscunque argutiarum captatores, carmina cantitasse,\n sed inter eos qui sensibus animorum libere, incaute, et effuse\n indulgerent,\u201d etc. Chap. xxii-xxvii. of Mr. Knight\u2019s Prolegomena,\n are valuable to the same purpose, showing the \u201chomines rudes et\n agrestes,\u201d of that day, as excellent judges of what fell under\n their senses and observation, but careless, credulous, and\n unobservant of contradiction, in matters which came only under\n the mind\u2019s eye.\n\nNow, this is one of the main points on which W. M\u00fcller and\nB. Thiersch rest their theory,\u2014explaining the chronological\nconfusion by supposing that the journey of Telemachus to Pylus and\nSparta, constituted the subject of an epic originally separate\n(comprising the first four books and a portion of the fifteenth),\nand incorporated at second-hand with the remaining poem. And they\nconceive this view to be farther confirmed by the double assembly\nof the gods, (at the beginning of the first book as well as of the\nfifth,) which they treat as an awkward repetition, such as could not\nhave formed part of the primary scheme of any epic poet. But here\nthey only escape a small difficulty by running into another and a\ngreater. For it is impossible to comprehend how the first four books\nand part of the fifteenth can ever have constituted a distinct epic;\nsince the adventures of Telemachus have no satisfactory termination,\nexcept at the point of confluence with those of his father, when the\nunexpected meeting and recognition takes place under the roof of\nEum\u00e6us,\u2014nor can any epic poem ever have described that meeting and\nrecognition without giving some account how Odysseus came thither.\nMoreover, the first two books of the Odyssey distinctly lay the\nground, and carry expectation forward, to the final catastrophe\nof the poem,\u2014treating Telemachus as a subordinate person, and his\nexpedition as merely provisional towards an ulterior result. Nor can\nI agree with W. M\u00fcller, that the real Odyssey might well be supposed\nto begin with the fifth book. On the contrary, the exhibition of\nthe suitors and the Ithakesian agora, presented to us in the second\nbook, is absolutely essential to the full comprehension of the books\nsubsequent to the thirteenth. The suitors are far too important\npersonages in the poem to allow of their being first introduced in\nso informal a manner as we read in the sixteenth book: indeed, the\npassing allusions of Ath\u00ean\u00ea (xiii. 310, 375) and Eum\u00e6us (xiv. 41,\n81) to the suitors, presuppose cognizance of them on the part of the\nhearer.\n\nLastly, the twofold discussion of the gods, at the beginning of the\nfirst and fifth books, and the double interference of Ath\u00ean\u00ea, far\nfrom being a needless repetition, may be shown to suit perfectly\nboth the genuine epical conditions and the unity of the poem.[278]\nFor although the final consummation, and the organization of\nmeasures against the suitors, was to be accomplished by Odysseus\nand Telemachus jointly, yet the march and adventures of the two,\nuntil the moment of their meeting in the dwelling of Eum\u00e6us, were\nessentially distinct. But, according to the religious ideas of the\nold epic, the presiding direction of Ath\u00ean\u00ea was necessary for the\nsafety and success of both of them. Her first interference arouses\nand inspires the son, her second produces the liberation of the\nfather,\u2014constituting a point of union and common origination for two\nlines of adventures, in both of which she takes earnest interest, but\nwhich are necessarily for a time kept apart in order to coincide at\nthe proper moment.\n\n [278] W. M\u00fcller is not correct in saying that, in the first\n assembly of the gods, Zeus promises something which he does not\n perform: Zeus does not _promise_ to send Hermes as messenger to\n Kalyps\u00f4, in the first book, though Ath\u00ean\u00ea urges him to do so.\n Zeus, indeed, requires to be urged twice before he dictates to\n Kalyps\u00f4 the release of Odysseus, but he had already intimated, in\n the first book, that he felt great difficulty in protecting the\n hero, because of the wrath manifested against him by Poseid\u00f4n.\n\nIt will thus appear that the twice-repeated agora of the gods in the\nOdyssey, bringing home, as it does to one and the same divine agent,\nthat double start which is essential to the scheme of the poem,\nconsists better with the supposition of premeditated unity than with\nthat of distinct self-existent parts. And, assuredly, the manner in\nwhich Telemachus and Odysseus, both by different roads, are brought\ninto meeting and conjunction at the dwelling of Eum\u00e6us, is something\nnot only contrived, but very skilfully contrived. It is needless\nto advert to the highly interesting character of Eum\u00e6us, rendered\navailable as a rallying-point, though in different ways, both to the\nfather and the son, over and above the sympathy which he himself\ninspires.\n\nIf the Odyssey be not an original unity, of what self-existent\nparts can we imagine it to have consisted? To this question it is\ndifficult to imagine a satisfactory reply: for the supposition that\nTelemachus and his adventures may once have formed the subject of a\nseparate epos, apart from Odysseus, appears inconsistent with the\nwhole character of that youth as it stands in the poem, and with the\nevents in which he is made to take part. We could better imagine\nthe distribution of the adventures of Odysseus himself into two\nparts,\u2014one containing his wanderings and return, the other handling\nhis ill-treatment by the suitors, and his final triumph. But though\neither of these two subjects might have been adequate to furnish\nout a separate poem, it is nevertheless certain that, as they are\npresented in the Odyssey, the former cannot be divorced from the\nlatter. The simple return of Odysseus, as it now stands in the\npoem, could satisfy no one as a final close, so long as the suitors\nremain in possession of his house, and forbid his reunion with his\nwife. Any poem which treated his wanderings and return separately,\nmust have represented his reunion with Penelop\u00ea and restoration to\nhis house, as following naturally upon his arrival in Ithaka,\u2014thus\ntaking little or no notice of the suitors. But this would be a\ncapital mutilation of the actual epical narrative, which considers\nthe suitors at home as an essential portion of the destiny of the\nmuch-suffering hero, not less than his shipwrecks and trials at sea.\nHis return (separately taken) is foredoomed, according to the curse\nof Polyphemus, executed by Poseid\u00f4n, to be long deferred, miserable,\nsolitary, and ending with destruction in his house to greet him;[279]\nand the ground is thus laid, in the very recital of his wanderings,\nfor a new series of events which are to happen to him after his\narrival in Ithaka. There is no tenable halting-place between the\ndeparture of Odysseus from Troy, and the final restoration to his\nhouse and his wife. The distance between these two events may,\nindeed, be widened, by accumulating new distresses and impediments,\nbut any separate portion of it cannot be otherwise treated than as a\nfraction of the whole. The beginning and the end are here the data\nin respect to epical genesis, though the intermediate events admit\nof being conceived as variables, more or less numerous: so that the\nconception of the whole may be said without impropriety both to\nprecede and to govern that of the constituent parts.\n\n [279] Odyss. ix. 534.\u2014\n\n \u1f48\u03c8\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f40\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\n \u039d\u03b7\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u1ff3\u2014\n \u1f6b\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 (the Cyclops to Poseid\u00f4n) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03c5\u03b5 \u039a\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nThe general result of a study of the Odyssey may be set down as\nfollows: 1. The poem, as it now stands, exhibits unequivocally\nadaptation of parts and continuity of structure, whether by one\nor by several consentient hands: it may, perhaps, be a secondary\nformation, out of a pre\u00ebxisting Odyssey of smaller dimensions;\nbut, if so, the parts of the smaller whole must have been so far\nrecast as to make them suitable members of the larger, and are noway\nrecognizable by us. 2. The subject-matter of the poem not only does\nnot favor, but goes far to exclude, the possibility of the Wolfian\nhypothesis. Its events cannot be so arranged as to have composed\nseveral antecedent substantive epics, afterwards put together into\nthe present aggregate. Its authors cannot have been mere compilers\nof pre\u00ebxisting materials, such as Peisistratus and his friends: they\nmust have been poets, competent to work such matter as they found,\ninto a new and enlarged design of their own. Nor can the age in\nwhich this long poem, of so many thousand lines, was turned out as\na continuous aggregate, be separated from the ancient, productive,\ninspired age of Grecian epic.\n\nArriving at such conclusions from the internal evidence of the\nOdyssey,[280] we can apply them by analogy to the Iliad. We learn\nsomething respecting the character and capacities of that early\nage which has left no other mementos except these two poems. Long\ncontinuous epics (it is observed by those who support the views\nof Wolf), with an artistical structure, are inconsistent with the\ncapacities of a rude and non-writing age. Such epics (we may reply)\nare _not inconsistent_ with the early age of the Greeks, and the\nOdyssey is a proof of it; for in that poem the integration of the\nwhole, and the composition of the parts, must have been simultaneous.\nThe analogy of the Odyssey enables us to rebut that preconception\nunder which many ingenious critics sit down to the study of the\nIliad, and which induces them to explain all the incoherences of the\nlatter by breaking it up into smaller unities, as if short epics were\nthe only manifestation of poetical power which the age admitted.\nThere ought to be no reluctance in admitting a presiding scheme and\npremeditated unity of parts, in so far as the parts themselves point\nto such a conclusion.\n\n [280] Wolf admits, in most unequivocal language, the compact\n and artful structure of the Odyssey. Against this positive\n internal evidence, he sets the general presumption, that no such\n constructive art can possibly have belonged to a poet of the age\n of Homer: \u201cDe Odysse\u00e2 maxime, cujus admirabilis summa et compages\n pro pr\u00e6clarissimo monumento Gr\u00e6ci ingenii habenda est.... Unde\n fit ut Odysseam nemo, cui omnino priscus vates placeat, nisi\n perlectam e manu deponere queat. At illa ars id ipsum est, quod\n _vix ac ne vix quidem cadere_ videtur in vatem, singulas tantum\n rhapsodias decantantem,\u201d etc. (Prolegomen. pp. cxviii-cxx;\n compare cxii.)\n\nThat the Iliad is not so essentially one piece as the Odyssey, every\nman agrees. It includes a much greater multiplicity of events, and\nwhat is yet more important, a greater multiplicity of prominent\npersonages: the very indefinite title which it bears, as contrasted\nwith the speciality of the name, _Odyssey_, marks the difference\nat once. The parts stand out more conspicuously from the whole,\nand admit more readily of being felt and appreciated in detached\nrecitation. We may also add, that it is of more unequal execution\nthan the Odyssey,\u2014often rising to a far higher pitch of grandeur, but\nalso, occasionally, tamer: the story does not move on continuously;\nincidents occur without plausible motive, nor can we shut our eyes to\nevidences of incoherence and contradiction.\n\nTo a certain extent, the Iliad is open to all these remarks, though\nWolf and William M\u00fcller, and above all Lachmann, exaggerate the case\nin degree. And from hence has been deduced the hypothesis which\ntreats the parts in their original state as separate integers,\nindependent of, and unconnected with, each other, and forced into\nunity only by the afterthought of a subsequent age; or sometimes, not\neven themselves as integers, but as aggregates grouped together out\nof fragments still smaller,\u2014short epics formed by the coalescence\nof still shorter songs. Now there is some plausibility in these\nreasonings, so long as the discrepancies are looked upon as the\nwhole of the case. But in point of fact they are not the whole of\nthe case: for it is not less true, that there are large portions\nof the Iliad which present positive and undeniable evidences of\ncoherence as antecedent and consequent, though we are occasionally\nperplexed by inconsistencies of detail. To deal with these latter,\nis a portion of the duties of the critic. But he is not to treat the\nIliad as if inconsistency prevailed everywhere throughout its parts;\nfor coherence of parts\u2014symmetrical antecedence and consequence\u2014is\ndiscernible throughout the larger half of the poem.\n\nNow the Wolfian theory explains the gaps and contradictions\nthroughout the narrative, but it explains nothing else. If (as\nLachmann thinks) the Iliad originally consisted of sixteen songs,\nor little substantive epics, (Lachmann\u2019s sixteen songs cover the\nspace only as far as the 22d book, or the death of Hector, and two\nmore songs would have to be admitted for the 23d and 24th books),\u2014not\nonly composed by different authors, but by each[281] without any view\nto conjunction with the rest,\u2014we have then no right to expect any\nintrinsic continuity between them; and all that continuity which we\nnow find must be of extraneous origin. Where are we to look for the\norigin? Lachmann follows Wolf, in ascribing the whole constructive\nprocess to Peisistratus and his associates, at a period when the\ncreative epical faculty is admitted to have died out. But upon this\nsupposition, Peisistratus (or his associates) must have done much\nmore than omit, transpose, and interpolate, here and there; he must\nhave gone far to rewrite the whole poem. A great poet might have\nrecast pre\u00ebxisting separate songs into one comprehensive whole, but\nno mere arrangers or compilers would be competent to do so: and we\nare thus left without any means of accounting for that degree of\ncontinuity and consistence which runs through so large a portion of\nthe Iliad, though not through the whole. The idea that the poem,\nas we read it, grew out of atoms not originally designed for the\nplaces which they now occupy, involves us in new and inextricable\ndifficulties, when we seek to elucidate either the mode of\ncoalescence or the degree of existing unity.[282]\n\n [281] Lachmann seems to admit one case in which the composer of\n one song manifests cognizance of another song, and a disposition\n to give what will form a sequel to it. His fifteenth song (the\n Patrokleia) lasts from xv. 592 down to the end of the 17th book:\n the sixteenth song (including the four next books, from eighteen\n to twenty-two inclusive) is a continuation of the fifteenth,\n but by a different poet. (Fernere Betrachtungen \u00fcber die Ilias,\n Abhandl. Berlin. Acad. 1841, sect. xxvi. xxviii. xxix. pp. 24,\n 34, 42.)\n\n This admission of premeditated adaptation to a certain extent\n breaks up the integrity of the Wolfian hypothesis.\n\n [282] The advocates of the Wolfian theory, appear to feel the\n difficulties which beset it; for their language is wavering in\n respect to these supposed primary constituent atoms. Sometimes\n Lachmann tells us, that the original pieces were much finer\n poetry than the Iliad as we now read it; at another time, that\n it cannot be now discovered what they originally were: nay, he\n farther admits, (as remarked in the preceding note,) that the\n poet of the sixteenth song had cognizance of the fifteenth.\n\n But if it be granted that the original constituent songs were\n so composed, though by different poets, as that the more recent\n were adapted to the earlier with more or less dexterity and\n success, this brings us into totally different conditions of the\n problem. It is a virtual surrender of the Wolfian hypothesis,\n which, however, Lachmann both means to defend, and does defend\n with ability; though his vindication of it has, to my mind, only\n the effect of exposing its inherent weakness by carrying it out\n into something detailed and positive. I will add, in respect to\n his Dissertations, so instructive as a microscopic examination\n of the poem,\u20141. That I find myself constantly dissenting from\n that critical feeling, on the strength of which he cuts out\n parts as interpolations, and discovers traces of the hand of\n distinct poets; 2. That his objections against the continuity\n of the narrative are often founded upon lines which the ancient\n scholiasts and Mr. Payne Knight had already pronounced to be\n interpolations; 3. That such of his objections as are founded\n upon lines undisputed, admit in many cases of a complete and\n satisfactory reply.\n\nAdmitting then premeditated adaptation of parts to a certain extent\nas essential to the Iliad, we may yet inquire, whether it was\nproduced all at once, or gradually enlarged,\u2014whether by one author,\nor by several; and, if the parts be of different age, which is the\nprimitive kernel, and which are the additions.\n\nWelcker, Lange, and Nitzsch[283] treat the Homeric poems as\nrepresenting a second step in advance, in the progress of popular\npoetry. First, comes the age of short narrative songs; next, when\nthese have become numerous, there arise constructive minds, who\nrecast and blend together many of them into a larger aggregate,\nconceived upon some scheme of their own. The age of the epos is\nfollowed by that of the epopee,\u2014short, spontaneous effusions\npreparing the way, and furnishing materials, for the architectonic\ngenius of the poet. It is farther presumed by the above-mentioned\nauthors, that the pre-Homeric epic included a great abundance of\nsuch smaller songs,\u2014a fact which admits of no proof, but which seems\ncountenanced by some passages in Homer, and is in itself no way\nimprobable. But the transition from such songs, assuming them to be\never so numerous, to a combined and continuous poem, forms an epoch\nin the intellectual history of the nation, implying mental qualities\nof a higher order than those upon which the songs themselves depend.\nNor is it to be imagined that the materials pass unaltered from their\nfirst state of isolation into their second state of combination.\nThey must of necessity be recast, and undergo an adapting process,\nin which the genius of the organizing poet consists; nor can we\nhope, by simply knowing them as they exist in the second stage, ever\nto divine how they stood in the first. Such, in my judgment, is\nthe right conception of the Homeric epoch,\u2014an organizing poetical\nmind, still preserving that freshness of observation and vivacity of\ndetails which constitutes the charm of the ballad.\n\n [283] Lange, in his Letter to Goethe, Ueber die Einheit der\n Iliade, p. 33 (1826); Nitzsch, Historia Homeri, Fasciculus 2,\n Pr\u00e6fat. p. x.\n\nNothing is gained by studying the Iliad as a congeries of fragments\nonce independent of each other: no portion of the poem can be shown\nto have ever been so, and the supposition introduces difficulties\ngreater than those which it removes. But it is not necessary to\naffirm that the whole poem as we now read it, belonged to the\noriginal and preconceived plan.[284] In this respect, the Iliad\nproduces, upon my mind, an impression totally different from the\nOdyssey. In the latter poem, the characters and incidents are\nfewer, and the whole plot appears of one projection, from the\nbeginning down to the death of the suitors: none of the parts look\nas if they had been composed separately, and inserted by way of\naddition into a pre\u00ebxisting smaller poem. But the Iliad, on the\ncontrary, presents the appearance of a house built upon a plan\ncomparatively narrow, and subsequently enlarged by successive\nadditions. The first book, together with the eighth, and the books\nfrom the eleventh to the twenty-second, inclusive, seem to form the\nprimary organization of the poem, then properly an Achill\u00eais: the\ntwenty-third and twenty-fourth books are, perhaps, additions at\nthe tail of this primitive poem, which still leave it nothing more\nthan an enlarged Achill\u00eais. But the books from the second to the\nseventh, inclusive, together with the tenth, are of a wider and more\ncomprehensive character, and convert the poem from an Achill\u00eais into\nan Iliad.[285] The primitive frontispiece, inscribed with the anger\nof Achilles, and its direct consequences, yet remains, after it has\nceased to be coextensive with the poem. The parts added, however, are\nnot necessarily inferior in merit to the original poem: so far is\nthis from being the case, that amongst them are comprehended some of\nthe noblest efforts of the Grecian epic. Nor are they more recent in\ndate than the original; strictly speaking, they must be a little more\nrecent, but they belong to the same generation and state of society\nas the primitive Achill\u00eais. These qualifications are necessary to\nkeep apart different questions, which, in discussions of Homeric\ncriticism, are but too often confounded.\n\n [284] Even Aristotle, the great builder-up of the celebrity of\n Homer as to epical aggregation, found some occasions (it appears)\n on which he was obliged to be content with simply excusing,\n without admiring, the poet (Poet. 44 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f41\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd.)\n\n And Hermann observes justly, in his acute treatise De\n Interpolationibus Homeri (Opuscula, tom. v. p. 53),\u2014\u201cNisi\n admirabilis illa Homericorum carminum suavitas lectorum animos\n quasi incantationibus quibusdam captos teneret, non tam facile\n delitescerent, qu\u00e6 accuratius considerata, et multo minus apte\n quam quis jure postulet composita esse apparere necesse est.\u201d\n\n This treatise contains many criticisms on the structure of the\n Iliad, some of them very well founded, though there are many from\n which I dissent.\n\n [285] In reference to the books from the second to the seventh,\n inclusive, I agree with the observations of William M\u00fcller,\n Homerische Vorschule, Abschnitt viii. pp. 116-118.\n\nIf we take those portions of the poem which I imagine to have\nconstituted the original Achill\u00eais, it will be found that the\nsequence of events contained in them is more rapid, more unbroken,\nand more intimately knit together in the way of cause and effect,\nthan in the other books. Heyne and Lachmann, indeed, with other\nobjecting critics, complains of the action in them as being too much\ncrowded and hurried, since one day lasts from the beginning of the\neleventh book to the middle of the eighteenth, without any sensible\nhalt in the march throughout so large a portion of the journey.\nLachmann, likewise, admits that those separate songs, into which he\nimagines that the whole Iliad may be dissected, cannot be severed\nwith the same sharpness, in the books subsequent to the eleventh,\nas in those before it.[286] There is only one real halting-place\nfrom the eleventh book to the twenty-second,\u2014the death of Patroclus;\nand this can never be conceived as the end of a separate poem,[287]\nthough it is a capital step in the development of the Achill\u00eais, and\nbrings about that entire revolution in the temper of Achilles which\nwas essential for the purpose of the poet. It would be a mistake to\nimagine that there ever could have existed a separate poem called\nPatrocleia, though a part of the Iliad was designated by that name.\nFor Patroclus has no substantive position: he is the attached friend\nand second of Achilles, but nothing else,\u2014standing to the latter in\na relation of dependence resembling that of Telemachus to Odysseus.\nAnd the way in which Patroclus is dealt with in the Iliad, is, (in\nmy judgment,) the most dexterous and artistical contrivance in\nthe poem,\u2014that which approaches nearest to the neat tissue of the\nOdyssey.[288]\n\n [286] Lachmann, Fernere Betrachtungen \u00fcber die Ilias,\n Abhandlungen Berlin. Acad. 1841, p. 4.\n\n After having pointed out certain discrepancies which he maintains\n to prove different composing hands, he adds: \u201cNevertheless, we\n must be careful not to regard the single constituent songs in\n this part of the poem as being distinct and separable in a degree\n equal to those in the first half; for they all with one accord\n harmonize in one particular circumstance, which, with reference\n to the story of the Iliad, is not less important even than the\n anger of Achilles, viz. that the three most distinguished heroes,\n Agamemn\u00f4n, Odysseus, and Diom\u00ead\u00eas, all become disabled throughout\n the whole duration of the battles.\u201d\n\n Important for the story of the _Achill\u00eais_, I should say, not\n for that of the _Iliad_. This remark of Lachmann is highly\n illustrative for the distinction between the original and the\n enlarged poem.\n\n [287] I confess my astonishment that a man of so much genius and\n power of thought as M. Benjamin Constant, should have imagined\n the original Iliad to have concluded with the death of Patroclus,\n on the ground that Achilles then becomes reconciled with\n Agamemn\u00f4n. See the review of B. Constant\u2019s work, De la Religion,\n etc., by O. M\u00fcller, in the Kleine Schriften of the latter, vol.\n ii. p. 74.\n\n [288] He appears as the mediator between the insulted Achilles\n and the Greeks, manifesting kindly sympathies for the latter\n without renouncing his fidelity to the former. The wounded\n Machaon, an object of interest to the whole camp, being carried\n off the field by Nestor,\u2014Achilles, looking on from his distant\n ship, sends Patroclus to inquire whether it be really Machaon;\n which enables Nestor to lay before Patroclus the deplorable state\n of the Grecian host, as a motive to induce him and Achilles again\n to take arms. The compassionate feelings of Patroclus being\n powerfully touched, he is hastening to enforce upon Achilles the\n urgent necessity of giving help, when he meets Eurypylus crawling\n out of the field, helpless with a severe wound, and imploring\n his succor. He supports the wounded warrior to his tent, and\n ministers to his suffering; but before this operation is fully\n completed, the Grecian host has been totally driven back, and the\n Trojans are on the point of setting fire to the ships: Patroclus\n then hurries to Achilles to proclaim the desperate peril which\n hangs over them all, and succeeds in obtaining his permission\n to take the field at the head of the Myrmidons. The way in\n which Patroclus is kept present to the hearer, as a prelude to\n his brilliant but short-lived display, when he comes forth in\n arms,\u2014the contrast between his characteristic gentleness and the\n ferocity of Achilles,\u2014and the natural train of circumstances\n whereby he is made the vehicle of reconciliation on the part of\n his offended friend, and rescue to his imperiled countrymen,\u2014all\n these exhibit a degree of epical skill, in the author of the\n primitive Achill\u00eais, to which nothing is found parallel in the\n added books of the Iliad.\n\nThe great and capital misfortune which prostrates the strength of the\nGreeks, and renders them incapable of defending themselves without\nAchilles, is the disablement, by wounds, of Agamemn\u00f4n, Diom\u00ead\u00eas, and\nOdysseus; so that the defence of the wall and of the ships is left\nonly to heroes of the second magnitude (Ajax alone excepted), such as\nIdomeneus, Leonteus, Polyp\u0153t\u00eas, Merion\u00eas, Menelaus, etc. Now, it is\nremarkable that all these three first-rate chiefs are in full force\nat the beginning of the eleventh book: all three are wounded in the\nbattle which that book describes, and at the commencement of which\nAgamemn\u00f4n is full of spirits and courage.\n\nNothing can be more striking than the manner in which Homer\nconcentrates our attention in the first book upon Achilles as\nthe hero, his quarrel with Agamemn\u00f4n, and the calamities to the\nGreeks which are held out as about to ensue from it, through the\nintercession of Thetis with Zeus. But the incidents dwelt upon from\nthe beginning of the second book down to the combat between Hector\nand Ajax in the seventh, animated and interesting as they are, do\nnothing to realize this promise. They are a splendid picture of the\nTrojan war generally, and eminently suitable to that larger title\nunder which the poem has been immortalized,\u2014but the consequences of\nthe anger of Achilles do not appear until the eighth book. The tenth\nbook, or Doloneia, is also a portion of the Iliad, but not of the\nAchill\u00eais: while the ninth book appears to me a subsequent addition,\nnowise harmonizing with that main stream of the Achill\u00eais which flows\nfrom the eleventh book to the twenty-second. The eighth book ought\nto be read in immediate connection with the eleventh, in order to\nsee the structure of what seems the primitive Achill\u00eais; for there\nare several passages in the eleventh and the following books, which\nprove that the poet who composed them could not have had present to\nhis mind the main event of the ninth book,\u2014the outpouring of profound\nhumiliation by the Greeks, and from Agamemn\u00f4n, especially, before\nAchilles, coupled with formal offers to restore Bris\u00eais, and pay the\namplest compensation for past wrong.[289] The words of Achilles (not\nless than those of Patroclus and Nestor) in the eleventh and in the\nfollowing books, plainly imply that the humiliation of the Greeks\nbefore him, for which he thirsts, is as yet future and contingent;\nthat no plenary apology has yet been tendered, nor any offer made of\nrestoring Bris\u00eais; while both Nestor and Patroclus, with all their\nwish to induce him to take arms, never take notice of the offered\natonement and restitution, but view him as one whose ground for\nquarrel stands still the same as it did at the beginning. Moreover,\nif we look at the first book,\u2014the opening of the Achill\u00eais,\u2014we shall\nsee that this prostration of Agamemn\u00f4n and the chief Grecian heroes\nbefore Achilles, would really be the termination of the whole poem;\nfor Achilles asks nothing more from Thetis, nor Thetis anything more\nfrom Zeus, than that Agamemn\u00f4n and the Greeks may be brought to know\nthe wrong they have done to their capital warrior, and humbled in the\ndust in expiation of it. We may add, that the abject terror in which\nAgamemn\u00f4n appears in the ninth book, when he sends the supplicatory\nmessage to Achilles, as it is not adequately accounted for by the\ndegree of calamity which the Greeks have experienced in the preceding\n(eighth) book, so it is inconsistent with the gallantry and high\nspirit with which he shines at the beginning of the eleventh.[290]\nThe situation of the Greeks only becomes desperate when the three\ngreat chiefs, Agamemn\u00f4n, Odysseus, and Diom\u00ead\u00eas, are disabled by\nwounds;[291] this is the irreparable calamity which works upon\nPatroclus, and through him upon Achilles. The ninth book, as it\nnow stands, seems to me an addition, by a different hand, to the\noriginal Achill\u00eais, framed so as both to forestall and to spoil the\nnineteenth book, which is the real reconciliation of the two inimical\nheroes: I will venture to add, that it carries the pride and egotism\nof Achilles beyond even the largest exigences of insulted honor,\nand is shocking to that sentiment of Nemesis which was so deeply\nseated in the Grecian mind. We forgive any excess of fury against the\nTrojans and Hector, after the death of Patroclus; but that he should\nremain unmoved by restitution, by abject supplications, and by the\nrichest atoning presents, tendered from the Greeks, indicates an\nimplacability such as neither the first book, nor the books between\nthe eleventh and seventeenth, convey.\n\n [289] Observe, for example, the following passages:\u2014\n\n 1. Achilles, standing on the prow of his ship, sees the general\n army of Greeks undergoing defeat by the Trojans, and also sees\n Nestor conveying in his chariot a wounded warrior from the field.\n He sends Patroclus to find out who the wounded man is: in calling\n forth Patroclus, he says (xi. 607),\u2014\n\n \u0394\u1fd6\u03b5 \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1fbd\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7,\n \u039d\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f34\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u039b\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f31\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f54\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n Heyne, in his comment, asks the question, not unnaturally,\n \u201cP\u0153nituerat igitur asperitatis erga priorem legationem, an homo\n arrogans expectaverat alteram ad se missam iri?\u201d I answer,\n neither one nor the other: the words imply that he had received\n _no embassy_ at all. He is still the same Achilles who in the\n first book paced alone by the seashore, devouring his own soul\n under a sense of bitter affront, and praying to Thetis to aid\n his revenge: this revenge is now about to be realized, and he\n hails its approach with delight. But if we admit the embassy\n of the ninth book to intervene, the passage becomes a glaring\n inconsistency for that which Achilles anticipates as future,\n and even yet as contingent, _had actually occurred_ on the\n previous evening; the Greeks _had_ supplicated at his feet,\u2014they\n _had proclaimed_ their intolerable need,\u2014and he had spurned\n them. The Scholiast, in his explanation of these lines, after\n giving the plain meaning, that \u201cAchilles shows what he has long\n been desiring, to see the Greeks in a state of supplication\n to him,\u201d\u2014seems to recollect that this is in contradiction to\n the ninth book, and tries to remove the contradiction, by\n saying \u201cthat he had been previously mollified by conversation\n with Ph\u0153nix,\u201d\u2014\u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd,\u2014a\n supposition neither countenanced by anything in the poet, nor\n sufficient to remove the difficulty.\n\n 2. The speech of Poseid\u00f4n (xiii. 115) to encourage the dispirited\n Grecian heroes, in which, after having admitted the injury done\n to Achilles by Agamemn\u00f4n, he recommends an effort to heal the\n sore, and intimates \u201cthat the minds of good men admit of this\n healing process,\u201d (\u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b8\u1fb6\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd,) is certainly not very consistent with the supposition\n that this attempt to heal _had been made_ in the best possible\n way, and that Achilles had manifested a mind implacable in the\n extreme on the evening before,\u2014while the mind of Agamemn\u00f4n was\n already brought to proclaimed humiliation, and needed no farther\n healing.\n\n 3. And what shall we say to the language of Achilles and\n Patroclus, at the beginning of the sixteenth book, just at the\n moment when the danger has reached its maximum, and when Achilles\n is about to send forth his friend?\n\n Neither Nestor, when he invokes and instructs Patroclus as\n intercessor with Achilles (xi. 654-790), nor Patroclus himself,\n though in the extreme of anxiety to work upon the mind of\n Achilles, and reproaching him with hardness of heart,\u2014ever bring\n to remembrance the ample atonement which had been tendered\n to him; while Achilles himself repeats the original ground\n of quarrel, the wrong offered to him in taking away Bris\u00eais,\n continuing the language of the first book; then, without the\n least allusion to the atonement and restitution since tendered,\n he yields to his friend\u2019s proposition, just like a man whose\n wrong remained unredressed, but who was, nevertheless, forced to\n take arms by necessity (xvi. 60-63):\u2014\n\n \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ac\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd\n \u1f08\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u1f72\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\n \u039f\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74\n \u039d\u1fc6\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03cb\u03c4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5.\n\n I agree with the Scholiast and Heyne in interpreting \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\n as equivalent to \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd,\u2014not as referring to any express\n antecedent declaration.\n\n Again, farther on in the same speech, \u201cThe Trojans (Achilles\n says) now press boldly forward upon the ships, for they no longer\n see the blaze of my helmet: but if Agamemn\u00f4n _were favorably\n disposed towards me_, they would presently run away and fill the\n ditches with their dead bodies\u201d (71):\u2014\n\n ... \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03a0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f2c\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u00b7 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n Now here again, if we take our start from the first book,\n omitting the ninth, the sentiment is perfectly just. But assume\n the ninth book, and it becomes false and misplaced; for Agamemn\u00f4n\n is then a prostrate and repentant man, not merely \u201cfavorably\n disposed\u201d towards Achilles, but offering to pay any price for the\n purpose of appeasing him.\n\n 4. Again, a few lines farther, in the same speech, Achilles\n permits Patroclus to go forth, in consideration of the extreme\n peril of the fleet, but restricts him simply to avert this peril\n and do nothing more: \u201cObey my words, so that you may procure _for\n me honor_ and glory from _the body of Greeks_, and that they may\n send back to me the damsel, giving me ample presents besides:\n when you have driven the Trojans from the ships, come back\n again\u201d:\u2014\n\n \u1f69\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u1fe6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\n \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f00\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f33 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\n \u1f0c\u03c8 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u1f70 \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7\n \u1f18\u03ba \u03bd\u03b7\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f30\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd (84-87).\n\n How are we to reconcile this with the ninth book, where Achilles\n declares that he does not care for being honored by the Greeks,\n ix. 604? In the mouth of the affronted Achilles, of the first\n book, such words are apt enough: he will grant succor, but only\n to the extent necessary for the emergency, and in such a way as\n to insure redress for his own wrong,\u2014which redress he has no\n reason as yet to conclude that Agamemn\u00f4n is willing to grant.\n But the ninth book _has actually_ tendered to him everything\n which he here demands, and even more (the daughter of Agamemn\u00f4n\n in marriage, without the price usually paid for a bride, etc.):\n Bris\u00eais, whom now he is so anxious to repossess, was then offered\n in restitution, and he disdained the offer. Mr. Knight, in\n fact, strikes out these lines as spurious; partly, because they\n contradict the ninth book, where Achilles has actually rejected\n what he here thirsts for (\u201cDona cum puell\u00e2 jam antea oblata\n aspernatus erat,\u201d)\u2014partly because he thinks that they express a\n sentiment unworthy of Achilles; in which latter criticism I do\n not concur.\n\n 5. We proceed a little farther to the address of Patroclus to the\n Myrmidons, as he is conducting them forth to the battle: \u201cFight\n bravely, Myrmidons, that we may bring honor to Achilles; and\n that the wide-ruling Agamemn\u00f4n may know the mad folly which he\n committed, when he dishonored the bravest of the Greeks.\u201d\n\n To impress this knowledge upon Agamemn\u00f4n was no longer necessary.\n The ninth book records his humiliating confession of it,\n accompanied by atonement and reparation. To teach him the lesson\n a second time, is to break the bruised reed,\u2014to slay the slain.\n But leave out the ninth book, and the motive is the natural\n one,\u2014both for Patroclus to offer, and for the Myrmidons to obey:\n Achilles still remains a dishonored man, and to humble the rival\n who has dishonored him is the first of all objects, as well with\n his friends as with himself.\n\n 6. Lastly, the time comes when Achilles, in deep anguish for\n the death of Patroclus, looks back with aversion and repentance\n to the past. To what point should we expect that his repentance\n would naturally turn? Not to his primary quarrel with Agamemn\u00f4n,\n in which he had been undeniably wronged,\u2014but to the scene in\n the ninth book, where the maximum of atonement for the previous\n wrong is tendered to him and scornfully rejected. Yet when we\n turn to xviii. 108, and xix. 55, 68, 270, we find him reverting\n to the primitive quarrel in the first book, just as if it had\n been the last incident in his relations with Agamemn\u00f4n: moreover,\n Agamemn\u00f4n (xix. 86), in _his_ speech of reconciliation, treats\n the past just in the same way,\u2014deplores his original insanity in\n wronging Achilles.\n\n 7. When we look to the prayers of Achilles and Thetis, addressed\n to Zeus in the first book, we find that the consummation prayed\n for is,\u2014honor to Achilles,\u2014redress for the wrong offered to\n him,\u2014victory to the Trojans until Agamemn\u00f4n and the Greeks shall\n be made bitterly sensible of the wrong which they have done to\n their bravest warrior (i. 409-509). Now this consummation is\n brought about in the ninth book. Achilles can get no more, nor\n does he ultimately get more, either in the way of redress to\n himself or remorseful humiliation of Agamemn\u00f4n, than what is here\n tendered. The defeat which the Greeks suffer in the battle of\n the eighth book (\u039a\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u039c\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7) has brought about the consummation.\n The subsequent and much more destructive defeats which they\n undergo are thus causeless: yet Zeus is represented as inflicting\n them reluctantly, and only because they are necessary to honor\n Achilles (xiii. 350; xv. 75, 235, 598; compare also viii. 372 and\n 475).\n\n If we reflect upon the constitution of the poem, we shall see\n that the fundamental sequence of ideas in it is, a series of\n misfortunes to the Greeks, brought on by Zeus for the special\n purpose of procuring atonement to Achilles and bringing\n humiliation on Agamemn\u00f4n: the introduction of Patroclus superadds\n new motives of the utmost interest, but it is most harmoniously\n worked into the fundamental sequence. Now the intrusion of the\n ninth book breaks up the scheme of the poem by disuniting the\n sequence: Agamemn\u00f4n is on his knees before Achilles, entreating\n pardon and proffering reparation, yet the calamities of the\n Greeks become more and more dreadful. The atonement of the ninth\n book comes at the wrong time and in the wrong manner.\n\n There are four passages (and only four, so far as I am aware)\n in which the embassy of the ninth book is alluded to in the\n subsequent books: one in xviii. 444-456, which was expunged as\n spurious by Aristarchus (see the Scholia and Knight\u2019s commentary,\n _ad loc._); and three others in the following book, wherein the\n gifts previously tendered by Odysseus as the envoy of Agamemn\u00f4n\n are noticed as identical with the gifts actually given in the\n nineteenth book. I feel persuaded that these passages (vv.\n 140-141, 192-195, and 243) are specially inserted for the purpose\n of establishing a connection between the ninth book and the\n nineteenth. The four lines (192-195) are decidedly better away:\n the first two lines (140-141) are noway necessary; while the\n word \u03c7\u03b8\u03b9\u03b6\u1f78\u03c2 (which occurs in both passages) is only rendered\n admissible by being stretched to mean _nudius tertius_ (Heyne,\n _ad loc._).\n\n I will only farther remark with respect to the ninth book,\n that the speech of Agamemn\u00f4n (17-28), the theme for the rebuke\n of Diom\u00ead\u00eas and the obscure commonplace of Nestor, is taken\n verbatim from his speech in the second book, in which place\n the proposition, of leaving the place and flying, is made, not\n seriously, but as a stratagem (ii. 110, 118, 140).\n\n The length of this note can only be excused by its direct bearing\n upon the structure of the Iliad. To show that the books from the\n eleventh downwards are composed by a poet who has no knowledge\n of the ninth book, is, in my judgment, a very important point of\n evidence in aiding us to understand what the original Achill\u00eais\n was. The books from the second to the seventh inclusive are\n insertions into the Achill\u00eais, and lie apart from its plot, but\n do not violently contradict it, except in regard to the agora\n of the gods at the beginning of the fourth book, and the almost\n mortal wound of Sarp\u00eadon in his battle with Tlepolemus. But the\n ninth book overthrows the fundamental scheme of the poem.\n\n [290] Helbig (Sittl. Zust\u00e4nde des Heldenalters, p. 30) says,\n \u201cThe consciousness in the bosom of Agamemn\u00f4n that he has offered\n atonement to Achilles strengthens his confidence and valor,\u201d &c.\n This is the idea of the critic, not of the poet. It does not\n occur in the Iliad, though the critic not unnaturally imagines\n that it _must_ occur. Agamemn\u00f4n never says, \u201cI was wrong in\n provoking Achilles, but you see I have done everything which man\n could do to beg his pardon.\u201d Assuming the ninth book to be a part\n of the original conception, this feeling is so natural, that we\n could hardly fail to find it, at the beginning of the eleventh\n book, numbered among the motives of Agamemn\u00f4n.\n\n [291] Iliad, xi. 659; xiv. 128; xvi. 25.\n\nIt is with the Grecian agora, in the beginning of the second\nbook, that the Iliad (as distinguished from the Achill\u00eais)\ncommences,\u2014continued through the Catalogue, the muster of the two\narmies, the single combat between Menelaus and Paris, the renewed\npromiscuous battle caused by the arrow of Pandarus, the (Epip\u00f4l\u00easis,\nor) personal circuit of Agamemn\u00f4n round the army, the Aristeia, or\nbrilliant exploits of Diom\u00ead\u00eas, the visit of Hector to Troy for\nthe purposes of sacrifice, his interview with Andromach\u00ea, and his\ncombat with Ajax,\u2014down to the seventh book. All these are beautiful\npoetry, presenting to us the general Trojan war, and its conspicuous\nindividuals under different points of view, but leaving no room in\nthe reader\u2019s mind for the thought of Achilles. Now, the difficulty\nfor an enlarging poet, was, to pass from the Achill\u00eais in the\nfirst book, to the Iliad in the second, and it will accordingly be\nfound that here is an awkwardness in the structure of the poem,\nwhich counsel on the poet\u2019s behalf (ancient or modern) do not\nsatisfactorily explain.\n\nIn the first book, Zeus has promised Thetis, that he will punish\nthe Greeks for the wrong done to Achilles: in the beginning of the\nsecond book, he deliberates how he shall fulfil the promise, and\nsends down for that purpose \u201cmischievous Oneirus\u201d (the Dream-god) to\nvisit Agamemn\u00f4n in his sleep, to assure him that the gods have now\nwith one accord consented to put Troy into his hands, and to exhort\nhim forthwith to the assembling of his army for the attack. The\nancient commentators were here perplexed by the circumstance that\nZeus puts a falsehood into the mouth of Oneirus. But there seems no\nmore difficulty in explaining this, than in the narrative of the book\nof 1 Kings (chap. xxii. 20), where Jehovah is mentioned to have put a\nlying spirit into the mouth of Ahab\u2019s prophets,\u2014the real awkwardness\nis, that Oneirus and his falsehood produce no effect. For in the\nfirst place, Agamemn\u00f4n takes a step very different from that which\nhis dream recommends,\u2014and in the next place, when the Grecian army\nis at length armed and goes forth to battle, it does not experience\ndefeat, (which would be the case if the exhortation of Oneirus really\nproved mischievous,) but carries on a successful day\u2019s battle,\nchiefly through the heroism of Diom\u00ead\u00eas. Instead of arming the Greeks\nforthwith, Agamemn\u00f4n convokes first a council of chiefs, and next\nan agora of the host. And though himself in a temper of mind highly\nelate with the deceitful assurances of Oneirus, he deliberately\nassumes the language of despair in addressing the troops, having\npreviously prepared Nestor and Odysseus for his doing so,\u2014merely in\norder to try the courage of the men, and with formal instructions,\ngiven to these two other chiefs, that they are to speak in opposition\nto him. Now this intervention of Zeus and Oneirus, eminently\nunsatisfactory when coupled with the incidents which now follow it,\nand making Zeus appear, but only appear, to realize his promise of\nhonoring Achilles as well as of hurting the Greeks,\u2014forms exactly the\npoint of junction between the Achill\u00eais and the Iliad.[292]\n\n [292] The intervention of Oneirus ought rather to come as an\n immediate preliminary to book viii. than to book ii. The first\n forty-seven lines of book ii would fit on and read consistently\n at the beginning of book viii, the events of which book form a\n proper sequel to the mission of Oneirus.\n\nThe freak which Agamemn\u00f4n plays off upon the temper of his army,\nthough in itself childish, serves a sufficient purpose, not only\nbecause it provides a special matter of interest to be submitted to\nthe Greeks, but also because it calls forth the splendid description,\nso teeming with vivacious detail, of the sudden breaking up of the\nassembly after Agamemn\u00f4n\u2019s harangue, and of the decisive interference\nof Odysseus to bring the men back, as well as to put down Thersit\u00eas.\nThis picture of the Greeks in agora, bringing out the two chief\nspeaking and counselling heroes, was so important a part of the\ngeneral Trojan war, that the poet has permitted himself to introduce\nit by assuming an inexplicable folly on the part of Agamemn\u00f4n; just\nas he has ushered in another fine scene in the third book,\u2014the\nTeichoskopy, or conversation, between Priam and Helen on the walls of\nTroy,\u2014by admitting the supposition that the old king, in the tenth\nyear of the war, did not know the persons of Agamemn\u00f4n and the other\nGrecian chiefs. This may serve as an explanation of the delusion\npractised by Agamemn\u00f4n towards his assembled host; but it does not at\nall explain the tame and empty intervention of Oneirus.[293]\n\n [293] O. M\u00fcller, (History of Greek Literature, ch. v. \u00a7 8,)\n doubts whether the beginning of the second book was written \u201cby\n the ancient Homer, or by one of the later Homerids:\u201d he thinks\n the speech of Agamemn\u00f4n, wherein he plays off the deceit upon\n his army, is \u201ca copious parody (of the same words used in the\n ninth book) composed by a later Homerid, and inserted in the room\n of an originally shorter account of the arming of the Greeks.\u201d\n He treats the scene in the Grecian agora as \u201can entire mythical\n comedy, full of fine irony and with an amusing plot, in which the\n deceiving and deceived Agamemn\u00f4n is the chief character.\u201d\n\n The comic or ironical character which is here ascribed to the\n second book appears to me fanciful and incorrect; but M\u00fcller\n evidently felt the awkwardness of the opening incident, though\n his way of accounting for it is not successful. The second book\n seems to my judgment just as serious as any part of the poem.\n\n I think also that the words alluded to by O. M\u00fcller in the ninth\n book are a transcript of those in the second, instead of the\n reverse, as he believes,\u2014because it seems probable that the ninth\n book is an addition made to the poem after the books between the\n first and the eighth had been already inserted,\u2014it is certainly\n introduced after the account of the fortification, contained in\n the seventh book, had become a part of the poem: see ix. 349. The\n author of the Embassy to Achilles fancied that that hero had been\n too long out of sight, and out of mind,\u2014a supposition for which\n there was no room in the original Achill\u00eais, when the eighth and\n eleventh books followed in immediate succession to the first, but\n which offers itself naturally to any one on reading our present\n Iliad.\n\nIf the initial incident of the second book, whereby we pass out\nof the Achill\u00eais into the Iliad, is awkward, so also the final\nincident of the seventh book, immediately before we come back into\nthe Achill\u00eais, is not less unsatisfactory,\u2014I mean, the construction\nof the wall and ditch round the Greek camp. As the poem now stands,\nno plausible reason is assigned why this should be done. Nestor\nproposes it without any constraining necessity: for the Greeks are in\na career of victory, and the Trojans are making offers of compromise\nwhich imply conscious weakness,\u2014while Diom\u00ead\u00eas is so confident of\nthe approaching ruin of Troy, that he dissuades his comrades from\nreceiving even Helen herself, if the surrender should be tendered.\n\u201cMany Greeks have been slain,\u201d it is true,[294] as Nestor observes;\nbut an equal or greater number of Trojans have been slain, and all\nthe Grecian heroes are yet in full force: the absence of Achilles is\nnot even adverted to.\n\n [294] Iliad, vii. 327.\n\nNow this account of the building of the fortification seems to be\nan after-thought, arising out of the enlargement of the poem beyond\nits original scheme. The original Achill\u00eais, passing at once from the\nfirst to the eighth,[295] and from thence to the eleventh book, might\nwell assume the fortification,\u2014and talk of it as a thing existing,\nwithout adducing any special reason why it was erected. The hearer\nwould naturally comprehend and follow the existence of a ditch and\nwall round the ships, as a matter of course, provided there was\nnothing in the previous narrative to make him believe that the Greeks\nhad originally been without these bulwarks. And since the Achill\u00eais,\nimmediately after the promise of Zeus to Thetis, at the close of the\nfirst book, went on to describe the fulfilment of that promise and\nthe ensuing disasters of the Greeks, there was nothing to surprise\nany one in hearing that their camp was fortified. But the case was\naltered when the first and the eighth books were parted asunder, in\norder to make room for descriptions of temporary success and glory\non the part of the besieging army. The brilliant scenes sketched in\nthe books, from the second to the seventh, mention no fortification,\nand even imply its nonexistence; yet, since notice of it occurs\namidst the first description of Grecian disasters in the eighth\nbook, the hearer, who had the earlier books present to his memory,\nmight be surprised to find a fortification mentioned immediately\nafterwards, unless the construction of it were specially announced\nto have intervened. But it will at once appear, that there was some\ndifficulty in finding a good reason why the Greeks should begin to\nfortify at this juncture, and that the poet who discovered the gap\nmight not be enabled to fill it up with success. As the Greeks have\ngot on, up to this moment, without the wall, and as we have heard\nnothing but tales of their success, why should they now think farther\nlaborious precautions for security necessary? We will not ask, why\nthe Trojans should stand quietly by and permit a wall to be built,\nsince the truce was concluded expressly for burying the dead.[296]\n\n [295] Heyne treats the eighth book as decidedly a separate song,\n or epic; a supposition which the language of Zeus and the agora\n of the gods at the beginning are alone sufficient to refute,\n in my judgment (Excursus 1, ad lib. xi. vol. vi. p. 269). This\n Excursus, in describing the sequence of events in the Iliad,\n passes at once and naturally from book eighth to book eleventh.\n\n And Mr. Payne Knight, when he defends book eleventh against\n Heyne, says, \u201cQu\u00e6 in undecim\u00e2 rhapsodi\u00e2 Iliadis narrata sunt,\n haud minus ex ante narratis pendent: neque rationem pugn\u00e6\n commiss\u00e6, neque rerum in e\u00e2 gestarum nexum atque ordinem,\n quisquam intelligere posset, nisi _iram et secessum_ Achillis, et\n _victoriam_ quam Trojani inde consecuti erant, antea cognosset.\u201d\n (Prolegom. c. xxix.)\n\n Perfectly true: to understand the eleventh book, we must have\n before us the first and the eighth (which are those that describe\n the anger and withdrawal of Achilles, and the defeat which the\n Greeks experience in consequence of it); we may dispense with the\n rest.\n\n [296] O. M\u00fcller (Hist. Greek Literat. ch. v. \u00a7 6) says, about\n this wall: \u201cNor is it until the Greeks are _taught by the\n experience of the first day\u2019s fighting_, that the Trojans can\n resist them in open battle, that the Greeks build the wall round\n their ships.... This appeared to Thucydid\u00eas so little conformable\n to historical probability, that, without regard to the authority\n of Homer, he placed the building of these walls immediately after\n the landing.\u201d\n\n It is to be lamented, I think, that Thucydid\u00eas took upon him to\n determine the point at all as a matter of history; but when he\n once undertook this, the account in the Iliad was not of a nature\n to give him much satisfaction, nor does the reason assigned by\n M\u00fcller make it better. It is implied in M\u00fcller\u2019s reason that,\n before the first day\u2019s battle, the Greeks did not believe that\n the Trojans _could_ resist them in open battle: the Trojans\n (according to him) never had maintained the field, so long as\n Achilles was up and fighting on the Grecian side, and therefore\n the Greeks were quite astonished to find now, for the first time,\n that they _could_ do so.\n\n Now nothing can be more at variance with the tenor of the second\n and following books than this supposition. The Trojans come forth\n readily and fight gallantly; neither Agamemn\u00f4n, nor Nestor, nor\n Odysseus consider them as enemies who cannot hold front; and the\n circuit of exhortation by Agamemn\u00f4n (Epip\u00f4l\u00easis), so strikingly\n described in the fourth book, proves that _he_ does not\n anticipate a very easy victory. Nor does Nestor, in proposing the\n construction of the wall, give the smallest hint that the power\n of the Trojans to resist in the open field was to the Greeks an\n unexpected discovery.\n\n The reason assigned by M\u00fcller, then, is a fancy of his own,\n proceeding from the same source of mistake as others among his\n remarks; because he tries to find, in the books between the\n first and eighth, a governing reference to Achilles (the point\n of view of the Achill\u00eais), which those books distinctly refuse.\n The Achill\u00eais was a poem of Grecian disasters up to the time when\n Achilles sent forth Patroclus; and during those disasters, it\n might suit the poet to refer by contrast to the past time when\n Achilles was active, and to say that _then_ the Trojans did not\n dare even to present themselves in battle-array in the field,\n whereas _now_ they were assailing the ships. But the author of\n books ii. to vii. has no wish to glorify Achilles: he gives us a\n picture of the Trojan war generally, and describes the Trojans,\n not only as brave and equal enemies, but well known by the Greeks\n themselves to be so.\n\n The building of the Grecian wall, as it now stands described,\n is an unexplained proceeding, which M\u00fcller\u2019s ingenuity does not\n render consistent.\n\nThe tenth book, or Doloneia, was considered by some of the ancient\nscholiasts,[297] and has been confidently set forth by the modern\nWolfian critics, as originally a separate poem, inserted by\nPeisistratus into the Iliad. How it can ever have been a separate\npoem, I do not understand. It is framed with great specialty for the\nantecedent circumstances under which it occurs, and would suit for\nno other place; though capable of being separately recited, inasmuch\nas it has a definite beginning and end, like the story of Nisus and\nEuryalus in the \u00c6neid. But while distinctly presupposing and resting\nupon the incidents in the eighth book, and in line 88 of the ninth,\n(probably, the appointment of sentinels on the part of the Greeks,\nas well of the Trojans, formed the close of the battle described in\nthe eighth book,) it has not the slightest bearing upon the events of\nthe eleventh or the following books: it goes to make up the general\npicture of the Trojan war, but lies quite apart from the Achill\u00eais.\nAnd this is one mark of a portion subsequently inserted,\u2014that, though\nfitted on to the parts which precede, it has no influence on those\nwhich follow.\n\n [297] Schol. ad Iliad. x. 1.\n\nIf the proceedings of the combatants on the plain of Troy, between\nthe first and the eighth book, have no reference either to Achilles,\nor to an Achill\u00eais, we find Zeus in Olympus still more completely\nputting that hero out of the question, at the beginning of the fourth\nbook. He is in this last-mentioned passage the Zeus of the Iliad,\nnot of the Achill\u00eais. Forgetful of his promise to Thetis, in the\nfirst book, he discusses nothing but the question of continuance or\ntermination of the war, and manifests anxiety only for the salvation\nof Troy, in opposition to the miso-Trojan goddesses, who prevent him\nfrom giving effect to the victory of Menelaus over Paris, and the\nstipulated restitution of Helen,\u2014in which case, of course, the wrong\noffered to Achilles would remain unexpiated. An attentive comparison\nwill render it evident that the poet who composed the discussion\namong the gods, at the beginning of the fourth book, has not been\ncareful to put himself in harmony either with the Zeus of the first\nbook, or with the Zeus of the eighth.\n\nSo soon as we enter upon the eleventh book, the march of the poem\nbecomes quite different. We are then in a series of events, each\npaving the way for that which follows, and all conducing to the\nresult promised in the first book,\u2014the reappearance of Achilles,\nas the only means of saving the Greeks from ruin,\u2014preceded by\nample atonement,[298] and followed by the maximum both of glory\nand revenge. The intermediate career of Patroclus introduces new\nelements, which, however, are admirably woven into the scheme of the\npoem, as disclosed in the first book. I shall not deny that there are\nperplexities in the detail of events, as described in the battles\nat the Grecian wall, and before the ships, from the eleventh to the\nsixteenth books, but they appear only cases of partial confusion,\nsuch as may be reasonably ascribed to imperfections of text: the main\nsequence remains coherent and intelligible. We find no considerable\nevents which could be left out without breaking the thread, nor any\nincongruity between one considerable event and another. There is\nnothing between the eleventh and twenty-second books, which is at all\ncomparable to the incongruity between the Zeus of the fourth book and\nthe Zeus of the first and eighth. It may, perhaps, be true, that the\nshield of Achilles is a superadded amplification of that which was\noriginally announced in general terms,\u2014because the poet, from the\neleventh to the twenty-second books, has observed such good economy\nof his materials, that he is hardly likely to have introduced one\nparticular description of such disproportionate length, and having so\nlittle connection with the series of events. But I see no reason for\nbelieving that it is an addition materially later than the rest of\nthe poem.\n\n [298] Agamemn\u00f4n, after deploring the misguiding influence of At\u00ea,\n which induced him to do the original wrong to Achilles, says\n (xix. 88-137),\u2014\n\n \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2,\n \u1f0c\u03c8 \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f04\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, etc.\n\nIt must be confessed, that the supposition here advanced, in\nreference to the structure of the Iliad, is not altogether free\nfrom difficulties, because the parts constituting the original\nAchill\u00eais[299] have been more or less altered or interpolated, to\nsuit the additions made to it, particularly in the eighth book. But\nit presents fewer difficulties than any other supposition, and it\nis the only means, so far as I know, of explaining the difference\nbetween one part of the Iliad and another; both the continuity of\nstructure, and the conformity to the opening promise, which are\nmanifest when we read the books in the order i. viii. xi. to xxii,\nas contrasted with the absence of these two qualities in books ii.\nto vii. ix. and x. An entire organization, preconceived from the\nbeginning, would not be likely to produce any such disparity, nor is\nany such visible in the Odyssey;[300] still less would the result\nbe explained by supposing integers originally separate, and brought\ntogether without any designed organization. And it is between these\nthree suppositions that our choice has to be made. A scheme, and a\nlarge scheme too, must unquestionably be admitted as the basis of\nany sufficient hypothesis. But the Achill\u00eais would have been a long\npoem, half the length of the present Iliad, and probably not less\ncompact in its structure than the Odyssey. Moreover, being parted off\nonly by an imaginary line from the boundless range of the Trojan war,\nit would admit of enlargement more easily, and with greater relish to\nhearers, than the adventures of one single hero; while the expansion\nwould naturally take place by adding new Grecian victory,\u2014since the\noriginal poem arrived at the exaltation of Achilles only through\na painful series of Grecian disasters. That the poem under these\ncircumstances should have received additions, is no very violent\nhypothesis: in fact, when we recollect that the integrity both of\nthe Achill\u00eais and of the Odyssey was neither guarded by printing nor\nwriting, we shall perhaps think it less wonderful that the former\nwas enlarged,[301] than that the latter was not. Any relaxation of\nthe laws of epical unity is a small price to pay for that splendid\npoetry, of which we find so much between the first and the eighth\nbooks of our Iliad.\n\n [299] The supposition of a smaller original Iliad, enlarged\n by successive additions to the present dimensions, and more\n or less interpolated (we must distinguish _enlargement_ from\n _interpolation_,\u2014the insertion of a new rhapsody from that of a\n new line), seems to be a sort of intermediate compromise, towards\n which the opposing views of Wolf, J. H. Voss, Nitzsch, Hermann,\n and Boeckh, all converge. Baumgarten-Crusius calls this smaller\n poem an Achill\u00eais.\n\n Wolf, Preface to the G\u00f6schen edit. of the Iliad, pp. xii-xxiii;\n Voss, Anti-Symbolik, part ii. p. 234; Nitzsch, Histor. Homeri,\n Fasciculus i. p. 112; and Vorrede to the second volume of his\n Comments on the Odyssey, p. xxvi: \u201cIn the Iliad (he there says)\n many single portions may very easily be imagined as parts of\n another whole, or as having been once separately sung.\u201d (See\n Baumgarten-Crusius, Preface to his edition of W. M\u00fcller\u2019s\n Homerische Vorschule, pp. xlv-xlix.)\n\n Nitzsch distinguishes the Odyssey from the Iliad, and I think\n justly, in respect to this supposed enlargement. The reasons\n which warrant us in applying this theory to the Iliad have no\n bearing upon the Odyssey. If there ever was an Ur-Odyssee, we\n have no means of determining what it contained.\n\n [300] The remarks of O. M\u00fcller on the Iliad (in his History of\n Greek Literature) are highly deserving of perusal: with much of\n them I agree, but there is also much which seems to me unfounded.\n The range of combination, and the far-fetched narrative stratagem\n which he ascribes to the primitive author, are in my view\n inadmissible (chap. v. \u00a7 5-11):\u2014\n\n \u201cThe internal connection of the Iliad (he observes, \u00a7 6) rests\n upon the union of certain parts; and neither the interesting\n introduction, describing the defeat of the Greeks up to the\n burning of the ship of Protesilaus, nor the turn of affairs\n brought about by the death of Patroclus, nor the final\n pacification of the anger of Achilles, could be spared from the\n Iliad, when the fruitful seed of such a poem had once been sown\n in the soul of Homer, and had begun to develop its growth. But\n the plan of the Iliad is certainly very much extended beyond\n what was actually necessary; and in particular, the preparatory\n part, consisting of the _attempts_ on the part of _the other\n heroes to compensate for the absence of Achilles_, has, it must\n be owned, been drawn out to a disproportionate length, so that\n the suspicion that there were later insertions of importance\n applies with greater probability to the first than to the last\n books.... A design manifested itself at an early period to\n make this poem complete in itself, so that all the subjects,\n descriptions, and actions, which could alone give interest to a\n poem _on the entire war_, might find a place within the limits\n of its composition. For this purpose, it is not improbable that\n many lays of earlier bards, who had sung single adventures of the\n Trojan war, were laid under contribution, and the finest parts of\n them incorporated in the new poem.\u201d\n\n These remarks of O. M\u00fcller intimate what is (in my judgment)\n the right view, inasmuch as they recognize an extension of\n the plan of the poem beyond its original limit, manifested by\n insertions in the first half; and it is to be observed that, in\n his enumeration of those parts, the union of which is necessary\n to the internal connection of the Iliad, nothing is mentioned\n except what is comprised in books i. viii. xi. to xxii. or\n xxiv. But his description of \u201c_the preparatory part_,\u201d as \u201c_the\n attempts of the other heroes to compensate for the absence of\n Achilles_,\u201d is noway borne out by the poet himself. From the\n second to the seventh book, Achilles is scarcely alluded to;\n moreover, the Greeks do perfectly well without him. This portion\n of the poem displays, not \u201cthe _insufficiency_ of all the\n other heroes without Achilles,\u201d as M\u00fcller had observed in the\n preceding section, but the perfect _sufficiency_ of the Greeks\n under Diom\u00ead\u00eas, Agamemn\u00f4n, etc. to make head against Troy; it is\n only in the eighth book that their _insufficiency_ begins to be\n manifested, and only in the eleventh book that it is consummated\n by the wounds of the three great heroes. Diom\u00ead\u00eas is, in fact,\n exalted to a pitch of glory in regard to contests with the\n gods, which even Achilles himself never obtains afterwards, and\n Helenus the Trojan puts him above Achilles (vi. 99) in terrific\n prowess. Achilles is mentioned two or three times as absent,\n and Agamemn\u00f4n, in his speech to the Grecian agora, regrets the\n quarrel (ii. 377), but we never hear any such exhortation as,\n \u201cLet us do our best to make up for the absence of Achilles,\u201d\u2014not\n even in the Epip\u00f4l\u00easis of Agamemn\u00f4n, where it would most\n naturally be found. \u201cAttempts to compensate for the absence of\n Achilles\u201d must, therefore, be treated as the idea of the critic,\n not of the poet.\n\n Though O. M\u00fcller has glanced at the distinction between the two\n parts of the poem (an original part, having chief reference\n to _Achilles and the Greeks_; and a superinduced part, having\n reference to _the entire war_), he has not conceived it clearly,\n nor carried it out consistently. If we are to distinguish\n these two points of view at all, we ought to draw the lines at\n the end of the first book and at the beginning of the eighth,\n thus regarding the intermediate six books as belonging to the\n picture of _the entire war_ (or the Iliad as distinguished from\n the Achill\u00eais): the point of view of the Achill\u00eais, dropped\n at the end of the first book, is resumed at the beginning of\n the eighth. The natural fitting together of these two parts is\n noticed in the comment of Heyne, ad viii. 1: \u201cC\u00e6terum _nunc_\n Jupiter aperte solvit Thetidi promissa, dum reddit causam\n Trojanorum bello superiorem, ut Achillis desiderium Achivos, et\n p\u0153nitentia injuri\u00e6 ei illat\u00e6 Agamemnonem incessat (cf. i. 5).\n Nam qu\u00e6 _adhuc_ narrata sunt, partim continebantur in fortun\u00e2\n belli utrinque tentat\u00e2 ... partim valebant ad narrationem\n variandam,\u201d etc. The first and the eighth books belong to one\n and the same point of view, while _all_ the intermediate books\n belong to the other. But O. M\u00fcller seeks to prove that a portion\n of these intermediate books belongs to one common point of view\n with the first and eighth, though he admits that they have been\n enlarged by insertions. Here I think he is mistaken. Strike out\n anything which can be reasonably allowed for enlargement in the\n books between the first and eighth, and the same difficulty\n will still remain in respect to the remainder; for _all_ the\n incidents between those two points are brought out in a spirit\n altogether indifferent to Achilles or his anger. The Zeus of the\n fourth book, as contrasted with Zeus in the first or eighth,\n marks the difference; and this description of Zeus is absolutely\n indispensable as the connecting link between book iii. on the one\n side and books iv. and v. on the other. Moreover, the attempt of\n O. M\u00fcller, to force upon the larger portion of what is between\n the first and eighth books the point of view of the Achill\u00eais,\n is never successful: the poet does not exhibit in those books\n \u201cinsufficient efforts of other heroes to compensate for the\n absence of Achilles,\u201d but a general and highly interesting\n picture of the Trojan war, with prominent reference to the\n original ground of quarrel. In this picture, the duel between\n Paris and Menelaus forms naturally the foremost item,\u2014but how\n far-fetched is the reasoning whereby O. M\u00fcller brings that\n striking recital within the scheme of the Achill\u00eais! \u201cThe Greeks\n and Trojans are for the first time struck by an idea, which\n might have occurred in the previous nine years, if the Greeks,\n _when assisted by Achilles_, had not, from _confidence in their\n superior strength_, considered every compromise as unworthy of\n them,\u2014namely, to decide the war by a single combat between the\n authors of it.\u201d Here the causality of Achilles is dragged in by\n main force, and unsupported either by any actual statement in the\n poem or by any reasonable presumption; for it is _the Trojans_\n who propose the single combat, and we are not told that they had\n ever proposed it before, though they would have had stronger\n reasons for proposing it during the presence of Achilles than\n during his absence.\n\n O. M\u00fcller himself remarks (\u00a7 7), \u201cthat from the second to the\n seventh book Zeus appears as it were to have forgotten his\n resolution and his promise to Thetis.\u201d In other words, the poet,\n during this part of the poem, drops the point of view of the\n Achill\u00eais to take up that of the more comprehensive Iliad: the\n Achill\u00eais reappears in book viii,\u2014again disappears in book x,\u2014and\n is resumed from book xi. to the end of the poem.\n\n [301] This tendency to insert new homogeneous matter by new\n poets into poems already existing, is noticed by M. Fauriel, in\n reference to the _Romans_ of the Middle Ages:\u2014\n\n \u201cC\u2019est un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne remarquable dans l\u2019histoire de la po\u00e9sie\n \u00e9pique, que cette disposition, cette tendance constante du go\u00fbt\n populaire \u00e0 amalgamer, \u00e0 lier en une seule et m\u00eame composition\n le plus possible des compositions diverses,\u2014cette disposition\n persiste chez un peuple, tant que la po\u00e9sie conserve un reste\n de vie; tant qu\u2019elle s\u2019y transmet par la tradition et qu\u2019elle\n y circule \u00e0 l\u2019aide du chant ou des r\u00e9citations publiques. Elle\n cesse partout o\u00f9 la po\u00e9sie est une fois fix\u00e9e dans les livres, et\n n\u2019agit plus que par la lecture,\u2014cette derni\u00e8re \u00e9poque est pour\n ainsi dire, celle de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 po\u00e9tique\u2014celle o\u00f9 chaque po\u00ebte\n pr\u00e9tend \u00e0 une existence, \u00e0 une gloire, personnelles; et o\u00f9 la\n po\u00e9sie cesse d\u2019\u00eatre une esp\u00e8ce de tr\u00e9sor commun dont le peuple\n jouit et dispose \u00e0 sa mani\u00e8re, sans s\u2019inqui\u00e9ter des individus qui\n le lui ont fait.\u201d (Fauriel, Sur les Romans Chevaleresques, le\u00e7on\n 5me, Revue des Deux Mondes, vol. xiii. p. 707.)\n\n M. Fauriel thinks that the Shah Nameh of Ferdusi was an\n amalgamation of epic poems originally separate, and that probably\n the Mahabharat was so also (_ib._ 708).\n\nThe question respecting unity of authorship is different, and more\ndifficult to determine, than that respecting consistency of parts,\nand sequence in the narrative. A poem conceived on a comparatively\nnarrow scale may be enlarged afterwards by its original author,\nwith greater or less coherence and success: the Faust of Goethe\naffords an example even in our own generation. On the other hand,\na systematic poem may well have been conceived and executed by\nprearranged concert between several poets; among whom probably\none will be the governing mind, though the rest may be effective,\nand perhaps equally effective, in respect to execution of the\nparts. And the age of the early Grecian epic was favorable to such\nfraternization of poets, of which the Gens called Homerids probably\nexhibited many specimens. In the recital or singing of a long\nunwritten poem, many bards must have conspired together, and in the\nearliest times the composer and the singer were one and the same\nperson.[302] Now the individuals comprised in the Homerid Gens,\nthough doubtless very different among themselves in respect of mental\ncapacity, were yet homogeneous in respect of training, means of\nobservation and instruction, social experience, religious feelings\nand theories, etc., to a degree much greater than individuals in\nmodern times. Fallible as our inferences are on this point, where we\nhave only internal evidence to guide us, without any contemporary\npoints of comparison, or any species of collateral information\nrespecting the age, the society, the poets, the hearers, or the\nlanguage,\u2014we must nevertheless, in the present case, take coherence\nof structure, together with consistency in the tone of thought,\nfeeling, language, customs, etc., as presumptions of one author; and\nthe contrary as presumptions of severalty; allowing, as well as we\ncan, for that inequality of excellence which the same author may at\ndifferent times present.\n\n [302] The remarks of Boeckh, upon the possibility of such\n co\u00f6peration of poets towards one and the same scheme are\n perfectly just:\u2014\n\n \u201cAtqui quomodo componi a variis auctoribus successu temporum\n rhapsodi\u00e6 potuerint, qu\u00e6 post prima initia direct\u00e6 jam ad idem\n consilium et quam vocant unitatem carminis sint ... missis\n istorum declamationibus qui populi universi opus Homerum esse\n jactant ... tum potissimum intelligetur, ubi gentis civilis\n Homeridarum propriam et peculiarem Homericam poesin fuisse,\n veteribus ipsis si non testibus, at certe ducibus, concedetur....\n Qu\u00e6 quum ita sint, non erit adeo difficile ad intelligendum,\n quomodo, post prima initia ab egregio vate facta, in gente\n sacrorum et artis communione sociat\u00e2, mult\u00e6 rhapsodi\u00e6 ad unum\n potuerint consilium dirigi.\u201d (Index Lection. 1834, p. 12.)\n\n I transcribe this passage from Giese (Ueber den \u00c6olischen\n Dialekt, p. 157), not having been able to see the essay of which\n it forms a part.\n\nNow, the case made out against single-headed authorship of the\nOdyssey, appears to me very weak; and those who dispute it, are\nguided more by their _\u00e0 priori_ rejection of ancient epical unity,\nthan by any positive evidence which the poem itself affords. It\nis otherwise with regard to the Iliad. Whatever presumptions a\ndisjointed structure, several apparent inconsistencies of parts,\nand large excrescence of actual matter beyond the opening promise,\ncan sanction,\u2014may reasonably be indulged against the supposition\nthat this poem all proceeds from a single author. There is a\ndifference of opinion on the subject among the best critics, which\nis, probably, not destined to be adjusted, since so much depends\npartly upon critical feeling, partly upon the general reasonings,\nin respect to ancient epical unity, with which a man sits down to\nthe study. For the champions of unity, such as Mr. Payne Knight, are\nvery ready to strike out numerous and often considerable passages\nas interpolations, thus meeting the objections raised against unity\nof authorship, on the ground of special inconsistencies. Hermann\nand Boeckh, though not going the length of Lachmann in maintaining\nthe original theory of Wolf, agree with the latter in recognizing\ndiversity of authors in the poem, to an extent overpassing the limit\nof what can fairly be called interpolation. Payne Knight and Nitzsch\nare equally persuaded of the contrary. Here, then, is a decided\ncontradiction among critics, all of whom have minutely studied the\npoems since the Wolfian question was raised. And it is such critics\nalone who can be said to constitute authority; for the cursory\nreader, who dwells upon the parts simply long enough to relish their\npoetical beauty, is struck only by that general sameness of coloring\nwhich Wolf himself admits to pervade the poem.[303]\n\n [303] Wolf, Prolegom. p. cxxxviii. \u201cQuippe _in universum_ idem\n sonus est omnibus libris; idem habitus sententiarum, orationis,\n numerorum,\u201d etc.\n\nHaving already intimated that, in my judgment, no theory of the\nstructure of the poem is admissible which does not admit an original\nand preconcerted Achill\u00eais,\u2014a stream which begins at the first book\nand ends with the death of Hector, in the twenty-second, although\nthe higher parts of it now remain only in the condition of two\ndetached lakes, the first book and the eighth,\u2014I reason upon the\nsame basis with respect to the authorship. Assuming continuity of\nstructure as a presumptive proof, the whole of this Achill\u00eais must\nbe treated as composed by one author. Wolf, indeed, affirmed, that\nhe never read the poem continuously through without being painfully\nimpressed with the inferiority[304] and altered style of the last\nsix books,\u2014and Lachmann carries this feeling farther back, so as to\ncommence with the seventeenth book. If I could enter fully into this\nsentiment, I should then be compelled, not to deny the existence\nof a preconceived scheme, but to imagine that the books from the\neighteenth to the twenty-second, though forming part of that scheme,\nor Achill\u00eais, had yet been executed by another and an inferior\npoet. But it is to be remarked, first, that inferiority of poetical\nmerit, to a certain extent, is quite reconcilable with unity of\nauthorship; and, secondly, that the very circumstances upon which\nWolf\u2019s unfavorable judgment is built, seem to arise out of increased\ndifficulty in the poet\u2019s task, when he came to the crowning cantos of\nhis designed Achill\u00eais. For that which chiefly distinguishes these\nbooks, is, the direct, incessant, and manual intervention of the\ngods and goddesses, formerly permitted by Zeus,\u2014and the repetition\nof vast and fantastic conceptions to which such superhuman agency\ngives occasion; not omitting the battle of Achilles against Skamander\nand Simois, and the burning up of these rivers by H\u00eaph\u00e6stus. Now,\nlooking at this vein of ideas with the eyes of a modern reader, or\neven with those of a Grecian critic of the literary ages, it is\ncertain that the effect is unpleasing: the gods, sublime elements of\npoetry when kept in due proportion, are here somewhat vulgarized.\nBut though the poet here has not succeeded, and probably success was\nimpossible, in the task which he has prescribed to himself,\u2014yet the\nmere fact of his undertaking it, and the manifest distinction between\nhis employment of divine agency in these latter cantos as compared\nwith the preceding, seems explicable only on the supposition that\nthey _are_ the latter cantos, and come in designed sequence, as the\ncontinuance of a previous plan. The poet wishes to surround the\ncoming forth of Achilles with the maximum of glorious and terrific\ncircumstance; no Trojan enemy can for a moment hold out against\nhim:[305] the gods must descend to the plain of Troy and fight in\nperson, while Zeus, who at the beginning of the eighth book, had\nforbidden them to take part, expressly encourages them to do so at\nthe beginning of the twentieth. If, then, the nineteenth book (which\ncontains the reconciliation between Achilles and Agamemn\u00f4n, a subject\nnaturally somewhat tame) and the three following books (where we\nhave before us only the gods, Achilles, and the Trojans, without\nhope or courage) are inferior in execution and interest to the seven\npreceding books (which describe the long-disputed and often doubtful\ndeath-struggle between the Greeks and Trojans without Achilles), as\nWolf and other critics affirm,\u2014we may explain the difference without\nsupposing a new poet as composer; for the conditions of the poem had\nbecome essentially more difficult, and the subject more unpromising.\nThe necessity of keeping Achilles above the level, even of heroic\nprowess, restricted the poet\u2019s means of acting upon the sympathy of\nhis hearers.[306]\n\n [304] Wolf, Prolegomen. p. cxxxvii. \u201cEquidem certe quoties in\n continenti lectione ad istas partes (_i. e._ the last six books)\n deveni, nunquam non in iis talia qu\u00e6dam sensi, qu\u00e6 nisi ill\u00e6\n tam mature cum ceteris coaluissent, quovis pignore contendam,\n dudum ab eruditis detecta et animadversa fuisse, immo multa ejus\n generis, ut cum nunc \u1f49\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 habeantur, si tantummodo in\n Hymnis legerentur, ipsa sola eos suspicionibus \u03bd\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 adspersura\n essent.\u201d Compare the sequel, p. cxxxviii, \u201cubi nervi deficiant et\n spiritus Homericus,\u2014jejunum et frigidum in locis multis,\u201d etc.\n\n [305] Iliad, xx. 25. Zeus addresses the agora of the gods,\u2014\n\n \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c1\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd, \u1f45\u03c0\u03b7 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7\n \u0395\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f15\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1 \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1.\n \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7\n \u039d\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03ce\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2,\n \u0394\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03be\u1fc3.\n\n The formal restriction put upon the gods by Zeus at the beginning\n of the eighth book, and the removal of that restriction at\n the beginning of the twentieth, are evidently parts of one\n preconceived scheme.\n\n It is difficult to determine whether the battle of the gods and\n goddesses in book xxi. (385-520) is to be expunged as spurious,\n or only to be blamed as of inferior merit (\u201cimprobanda tantum,\n non resecanda\u2014hoc enim est illud, quo plerumque summa crise\u00f4s\n Homeric\u00e6 redit,\u201d as Heyne observes in another place, Obss. Iliad.\n xviii. 444). The objections on the score of non-Homeric locution\n are not forcible (see P. Knight, _ad loc._), and the scene\n belongs to that vein of conception which animates the poet in the\n closing act of his Achill\u00eais.\n\n [306] While admitting that these last books of the Iliad are not\n equal in interest with those between the eleventh and eighteenth,\n we may add that they exhibit many striking beauties, both of\n plan and execution, and one in particular may be noticed as an\n example of happy epical adaptation. The Trojans are on the point\n of ravishing from the Greeks the dead body of Patroclus, when\n Achilles (by the inspiration of H\u00ear\u00ea and Iris) shows himself\n unarmed on the Grecian mound, and by his mere figure and voice\n strikes such terror into the Trojans that they relinquish the\n dead body. As soon as night arrives, Polydamas proposes, in the\n Trojan agora, that the Trojans shall retire without farther\n delay from the ships to the town, and shelter themselves within\n the walls, without awaiting the assault of Achilles armed on\n the next morning. Hector repels this counsel of Polydamas with\n expressions,\u2014not merely of overweening confidence in his own\n force, even against Achilles,\u2014but also of extreme contempt and\n harshness towards the giver; whose wisdom, however, is proved\n by the utter discomfiture of the Trojans the next day. Now this\n angry deportment and mistake on the part of Hector is made to\n tell strikingly in the twenty-second book, just before his\n death. There yet remains a moment for him to retire within the\n walls, and thus obtain shelter against the near approach of his\n irresistible enemy, but he is struck with the recollection of\n that fatal moment when he repelled the counsel which would have\n saved his countrymen: \u201cIf I enter the town, Polydamas will be the\n first to reproach me, as having brought destruction upon Troy on\n that fatal night when Achilles came forth, and when I resisted\n his better counsel.\u201d (Compare xviii. 250-315; xxii. 100-110; and\n Aristot. Ethic. iii. 8.)\n\n In a discussion respecting the structure of the Iliad, and in\n reference to arguments which deny all designed concatenation of\n parts, it is not out of place to notice this affecting touch of\n poetry, belonging to those books which are reproached as the\n feeblest.\n\nThe last two books of the Iliad may have formed part of the original\nAchill\u00eais. But the probability rather is, that they are additions;\nfor the death of Hector satisfies the exigencies of a coherent\nscheme, and we are not entitled to extend the oldest poem beyond the\nlimit which such necessity prescribes. It has been argued on one side\nby Nitzsch and O. M\u00fcller, that the mind could not leave off with\nsatisfaction at the moment in which Achilles sates his revenge, and\nwhile the bodies of Patroclus and Hector are lying unburied,\u2014also,\nthat the more merciful temper which he exhibits in the twenty-fourth\nbook, must always have been an indispensable sequel, in order to\ncreate proper sympathy with his triumph. Other critics, on the\ncontrary, have taken special grounds of exception against the last\nbook, and have endeavored to set it aside as different from the\nother books, both in tone and language. To a certain extent, the\npeculiarities of the last book appear to me undeniable, though it\nis plainly a designed continuance, and not a substantive poem. Some\nweight also is due to the remark about the twenty-third book, that\nOdysseus and Diom\u00ead\u00eas, who have been wounded and disabled during\nthe fight, now reappear in perfect force, and contend in the games:\nhere is no case of miraculous healing, and the inconsistency is more\nlikely to have been admitted by a separate enlarging poet, than by\nthe schemer of the Achill\u00eais.\n\nThe splendid books from the second to v. 322 of the seventh,[307]\nare equal, in most parts, to any portion of the Achill\u00eais, and are\npointedly distinguished from the latter by the broad view which\nthey exhibit of the general Trojan war, with all its principal\npersonages, localities, and causes,\u2014yet without advancing the result\npromised in the first book, or, indeed, any final purpose whatever.\nEven the desperate wound inflicted by Tlepolemus on Sarp\u00eadon, is\nforgotten, when the latter hero is called forth in the subsequent\nAchill\u00eais.[308] The arguments of Lachmann, who dissects these six\nbooks into three or four separate songs,[309] carry no conviction to\nmy mind; and I see no reason why we should not consider all of them\nto be by the same author, bound together by the common purpose of\ngiving a great collective picture which may properly be termed an\nIliad. The tenth book, or Doloneia, though adapted specially to the\nplace in which it stands, agrees with the books between the first and\neighth in belonging only to the general picture of the war, without\nhelping forward the march of the Achill\u00eais; yet it seems conceived in\na lower vein, in so far as we can trust our modern ethical sentiment.\nOne is unwilling to believe that the author of the fifth book, or\nAristeia of Diom\u00ead\u00eas, would condescend to employ the hero whom he\nthere so brightly glorifies,\u2014the victor even over Ar\u00eas himself,\u2014in\nslaughtering newly-arrived Thracian sleepers, without any large\npurpose or necessity.[310] The ninth book, of which I have already\nspoken at length, belongs to a different vein of conception, and\nseems to me more likely to have emanated from a separate composer.\n\n [307] The latter portion of the seventh book is spoiled by\n the very unsatisfactory addition introduced to explain the\n construction of the wall and ditch: all the other incidents (the\n agora and embassy of the Trojans, the truce for burial, the\n arrival of wine-ships from Lemnos, etc.) suit perfectly with\n the scheme of the poet of these books, to depict the Trojan war\n generally.\n\n [308] Unless, indeed, we are to imagine the combat between\n Tlepolemus and Sarp\u00eadon, and that between Glaukus and Diom\u00ead\u00eas,\n to be separate songs; and they are among the very few passages\n in the Iliad which are completely separable, implying no special\n antecedents.\n\n [309] Compare also Heyne, Excursus ii. sect. ii. ad Iliad. xxiv.\n vol. viii. p. 783.\n\n [310] Subsequent poets, seemingly thinking that the naked story,\n (of Diom\u00ead\u00eas slaughtering Rh\u00easus and his companions in their\n sleep,) as it now stands in the Iliad, was too displeasing,\n adopted different ways of dressing it up. Thus, according to\n Pindar (ap. Schol. Iliad. x. 435), Rh\u00easus fought one day as the\n ally of Troy, and did such terrific damage, that the Greeks\n had no other means of averting total destruction from his hand\n on the next day, except by killing him during the night. And\n the Euripidean drama, called _Rh\u00easus_, though representing the\n latter as a new-comer, yet puts into the mouth of Ath\u00ean\u00ea the like\n overwhelming predictions of what he would do on the coming day,\n if suffered to live; so that to kill him in the night is the only\n way of saving the Greeks (Eurip. Rh\u00eas. 602): moreover, Rh\u00easus\n himself is there brought forward as talking with such overweening\n insolence, that the sympathies of man, and the envy of the gods,\n are turned against him (_ib._ 458).\n\n But the story is best known in the form and with the addition\n (equally unknown to the Iliad) which Virgil has adopted. It was\n decreed by fate that, if the splendid horses of Rh\u00easus were\n permitted once either to taste the Trojan provender, or to drink\n of the river Xanthus, nothing could preserve the Greeks from ruin\n (\u00c6neid, i. 468, with Servius, _ad loc._):\u2014\n\n \u201cNec procul hinc Rhesi niveis tentoria velis\n Agnoscit lacrymans: primo qu\u00e6 prodita somno\n Tydides mult\u00e2 vastabat c\u00e6de cruentus:\n Ardentesque avertit equos in castra, priusquam\n Pabula gustassent Troj\u00e6, Xanthumque bibissent.\u201d\n\n All these versions are certainly improvements upon the story as\n it stands in the Iliad.\n\nWhile intimating these views respecting the authorship of the Iliad,\nas being in my judgment the most probable, I must repeat that, though\nthe study of the poem carries to my mind a sufficient conviction\nrespecting its structure, the question between unity and plurality\nof authors is essentially less determinable. The poem consists of a\npart original, and other parts superadded; yet it is certainly not\nimpossible that the author of the former may himself have composed\nthe latter; and such would be my belief if I regarded plurality of\ncomposers as an inadmissible idea. On this supposition, we must\nconclude that the poet, while anxious for the addition of new, and\nfor the most part, highly interesting matter, has not thought fit to\nrecast the parts and events in such manner as to impart to the whole\na pervading thread of _consensus_ and organization, such as we see in\nthe Odyssey.\n\nThat the Odyssey is of later date than the Iliad, and by a different\nauthor, seems to be now the opinion of most critics, especially of\nPayne Knight[311] and Nitzsch; though O. M\u00fcller leans to a contrary\nconclusion, at the same time adding that he thinks the arguments\neither way not very decisive. There are considerable differences of\nstatement in the two poems in regard to some of the gods: Iris is\nmessenger of the gods in the Iliad, and Herm\u00eas in the Odyssey: \u00c6olus,\nthe dispenser of the winds in the Odyssey, is not noticed in the\ntwenty-third book of the Iliad, but, on the contrary, Iris invites\nthe winds, as independent gods, to come and kindle the funeral pile\nof Patroclus; and, unless we are to expunge the song of Demodokus\nin the eighth book of the Odyssey as spurious, Aphrodit\u00ea there\nappears as the wife of H\u00eaph\u00e6stus,\u2014a relationship not known to the\nIliad. There are also some other points of difference enumerated by\nMr. Knight and others, which tend to justify the presumption that\nthe author of the Odyssey is not identical either with the author of\nthe Achill\u00eais or his enlargers, which G. Hermann considers to be a\npoint unquestionable.[312] Indeed, the difficulty of supposing a long\ncoherent poem to have been conceived, composed, and retained, without\nany aid of writing, appears to many critics even now, insurmountable,\nthough the evidences on the other side, are, in my view, sufficient\nto outweigh any negative presumption thus suggested. But it is\nimprobable that the same person should have powers of memorial\ncombination sufficient for composing two such poems, nor is there any\nproof to force upon us such a supposition.\n\n [311] Mr. Knight places the Iliad about two centuries, and the\n Odyssey one century, anterior to Hesiod: a century between the\n two poems (Prolegg. c. lxi.)\n\n [312] Hermann, Pr\u00e6fat. ad Odyss. p. vii.\n\nPresuming a difference of authorship between the two poems, I feel\nless convinced about the supposed juniority of the Odyssey. The\ndiscrepancies in manners and language in the one and the other, are\nso little important, that two different persons, in the same age\nand society, might well be imagined to exhibit as great or even\ngreater. It is to be recollected that the subjects of the two are\nheterogeneous, so as to conduct the poet, even were he the same\nman, into totally different veins of imagination and illustration.\nThe pictures of the Odyssey seem to delineate the same heroic life\nas the Iliad, though looked at from a distinct point of view: and\nthe circumstances surrounding the residence of Odysseus, in Ithaka,\nare just such as we may suppose him to have left in order to attack\nTroy. If the scenes presented to us are for the most part pacific,\nas contrasted with the incessant fighting of the Iliad, this is not\nto be ascribed to any greater sociality or civilization in the real\nhearers of the Odyssey, but to the circumstances of the hero whom the\npoet undertakes to adorn: nor can we doubt that the poems of Arktinus\nand Lesch\u00eas, of a later date than the Odyssey, would have given us\nas much combat and bloodshed as the Iliad. I am not struck by those\nproofs of improved civilization which some critics affirm the Odyssey\nto present: Mr. Knight, who is of this opinion, nevertheless admits\nthat the mutilation of Melanthius, and the hanging up of the female\nslaves by Odysseus, in that poem, indicate greater barbarity than\nany incidents in the fights before Troy.[313] The more skilful and\ncompact structure of the Odyssey, has been often considered as a\nproof of its juniority in age: and in the case of two poems by the\nsame author, we might plausibly contend that practice would bring\nwith it improvement in the combining faculty. But in reference to the\npoems before us, we must recollect, first, that in all probability\nthe Iliad (with which the comparison is taken) is not a primitive\nbut an enlarged poem, and that the primitive Achill\u00eais might well\nhave been quite as coherent as the Odyssey; secondly, that between\ndifferent authors, superiority in structure is not a proof of\nsubsequent composition, inasmuch as, on that hypothesis, we should\nbe compelled to admit that the later poem of Arktinus would be an\nimprovement upon the Odyssey; thirdly, that, even if it were so,\nwe could only infer that the author of the Odyssey had _heard_ the\nAchill\u00eais or the Iliad; we could not infer that he lived one or two\ngenerations afterwards.[314]\n\n [313] Knight, Prolegg. 1, c. Odyss. xxii. 465-478.\n\n [314] The arguments, upon the faith of which Payne Knight and\n other critics have maintained the Odyssey to be younger than the\n Iliad, are well stated and examined in Bernard Thiersch,\u2014Qu\u00e6stio\n de Divers\u00e2 Iliadis et Odysse\u00e6 \u00c6tate,\u2014in the Anhang (p. 306) to\n his work Ueber das Zeitalter und Vaterland des Homer.\n\n He shows all such arguments to be very inconclusive; though the\n grounds upon which he himself maintains identity of age between\n the two appear to me not at all more satisfactory (p. 327): we\n can infer nothing to the point from the mention of Telemachus in\n the Iliad.\n\n Welcker thinks that there is a great difference of age, and an\n evident difference of authorship, between the two poems (Der\n Episch. Cyclus, p. 295).\n\n O. M\u00fcller admits the more recent date of the Odyssey, but\n considers it \u201cdifficult and hazardous to raise upon this\n foundation any definite conclusions as to the person and age of\n the poet.\u201d (History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, ch. v.\n s. 13.)\n\nOn the whole, the balance of probabilities seems in favor of distinct\nauthorship for the two poems, but the same age,\u2014and that age a very\nearly one, anterior to the first Olympiad. And they may thus be\nused as evidences, and contemporary evidences, for the phenomena of\nprimitive Greek civilization; while they also show that the power of\nconstructing long premeditated epics, without the aid of writing, is\nto be taken as a characteristic of the earliest known Greek mind.\nThis was the point controverted by Wolf, which a full review of\nthe case (in my judgment) decides against him: it is, moreover, a\nvaluable result for the historian of the Greeks, inasmuch as it marks\nout to him the ground from which he is to start in appreciating their\nulterior progress.[315]\n\n [315] Dr. Thirlwall has added to the second edition of his\n History of Greece a valuable Appendix, on the early history\n of the Homeric poems (vol. i. pp. 500-516); which contains\n copious information respecting the discrepant opinions of German\n critics, with a brief comparative examination of their reasons.\n I could have wished that so excellent a judge had superadded,\n to his enumeration of the views of others, an ampler exposition\n of his own. Dr. Thirlwall seems decidedly convinced upon that\n which appears to me the most important point in the Homeric\n controversy: \u201cThat before the appearance of the earliest of the\n poems of the Epic Cycle, the Iliad and Odyssey, even if they did\n not exist precisely in their present form, had at least reached\n their present compass, and were regarded each as a complete and\n well-defined whole, not as a fluctuating aggregate of fugitive\n pieces.\u201d (p. 509.)\n\n This marks out the Homeric poems as ancient both in the items\n and in the total, and includes negation of the theory of Wolf\n and Lachmann, who contend that, as a total, they only date from\n the age of Peisistratus. It is then safe to treat the poems as\n unquestionable evidences of Grecian antiquity (meaning thereby\n 776 B. C.), which we could not do if we regarded all congruity\n of parts in the poems as brought about through alterations of\n Peisistratus and his friends.\n\n There is also a very just admonition of Dr. Thirlwall (p. 516)\n as to the difficulty of measuring what degree of discrepancy or\n inaccuracy might or might not have escaped the poet\u2019s attention,\n in an age so imperfectly known to us.\n\nWhatever there may be of truth in the different conjectures of\ncritics respecting the authorship and structure of these unrivalled\npoems, we are not to imagine that it is the perfection of their\nepical symmetry which has given them their indissoluble hold upon\nthe human mind, as well modern as ancient. There is some tendency\nin critics, from Aristotle downwards,[316] to invert the order of\nattributes in respect to the Homeric poems, so as to dwell most on\nrecondite excellences which escape the unaided reader, and which are\neven to a great degree disputable. But it is given to few minds (as\nGoethe has remarked[317]) to appreciate fully the mechanism of a long\npoem; and many feel the beauty of the separate parts, who have no\nsentiment for the aggregate perfection of the whole.\n\n [316] There are just remarks on this point in Heyne\u2019s Excursus,\n ii. sect. 2 and 4, ad Il. xxiv. vol. viii. pp. 771-800.\n\n [317] \u201cWenig Deutsche, und vielleicht nur wenige Menschen aller\n _neuern_ Nationen, haben Gef\u00fchl f\u00fcr ein \u00e6sthetisches Ganzes:\n sie loben und tadeln nur stellenweise, sie entz\u00fccken sich nur\n stellenweise.\u201d (Goethe, Wilhelm Meister: I transcribe this from\n Welcker\u2019s \u00c6schyl. Trilogie, p. 306.)\n\n What ground there is for restricting this proposition to _modern_\n as contrasted with _ancient_ nations, I am unable to conceive.\n\nNor were the Homeric poems originally addressed to minds of the\nrarer stamp. They are intended for those feelings which the critic\nhas in common with the unlettered mass, not for that enlarged range\nof vision and peculiar standard which he has acquired to himself.\nThey are of all poems the most absolutely and unreservedly popular:\nhad they been otherwise, they could not have lived so long in the\nmouth of the rhapsodes, and the ear and memory of the people: and it\nwas _then_ that their influence was first acquired, never afterwards\nto be shaken. Their beauties belong to the parts taken separately,\nwhich revealed themselves spontaneously to the listening crowd at\nthe festival,\u2014far more than to the whole poem taken together, which\ncould hardly be appreciated unless the parts were dwelt upon and\nsuffered to expand in the mind. The most unlettered hearer of those\ntimes could readily seize, while the most instructed reader can still\nrecognize, the characteristic excellence of Homeric narrative,\u2014its\nstraightforward, unconscious, unstudied simplicity,\u2014its concrete\nforms of speech [318] and happy alternation of action with\ndialogue,\u2014its vivid pictures of living agents, always clearly and\nsharply individualized, whether in the commanding proportions\nof Achilles and Odysseus, in the graceful presence of Helen and\nPenelope, or in the more humble contrast of Eum\u00e6us and Melanthius;\nand always, moreover, animated by the frankness with which his heroes\ngive utterance to all their transient emotions and even all their\ninfirmities,\u2014its constant reference to those coarser veins of feeling\nand palpable motives which belong to all men in common,\u2014its fulness\nof graphic details, freshly drawn from the visible and audible world,\nand though often homely, never tame, nor trenching upon that limit\nof satiety to which the Greek mind was so keenly alive,\u2014lastly,\nits perpetual junction of gods and men in the same picture, and\nfamiliar appeal to ever-present divine agency, in harmony with the\ninterpretation of nature at that time universal.\n\n [318] The \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 of Homer were extolled by Aristotle;\n see Schol. ad Iliad. i. 481; compare Dionys. Halicarn. De Compos.\n Verbor. c. 20. \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f22\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd. Respecting the undisguised bursts of feeling by\n the heroes, the Scholiast ad Iliad, i. 349 tells us,\u2014\u1f15\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n \u1f21\u03c0\u03c9\u03ca\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03b1,\u2014compare Euripid. Helen. 959, and the severe\n censures of Plato, Republ. ii. p. 388.\n\n The Homeric poems were the best understood, and the most widely\n popular of all Grecian composition, even among the least\n instructed persons, such (for example) as the semibarbarians who\n had acquired the Greek language in addition to their own mother\n tongue. (Dio Chrysost. Or. xviii. vol. i. p. 478; Or. liii. vol.\n ii. p. 277, Reisk.) Respecting the simplicity and perspicuity\n of the narrative style, implied in this extensive popularity,\n Porphyry made a singular remark: he said, that the sentences\n of Homer _really_ presented much difficulty and obscurity, but\n that ordinary readers fancied they understood him, \u201cbecause\n of the general clearness _which appeared_ to run through the\n poems.\u201d (See the Prolegomena of Villoison\u2019s edition of the\n Iliad, p. xli.) This remark affords the key to a good deal of\n the Homeric criticism. There doubtless were real obscurities in\n the poems, arising from altered associations, customs, religion,\n language, etc., as well as from corrupt text; but while the\n critics did good service in elucidating these difficulties,\n they also introduced artificially many others, altogether of\n their own creating. Refusing to be satisfied with the plain and\n obvious meaning, they sought in Homer hidden purposes, elaborate\n innuendo, recondite motives even with regard to petty details,\n deep-laid rhetorical artifices (see a specimen in Dionys. Hal.\n Ars Rhetor. c. 15, p. 316, Reiske; nor is even Aristotle exempt\n from similar tendencies, Schol. ad Iliad. iii. 441, x. 198), or\n a substratum of philosophy allegorized. No wonder that passages,\n quite perspicuous to the vulgar reader, seemed difficult to them.\n\n There could not be so sure a way of missing the real Homer as by\n searching for him in these devious recesses. He is essentially\n the poet of the broad highway and the market-place, touching\n the common sympathies and satisfying the mental appetencies of\n his countrymen with unrivalled effect; but exempt from ulterior\n views, either selfish or didactic, and immersed in the same\n medium of practical life and experience, religiously construed,\n as his auditors. No nation has ever yet had so perfect and\n touching an exposition of its early social mind as the Iliad and\n Odyssey exhibit.\n\n In the verbal criticism of Homer, the Alexandrine literati\n seem to have made a very great advance, as compared with the\n glossographers who preceded them. (See Lehrs, De Studiis\n Aristarchi, Dissert. ii. p. 42.)\n\nIt is undoubtedly easier to feel than to describe the impressive\ninfluence of Homeric narrative: but the time and circumstances under\nwhich that influence was first, and most powerfully felt, preclude\nthe possibility of explaining it by comprehensive and elaborate\ncomparisons, such as are implied in Aristotle\u2019s remarks upon the\nstructure of the poems. The critic who seeks the explanation in the\nright place will not depart widely from the point of view of those\nrude auditors to whom the poems were originally addressed, or from\nthe susceptibilities and capacities common to the human bosom in\nevery stage of progressive culture. And though the refinements and\ndelicacies of the poems, as well as their general structure, are a\nsubject of highly interesting criticism,\u2014yet it is not to these that\nHomer owes his wide-spread and imperishable popularity. Still less is\nit true, as the well-known observations of Horace would lead us to\nbelieve, that Homer is a teacher of ethical wisdom akin and superior\nto Chrysippus or Crantor.[319] No didactic purpose is to be found\nin the Iliad and Odyssey; a philosopher may doubtless extract, from\nthe incidents and strongly marked characters which it contains, much\nillustrative matter for his exhortations,\u2014but the ethical doctrine\nwhich he applies must emanate from his own reflection. The Homeric\nhero manifests virtues or infirmities, fierceness or compassion, with\nthe same straightforward and simple-minded vivacity, unconscious of\nany ideal standard by which his conduct is to be tried;[320] nor\ncan we trace in the poet any ulterior function beyond that of the\ninspired organ of the Muse, and the nameless, but eloquent, herald of\nlost adventures out of the darkness of the past.\n\n [319] Horat. Epist. i. 2, v. 1-26:\u2014\n\n \u201cSirenum voces, et Circes pocula nosti:\n Qu\u00e6 si cum sociis stultus cupidusque bibisset,\n Vixisset canis immundus, vel amica luto sus.\u201d\n\n Horace contrasts the folly and greediness of the companions of\n Ulysses, in accepting the refreshments tendered to them by Circe,\n with the self-command of Ulysses himself in refusing them. But\n in the incident as described in the original poem, neither the\n praise nor the blame, here implied, finds any countenance. The\n companions of Ulysses follow the universal practice in accepting\n hospitality tendered to strangers, the fatal consequences of\n which, in their particular case, they could have no ground for\n suspecting; while Ulysses is preserved from a similar fate, not\n by any self-command of his own, but by a previous divine warning\n and a special antidote, which had not been vouchsafed to the rest\n (see Odyss. x. 285). And the incident of the Sirens, if it is to\n be taken as evidence of anything, indicates rather the absence,\n than the presence, of self-command on the part of Ulysses.\n\n Of the violent mutations of text, whereby the _Grammatici_ or\n critics tried to efface from Homer bad ethical tendencies (we\n must remember that many of these men were lecturers to youth),\n a remarkable specimen is afforded by Venet. Schol. ad Iliad.\n ix. 453; compare Plutarch, de Audiendis Poetis, p. 95. Ph\u0153nix\n describes the calamitous family tragedy in which he himself had\n been partly the agent, partly the victim. Now that an Homeric\n hero should confess guilty proceedings, and still more guilty\n designs, without any expression of shame or contrition, was\n insupportable to the feelings of the critics. One of them,\n Aristodemus, thrust two negative particles into one of the\n lines; and though he thereby ruined not only the sense but the\n metre, his emendation procured for him universal applause,\n because he had maintained the innocence of the hero (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b7\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u1fc6 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03b1). And\n Aristarchus thought the case so alarming, that he struck out\n from the text four lines, which have only been preserved to us\n by Plutarch (\u1f49 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, ~\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2~).\n See the Fragment of Dioscorides (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f49\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u1ff3 \u039d\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd) in\n Didot\u2019s Fragmenta Historicor. Gr\u00e6cor. vol. ii. p. 193.\n\n [320] \u201cC\u2019est un tableau id\u00e9al, \u00e0 coup s\u00fbr, que celui de la\n soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Grecque dans les chants qui portent le nom d\u2019Hom\u00e8re: et\n pourtant cette soci\u00e9t\u00e9 y est toute enti\u00e8re reproduite, avec la\n rusticit\u00e9, la f\u00e9rocit\u00e9 de ses m\u0153urs, ses bonnes et ses mauvaises\n passions, sans dessein de faire particuli\u00e8rement ressortir, de\n c\u00e9l\u00e9brer tel ou tel de ses m\u00e9rites, de ses avantages, ou de\n laisser dans l\u2019ombre ses vices et ses maux. Ce m\u00e9lange du bien\n et du mal, du fort et du faible,\u2014cette simultan\u00e9it\u00e9 d\u2019id\u00e9es\n et de sentimens en apparence contraires,\u2014cette vari\u00e9t\u00e9, cette\n incoh\u00e9rence, ce d\u00e9veloppement in\u00e9gal de la nature et de la\n destin\u00e9e humaine,\u2014c\u2019est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment l\u00e0 ce qu\u2019il y a de plus\n po\u00e9tique, car c\u2019est le fond m\u00eame des choses, c\u2019est la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 sur\n l\u2019homme et le monde: et dans les peintures id\u00e9ales qu\u2019en veulent\n faire la po\u00e9sie, le roman et m\u00eame l\u2019histoire, cet ensemble, si\n divers et pourtant si harmonieux, doit se retrouver: sans quoi\n l\u2019id\u00e9al v\u00e9ritable y manque aussi bien que la r\u00e9alit\u00e9.\u201d (Guizot,\n Cours d\u2019Histoire Moderne; Le\u00e7on 7me, vol. i. p. 285.)\n\n\n\n\nHISTORY OF GREECE.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nHISTORICAL GREECE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nGENERAL GEOGRAPHY AND LIMITS OF GREECE.\n\n\nGreece Proper lies between the 36th and 40th parallels of north\nlatitude, and between the 21st and 26th degrees of east longitude.\nIts greatest length, from Mount Olympus to Cape T\u00e6narus, may be\nstated at 250 English miles; its greatest breadth, from the western\ncoast of Akarnania to Marathon in Attica, at 180 miles; and the\ndistance eastward from Ambrakia across Pindus to the Magnesian\nmountain Homol\u00ea and the mouth of the Peneius is about 120 miles.\nAltogether, its area is somewhat less than that of Portugal.[321] In\nregard, however, to all attempts at determining the exact limits of\nGreece proper, we may remark, first, that these limits seem not to\nhave been very precisely defined even among the Greeks themselves;\nand next, that so large a proportion of the Hellens were distributed\namong islands and colonies, and so much of their influence upon the\nworld in general produced through their colonies, as to render the\nextent of their original domicile a matter of comparatively little\nmoment to verify.\n\n [321] Compare Strong, Statistics of the Kingdom of Greece, p. 2;\n and Kruse, Hellas, vol. i. ch. 3, p. 196.\n\nThe chain called Olympus and the Cambunian mountains, ranging\nfrom east and west, and commencing with the \u00c6gean sea or the gulf\nof Therma, near the 40th degree of north latitude, is prolonged\nunder the name of Mount Lingon, until it touches the Adriatic at\nthe Akrokeraunian promontory. The country south of this chain\ncomprehended all that in ancient times was regarded as Greece, or\nHellas proper, but it also comprehended something more. Hellas\nproper,[322] (or continuous Hellas, to use the language of Skylax\nand Dik\u00e6archus) was understood to begin with the town and gulf of\nAmbrakia: from thence, northward to the Akrokeraunian promontory,\nlay the land called by the Greeks Epirus,\u2014occupied by the Chaonians,\nMolossians, and Thesprotians, who were termed Epirots, and were not\nesteemed to belong to the Hellenic aggregate. This at least was the\ngeneral understanding, though \u00c6tolians and Akarnanians, in their more\ndistant sections, seem to have been not less widely removed from the\nfull type of Hellenism than the Epirots were; while Herodotus is\ninclined to treat even Molossians and Thesprotians as Hellens.[323]\n\n [322] Dik\u00e6arch, 31, p. 460, ed. Fuhr:\u2014\n\n \u1f29 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\n \u039c\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u1f18\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u1f4c\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f49\u03bc\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n Skylax, c. 35.\u2014\u1f08\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u2014\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f25 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n [323] Herod. i. 146: ii. 56. The Molossian Alk\u00f4n passes for a\n Hellen (Herod. vi. 127).\n\nAt a point about midway between the \u00c6gean and Ionian seas, Olympus\nand Lingon are traversed nearly at right angles by the still longer\nand vaster chain called Pindus, which stretches in a line rather\nwest of north from the northern side of the range of Olympus: the\nsystem to which these mountains belong seems to begin with the lofty\nmasses of greenstone comprised under the name of Mount Scardus, or\nScordus, (Schardagh,)[324] which is divided only by the narrow\ncleft, containing the river Drin, from the limestone of the Albanian\nAlps. From the southern face of Olympus, Pindus strikes off nearly\nsouthward, forming the boundary between Thessaly and Epirus, and\nsending forth about the 39th degree of latitude the lateral chain of\nOthrys,\u2014which latter takes an easterly course, forming the southern\nboundary of Thessaly, and reaching the sea between Thessaly and the\nnorthern coast of Eub\u0153a. Southward of Othrys, the chain of Pindus,\nunder the name of Tymphr\u00eastus, still continues, until another lateral\nchain, called \u0152ta, projects from it again towards the east,\u2014forming\nthe lofty coast immediately south of the Maliac gulf, with the narrow\nroad of Thermopyl\u00e6 between the two,\u2014and terminating at the Eub\u0153an\nstrait. At the point of junction with \u0152ta, the chain of Pindus\nforks into two branches; one striking to the westward of south,\nand reaching across \u00c6tolia, under the names of Arakynthus, Kurius,\nKorax, and Taphiassus, to the promontory called Antirrhion, situated\non the northern side of the narrow entrance of the Corinthian gulf,\nover against the corresponding promontory of Rhion in Peloponnesus;\nthe other tending south-east, and forming Parnassus, Helicon,\nand Kith\u00e6r\u00f4n; indeed, \u00c6galeus and Hymettus, even down to the\nsouthernmost cape of Attica, Sunium, may be treated as a continuance\nof this chain. From the eastern extremity of \u0152ta, also, a range of\nhills, inferior in height to the preceding, takes its departure\nin a south-easterly direction, under the various names of Kn\u00eamis,\nPt\u00f4on, and Teum\u00eassus. It is joined with Kith\u00e6r\u00f4n by the lateral\ncommunication, ranging from west to east, called Parn\u00eas; while the\ncelebrated Pentelikus, abundant in marble quarries, constitutes its\nconnecting link, to the south of Parn\u00eas with the chain from Kith\u00e6r\u00f4n\nto Sunium.\n\n [324] The mountain systems in the ancient Macedonia and\n Illyricum, north of Olympus, have been yet but imperfectly\n examined: see Dr. Griesebach, Reise durch Rumelien und nach\n Brussa im Jahre 1839, vol. ii. ch. 13, p. 112, _seqq._ (G\u00f6tting.\n 1841), which contains much instruction respecting the real\n relations of these mountains as compared with the different ideas\n and representations of them. The words of Strabo (lib. vii.\n Excerpt. 3, ed. Tzschucke), that Scardus, Orb\u00ealus, Rhodop\u00ea, and\n H\u00e6mus extend in a straight line from the Adriatic to the Euxine,\n are incorrect.\n\n See Leake\u2019s Travels in Northern Greece, vol. i. p. 335: the pass\n of Tschangon, near Castoria (through which the river Devol passes\n from the eastward to fall into the Adriatic on the westward),\n is the only cleft in this long chain from the river Drin in the\n north down to the centre of Greece.\n\nFrom the promontory of Antirrhion, the line of mountains crosses\ninto Peloponnesus, and stretches in a southerly direction down to\nthe extremity of the peninsula called T\u00e6narus, now Cape Matapan.\nForming the boundary between Elis with Messenia on one side, and\nArcadia with Laconia on the other, it bears the successive names of\nOlenus, Panachaikus, Pholo\u00ea, Erymanthus, Lyk\u00e6us, Parrhasius, and\nTaygetus. Another series of mountains strikes off from Kith\u00e6r\u00f4n\ntowards the south-west, constituting, under the names of Geraneia and\nOneia, the rugged and lofty Isthmus of Corinth, and then spreading\nitself into Peloponnesus. On entering that peninsula, one of its\nbranches tends westward along the north of Arkadia, comprising the\nAkrokorinthus, or citadel of Corinth, the high peak of Kyll\u00ean\u00ea, the\nmountains of Aroanii and Lampeia, and ultimately joining Erymanthus\nand Pholo\u00ea,\u2014while the other branch strikes southward towards the\nsouth-eastern cape of Peloponnesus, the formidable Cape Malea, or St.\nAngelo,\u2014and exhibits itself under the successive names of Apesas,\nArtemisium, Parthenium, Parn\u00f4n, Thornax, and Zar\u00eax.\n\nFrom the eastern extremity of Olympus, in a direction rather to the\neastward of south, stretches the range of mountains first called\nOssa, and afterwards Pelion, down to the south-eastern corner of\nThessaly. The long, lofty, and naked back-bone of the island of\nEub\u0153a, may be viewed as a continuance both of this chain and of\nthe chain of Othrys: the line is farther prolonged by a series of\nislands in the Archipelago, Andros, T\u00eanos, Mykonos, and Naxos,\nbelonging to the group called the Cyclades, or islands encircling\nthe sacred centre of Delos. Of these Cyclades, others are in like\nmanner a continuance of the chain which reaches to Cape Sunium,\u2014Ke\u00f4s,\nKythnos, Seriphos, and Siphnos join on to Attica, as Andros does to\nEub\u0153a. And we might even consider the great island of Krete as a\nprolongation of the system of mountains which breasts the winds and\nwaves at Cape Malea, the island of Kyth\u00eara forming the intermediate\nlink between them. Skiathus, Skopelus, and Skyrus, to the north-east\nof Eub\u0153a, also mark themselves out as outlying peaks of the range\ncomprehending Pelion and Eub\u0153a.[325]\n\n [325] For the general sketch of the mountain system of Hellas,\n see Kruse, Hellas, vol. i. ch. 4, pp. 280-290; Dr. Cramer, Geog.\n of An. Greece, vol. i. pp. 3-8.\n\n Respecting the northern regions, Epirus, Illyria, and Macedonia,\n O. M\u00fcller, in his short but valuable treatise Ueber die\n Makedoner, p. 7 (Berlin, 1825), may be consulted with advantage.\n This treatise is annexed to the English translation of his\n History of the Dorians by Mr. G. C. Lewis.\n\nBy this brief sketch, which the reader will naturally compare\nwith one of the recent maps of the country, it will be seen that\nGreece proper is among the most mountainous territories in Europe.\nFor although it is convenient, in giving a systematic view of the\nface of the country, to group the multiplicity of mountains into\ncertain chains, or ranges, founded upon approximative uniformity of\ndirection; yet, in point of fact, there are so many ramifications and\ndispersed peaks,\u2014so vast a number of hills and crags of different\nmagnitude and elevation,\u2014that a comparatively small proportion of the\nsurface is left for level ground. Not only few continuous plains,\nbut even few continuous valleys, exist throughout all Greece proper.\nThe largest spaces of level ground are seen in Thessaly, in \u00c6tolia,\nin the western portion of Peloponnesus, and in B\u0153otia; but irregular\nmountains, valleys frequent but isolated, land-locked basins and\ndeclivities, which often occur, but seldom last long, form the\ncharacter of the country.[326]\n\n [326] Out of the 47,600,000 stremas (= 12,000,000 English acres)\n included in the present kingdom of Greece, 26,500,000 go to\n mountains, rocks, rivers, lakes, and forests,\u2014and 21,000,000 to\n arable land, vineyards, olive and currant grounds, etc. By arable\n land is meant, land fit for cultivation; for a comparatively\n small portion of it is actually cultivated at present (Strong,\n Statistics of Greece, p. 2, London, 1842).\n\n The modern kingdom of Greece does not include Thessaly. The\n epithet \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 (hollow) is applied to several of the chief\n Grecian states,\u2014\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u1f74 \u1f2e\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u1f74 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, etc.\n\n \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c6\u03c1\u03cd\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Strabo, viii. p. 381.\n\n The fertility of B\u0153otia is noticed in Strabo, ix. p. 400, and in\n the valuable fragment of Dik\u00e6archus, \u0392\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, p. 140, ed.\n Fuhr.\n\nThe islands of the Cyclades, Eub\u0153a, Attica, and Laconia, consist\nfor the most part of micaceous schist, combined with and often\ncovered by crystalline granular limestone.[327] The centre and west\nof Peloponnesus, as well as the country north of the Corinthian\ngulf from the gulf of Ambrakia to the strait of Eub\u0153a, present a\ncalcareous formation, varying in different localities as to color,\nconsistency, and hardness, but, generally, belonging or approximating\nto the chalk: it is often very compact, but is distinguished in a\nmarked manner from the crystalline limestone above mentioned. The\ntwo loftiest summits in Greece[328] (both, however, lower than\nOlympus, estimated at nine thousand seven hundred feet) exhibit this\nformation,\u2014Parnassus, which attains eight thousand feet, and the\npoint of St. Elias in Taygetus, which is not less than seven thousand\neight hundred feet. Clay-slate, and conglomerates of sand, lime,\nand clay, are found in many parts: a close and firm conglomerate of\nlime composes the Isthmus of Corinth: loose deposits of pebbles,\nand calcareous breccia, occupy also some portions of the territory.\nBut the most important and essential elements of the Grecian soil,\nconsist of the diluvial and alluvial formations, with which the\ntroughs and basins are filled up, resulting from the decomposition\nof the older adjoining rocks. In these reside the productive powers\nof the country, and upon these the grain and vegetables for the\nsubsistence of the people depend. The mountain regions are to a\ngreat degree barren, destitute at present of wood or any useful\nvegetation, though there is reason to believe that they were better\nwooded in antiquity: in many parts, however, and especially in \u00c6tolia\nand Akarnania, they afford plenty of timber, and in all parts,\npasture for the cattle during summer, at a time when the plains are\nthoroughly burnt up.[329] For other articles of food, dependence\nmust be had on the valleys, which are occasionally of singular\nfertility. The low ground of Thessaly, the valley of the Kephisus,\nand the borders of the lake Kopa\u00efs, in B\u0153otia, the western portion of\nElis, the plains of Stratus on the confines of Akarnania and \u00c6tolia,\nand those near the river Pamisus in Messenia, both are now, and were\nin ancient times, remarkable for their abundant produce.\n\n [327] For the geological and mineralogical character of Greece,\n see the survey undertaken by Dr. Fiedler, by orders of the\n present government of Greece, in 1834 and the following years\n (Reise durch alle Theile des K\u00f6nigreichs Griechenland in Auftrag\n der K. G. Regierung in den Jahren 1834 bis 1837, especially vol.\n ii. pp. 512-530).\n\n Professor Ross remarks upon the character of the Greek\n limestone,\u2014hard and intractable to the mason,\u2014jagged and\n irregular in its fracture,\u2014as having first determined in early\n times the polygonal style of architecture, which has been\n denominated (he observes) Cyclopian and Pelasgic, without the\n least reason for either denomination (Reise auf den Griech.\n Inseln, vol. i. p. 15).\n\n [328] Griesebach, Reisen durch Rumelien, vol. ii. ch. 13, p. 124.\n\n [329] In passing through the valley between \u0152ta and Parnassus,\n going towards Elateia, Fiedler observes the striking change\n in the character of the country. \u201cRomelia (_i. e._ Akarnania,\n \u00c6tolia, Ozolian Lokris, etc.), woody, well-watered, and covered\n with a good soil, ceases at once and precipitously: while craggy\n limestone mountains, of a white-grey color, exhibit the cold\n character of Attica and the Morea.\u201d (Fiedler, Reise, i. p. 213.)\n\n The Homeric Hymn to Apollo conceives even the \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd of\n Thebes as having in its primitive state been covered with wood\n (v. 227).\n\n The best timber used by the ancient Greeks came from Macedonia,\n the Euxine, and the Propontis: the timber of Mount Parnassus\n and of Eub\u0153a was reckoned very bad; that of Arcadia better\n (Theophrast. v. 2, 1; iii. 9).\n\nBesides the scarcity of wood for fuel, there is another serious\ninconvenience to which the low grounds of Greece are exposed,\u2014the\nwant of a supply of water at once adequate and regular.[330]\nAbundance of rain falls during the autumnal and winter months, little\nor none during the summer; while the naked limestone of the numerous\nhills, neither absorbs nor retains moisture, so that the rain runs\noff as rapidly as it falls, and springs are rare.[331] Most of the\nrivers of Greece are torrents in early spring, and dry before the\nend of the summer: the copious combinations of the ancient language,\ndesignated the winter torrent by a special and separate word.[332]\nThe most considerable rivers in the country are, the Peneius, which\ncarries off all the waters of Thessaly, finding an exit into the\n\u00c6gean through the narrow defile which parts Ossa from Olympus,\u2014and\nthe Achel\u00f4us, which flows from Pindus in a south-westerly direction,\nseparating \u00c6tolia from Akarnania, and emptying itself into the Ionian\nsea: the Eu\u00eanus also takes its rise at a more southerly part of\nthe same mountain chain, and falls into the same sea more to the\neastward. The rivers more to the southward are unequal and inferior.\nKephisus and As\u00f4pus, in B\u0153otia, Alpheius, in Elis and Arcadia,\nPamisus in Messenia, maintain each a languid stream throughout the\nsummer; while the Inachus near Argos, and the Kephisus and Ilissus\nnear Athens, present a scanty reality which falls short still more of\ntheir great poetical celebrity. Of all those rivers which have been\nnoticed, the Achel\u00f4us is by far the most important. The quantity of\nmud which its turbid stream brought down and deposited, occasioned\na sensible increase of the land at its embouchure, within the\nobservation of Thucydid\u00eas.[333]\n\n [330] See Fiedler, Reise, etc. vol. i. pp. 84, 219, 362, etc.\n\n Both Fiedler and Strong (Statistics of Greece, p. 169) dwell with\n great reason upon the inestimable value of Artesian wells for the\n country.\n\n [331] Ross, Reise auf den Griechischen Inseln, vol. i. letter 2,\n p. 12.\n\n [332] The Greek language seems to stand singular in the\n expression \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2,\u2014the _Wadys_ of Arabia manifest the like\n alternation, of extreme temporary fulness and violence, with\n absolute dryness (Kriegk, Schriften zur allgemeinen Erdkunde, p.\n 201, Leipzig, 1840).\n\n [333] Thucydid. ii. 102.\n\nBut the disposition and properties of the Grecian territory, though\nnot maintaining permanent rivers, are favorable to the multiplication\nof lakes and marshes. There are numerous hollows and inclosed basins,\nout of which the water can find no superficial escape, and where,\nunless it makes for itself a subterranean passage through rifts in\nthe mountains, it remains either as a marsh or a lake according to\nthe time of year. In Thessaly, we find the lakes Ness\u00f4nis and B\u0153b\u00eais;\nin \u00c6tolia, between the Achelous and Eun\u00eaus, Strabo mentions the lake\nof Trich\u00f4nis, besides several other lakes, which it is difficult\nto identify individually, though the quantity of ground covered by\nlake and marsh is, as a whole, very considerable. In B\u0153otia, are\nsituated the lakes Kopa\u00efs, Hylik\u00ea, and Harma; the first of the three\nformed chiefly by the river Kephisus, flowing from Parnassus on the\nnorth-west, and shaping for itself a sinuous course through the\nmountains of Phokis. On the north-east and east, the lake Kopa\u00efs\nis bounded by the high land of Mount Pt\u00f4on, which intercepts its\ncommunication with the strait of Eub\u0153a. Through the limestone of this\nmountain, the water has either found or forced several subterraneous\ncavities, by which it obtains a partial egress on the other side of\nthe rocky hill, and then flows into the strait. The Katabothra, as\nthey were termed in antiquity, yet exist, but in an imperfect and\nhalf-obstructed condition. Even in antiquity, however, they never\nfully sufficed to carry off the surplus waters of the Kephisus; for\nthe remains are still found of an artificial tunnel, pierced through\nthe whole breadth of the rock, and with perpendicular apertures\nat proper intervals to let in the air from above. This tunnel\u2014one\nof the most interesting remnants of antiquity, since it must date\nfrom the prosperous days of the old Orchomenus, anterior to its\nabsorption into the B\u0153otian league, as well as to the preponderance\nof Thebes,\u2014is now choked up and rendered useless. It may, perhaps,\nhave been designedly obstructed by the hand of an enemy, and the\nscheme of Alexander the Great, who commissioned an engineer from\nChalkis to reopen it, was defeated, first, by discontents in B\u0153otia,\nand ultimately by his early death.[334]\n\n [334] Strabo, ix. p. 407.\n\nThe Katabothra of the lake Kopa\u00efs, are a specimen of the phenomenon\nso frequent in Greece,\u2014lakes and rivers finding for themselves\nsubterranean passages through the cavities in the limestone rocks,\nand even pursuing their unseen course for a considerable distance\nbefore they emerge to the light of day. In Arcadia, especially,\nseveral remarkable examples of subterranean water communication\noccur; this central region of Peloponnesus presents a cluster of such\ncompletely inclosed valleys, or basins.[335]\n\n [335] Colonel Leake observes (Travels in Morea, vol. iii. pp. 45,\n 153-155), \u201cThe plain of Tripolitza (anciently that of Tegea and\n Mantineia) is by far the greatest of that cluster of valleys in\n the centre of Peloponnesus, each of which is so closely shut in\n by the intersecting mountains, that no outlet is afforded to the\n waters except through the mountains themselves,\u201d etc. Respecting\n the Arcadian Orchomenus, and its inclosed lake with Katabothra,\n see the same work, p. 103; and the mountain plains near Corinth,\n p. 263.\n\n This temporary disappearance of the rivers was familiar to\n the ancient observers\u2014\u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. (Aristot.\n Meteorolog. i. 13. Diodor. xv. 49. Strabo, vi. p. 271; viii. p.\n 389, etc.)\n\n Their familiarity with this phenomenon was in part the source\n of some geographical suppositions, which now appear to us\n extravagant, respecting the long subterranean and submarine\n course of certain rivers, and their reappearance at very distant\n points. Sophokles said that the Inachus of Akarnania joined the\n Inachus of Argolis: Ibykus the poet affirmed that the As\u00f4pus,\n near Sikyon, had its source in Phrygia; the river In\u00f4pus of the\n little island of Delos was alleged by others to be an effluent\n from the mighty Nile; and the rhetor Z\u00f4ilus, in a panegyrical\n oration to the inhabitants of Tenedos, went the length of\n assuring them that the Alpheius in Elis had its source in their\n island (Strabo, vi. p. 271). Not only Pindar and other poets\n (Antigon. Caryst. c. 155), but also the historian Tim\u00e6us (Tim\u00e6i\n Frag. 127, ed. G\u00f6ller), and Pausanias, also, with the greatest\n confidence (v. 7, 2), believed that the fountain Arethusa, at\n Syracuse, was nothing else but the reappearance of the river\n Alpheius from Peloponnesus: this was attested by the actual fact\n that a goblet or cup (\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7), thrown into the Alpheius, had\n come up at the Syracusan fountain, which Tim\u00e6us professed to\n have verified,\u2014but even the arguments by which Strabo justifies\n his disbelief of this tale, show how powerfully the phenomena\n of the Grecian rivers acted upon his mind. \u201cIf (says he, _l.\n c._) the Alpheius, instead of flowing into the sea, fell into\n some chasm in the earth, there would be some plausibility in\n supposing that it continued its subterranean course as far as\n Sicily without mixing with the sea: but since its junction with\n the sea is matter of observation, and since there is no aperture\n visible near the shore to absorb the water of the river (\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6), so it is plain that the water\n cannot maintain its separation and its sweetness, whereas the\n spring Arethusa is perfectly good to drink.\u201d I have translated\n here the sense rather than the words of Strabo; but the phenomena\n of \u201crivers falling into chasms and being drunk up,\u201d for a time,\n is exactly what happens in Greece. It did not appear to Strabo\n impossible that the Alpheius might traverse this great distance\n underground; nor do we wonder at this, when we learn that a more\n able geographer than he (Eratosthen\u00eas) supposed that the marshes\n of Rhinokolura, between the Mediterranean and the Red sea, were\n formed by the Euphrates and Tigris, which flowed underground\n for the length of 6000 stadia or furlongs (Strabo, xvi. p.\n 741: Seidel; Fragm. Eratosth. p. 194): compare the story about\n the Euphrates passing underground, and reappearing in Ethiopia\n as the river Nile (Pausan. ii. 5, 3). This disappearance and\n reappearance of rivers connected itself, in the minds of ancient\n physical philosophers, with the supposition of vast reservoirs of\n water in the interior of the earth, which were protruded upwards\n to the surface by some gaseous force (see Seneca, Nat. Qu\u00e6st.\n vi. 8). Pomponius Mela mentions an idea of some writers, that\n the source of the Nile was to be found, not in our (\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7)\n habitable section of the globe, but in the Antichthon, or\n southern continent, and that it flowed under the ocean to rise up\n in Ethiopia (Mela, i. 9, 55).\n\n These views of the ancients, evidently based upon the analogy of\n Grecian rivers, are well set forth by M. Letronne, in a paper on\n the situation of the Terrestrial Paradise, as represented by the\n Fathers of the Church; cited in A. von Humboldt, Examen Critique\n de l\u2019Histoire de la G\u00e9ographie, etc., vol. iii. pp. 118-130.\n\nIt will be seen from these circumstances, that Greece, considering\nits limited total extent, offers but little motive, and still less\nof convenient means, for internal communication among its various\ninhabitants.[336] Each village, or township, occupying its plain\nwith the inclosing mountains,[337] supplied its own main wants whilst\nthe transport of commodities by land was sufficiently difficult to\ndiscourage greatly any regular commerce with neighbors. In so far\nas the face of the interior country was concerned, it seemed as if\nnature had been disposed, from the beginning, to keep the population\nof Greece socially and politically disunited,\u2014by providing so many\nhedges of separation, and so many boundaries, generally hard,\nsometimes impossible, to overleap. One special motive to intercourse,\nhowever, arose out of this very geographical constitution of the\ncountry, and its endless alternation of mountain and valley. The\ndifference of climate and temperature between the high and low\ngrounds is very great; the harvest is secured in one place before it\nis ripe in another, and the cattle find during the heat of summer\nshelter and pasture on the hills, at a time when the plains are burnt\nup.[338] The practice of transferring them from the mountains to the\nplain according to the change of season, which subsists still as it\ndid in ancient times, is intimately connected with the structure of\nthe country, and must from the earliest period have brought about\ncommunication among the otherwise disunited villages.[339]\n\n [336] \u201cUpon the arrival of the king and regency in 1833 (observes\n Mr. Strong), no carriage-roads existed in Greece; nor were they,\n indeed, much wanted previously, as down to that period not a\n carriage, waggon, or cart, or any other description of vehicles,\n was to be found in the whole country. The traffic in general was\n carried on by means of boats, to which the long indented line\n of the Grecian coast and its numerous islands afforded every\n facility. Between the seaports and the interior of the kingdom,\n the communication was effected by means of beasts of burden, such\n as mules, horses, and camels.\u201d (Statistics of Greece, p. 33.)\n\n This exhibits a retrograde march to a point lower than the\n description of the Odyssey, where Telemachus and Peisistratus\n drive their chariot from Pylus to Sparta. The remains of the\n ancient roads are still seen in many parts of Greece (Strong, p.\n 34).\n\n [337] Dr. Clarke\u2019s description deserves to be noticed, though\n his warm eulogies on the fertility of the soil, taken generally,\n are not borne out by later observers: \u201cThe physical phenomena\n of Greece, differing from those of any other country, present a\n series of beautiful plains, successively surrounded by mountains\n of limestone; resembling, although upon a larger scale, and\n rarely accompanied by volcanic products, the craters of the\n Phlegr\u00e6an fields. Everywhere, their level surfaces seems to have\n been deposited by water, gradually retired or evaporated; they\n consist for the most part of the richest soil, and their produce\n is yet proverbially abundant. In this manner, stood the cities\n of Argos, Sikyon, Corinth, Megara, Eleusis, Athens, Thebes,\n Amphissa, Orchomenus, Ch\u00e6ronea, Lebadea, Larissa, Pella, and many\n others.\u201d (Dr. Clarke\u2019s Travels, vol. ii. ch. 4, p. 74.)\n\n [338] Sir W. Gell found, in the month of March, summer in the low\n plains of Messenia, spring in Laconia, winter in Arcadia (Journey\n in Greece, pp. 355-359).\n\n [339] The cold central region (or mountain plain,\u2014\u1f40\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd)\n of Tripolitza, differs in climate from the maritime regions of\n Peloponnesus, as much as the south of England from the south\n of France.... No appearance of spring on the trees near Tegea,\n though not more than twenty-four miles from Argos.... Cattle are\n sent from thence every winter to the maritime plains of Elos in\n Laconia (Leake, Trav. in Morea, vol. i. pp. 88, 98, 197). The\n pasture on Mount Olono (boundary of Elis, Arcadia, and Achaia) is\n not healthy until June (Leake, vol. ii. p. 119); compare p. 348,\n and Fiedler, Reise, i. p. 314.\n\n See also the Instructive Inscription of Orchomenus, in Boeckh,\n Staatshaushaltung der Athener, t. ii. p. 380.\n\n The transference of cattle, belonging to proprietors in one\n state, for temporary pasturage in another, is as old as the\n Odyssey, and is marked by various illustrative incidents: see the\n cause of the first Messenian war (Diodor. Fragm. viii. vol. iv.\n p. 23, ed. Wess; Pausan. iv. 4, 2).\n\nSuch difficulties, however, in the internal transit by land, were\nto a great extent counteracted by the large proportion of coast,\nand the accessibility of the country by sea. The prominences and\nindentations in the line of Grecian coast, are hardly less remarkable\nthan the multiplicity of elevations and depressions which everywhere\nmark the surface.[340] The shape of Peloponnesus, with its three\nsouthern gulfs, (the Argolic, Laconian, and Messenian,) was compared\nby the ancient geographers to the leaf of a plane-tree: the Pagas\u00e6an\ngulf on the eastern side of Greece, and the Ambrakian gulf on the\nwestern, with their narrow entrances and considerable area, are\nequivalent to internal lakes: Xenophon boasts of the double sea\nwhich embraces so large a proportion of Attica, Ephorus of the triple\nsea, by which B\u0153otia was accessible from west, north, and south,\u2014the\nEub\u0153an strait, opening a long line of country on both sides to\ncoasting navigation.[341] But the most important of all Grecian\ngulfs are the Corinthian and the Saronic, washing the northern and\nnorth-eastern shores of Peloponnesus, and separated by the narrow\nbarrier of the Isthmus of Corinth. The former, especially, lays open\n\u00c6tolia, Phokis, and B\u0153otia, as well as the whole northern coast of\nPeloponnesus, to water approach. Corinth, in ancient times, served as\nan entrep\u00f4t for the trade between Italy and Asia Minor,\u2014goods being\nunshipped at Lech\u00e6um, the port on the Corinthian gulf, and carried by\nland across to Cenchre\u00e6, the port on the Saronic: indeed, even the\nmerchant-vessels themselves, when not very large,[342] were conveyed\nacross by the same route. It was accounted a prodigious advantage to\nescape the necessity of sailing round Cape Malea: and the violent\nwinds and currents which modern experience attests to prevail around\nthat formidable promontory, are quite sufficient to justify the\napprehensions of the ancient Greek merchant, with his imperfect\napparatus for navigation.[343]\n\n [340] \u201cUniversa autem (Peloponnesus), velut pensante \u00e6quorum\n incursus natur\u00e2, in montes 76 extollitur.\u201d (Plin. H. N. iv. 6.)\n\n Strabo touches, in a striking passage (ii. pp. 121-122), on the\n influence of the sea in determining the shape and boundaries\n of the land: his observations upon the great superiority of\n Europe over Asia and Africa, in respect of intersection and\n interpenetration of land by the sea-water are remarkable: \u1f21\n \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, etc. He does not\n especially name the coast of Greece, though his remarks have a\n more exact bearing upon Greece than upon any other country. And\n we may copy a passage out of Tacitus (Agricol. c. 10), written in\n reference to Britain, which applies far more precisely to Greece:\n \u201cnusquam latius dominari mare ... nec litore tenus accrescere aut\n resorberi, sed influere penitus et ambire, _et jugis etiam atque\n montibus inseri velut in suo_.\u201d\n\n [341] Xenophon, De Vectigal. c. 1; Ephor. Frag. 67, ed. Marx;\n Stephan. Byz. \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1.\n\n [342] Pliny, H. N. iv. 5, about the Isthmus of Corinth: \u201cLech\u00e6\u00e6\n hinc, Cenchre\u00e6 illinc, angustiarum termini, longo et ancipiti\n navium ambitu (_i. e._ round Cape Malea), quas _magnitudo\n plaustris transvehi prohibet_: quam ob causam perfodere\n navigabili alveo angustias eas tentavere Demetrius rex, dictator\n C\u00e6sar, Caius princeps, Domitius Nero,\u2014infausto (ut omnium exitu\n patuit) incepto.\u201d\n\n The \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, less than four miles across, where ships were drawn\n across, if their size permitted, stretched from Lech\u00e6um on the\n Corinthian gulf, to Sch\u0153nus, a little eastward of Cenchre\u00e6, on\n the Saronic gulf (Strabo, viii. p. 330). Strabo (viii. p. 335)\n reckons the breadth of the \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 at forty stadia (about 4\u00be\n English miles); the reality, according to Leake, is 3\u00bd English\n miles (Travels in Morea, vol. iii. ch. xxix. p. 297).\n\n [343] The north wind, the Etesian wind of the ancients, blows\n strong in the \u00c6gean nearly the whole summer, and with especially\n dangerous violence at three points,\u2014under Karystos, the southern\n cape of Eub\u0153a, near Cape Malea, and in the narrow strait between\n the islands of Tenos, Mykonos, and D\u00ealos (Ross, Reisen auf den\n Griechischen Inseln, vol. i. p. 20). See also Colonel Leake\u2019s\n account of the terror of the Greek boatman, from the gales and\n currents round Mount Athos: the canal cut by Xerxes through the\n isthmus was justified by sound reasons (Travels in Northern\n Greece, vol. iii. c. 24, p. 145).\n\nIt will thus appear that there was no part of Greece proper which\ncould be considered as out of reach of the sea, while most parts of\nit were convenient and easy of access: in fact, the Arcadians were\nthe only large section of the Hellenic name, (we may add the Doric,\nTetrapolis, and the mountaineers along the chain of Pindus and\nTymphr\u00eastus,) who were altogether without a seaport.[344] But Greece\nproper constituted only a fraction of the entire Hellenic world,\nduring the historical age: there were the numerous islands, and\nstill more numerous continental colonies, all located as independent\nintruders on distinct points of the coast,[345] in the Euxine, the\n\u00c6gean, the Mediterranean, and the Adriatic; and distant from each\nother by the space which separates Trebizond from Marseilles. All\nthese various cities were comprised in the name Hellas, which implied\nno geographical continuity: all prided themselves on Hellenic blood,\nname, religion, and mythical ancestry. As the only communication\nbetween them was maritime, so the sea, important, even if we look\nto Greece proper exclusively, was the sole channel for transmitting\nideas and improvements, as well as for maintaining sympathies\u2014social,\npolitical, religious, and literary\u2014throughout these outlying members\nof the Hellenic aggregate.\n\n [344] The Periplus of Skylax enumerates every section of the\n Greek name, with the insignificant exceptions noticed in the\n text, as partaking of the line of coast; it even mentions\n Arcadia (c. 45), because at that time Lepreum had shaken off the\n supremacy of Elis, and was confederated with the Arcadians (about\n 360 B. C.): Lepreum possessed about twelve miles of coast, which\n therefore count as Arcadian.\n\n [345] Cicero (De Republic\u00e2, ii. 2-4, in the Fragments of that\n lost treatise, ed. Maii) notices emphatically both the general\n maritime accessibility of Grecian towns, and the effects of that\n circumstance on Grecian character: \u201cQuod de Corintho dixi, id\n haud scio an liceat de cunct\u00e2 Gr\u00e6ci\u00e2 verissime dicere. Nam et\n ipsa Peloponnesus fere tota in mari est: nec pr\u00e6tor Phliuntios\n ulli sunt, quorum agri non contingant mare: et extra Peloponnesum\n \u00c6nianes et Dores et Dolopes soli absunt a mari. Quid dicam\n insulas Gr\u00e6ci\u00e6, qu\u00e6 fluctibus cinct\u00e6 natant p\u00e6ne ips\u00e6 simul cum\n civitatium institutis et moribus? Atque h\u00e6c quidem, ut supra\n dixi, veteris sunt Gr\u00e6ci\u00e6. Coloniarum vero qu\u00e6 est deducta a\n Graiis in Asiam, Thraciam, Italiam, Siciliam, Africam, pr\u00e6ter\n unam Magnesiam, quam unda non alluat? Ita barbarorum agris quasi\n adtexta qu\u00e6dam videtur ora esse Gr\u00e6ci\u00e6.\u201d\n\n Compare Cicero, Epistol. ad Attic. vi. 2, with the reference to\n Dik\u00e6archus, who agreed to a great extent in Plato\u2019s objections\n against a maritime site (De Legg. iv. p. 705; also, Aristot.\n Politic. vii. 5-6). The sea (says Plato) is indeed a salt and\n bitter neighbor (\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bb\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1),\n though convenient for purposes of daily use.\n\nThe ancient philosophers and legislators were deeply impressed\nwith the contrast between an inland and a maritime city: in the\nformer, simplicity and uniformity of life, tenacity of ancient\nhabits, and dislike of what is new or foreign, great force of\nexclusive sympathy, and narrow range both of objects and ideas;\nin the latter, variety and novelty of sensations, expansive\nimagination, toleration, and occasional preference for extraneous\ncustoms, greater activity of the individual, and corresponding\nmutability of the state. This distinction stands prominent in the\nmany comparisons instituted between the Athens of Perikl\u00eas and the\nAthens of the earlier times down to Sol\u00f4n. Both Plato and Aristotle\ndwell upon it emphatically,\u2014and the former especially, whose genius\nconceived the comprehensive scheme of prescribing beforehand and\ninsuring in practice the whole course of individual thought and\nfeeling in his imaginary community, treats maritime communication,\nif pushed beyond the narrowest limits, as fatal to the success\nand permanence of any wise scheme of education. Certain it is,\nthat a great difference of character existed between those Greeks\nwho mingled much in maritime affairs, and those who did not. The\nArcadian may stand as a type of the pure Grecian landsman, with his\nrustic and illiterate habits,[346]\u2014his diet of sweet chestnuts,\nbarley-cakes, and pork (as contrasted with the fish which formed\nthe chief seasoning for the bread of an Athenian,)\u2014his superior\ncourage and endurance,\u2014his reverence for Lacedaemonian headship\nas an old and customary influence,\u2014his sterility of intellect and\nimagination, as well as his slackness in enterprise,\u2014his unchangeable\nrudeness of relations with the gods, which led him to scourge and\nprick Pan, if he came back empty-handed from the chase; while the\ninhabitant of Ph\u00f4k\u00e6a or Miletus exemplifies the Grecian mariner,\neager in search of gain,\u2014active, skilful, and daring at sea, but\ninferior in stedfast bravery on land,\u2014more excitable in imagination\nas well as more mutable in character,\u2014full of pomp and expense in\nreligious manifestations towards the Ephesian Artemis or the Apollo\nof Branchid\u00e6; with a mind more open to the varieties of Grecian\nenergy and to the refining influences of Grecian civilization. The\nPeloponnesians generally, and the Laced\u00e6monians in particular,\napproached to the Arcadian type,\u2014while the Athenians of the fifth\ncentury B. C. stood foremost in the other; superadding to it,\nhowever, a delicacy of taste, and a predominance of intellectual\nsympathy and enjoyments, which seem to have been peculiar to\nthemselves.\n\n [346] Hekat\u00e6us, Fragm. \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1.\n Herodot. i. 66. \u0392\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2. Theocrit. Id. vii. 106.\u2014\n\n \u039a\u1f22\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f11\u03c1\u03b4\u1fc7\u03c2, \u1f66 \u03a0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b5, \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03af \u03c4\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f64\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03a4\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c4\u03b8\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u00b7\n \u0395\u1f30 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f40\u03bd\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\n \u0394\u03b1\u03ba\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf, etc.\n\n The alteration of \u03a7\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, which is obviously out of place, in the\n scholia on this passage, to \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, appears unquestionable.\n\nThe configuration of the Grecian territory, so like in many respects\nto that of Switzerland, produced two effects of great moment upon\nthe character and history of the people. In the first place, it\nmaterially strengthened their powers of defence: it shut up the\ncountry against those invasions from the interior, which successively\nsubjugated all their continental colonies; and it at the same time\nrendered each fraction more difficult to be attacked by the rest,\nso as to exercise a certain conservative influence in assuring the\ntenure of actual possessors: for the pass of Thermopyl\u00e6, between\nThessaly and Phokis, that of Kyth\u00e6r\u00f4n, between B\u0153otia and Attica, or\nthe mountainous range of Oneion and Geraneia along the Isthmus of\nCorinth, were positions which an inferior number of brave men could\nhold against a much greater force of assailants. But, in the next\nplace, while it tended to protect each section of Greeks from being\nconquered, it also kept them politically disunited, and perpetuated\ntheir separate autonomy. It fostered that powerful principle of\nrepulsion, which disposed even the smallest township to constitute\nitself a political unit apart from the rest, and to resist all\nidea of coalescence with others, either amicable or compulsory. To\na modern leader, accustomed to large political aggregations, and\nsecurities for good government through the representative system,\nit requires a certain mental effort to transport himself back to a\ntime when even the smallest town clung so tenaciously to its right\nof self-legislation. Nevertheless, such was the general habit and\nfeeling of the ancient world, throughout Italy, Sicily, Spain,\nand Gaul. Among the Hellenes, it stands out more conspicuously,\nfor several reasons,\u2014first, because they seem to have pushed the\nmultiplication of autonomous units to an extreme point, seeing that\neven islands not larger than Pepar\u00eathos and Amorgos had two or three\nseparate city communities;[347] secondly, because they produced, for\nthe first time in the history of mankind, acute systematic thinkers\non matters of government, amongst all of whom the idea of the\nautonomous city was accepted as the indispensable basis of political\nspeculation; thirdly, because this incurable subdivision proved\nfinally the cause of their ruin, in spite of pronounced intellectual\nsuperiority over their conquerors: and lastly, because incapacity\nof political coalescence did not preclude a powerful and extensive\nsympathy between the inhabitants of all the separate cities, with\na constant tendency to fraternize for numerous purposes, social,\nreligious, recreative, intellectual, and \u00e6sthetical. For these\nreasons, the indefinite multiplication of self-governing towns,\nthough in truth a phenomenon common to ancient Europe, as contrasted\nwith the large monarchies of Asia, appears more marked among the\nancient Greeks than elsewhere: and there cannot be any doubt that\nthey owe it, in a considerable degree, to the multitude of insulating\nboundaries which the configuration of their country presented.\n\n [347] Skylax, Peripl. 59.\n\nNor is it rash to suppose that the same causes may have tended to\npromote that unborrowed intellectual development for which they\nstand so conspicuous. General propositions respecting the working\nof climate and physical agencies upon character are, indeed,\ntreacherous; for our knowledge of the globe is now sufficient to\nteach us that heat and cold, mountain and plain, sea and land, moist\nand dry atmosphere, are all consistent with the greatest diversities\nof resident men: moreover, the contrast between the population of\nGreece itself, for the seven centuries preceding the Christian era,\nand the Greeks of more modern times, is alone enough to inculcate\nreserve in such speculations. Nevertheless, we may venture to note\ncertain improving influences, connected with their geographical\nposition, at a time when they had no books to study, and no more\nadvanced predecessors to imitate. We may remark, first, that their\nposition made them at once mountaineers and mariners, thus supplying\nthem with great variety of objects, sensations, and adventures; next,\nthat each petty community, nestled apart amidst its own rocks,[348]\nwas sufficiently severed from the rest to possess an individual\nlife and attributes of its own, yet not so far as to subtract it\nfrom the sympathies of the remainder; so that an observant Greek,\ncommercing with a great diversity of half countrymen, whose language\nhe understood, and whose idiosyncrasies he could appreciate, had\naccess to a larger mass of social and political experience than\nany other man in so unadvanced an age could personally obtain. The\nPh\u0153nician, superior to the Greek on shipboard, traversed wider\ndistances, and saw a greater number of strangers, but had not the\nsame means of intimate communion with a multiplicity of fellows in\nblood and language. His relations, confined to purchase and sale, did\nnot comprise that mutuality of action and reaction which pervaded\nthe crowd at a Grecian festival. The scene which here presented\nitself, was a mixture of uniformity and variety highly stimulating\nto the observant faculties of a man of genius,\u2014who at the same time,\nif he sought to communicate his own impressions, or to act upon\nthis mingled and diverse audience, was forced to shake off what was\npeculiar to his own town or community, and to put forth matter in\nharmony with the feelings of all. It is thus that we may explain, in\npart, that penetrating apprehension of human life and character, and\nthat power of touching sympathies common to all ages and nations,\nwhich surprises us so much in the unlettered authors of the old epic.\nSuch periodical intercommunion of brethren habitually isolated from\neach other, was the only means then open of procuring for the bard\na diversified range of experience and a many-colored audience; and\nit was to a great degree the result of geographical causes. Perhaps\namong other nations such facilitating causes might have been found,\nyet without producing any result comparable to the Iliad and Odyssey.\nBut Homer was, nevertheless, dependent upon the conditions of his\nage, and we can at least point out those peculiarities in early\nGrecian society, without which Homeric excellence would never have\nexisted,\u2014the geographical position is one, the language another.\n\n [348] Cicero, de Orator. i. 44. \u201cIthacam illam in asperrimis\n saxulis, sicut nidulum, affixam.\u201d\n\nIn mineral and metallic wealth, Greece was not distinguished. Gold\nwas obtained in considerable abundance in the island of Siphnos,\nwhich, throughout the sixth century B. C., was among the richest\ncommunities of Greece, and possessed a treasure-chamber at Delphi,\ndistinguished for the richness of its votive offerings. At that time,\ngold was so rare in Greece, that the Laced\u00e6monians were obliged to\nsend to the Lydian Cr\u0153sus, in order to provide enough of it for the\ngilding of a statue.[349] It appears to have been more abundant in\nAsia Minor, and the quantity of it in Greece was much multiplied by\nthe opening of mines in Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus, and even some\nparts of Thessaly. In the island of Thasos, too, some mines were\nreopened with profitable result, which had been originally begun, and\nsubsequently abandoned, by Ph\u0153nician settlers of an earlier century.\nFrom these same districts, also, was procured a considerable amount\nof silver; while, about the beginning of the fifth century B. C., the\nfirst effective commencement seems to have been made of turning to\naccount the rich southern district of Attica, called Laureion. Copper\nwas obtained in various parts of Greece, especially in Cyprus and\nEub\u0153a,\u2014in which latter island was also found the earth called Cadmia,\nemployed for the purification of the ore. Bronze was used among the\nGreeks for many purposes in which iron is now employed: and even the\narms of the Homeric heroes (different in this respect from the later\nhistorical Greeks) are composed of copper, tempered in such a way as\nto impart to it an astonishing hardness. Iron was found in Eub\u0153a,\nB\u0153\u00f4tia, and Melos,\u2014but still more abundantly in the mountainous\nregion of the Laconian Taygetus. There is, however no part of Greece\nwhere the remains of ancient metallurgy appear now so conspicuous,\nas the island of Seriphos. The excellence and varieties of marble,\nfrom Pentelikus, Hymettus, Paros, Karystus, etc., and other parts\nof the country,\u2014so essential for the purposes of sculpture and\narchitecture,\u2014is well known.[350]\n\n [349] Herodot. i. 52; iii. 57; vi. 46-125. Boeckh, Public Economy\n of Athens, b. i. ch. 3.\n\n The gold and silver offerings sent to the Delphian temple, even\n from the Homeric times (Il. ix. 405) downwards, were numerous and\n valuable; especially those dedicated by Cr\u0153sus, who (Herodot. i.\n 17-52) seems to have surpassed all predecessors.\n\n [350] Strabo, x. p. 447; xiv. pp. 680-684. Stephan. Byz. v.\n \u0391\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7\u03c8\u03bf\u03c2, \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd. Kruse, Hellas, ch. iv. vol. i. p. 328.\n Fiedler, Reisen in Griechenland, vol. ii. pp. 118-559.\n\nSituated under the same parallels of latitude as the coast of Asia\nMinor, and the southernmost regions of Italy and Spain, Greece\nproduced wheat, barley, flax, wine, and oil, in the earliest times\nof which we have any knowledge;[351] though the currants, Indian\ncorn, silk, and tobacco, which the country now exhibits, are an\naddition of more recent times. Theophrastus and other authors amply\nattest the observant and industrious agriculture prevalent among\nthe ancient Greeks, as well as the care with which its various\nnatural productions, comprehending a great diversity of plants,\nherbs, and trees, were turned to account. The cultivation of the\nvine and the olive,\u2014the latter indispensable to ancient life, not\nmerely for the purposes which it serves at present, but also from\nthe constant habit then prevalent of anointing the body,\u2014appears to\nhave been particularly elaborate; and the many different accidents\nof soil, level, and exposure, which were to be found, not only in\nHellas proper, but also among the scattered Greek settlements,\nafforded to observant planters materials for study and comparison.\nThe barley-cake seems to have been more generally eaten than\nthe wheaten loaf;[352] but one or other of them, together with\nvegetables and fish, (sometimes fresh, but more frequently salt,)\nwas the common food of the population; the Arcadians fed much upon\npork, and the Spartans also consumed animal food; but by the Greeks,\ngenerally, fresh meat seems to have been little eaten, except at\nfestivals and sacrifices. The Athenians, the most commercial people\nin Greece proper, though their light, dry, and comparatively poor\nsoil produced excellent barley, nevertheless, did not grow enough\ncorn for their own consumption: they imported considerable supplies\nof corn from Sicily, from the coast of the Euxine, and the Tauric\nChersonese, and salt-fish both from the Propontis and even from\nGades:[353] the distance from whence these supplies came, when we\ntake into consideration the extent of fine corn-land in B\u0153otia and\nThessaly, proves how little internal trade existed between the\nvarious regions of Greece proper. The exports of Athens consisted\nin her figs and other fruit, olives, oil,\u2014for all of which she was\ndistinguished,\u2014together with pottery, ornamental manufactures, and\nthe silver from her mines at Laureion. Salt-fish, doubtless, found\nits way more or less throughout all Greece;[354] but the population\nof other states in Greece lived more exclusively upon their own\nproduce than the Athenians, with less of purchase and sale,[355]\u2014a\nmode of life assisted by the simple domestic economy universally\nprevalent, in which the women not only carded and spun all the\nwool, but also wove out of it the clothing and bedding employed in\nthe family. Weaving was then considered as much a woman\u2019s business\nas spinning, and the same feeling and habits still prevail to the\npresent day in modern Greece, where the loom is constantly seen in\nthe peasants\u2019 cottages, and always worked by women.[356]\n\n [351] _Note to second edition._\u2014In my first edition, I\n had asserted that cotton grew in Greece in the time of\n Pausanias,\u2014following, though with some doubt, the judgment of\n some critics, that \u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u1f78\u03c2 meant cotton. I now believe that this\n was a mistake, and have expunged the passage.\n\n [352] At the repast provided at the public cost for those who\n dined in the Prytaneium of Athens, Sol\u00f4n directed barley-cakes\n for ordinary days, wheaten bread for festivals (Athen\u00e6us, iv. p.\n 137).\n\n The milk of ewes and goats was in ancient Greece preferred to\n that of cows (Aristot. Hist. Animal. iii. 15, 5-7); at present,\n also, cow\u2019s-milk and butter is considered unwholesome in Greece,\n and is seldom or never eaten (Kruse, Hellas, vol. i. ch. 4, p.\n 368).\n\n [353] Theophrast. Caus. Pl. ix. 2; Demosthen. adv. Leptin. c. 9.\n That salt-fish from the Propontis and from Gades was sold in the\n markets of Athens during the Peloponnesian war, appears from a\n fragment of the Marikas of Eupolis (Fr. 23, ed. Meineke; Stephan.\n Byz. v. \u0393\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1):\u2014\n\n \u03a0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u0393\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd;\n\n The Ph\u0153nician merchants who brought the salt-fish from Gades took\n back with them Attic pottery for sale among the African tribes of\n the coast of Morocco (Skylax, Peripl. c. 109).\n\n [354] Simonid\u00eas, Fragm. 109, Gaisford.\u2014\n\n \u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f64\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\n \u1f38\u03c7\u03b8\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, etc.\n\n The Odyssey mentions certain inland people, who knew nothing\n either of the sea, or of ships, or the taste of salt: Pausanias\n looks for them in Epirus (Odyss. xi. 121; Pausan. i. 12, 3).\n\n [355] \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (says Perikles, in his\n speech to the Athenians, at the commencement of the Peloponnesian\n war, Thucyd. i. 141) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, etc.,\u2014\u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, etc. (ib. c. 142.)\n\n [356] In Egypt, the men sat at home and wove, while the women did\n out-door business: both the one and the other excite the surprise\n of Herodotus and Sophokl\u00eas (Herod. ii. 35; Soph. \u0152d. Col. 340).\n\n For the spinning and weaving of the modern Greek peasant women,\n see Leake, Trav. Morea, vol. i. pp. 13, 18, 223, etc.; Strong,\n Stat. p. 185.\n\nThe climate of Greece appears to be generally described by modern\ntravellers in more favorable terms than it was by the ancients,\nwhich is easily explicable from the classical interest, picturesque\nbeauties, and transparent atmosphere, so vividly appreciate by an\nEnglish or a German eye. Herodotus,[357] Hippocrates, and Aristotle,\ntreat the climate of Asia as far more genial and favorable both to\nanimal and vegetable life, but at the same time more enervating\nthan that of Greece: the latter, they speak of chiefly in reference\nto its changeful character and diversities of local temperature,\nwhich they consider as highly stimulant to the energies of the\ninhabitants. There is reason to conclude that ancient Greece was\nmuch more healthy than the same territory is at present, inasmuch\nas it was more industriously cultivated, and the towns both more\ncarefully administered and better supplied with water. But the\ndifferences in respect of healthiness, between one portion of Greece\nand another, appear always to have been considerable, and this, as\nwell as the diversities of climate, affected the local habits and\nthe character of the particular sections. Not merely were there\ngreat differences between the mountaineers and the inhabitants of\nthe plains,[358]\u2014between Lokrains, \u00c6tolians, Phokians, Dorians,\n\u0152t\u00e6ans, and Arcadians, on one hand, and the inhabitants of Attica,\nB\u0153otia, and Elis, on the other,\u2014but each of the various tribes which\nwent to compose these categories, had its peculiarities; and the\nmarked contrast between Athenians and B\u0153otians was supposed to be\nrepresented by the light and heavy atmosphere which they respectively\nbreathed. Nor was this all: for, even among the B\u0153otian aggregate,\nevery town had its own separate attributes, physical as well as moral\nand political:[359] Or\u00f4pus, Tanagra, Thespi\u00e6, Thebes, Anth\u00ead\u00f4n,\nHaliartus, Kor\u00f4neia, Onch\u00eastus, and Plat\u00e6a, were known to B\u0153otians\neach by its own characteristic epithet: and Dik\u00e6archus even notices a\nmarked distinction between the inhabitants of the city of Athens and\nthose in the country of Attica. Sparta, Argos, Corinth, and Siky\u00f4n,\nthough all called Doric, had each its own dialect and peculiarities.\nAll these differences, depending in part upon climate, site, and\nother physical considerations, contributed to nourish antipathies,\nand to perpetuate that imperfect cohesion, which has already been\nnoticed as an indelible feature in Hellas.\n\n [357] Herodot. i. 142; Hippocrat. De A\u00ebre, Loc. et Aq. c. 12-13;\n Aristot. Polit. vii. 6, 1.\n\n [358] The mountaineers of \u00c6tolia are, at this time, unable to\n come down into the marshy plain of Wrach\u014dri, without being taken\n ill after a few days (Fiedler, Reise in Griech. i. p. 184).\n\n [359] Dik\u00e6arch. Fragm. p. 145, ed. Fuhr\u2014\u0392\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. \u1f39\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03b4\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f31 \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u2014\u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f68\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03a4\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u1fb3, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u0398\u03ae\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3, \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f48\u03b3\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n \u1f09\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u1ff3.\n\n About the distinction between \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 and \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76, see the same\n work, p. 141.\n\nThe Epirotic tribes, neighbors of the \u00c6tolians and Akarnanians,\nfilled the space between Pindus and the Ionian sea until they\njoined to the northward the territory inhabited by the powerful\nand barbarous Illyrians. Of these Illyrians, the native Macedonian\ntribes appear to have been an outlying section, dwelling northward\nof Thessaly and Mount Olympus, eastward of the chain by which\nPindus is continued, and westward of the river Axius. The Epirots\nwere comprehended under the various denominations of Chaonians,\nMolossians, Thesprotians, Kassop\u00e6ans, Amphilochians, Atham\u0101nes, the\n\u00c6th\u012bkes, Tymph\u00e6i, Orest\u00e6, Paror\u00e6i, and Atint\u0101nes,[360]\u2014most of the\nlatter being small communities dispersed about the mountainous region\nof Pindus. There was, however, much confusion in the application of\nthe comprehensive name _Epirot_, which was a title given altogether\nby the Greeks, and given purely upon geographical, not upon ethnical\nconsiderations. Epirus seems at first to have stood opposed to\nPeloponnesus, and to have signified the general region northward of\nthe gulf of Corinth; and in this primitive sense it comprehended the\n\u00c6tolians and Akarnanians, portions of whom spoke a dialect difficult\nto understand, and were not less widely removed than the Epirots from\nHellenic habits.[361] The oracle of Dodona forms the point of ancient\nunion between Greeks and Epirots, which was superseded by Delphi, as\nthe civilization of Hellas developed itself. Nor is it less difficult\nto distinguish Epirots from Macedonians on the one hand, than from\nHellenes on the other; the language, the dress, and the fashion\nof wearing the hair being often analogous, while the boundaries,\namidst rude men and untravelled tracts, were very inaccurately\nunderstood.[362]\n\n [360] Strabo, vii. pp. 322, 324, 326; Thucydid. ii. 68.\n Theopompus (ap. Strab. _l. c._) reckoned 14 Epirotic \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n [361] Herodot. i. 140, ii. 56, vi. 127.\n\n [362] Strabo, vii. p. 327.\n\n Several of the Epirotic tribes were \u03b4\u03af\u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9,\u2014spoke Greek in\n addition to their native tongue.\n\n See, on all the inhabitants of these regions, the excellent\n dissertation of O. M\u00fcller above quoted, Ueber die Makedoner;\n appended to the first volume of the English translation of his\n History of the Dorians.\n\nIn describing the limits occupied by the Hellens in 776 B. C., we\ncannot yet take account of the important colonies of Leukas and\nAmbrakia, established by the Corinthians subsequently on the western\ncoast of Epirus. The Greeks of that early time seem to comprise the\nislands of Kephallenia, Zakynthus, Ithaka, and Dulichium, but no\nsettlement, either inland or insular, farther northward.\n\nThey include farther, confining ourselves to 776 B. C., the great\nmass of islands between the coast of Greece and that of Asia Minor,\nfrom Tenedos on the north, to Rhodes, Krete, and Kyth\u00eara southward;\nand the great islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Eub\u0153a, as well\nas the groups called the Sporades and the Cyclades. Respecting the\nfour considerable islands nearer to the coasts of Macedonia and\nThrace,\u2014Lemnos, Imbros, Samothrace, and Thasos,\u2014it may be doubted\nwhether they were at that time Hellenized. The Catalogue of the\nIliad includes, under Agamemn\u00f4n, contingents from \u00c6gina, Eub\u0153a,\nKrete, Karpathus, Kasus, K\u00f4s, and Rhodes: in the oldest epical\ntestimony which we possess, these islands thus appear inhabited by\nGreeks; but the others do not occur in the Catalogue, and are never\nmentioned in such manner as to enable us to draw any inference. Eub\u0153a\nought, perhaps, rather to be looked upon as a portion of Grecian\nmainland (from which it was only separated by a strait narrow enough\nto be bridged over) than as an island. But the last five islands\nnamed in the Catalogue are all either wholly or partially Doric: no\nIonic or \u00c6olic island appears in it: these latter, though it was\namong them that the poet sung, appear to be represented by their\nancestral heroes, who came from Greece proper.\n\nThe last element to be included, as going to make up the Greece of\n776 B. C., is the long string of Doric, Ionic, and \u00c6olic settlements\non the coast of Asia Minor,\u2014occupying a space bounded on the north\nby the Troad and the region of Ida, and extending southward as far\nas the peninsula of Knidus. Twelve continental cities, over and\nabove the islands of Lesbos and Tenedos, are reckoned by Herodotus\nas ancient \u00c6olic foundations,\u2014Smyrna, Kym\u00ea, Larissa, Neon-Teichos,\nT\u00eamnos, Killa, Notium, \u00c6gir\u0153ssa, Pitana, \u00c6g\u00e6, Myrina, and Gryneia.\nSmyrna, having been at first \u00c6olic, was afterwards acquired through\na stratagem by Ionic inhabitants, and remained permanently Ionic.\nPhok\u00e6a, the northernmost of the Ionic settlements, bordered upon\n\u00c6olis: Klazomen\u00e6, Erythr\u00e6, Te\u00f4s, Lebedos, Koloph\u00f4n, Pri\u00ean\u00ea, Myus,\nand Mil\u00eatus, continued the Ionic name to the southward. These,\ntogether with Samos and Chios, formed the Panionic federation.[363]\nTo the south of Mil\u00eatus, after a considerable interval, lay the\nDoric establishments of Myndus, Halikarnassus, and Knidus: the two\nlatter, together with the island of K\u00f4s and the three townships in\nRhodes, constituted the Doric Hexapolis, or communion of six cities,\nconcerted primarily with a view to religious purposes, but producing\na secondary effect analogous to political federation.\n\n [363] Herodot. i. 143-150.\n\nSuch, then, is the extent of Hellas, as it stood at the commencement\nof the recorded Olympiads. To draw a picture even for this date,\nwe possess no authentic materials, and are obliged to ante-date\nstatements which belong to a later age: and this consideration might\nalone suffice to show how uncertified are all delineations of the\nGreece of 1183 B. C., the supposed epoch of the Trojan war, four\ncenturies earlier.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE HELLENIC PEOPLE GENERALLY, IN THE EARLY HISTORICAL TIMES.\n\n\nThe territory indicated in the last chapter\u2014south of Mount Olympus,\nand south of the line which connects the city of Ambrakia with Mount\nPindus,\u2014was occupied during the historical period by the central\nstock of the Hellens, or Greeks, from which their numerous outlying\ncolonies were planted out.\n\nBoth metropolitans and colonists styled themselves Hellens, and were\nrecognized as such by each other; all glorying in the name as the\nprominent symbol of fraternity;\u2014all describing non-Hellenic men, or\ncities, by a word which involved associations of repugnance. Our\nterm _barbarian_, borrowed from this latter word, does not express\nthe same idea; for the Greeks spoke thus indiscriminately of the\nextra-Hellenic world, with all its inhabitants;[364] whatever might\nbe the gentleness of their character, and whatever might be their\ndegree of civilization. The rulers and people of Egyptian Thebes,\nwith their ancient and gigantic monuments, the wealthy Tyrians and\nCarthaginians, the phil-Hellene Arganthonius of Tart\u00eassus, and\nthe well-disciplined patricians of Rome (to the indignation of\nold Cato,[365]) were all comprised in it. At first, it seemed to\nhave expressed more of repugnance than of contempt, and repugnance\nespecially towards the sound of a foreign language.[366] Afterwards,\na feeling of their own superior intelligence (in part well justified)\narose among the Greeks, and their term _barbarian_ was used so as to\nimply a low state of the temper and intelligence; in which sense it\nwas retained by the semi-Hellenized Romans, as the proper antithesis\nto their state of civilization. The want of a suitable word,\ncorresponding to _barbarian_, as the Greeks originally used it, is so\ninconvenient in the description of Grecian phenomena and sentiments,\nthat I may be obliged occasionally to use the word in its primitive\nsense.\n\n [364] See the protest of Eratosthen\u00eas against the continuance of\n the classification into Greek and Barbarian, after the latter\n word had come to imply rudeness (ap. Strabo. ii. p. 66; Eratosth.\n Fragm. Seidel. p. 85).\n\n [365] Cato, Fragment. ed. Lion. p. 46; ap. Plin. H. N. xxii. 1.\n A remarkable extract from Cato\u2019s letter to his son, intimating\n his strong antipathy to the Greeks; he proscribes their medicine\n altogether, and admits only a slight taste of their literature:\n \u201cQuod bonum sit eorum literas inspicere, non per discere....\n Jurarunt inter se, Barbaros necare omnes medicin\u00e2, sed hoc ipsum\n mercede faciunt, ut fides iis sit et facile disperdant. Nos\n quoque dictitant Barbaros et spurios, nosque magis quam alios,\n Opicos appellatione f\u0153dant.\u201d\n\n [366] \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f20\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, Homer, Iliad, ii. 867. Homer\n does not use the word \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, or any words signifying either\n a Hellen generally or a non-Hellen generally (Thucyd. i. 3).\n Compare Strabo, viii. p. 370; and xiv. p. 662.\n\n Ovid reproduces the primitive sense of the word \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, when he\n speaks of himself as an exile at Tomi (Trist. v. 10-37):\u2014\n\n \u201cBarbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli.\u201d\n\n The Egyptians had a word in their language, the exact equivalent\n of \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 in this sense (Herod. ii. 158).\n\nThe Hellens were all of common blood and parentage,\u2014were all\ndescendants of the common patriarch Hellen. In treating of the\nhistorical Greeks, we have to accept this as a datum: it represents\nthe sentiment under the influence of which they moved and acted. It\nis placed by Herodotus in the front rank, as the chief of those four\nties which bound together the Hellenic aggregate: 1. Fellowship of\nblood; 2. Fellowship of language; 3. Fixed domiciles of gods, and\nsacrifices, common to all; 4. Like manners and dispositions.\n\n_These_ (say the Athenians, in their reply to the Spartan envoys, in\nthe very crisis of the Persian invasion) \u201cAthens will never disgrace\nherself by betraying.\u201d And Zeus Hellenius was recognized as the god\nwatching over and enforcing the fraternity thus constituted.[367]\n\n [367] Herod. viii. 144. ...\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u1f78\u03bd \u1f45\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f56 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9. (_Ib._\n x. 7.) \u1f29\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72, \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, etc.\n\n Compare Dik\u00e6arch. Fragm. p. 147, ed. Fuhr; and Thucyd. iii.\n 59,\u2014\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1... \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd: also, the provision about the \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 in\n the treaty between Sparta and Athens (Thuc. v. 18; Strabo, ix. p.\n 419).\n\n It was a part of the proclamation solemnly made by the Eumolpid\u00e6,\n prior to the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries, \u201cAll\n non-Hellens to keep away,\u201d\u2014\u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd (Isocrates, Orat.\n iv. Panegyr. p. 74).\n\nHekat\u00e6us, Herodotus, and Thucydid\u00eas,[368] all believed that there\nhad been an ante-Hellenic period, when different languages, mutually\nunintelligible, were spoken between Mount Olympus and Cape Malea.\nHowever this may be, during the historical times the Greek language\nwas universal throughout these limits,\u2014branching out, however,\ninto a great variety of dialects, which were roughly classified by\nlater literary men into Ionic, Doric, \u00c6olic, and Attic. But the\nclassification presents a semblance of regularity, which in point of\nfact does not seem to have been realized; each town, each smaller\nsubdivision of the Hellenic name, having peculiarities of dialect\nbelonging to itself. Now the lettered men who framed the quadruple\ndivision took notice chiefly, if not exclusively, of the written\ndialects,\u2014those which had been ennobled by poets or other authors;\nthe mere spoken idioms were for the most part neglected.[369] That\nthere was no such thing as one Ionic dialect in the speech of the\npeople called Ionic Greek, we know from the indisputable testimony of\nHerodotus,[370] who tells us that there were four capital varieties\nof speech among the twelve Asiatic towns especially known as Ionic.\nOf course, the varieties would have been much more numerous if he\nhad given us the impressions of his ear in Eub\u0153a, the Cyclades,\nMassalia, Rhegium, and Olbia,\u2014all numbered as Greeks and as Ionians.\nThe Ionic dialect of the grammarians was an extract from Homer,\nHekat\u00e6us, Herodotus, Hippocrates, etc.; to what living speech it made\nthe nearest approach, amidst those divergences which the historian\nhas made known to us, we cannot tell. Sapph\u00f4 and Alk\u00e6us in Lesbos,\nMyrtis and Korinna in B\u0153otia, were the great sources of reference\nfor the Lesbian and B\u0153otian varieties of the \u00c6olic dialect,\u2014of which\nthere was a third variety, untouched by the poets, in Thessaly.[371]\nThe analogy between the different manifestations of Doric and\n\u00c6olic, as well as that between the Doric generally and the \u00c6olic\ngenerally, contrasted with the Attic, is only to be taken as rough\nand approximative.\n\n [368] Hekat\u00e6. Fragm. 356, ed. Klausen: compare Strabo, vii. p.\n 321; Herod. i. 57; Thucyd. i. 3,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5, ~\u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd~, etc.\n\n [369] \u201cAntiqui grammatici eas tantum dialectos spectabant, quibus\n scriptores usi essent: ceteras, qu\u00e6 non vigebant nisi in ore\n populi, non notabant.\u201d (Ahrens, De Dialecto \u00c6olic\u00e2, p. 2.) The\n same has been the case, to a great degree, even in the linguistic\n researches of modern times, though printing now affords such\n increased facility for the registration of popular dialects.\n\n [370] Herod. i. 142.\n\n [371] Respecting the three varieties of the \u00c6olic dialect,\n differing considerably from each other, see the valuable work of\n Ahrens, De Dial. \u00c6ol. sect. 2, 32, 50.\n\nBut all these different dialects are nothing more than dialects,\ndistinguished as modifications of one and the same language, and\nexhibiting evidence of certain laws and principles pervading them\nall. They seem capable of being traced back to a certain ideal\nmother-language, peculiar in itself and distinguishable from, though\ncognate with, the Latin; a substantive member of what has been called\nthe Indo-European family of languages. This truth has been brought\nout, in recent times, by the comparative examination applied to the\nSanscrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, German, and Lithuanian languages, as\nwell as by the more accurate analysis of the Greek language itself\nto which such studies have given rise, in a manner much more clear\nthan could have been imagined by the ancients themselves.[372] It is\nneedless to dwell upon the importance of this uniformity of language\nin holding together the race, and in rendering the genius of its\nmost favored members available to the civilization of all. Except\nin the rarest cases, the divergences of dialect were not such as\nto prevent every Greek from understanding, and being understood\nby, every other Greek,\u2014a fact remarkable, when we consider how many\nof their outlying colonists, not having taken out women in their\nemigration, intermarried with non-Hellenic wives. And the perfection\nand popularity of their early epic poems, was here of inestimable\nvalue for the diffusion of a common type of language, and for thus\nkeeping together the sympathies of the Hellenic world.[373] The\nHomeric dialect became the standard followed by all Greek poets\nfor the hexameter, as may be seen particularly from the example of\nHesiod,\u2014who adheres to it in the main, though his father was a native\nof the \u00c6olic Kym\u00ea, and he himself resident at Askra, in the \u00c6olic\nB\u0153otia,\u2014and the early iambic and elegiac compositions are framed on\nthe same model. Intellectual Greeks in all cities, even the most\ndistant outcasts from the central hearth, became early accustomed\nto one type of literary speech, and possessors of a common stock of\nlegends, maxims, and metaphors.\n\n [372] The work of Albert Giese, Ueber den \u00c6olischen Dialekt\n (unhappily not finished, on account of the early death of the\n author,) presents an ingenious specimen of such analysis.\n\n [373] See the interesting remarks of Dio Chrysostom on the\n attachment of the inhabitants of Olbia (or Borysthenes) to the\n Homeric poems: most of them, he says, could repeat the Iliad by\n heart, though their dialect was partially barbarized, and the\n city in a sad state of ruin (Dio Chrysost. Orat. xxxvi. p. 78,\n Reisk).\n\nThat community of religious sentiments, localities, and sacrifices,\nwhich Herodotus names as the third bond of union among the Greeks,\nwas a phenomenon, not (like the race and the language) interwoven\nwith their primitive constitution, but of gradual growth. In the\ntime of Herodotus, and even a century earlier, it was at its full\nmaturity: but there had been a period when no religious meetings\ncommon to the whole Hellenic body existed. What are called the\nOlympic, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian games, (the four most\nconspicuous amidst many others analogous,) were, in reality, great\nreligious festivals,\u2014for the gods then gave their special sanction,\nname, and presence, to recreative meetings,\u2014the closest association\nthen prevailed between the feelings of common worship and the\nsympathy in common amusement.[374] Though this association is now\nno longer recognized, it is, nevertheless, essential that we should\nkeep it fully before us, if we desire to understand the life and\nproceedings of the Greeks. To Herodotus and his contemporaries, these\ngreat festivals, then frequented by crowds from every part of Greece,\nwere of overwhelming importance and interest; yet they had once\nbeen purely local, attracting no visitors except from a very narrow\nneighborhood. In the Homeric poems, much is said about the common\ngods, and about special places consecrated to and occupied by several\nof them: the chiefs celebrate funeral games in honor of a deceased\nfather, which are visited by competitors from different parts of\nGreece, but nothing appears to manifest public or town festivals open\nto Grecian visitors generally.[375] And, though the rocky Pytho,\nwith its temple, stands out in the Iliad as a place both venerated\nand rich,\u2014the Pythian games, under the superintendence of the\nAmphiktyons, with continuous enrolment of victors, and a Pan-Hellenic\nreputation, do not begin until after the Sacred War, in the 48th\nOlympiad, or 586 B. C.[376]\n\n [374] Plato, Legg. ii. 1, p. 653; Kratylus, p. 406; and Dionys.\n Hal. Ars Rhetoric. c. 1-2, p. 226,\u2014\u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n \u1f21\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd,\n \u1f48\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6, \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd.\n\n Apollo, the Muses, and Dionysus are \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03be\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\n (Homer, Hymn to Apoll. 146). The same view of the sacred games\n is given by Livy, in reference to the Romans and the Volsci (ii.\n 36-37): \u201cSe, ut consceleratos contaminatosque, ab _ludis, festis\n diebus, c\u0153tu quodammodo hominum Deorumque_, abactos esse ...\n ideo nos ab sede piorum, c\u0153tu, concilioque abigi.\u201d It is curious\n to contrast this with the dislike and repugnance of Tertullian:\n \u201cIdololatria omnium ludorum mater est,\u2014quod enim spectaculum sine\n idolo, quis ludus sine sacrificio?\u201d (De Spectaculis, p. 369.)\n\n [375] Iliad, xxiii. 630-679. The games celebrated by Akastus, in\n honor of Pelias, were famed in the old epic (Pausan. v. 17, 4;\n Apollod\u00f4r. i. 9, 28).\n\n [376] Strabo, ix. p. 421; Pausan. x. 7, 3. The first Pythian\n games celebrated by the Amphiktyons, after the Sacred War,\n carried with them a substantial reward to the victor (an \u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd\n \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2); but in the next, or second Pythian games, nothing\n was given but an honorary reward, or wreath of laurel leaves\n (\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2): the first coincide with Olympiad 48, 3; the\n second with Olympiad 49, 3.\n\n Compare Schol. ad Pindar. Pyth. Argument.: Pausan. x. 37, 4-5;\n Krause, Die Pythien, Nemeen, und Isthmien, sect. 3, 4, 5.\n\n The Homeric Hymn to Apollo is composed at a time earlier than the\n Sacred War, when Krissa is flourishing; earlier than the Pythian\n games, as celebrated by the Amphiktyons.\n\nThe Olympic games, more conspicuous than the Pythian, as well as\nconsiderably older, are also remarkable on another ground, inasmuch\nas they supplied historical computers with the oldest backward\nrecord of continuous time. It was in the year 776 B. C., that the\nEleians inscribed the name of their countryman, Kor\u0153bus, as victor\nin the competition of runners, and that they began the practice\nof inscribing in like manner, in each Olympic, or fifth recurring\nyear, the name of the runner who won the prize. Even for a long\ntime after this, however, the Olympic games seem to have remained a\nlocal festival; the prize being uniformly carried off, at the first\ntwelve Olympiads, by some competitor either of Elis or its immediate\nneighborhood. The Nemean and Isthmian games did not become notorious\nor frequented until later even than the Pythian. Sol\u00f4n,[377] in his\nlegislation, proclaimed the large reward of five hundred drachms for\nevery Athenian who gained an Olympic prize, and the lower sum of\none hundred drachms for an Isthmiac prize. He counts the former, as\nPan-Hellenic rank and renown, an ornament even to the city of which\nthe victor was a member,\u2014the latter, as partial, and confined to the\nneighborhood.\n\n [377] Plutarch, Sol\u00f4n, 23. The Isthmian Agon was to a certain\n extent a festival of old Athenian origin; for among the many\n legends respecting its first institution, one of the most\n notorious represented it as having been founded by Theseus after\n his victory over Sinis at the Isthmus (see Schol. ad Pindar.\n Isth. Argument.; Pausan. ii. 1, 4), or over Skeir\u00f4n (Plutarch,\n Theseus, c. 25). Plutarch says that they were first established\n by Theseus as funeral games for Skeir\u00f4n, and Pliny gives the same\n story (H. N. vii. 57). According to Hellanikus, the Athenian\n The\u00f4rs at the Isthmian games had a privileged place, (Plutarch,\n _l. c._).\n\n There is, therefore, good reason why Sol\u00f4n should single out the\n Isthmionik\u00e6 as persons to be specially rewarded, not mentioning\n the Pythionik\u00e6 and Nemeonik\u00e6,\u2014the Nemean and Pythian games not\n having then acquired Hellenic importance. Diogenes La\u00ebrt. (i.\n 55) says that Sol\u00f4n provided rewards, not only for victories at\n the Olympic and Isthmian, but also \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, which\n Krause (Pythien, Nemeen und Isthmien, sect. 3, p. 13) supposes\n to be the truth: I think, very improbably. The sharp invective\n of Timokreon against Themistocles, charging him among other\n things with providing nothing but cold meat at the Isthmian games\n (\u1f38\u03c3\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, Plutarch.\n Themistoc. c. 21), seems to imply that the Athenian visitors,\n whom the The\u00f4rs were called upon to take care of at those games,\n were numerous.\n\nOf the beginnings of these great solemnities, we cannot presume to\nspeak, except in mythical language: we know them only in their\ncomparative maturity. But the habit of common sacrifice, on a\nsmall scale, and between near neighbors, is a part of the earliest\nhabits of Greece. The sentiment of fraternity, between two tribes\nor villages, first manifested itself by sending a sacred legation,\nor The\u00f4ria,[378] to offer sacrifice at each other\u2019s festivals, and\nto partake in the recreations which followed; thus establishing a\ntruce with solemn guarantee, and bringing themselves into direct\nconnection each with the god of the other under his appropriate\nlocal surname. The pacific communion so fostered, and the increased\nassurance of intercourse, as Greece gradually emerged from the\nturbulence and pugnacity of the heroic age, operated especially in\nextending the range of this ancient habit: the village festivals\nbecame town festivals, largely frequented by the citizens of other\ntowns, and sometimes with special invitations sent round to attract\nThe\u00f4rs from every Hellenic community,\u2014and thus these once humble\nassemblages gradually swelled into the pomp and immense confluence\nof the Olympic and Pythian games. The city administering such holy\nceremonies enjoyed inviolability of territory during the month of\ntheir occurrence, being itself under obligation at that time to\nrefrain from all aggression, as well as to notify by heralds[379]\nthe commencement of the truce to all other cities not in avowed\nhostility with it. Elis imposed heavy fines upon other towns\u2014even on\nthe powerful Laced\u00e6mon\u2014for violation of the Olympic truce, on pain of\nexclusion from the festival in case of non-payment.\n\n [378] In many Grecian states (as at \u00c6gina, Mantineia, Tr\u0153zen,\n Thasos, etc.) these The\u00f4rs formed a permanent college, and seem\n to have been invested with extensive functions in reference to\n religious ceremonies: at Athens, they were chosen for the special\n occasion (see Thucyd. v. 47; Aristotel. Polit. v. 8, 3; O.\n M\u00fcller, \u00c6ginetica, p. 135; Demosthen. de Fals. Leg. p. 380).\n\n [379] About the sacred truce, Olympian, Isthmian, etc., formally\n announced by two heralds crowned with garlands sent from the\n administering city, and with respect to which many tricks\n were played, see Thucyd. v. 49; Xenophon, Hellen. iv. 7, 1-7;\n Plutarch, Lycurg. 23; Pindar, Isthm. ii. 35,\u2014\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u2014\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2\n \u1f61\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd\u2014Thucyd. viii. 9-10, is also peculiarly instructive in regard\n to the practice and the feeling.\n\nSometimes this tendency to religious fraternity took a form called\nan Amphiktyony, different from the common festival. A certain\nnumber of towns entered into an exclusive religious partnership,\nfor the celebration of sacrifices periodically to the god of a\nparticular temple, which was supposed to be the common property,\nand under the common protection of all, though one of the number\nwas often named as permanent administrator; while all other Greeks\nwere excluded. That there were many religious partnerships of this\nsort, which have never acquired a place in history, among the early\nGrecian villages, we may, perhaps, gather from the etymology of the\nword, (Amphiktyons[380] designates residents around, or neighbors,\nconsidered in the point of view of fellow-religionists,) as well as\nfrom the indications preserved to us in reference to various parts of\nthe country. Thus there was an Amphiktyony[381] of seven cities at\nthe holy island of Kalauria, close to the harbor of Tr\u0153z\u00ean. Hermion\u00ea,\nEpidaurus, \u00c6gina, Athens, Prasi\u00e6, Nauplia, and Orchomenus, jointly\nmaintained the temple and sanctuary of Poseid\u00f4n in that island, (with\nwhich it would seem that the city of Tr\u0153z\u00ean, though close at hand,\nhad no connection,) meeting there at stated periods, to offer formal\nsacrifices. These seven cities, indeed, were not immediate neighbors,\nbut the speciality and exclusiveness of their interest in the temple\nis seen from the fact, that when the Argeians took Nauplia, they\nadopted and fulfilled these religious obligations on behalf of the\nprior inhabitants: so, also, did the Laced\u00e6monians, when they had\ncaptured Prasi\u00e6. Again, in Triphylia,[382] situated between the\nPisatid and Messenia, in the western part of Peloponnesus, there\nwas a similar religious meeting and partnership of the Triphylians\non Cape Samikon, at the temple of the Samian Poseid\u00f4n. Here,\nthe inhabitants of Makiston were intrusted with the details of\nsuperintendence, as well as with the duty of notifying beforehand the\nexact time of meeting, (a precaution essential amidst the diversities\nand irregularities of the Greek calendar,) and also of proclaiming\nwhat was called the Samian truce,\u2014a temporary abstinence from\nhostilities, which bound all Triphylians during the holy period. This\nlatter custom discloses the salutary influence of such institutions\nin presenting to men\u2019s minds a common object of reverence, common\nduties, and common enjoyments; thus generating sympathies and\nfeelings of mutual obligation amidst petty communities not less\nfierce than suspicious.[383] So, too, the twelve chief Ionic cities\nin and near Asia Minor, had their Pan-Ionic Amphiktyony peculiar to\nthemselves: the six Doric cities, in and near the southern corner\nof that peninsula, combined for the like purpose at the temple of\nthe Triopian Apollo; and the feeling of special partnership is here\nparticularly illustrated by the fact, that Halikarnassus, one of the\nsix, was formally extruded by the remaining five, in consequence\nof a violation of the rules.[384] There was also an Amphiktyonic\nunion at Onch\u00eastus in B\u0153otia, in the venerated grove and temple of\nPoseid\u00f4n:[385] of whom it consisted, we are not informed. These are\nsome specimens of the sort of special religious conventions and\nassemblies which seem to have been frequent throughout Greece. Nor\nought we to omit those religious meetings and sacrifices which were\ncommon to all the members of one Hellenic subdivision, such as the\nPam-B\u0153otia to all the B\u0153otians, celebrated at the temple of the\nItonian Ath\u00ean\u00ea near Kor\u00f4neia,[386]\u2014the common observances, rendered\nto the temple of Apollo Pytha\u00ebus at Argos, by all those neighboring\ntowns which had once been attached by this religious thread to the\nArgeians,\u2014the similar periodical ceremonies, frequented by all who\nbore the Ach\u00e6an or \u00c6tolian name,\u2014and the splendid and exhilarating\nfestivals, so favorable to the diffusion of the early Grecian\npoetry, which brought all Ionians at stated intervals to the sacred\nisland of Delos.[387] This latter class of festivals agreed with the\nAmphiktyony, in being of a special and exclusive character, not open\nto all Greeks.\n\n [380] Pindar, Isthm. iii. 26 (iv. 14); Nem. vi. 40.\n\n [381] Strabo, viii. p. 374.\n\n [382] Strabo, viii. p. 343; Pausan v. 6, 1.\n\n [383] At Iolkos, on the north coast of the Gulf of Pagas\u00e6, and\n at the borders of the Magn\u00eates, Thessalians, and Ach\u00e6ans of\n Phthi\u00f4tis, was celebrated a periodical religious festival, or\n panegyris, the title of which we are prevented from making out by\n the imperfection of Strabo\u2019s text (Strabo, ix. 436). It stands in\n the text as printed in Tzschucke\u2019s edition, \u1f18\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03a0\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd. The mention of \u03a0\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2,\n which conducts us only to the Amphiktyonic convocations of\n Thermopyl\u00e6 and Delphi is here unsuitable; and the best or\n Parisian MS. of Strabo presents a gap (one among the many which\n embarrass the ninth book) in the place of the word \u03a0\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd.\n Dutneil conjectures \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ca\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, deriving the name\n from the celebrated funeral games of the old epic celebrated by\n Akastus in honor of his father Pelias. Grosskurd (in his note\n on the passage) approves the conjecture, but it seems to me not\n probable that a Grecian panegyris would be named after Pelias.\n \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03ca\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd, in reference to the neighboring mountain and town of\n Pelion, might perhaps be less objectionable (see Dik\u00e6arch. Fragm.\n pp. 407-409, ed. Fuhr.), but we cannot determine with certainty.\n\n [384] Herod, i.; Dionys. Hal. iv. 25.\n\n [385] Strabo, ix. p. 412; Homer. Hymn. Apoll. 232.\n\n [386] Strabo, ix. p. 411.\n\n [387] Thucyd. iii. 104; v. 55. Pausan. vii. 7, 1; 24, 3. Polyb.\n v. 8; ii. 54. Homer. Hymn. Apoll. 146.\n\n According to what seems to have been the ancient and sacred\n tradition, the whole of the month Karneius was a time of peace\n among the Dorians; though this was often neglected in practice\n at the time of the Peloponnesian war (Thuc. v. 54). But it may\n be doubted whether there was any festival of Karneia common to\n all the Dorians: the Karneia at Sparta seems to have been a\n Laced\u00e6monian festival.\n\nBut there was one amongst these many Amphiktyonies, which, though\nstarting from the smallest beginnings, gradually expanded into so\ncomprehensive a character, and acquired so marked a predominance\nover the rest, as to be called The Amphiktyonic Assembly, and\neven to have been mistaken by some authors for a sort of federal\nHellenic Diet. Twelve sub-races, out of the number which made up\nentire Hellas, belonged to this ancient Amphiktyony, the meetings\nof which were held twice in every year: in spring, at the temple of\nApollo at Delphi; in autumn, at Thermopyl\u00e6, in the sacred precinct\nof D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear Amphiktyonis. Sacred deputies, including a chief called\nthe Hieromn\u00eam\u00f4n, and subordinates called the Pylagor\u00e6, attended at\nthese meetings from each of the twelve races: a crowd of volunteers\nseem to have accompanied them, for purposes of sacrifice, trade, or\nenjoyment. Their special, and most important function, consisted in\nwatching over the Delphian temple, in which all the twelve sub-races\nhad a joint interest; and it was the immense wealth and national\nascendency of this temple, which enhanced to so great a pitch the\ndignity of its acknowledged administrators.\n\nThe twelve constituent members were as follows: Thessalians,\nB\u0153otians, Dorians, Ionians, Perrh\u00e6bians, Magn\u00eates, Lokrians, \u0152t\u00e6ans,\nAch\u00e6ans, Phokians, Dolopes, and Malians.[388] All are counted as\n_races_, (if we treat the Hellenes as a race, we must call these\n_sub-races_,) no mention being made of cities:[389] all count equally\nin respect to voting, two votes being given by the deputies from\neach of the twelve: moreover, we are told that, in determining the\ndeputies to be sent, or the manner in which the votes of each race\nshould be given, the powerful Athens, Sparta, and Thebes, had no more\ninfluence than the humblest Ionian, Dorian, or B\u0153otian city. This\nlatter fact is distinctly stated by \u00c6schines, himself a pylagore sent\nto Delphi by Athens. And so, doubtless, the theory of the case stood:\nthe votes of the Ionic races counted for neither more nor less than\ntwo, whether given by deputies from Athens, or from the small towns\nof Erythr\u00e6 and Pri\u00ean\u00ea; and, in like manner, the Dorian votes were as\ngood in the division, when given by deputies from B\u0153on and Kytinion\nin the little territory of Doris, as if the men delivering them had\nbeen Spartans. But there can be as little question that, in practice,\nthe little Ionic cities, and the little Doric cities, pretended to no\nshare in the Amphyktionic deliberations. As the Ionic vote came to be\nsubstantially the vote of Athens, so, if Sparta was ever obstructed\nin the management of the Doric vote, it must have been by powerful\nDoric cities like Argos or Corinth, not by the insignificant towns\nof Doris. But the theory of Amphiktyonic suffrage, as laid down by\n\u00c6schines, however little realized in practice during his day, is\nimportant, inasmuch as it shows in full evidence the primitive and\noriginal constitution. The first establishment of the Amphyktionic\nconvocation dates from a time when all twelve members were on a\nfooting of equal independence, and when there were no overwhelming\ncities (such as Sparta and Athens) to cast in the shade the humbler\nmembers,\u2014when Sparta was only one Doric city, and Athens only one\nIonic city, among various others of consideration, not much inferior.\n\n [388] The list of the Amphiktyonic constituency is differently\n given by \u00c6schines, by Harpokration, and by Pausanias. Tittmann\n (Ueber den Amphiktyonischen Bund, sect. 3, 4, 5) analyzes and\n compares their various statements, and elicits the catalogue\n given in the text.\n\n [389] \u00c6schines, De Fals. Legat. p. 280, c. 36.\u2014\u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b1 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c8\u03b7\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9, etc.\n\nThere are also other proofs which show the high antiquity of this\nAmphiktyonic convocation. \u00c6schines gives us an extract from the oath\nwhich had been taken by the sacred deputies, who attended on behalf\nof their respective races, ever since its first establishment, and\nwhich still apparently continued to be taken in his day. The antique\nsimplicity of this oath, and of the conditions to which the members\nbind themselves, betrays the early age in which it originated,\nas well as the humble resources of those towns to which it was\napplied.[390] \u201cWe will not destroy any Amphiktyonic town,\u2014we will\nnot cut off any Amphiktyonic town from running water,\u201d\u2014such are the\ntwo prominent obligations which \u00c6schines specifies out of the old\noath. The second of the two carries us back to the simplest state\nof society, and to towns of the smallest size, when the maidens\nwent out with their basins to fetch water from the spring, like the\ndaughters of Keleos at Eleusis, or those of Athens from the fountain\nof Kallirrho\u00ea.[391] We may even conceive that the special mention of\nthis detail, in the covenant between the twelve races, is borrowed\nliterally from agreements still earlier, among the villages or little\ntowns in which the members of each race were distributed. At any\nrate, it proves satisfactorily the very ancient date to which the\ncommencement of the Amphiktyonic convocation must be referred. The\nbelief of \u00c6schines (perhaps, also, the belief general in his time)\nwas, that it commenced simultaneously with the first foundation\nof the Delphian temple,\u2014an event of which we have no historical\nknowledge; but there seems reason to suppose that its original\nestablishment is connected with Thermopyl\u00e6 and D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear Amphiktyonis,\nrather than with Delphi and Apollo. The special surname by which\nD\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear and her temple at Thermopyl\u00e6 was known,[392]\u2014the temple of\nthe hero Amphiktyon which stood at its side,\u2014the word Pyl\u00e6, which\nobtained footing in the language to designate the half-yearly meeting\nof the deputies both at Thermopyl\u00e6 and at Delphi,\u2014these indications\npoint to Thermopyl\u00e6 (the real central point for all the twelve)\nas the primary place of meeting, and to the Delphian half-year as\nsomething secondary and superadded. On such a matter, however, we\ncannot go beyond a conjecture.\n\n [390] \u00c6schin. Fals. Legat. p. 279, c. 35: \u1f0d\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, etc.\n\n [391] Homer, Iliad, vi. 457. Homer, Hymn to D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear, 100, 107,\n 170. Herodot. vi. 137. Thucyd. ii. 15.\n\n [392] Herodot. vii. 200; Livy, xxxi. 32.\n\nThe hero Amphiktyon, whose temple stood at Thermopyl\u00e6, passed in\nmythical genealogy for the brother of Hell\u00ean. And it may be affirmed,\nwith truth, that the habit of forming Amphiktyonic unions, and of\nfrequenting each other\u2019s religious festivals was the great means of\ncreating and fostering the primitive feeling of brotherhood among the\nchildren of Hell\u00ean, in those early times when rudeness, insecurity,\nand pugnacity did so much to isolate them. A certain number of\nsalutary habits and sentiments, such as that which the Amphiktyonic\noath embodies, in regard to abstinence from injury, as well as to\nmutual protection,[393] gradually found their way into men\u2019s minds:\nthe obligations thus brought into play, acquired a substantive\nefficacy of their own, and the religious feeling which always\nremained connected with them, came afterwards to be only one out of\nmany complex agencies by which the later historical Greek was moved.\nAthens and Sparta in the days of their might, and the inferior cities\nin relation to them, played each their own political game, in which\nreligious considerations will be found to bear only a subordinate\npart.\n\n [393] The festival of the Amarynthia in Eub\u0153a, held at the temple\n of Artemis of Amarynthus, was frequented by the Ionic Chalcis\n and Eretria as well as by the Dryopic Karystus. In a combat\n proclaimed between Chalcis and Eretria, to settle the question\n about the possession of the plain of Lelantum, it was stipulated\n that no missile weapons should be used by either party; this\n agreement was inscribed and recorded in the temple of Artemis\n (Strabo x. p. 448; Livy, xxxv. 38).\n\nThe special function of the Amphiktyonic council, so far as we\nknow it, consisted in watching over the safety, the interests, and\nthe treasures of the Delphian temple. \u201cIf any one shall plunder\nthe property of the god, or shall be cognizant thereof, or shall\ntake treacherous counsel against the things in the temple, we will\npunish him with foot, and hand, and voice, and by every means in\nour power.\u201d So ran the old Amphiktyonic oath, with an energetic\nimprecation attached to it.[394] And there are some examples in\nwhich the council[395] construes its functions so largely as to\nreceive and adjudicate upon complaints against entire cities, for\noffences against the religious and patriotic sentiment of the Greeks\ngenerally. But for the most part its interference relates directly\nto the Delphian temple. The earliest case in which it is brought to\nour view, is the Sacred War against Kirrha, in the 46th Olympiad, or\n595 B. C., conducted by Eurylochus, the Thessalian, and Kleisthenes\nof Siky\u00f4n, and proposed by Sol\u00f4n of Athens:[396] we find the\nAmphiktyons also, about half a century afterwards, undertaking the\nduty of collecting subscriptions throughout the Hellenic world, and\nmaking the contract with the Alkm\u00e6onids for rebuilding the temple\nafter a conflagration.[397] But the influence of this council is\nessentially of a fluctuating and intermittent character. Sometimes\nit appears forward to decide, and its decisions command respect;\nbut such occasions are rare, taking the general course of known\nGrecian history; while there are other occasions, and those too\nespecially affecting the Delphian temple, on which we are surprised\nto find nothing said about it. In the long and perturbed period\nwhich Thucydid\u00eas describes, he never once mentioned the Amphiktyons,\nthough the temple and the safety of its treasures form the repeated\nsubject[398] as well of dispute as of express stipulation between\nAthens and Sparta: moreover, among the twelve constituent members\nof the council, we find three\u2014the Perrh\u00e6bians, the Magn\u00eates, and\nthe Ach\u00e6ans of Phthia\u2014who were not even independent, but subject to\nthe Thessalians, so that its meetings, when they were not matters\nof mere form, probably expressed only the feelings of the three or\nfour leading members. When one or more of these great powers had a\nparty purpose to accomplish against others,\u2014when Philip of Macedon\nwished to extrude one of the members in order to procure admission\nfor himself,\u2014it became convenient to turn this ancient form into a\nserious reality, and we shall see the Athenian \u00c6schines providing a\npretext for Philip to meddle in favor of the minor B\u0153otian cities\nagainst Thebes, by alleging that these cities were under the\nprotection of the old Amphiktyonic oath.[399]\n\n [394] \u00c6schin. De Fals. Legat. c. 35, p. 279: compare adv.\n Ktesiphont. c. 36, p. 406.\n\n [395] See the charge which \u00c6schines alleges to have been brought\n by the Lokrians of Amphissa against Athens in the Amphiktyonic\n Council (adv. Ktesiphont. c. 38, p. 409). Demosthenes contradicts\n his rival as to the fact of the charge having been brought,\n saying that the Amphisseans had not given the notice, customary\n and required, of their intention to bring it: a reply which\n admits that the charge _might_ be brought (Demosth. de Coron\u00e2, c.\n 43, p. 277).\n\n The Amphiktyons offer a reward for the life of Ephialtes, the\n betrayer of the Greeks at Thermopyl\u00e6; they also erect columns to\n the memory of the fallen Greeks in that memorable strait, the\n place of their half-yearly meeting (Herod. vii. 213-228).\n\n [396] \u00c6schin. adv. Ktesiph. 1, c. Plutarch, Sol\u00f4n, c. xi, who\n refers to Aristotle \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc7\u2014Pausan. x. 37,\n 4; Schol. ad Pindar, Nem. ix. 2. \u03a4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03af\u03bd (Strabo, ix. p. 420). These Amphiktyonic\n arbitrations, however are of rare occurrence in history, and very\n commonly abused.\n\n [397] Herodot. ii. 180, v. 62.\n\n [398] Thucyd. i. 112, iv. 118, v. 18. The Phokians in the\n Sacred War (B. C. 354) pretended that they had an ancient and\n prescriptive right to the administration of the Delphian temple,\n under accountability to the general body of Greeks for the proper\n employment of its possessions,\u2014thus setting aside the Amphiktyons\n altogether (Diodor. xvi. 27).\n\n [399] \u00c6schin. de Fals. Legat. p. 280, c. 36. The party intrigues\n which moved the council in regard to the Sacred War against the\n Phokians (B. C. 355) may be seen in Diodorus, xvi. 23-28, _seq._\n\nIt is thus that we have to consider the council as an element in\nGrecian affairs,\u2014an ancient institution, one amongst many instances\nof the primitive habit of religious fraternization, but wider and\nmore comprehensive than the rest,\u2014at first, purely religious, then\nreligious and political at once; lastly, more the latter than the\nformer,\u2014highly valuable in the infancy, but unsuited to the maturity\nof Greece, and called into real working only on rare occasions, when\nits efficiency happened to fall in with the views of Athens, Thebes,\nor the king of Macedon. In such special moments it shines with a\ntransient light which affords a partial pretence for the imposing\ntitle bestowed on it by Cicero,\u2014\u201ccommune Gr\u00e6ci\u00e6 concilium:\u201d[400] but\nwe should completely misinterpret Grecian history if we regarded it\nas a federal council, habitually directing or habitually obeyed. Had\nthere existed any such \u201ccommune concilium\u201d of tolerable wisdom and\npatriotism, and had the tendencies of the Hellenic mind been capable\nof adapting themselves to it, the whole course of later Grecian\nhistory would probably have been altered; the Macedonian kings would\nhave remained only as respectable neighbors, borrowing civilization\nfrom Greece, and expending their military energies upon Thracians and\nIllyrians; while united Hellas might even have maintained her own\nterritory against the conquering legions of Rome.\n\n [400] Cicero, De Invention. ii. 23. The representation of\n Dionysius of Halikarnassus (Ant. Rom. iv. 25) overshoots the\n reality still more.\n\n About the common festivals and Amphiktyones of the Hellenic world\n generally, see Wachsmuth, Hellenische Alterthumskunde, vol. i.\n sect. 22, 24, 25; also, C. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech.\n Staatsalterth\u00fcmer, sect. 11-13.\n\nThe twelve constituent Amphiktyonic races remained unchanged until\nthe Sacred War against the Phokians (B. C. 355), after which, though\nthe number twelve was continued, the Phokians were disfranchised, and\ntheir votes transferred to Philip of Macedon. It has been already\nmentioned that these twelve did not exhaust the whole of Hellas.\nArcadians, Eleans, Pisans, Miny\u00e6, Dryopes, \u00c6tolians, all genuine\nHellens, are not comprehended in it; but all of them had a right\nto make use of the temple of Delphi, and to contend in the Pythian\nand Olympic games. The Pythian games, celebrated near Delphi, were\nunder the superintendence of the Amphiktyons,[401] or of some\nacting magistrate chosen by and presumed to represent them: like\nthe Olympic games, they came round every four years (the interval\nbetween one celebration and another being four complete years, which\nthe Greeks called a Pentaet\u00earis): the Isthmian and Nemean games\nrecurred every two years. In its first humble form, of a competition\namong bards to sing a hymn in praise of Apollo, this festival was\ndoubtless of immemorial antiquity;[402] but the first extension of\nit into Pan-Hellenic notoriety (as I have already remarked), the\nfirst multiplication of the subjects of competition, and the first\nintroduction of a continuous record of the conquerors, date only from\nthe time when it came under the presidency of the Amphiktyons, at\nthe close of the Sacred War against Kirrha. What is called the first\nPythian contest coincides with the third year of the 48th Olympiad,\nor 585 B. C. From that period forward, the games become crowded and\ncelebrated: but the date just named, nearly two centuries after the\nfirst Olympiad, is a proof that the habit of periodical frequentation\nof festivals, by numbers and from distant parts, grew up but slowly\nin the Grecian world.\n\n [401] Plutarch, Sympos. vii. 5, 1.\n\n [402] In this early phase of the Pythian festival, it is said\n to have been celebrated every eight years, marking what we\n should call an Octaet\u00earis, and what the early Greeks called an\n Ennaet\u00earis (Censorinus, De Die Natali, c. 18). This period is\n one of considerable importance in reference to the principle of\n the Grecian calendar, for ninety-nine lunar months coincide very\n nearly with eight solar years. The discovery of this coincidence\n is ascribed by Censorinus to Kleostratus of Tenedos, whose\n age is not directly known: he must be anterior to Meton, who\n discovered the cycle of nineteen solar years, but (I imagine)\n not much anterior. In spite of the authority of Ideler, it seems\n to me not proved, nor can I believe, that this octennial period\n with its solar and lunar coincidence was known to the Greeks in\n the earliest times of their mythical antiquity, or before the\n year 600 B. C. See Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, vol. i. p.\n 366; vol. ii. p. 607. The practice of the Eleians to celebrate\n the Olympic games alternately after forty-nine and fifty lunar\n months, though attested for a later time by the Scholiast on\n Pindar, is not proved to be old. The fact that there were ancient\n octennial recurring festivals, does not establish a knowledge\n of the properties of the octaeteric or ennaeteric period: nor\n does it seem to me that the details of the B\u0153otian \u03b4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u00ed\u03b1,\n described in Proclus ap. Photium, sect. 239, are very ancient.\n See, on the old mythical Octaet\u00earis, O. M\u00fcller, Orchomenos 218,\n _seqq._, and Krause, Die Pythien, Nemeen, und Isthmien, sect. 4,\n p. 22.\n\nThe foundation of the temple of Delphi itself reaches far beyond all\nhistorical knowledge, forming one of the aboriginal institutions of\nHellas. It is a sanctified and wealthy place, even in the Iliad: the\nlegislation of Lykurgus at Sparta is introduced under its auspices,\nand the earliest Grecian colonies, those of Sicily and Italy in\nthe eighth century B. C., are established in consonance with its\nmandate. Delphi and Dodona appear, in the most ancient circumstances\nof Greece, as universally venerated oracles and sanctuaries: and\nDelphi not only receives honors and donations, but also answers\nquestions, from Lydians, Phrygians, Etruscans, Romans, etc.: it is\nnot exclusively Hellenic. One of the valuable services which a Greek\nlooked for from this and other great religious establishments was,\nthat it should resolve his doubts in cases of perplexity,\u2014that it\nshould advise him whether to begin a new, or to persist in an old\nproject,\u2014that it should foretell what would be his fate under given\ncircumstances, and inform him, if suffering under distress, on what\nconditions the gods would grant him relief. The three priestesses of\nDodona with their venerable oak, and the priestess of Delphi sitting\non her tripod under the influence of a certain gas or vapor exhaling\nfrom the rock, were alike competent to determine these difficult\npoints: and we shall have constant occasion to notice in this\nhistory, with what complete faith both the question was put and the\nanswer treasured up,\u2014what serious influence it often exercised both\nupon public and private proceeding.[403] The hexameter verses, in\nwhich the Pythian priestess delivered herself, were, indeed, often so\nequivocal or unintelligible, that the most serious believer, with all\nanxiety to interpret and obey them, often found himself ruined by the\nresult; yet the general faith in the oracle was noway shaken by such\npainful experience. For as the unfortunate issue always admitted of\nbeing explained upon two hypotheses,\u2014either that the god had spoken\nfalsely, or that his meaning had not been correctly understood,\u2014no\nman of genuine piety ever hesitated to adopt the latter. There were\nmany other oracles throughout Greece besides Delphi and Dodona:\nApollo was open to the inquiries of the faithful at Pt\u00f4on in B\u0153otia,\nat Ab\u00e6 in Phokis, at Branchid\u00e6 near Miletus, at Patara in Lykia, and\nother places: in like manner, Zeus gave answers at Olympia, Poseid\u00f4n\nat T\u00e6narus, Amphiaraus at Thebes, Amphilochus at Mallas, etc. And\nthis habit of consulting the oracle formed part of the still more\ngeneral tendency of the Greek mind to undertake no enterprise without\nhaving first ascertained how the gods viewed it, and what measures\nthey were likely to take. Sacrifices were offered, and the interior\nof the victim carefully examined, with the same intent: omens,\nprodigies, unlooked-for coincidences, casual expressions, etc.,\nwere all construed as significant of the divine will. To sacrifice\nwith a view to this or that undertaking, or to consult the oracle\nwith the same view, are familiar expressions[404] embodied in the\nlanguage. Nor could any man set about a scheme with comfort, until\nhe had satisfied himself in some manner or other that the gods were\nfavorable to it.\n\n [403] See the argument of Cicero in favor of divination, in the\n first book of his valuable treatise De Divinatione. Chrysippus,\n and the ablest of the stoic philosophers, both set forth a\n plausible theory demonstrating, _a priori_, the probability of\n prophetic warnings deduced from the existence and attributes of\n the gods: if you deny altogether the occurrence of such warnings,\n so essential to the welfare of man, you must deny either the\n existence, or the foreknowledge, or the beneficence, of the\n gods (c. 38). Then the veracity of the Delphian oracle had been\n demonstrated in innumerable instances, of which Chrysippus had\n made a large collection: and upon what other supposition could\n the immense credit of the oracle be explained (c. 19)? \u201cCollegit\n innumerabilia oracula Chrysippus, et nullum sine locuplete teste\n et auctore: qu\u00e6 quia nota tibi sunt, relinquo. Defendo unum hoc:\n nunquam illud oraculum Delphis tam celebre clarumque fuisset,\n neque tantis donis refertum omnium populorum et regum, nisi\n omnis \u00e6tas oraculorum illorum veritatem esset experta.... Maneat\n id, quod negari non potest, nisi omnem historiam perverterimus,\n multis s\u00e6culis verax fuisse id oraculum.\u201d Cicero admits that it\n had become less trustworthy in his time, and tries to explain\n this decline of prophetic power: compare Plutarch, De Defect.\n Oracul.\n\n [404] Xenophon, Anabas. vii. 8, 20: \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd ~\u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd~ \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u1f41 \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u1f7c\u03bd, \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, etc.\n Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 2, 22: \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd\n \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u1ff3,\u2014compare Iliad, vii. 450.\n\nThe disposition here adverted to is one of those mental analogies\npervading the whole Hellenic nation, which Herodotus indicates.\nAnd the common habit among all Greeks, of respectfully listening\nto the oracle of Delphi, will be found on many occasions useful in\nmaintaining unanimity among men not accustomed to obey the same\npolitical superior. In the numerous colonies especially, founded\nby mixed multitudes from distant parts of Greece, the minds of the\nemigrants were greatly determined towards cordial co\u00f6peration by\ntheir knowledge that the expedition had been directed, the \u0153kist\nindicated, and the spot either chosen or approved, by Apollo of\nDelphi. Such in most cases was the fact: that god, according to the\nconception of the Greeks, \u201ctakes delight always in the foundation of\nnew cities, and himself in person lays the first stone.\u201d[405]\n\n [405] Callimach. Hymn. Apoll. 55, with Spanheim\u2019s note; Cicero,\n De Divinat. i. 1.\n\nThese are the elements of union\u2014over and above the common territory,\ndescribed in the last chapter\u2014with which the historical Hellens\ntake their start: community of blood, language, religious point of\nview, legends, sacrifices, festivals,[406] and also (with certain\nallowances) of manners and character. The analogy of manners and\ncharacter between the rude inhabitants of the Arcadian Kyn\u00e6tha[407]\nand the polite Athens, was indeed accompanied with wide differences:\nyet if we compare the two with foreign contemporaries, we shall\nfind certain negative characteristics, of much importance, common\nto both. In no city of historical Greece did there prevail either\nhuman sacrifices,[408]\u2014or deliberate mutilation, such as cutting\noff the nose, ears, hands, feet, etc.,\u2014or castration,\u2014or selling\nof children into slavery,\u2014or polygamy,\u2014or the feeling of unlimited\nobedience towards one man: all customs which might be pointed out as\nexisting among the contemporary Carthaginians, Egyptians, Persians,\nThracians,[409] etc. The habit of running, wrestling, boxing, etc.,\nin gymnastic contests, with the body perfectly naked,\u2014was common to\nall Greeks, having been first adopted as a Laced\u00e6monian fashion in\nthe fourteenth Olympiad: Thucydid\u00eas and Herodotus remark, that it\nwas not only not practised, but even regarded as unseemly, among\nnon-Hellens.[410] Of such customs, indeed, at once common to all the\nGreeks, and peculiar to them as distinguished from others, we cannot\nspecify a great number; but we may see enough to convince ourselves\nthat there did really exist, in spite of local differences, a general\nHellenic sentiment and character, which counted among the cementing\ncauses of an union apparently so little assured.\n\n [406] See this point strikingly illustrated by Plato, Repub. v.\n pp. 470-471 (c. 16), and Isocrates, Panegyr. p. 102.\n\n [407] Respecting the Arcadian Kyn\u00e6tha, see the remarkable\n observations of Polybius iv. 17-23.\n\n [408] See above, vol. i. ch. vi. p. 126 of this History.\n\n [409] For examples and evidences of these practices, see Herodot.\n ii. 162; the amputation of the nose and cars of Patarb\u00eamis, by\n Apries, king of Egypt (Xenophon, Anab. i. 9-13). There were a\n large number of men deprived of hands, feet, or eyesight, in\n the satrapy of Cyrus the younger, who had inflicted all these\n severe punishments for the prevention of crime,\u2014he did not (says\n Xenophon) suffer criminals to scoff at him (\u03b5\u1f34\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u1fb7\u03bd).\n The \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 was carried on at Sardis (Herodot. iii. 49),\u2014500\n \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 formed a portion of the yearly tribute paid by\n the Babylonians to the court of Susa (Herod. iii. 92). Selling\n of children for exportation by the Thracians (Herod. v. 6);\n there is some trace of this at Athens, prior to the Solonian\n legislation (Plutarch, Sol\u00f4n, 23), arising probably out of the\n cruel state of the law between debtor and creditor. For the\n sacrifice of children to Kronus by the Carthaginians, in troubled\n times, (according to the language of Ennius, \u201cP\u0153ni soliti suos\n sacrificare puellos,\u201d) Diodor. xx. 14; xiii. 86. Porphyr. de\n Abstinent. ii. 56: the practice is abundantly illustrated in\n M\u00f6ver\u2019s Die Religion der Ph\u00f6nizier, pp. 298-304.\n\n Arrian blames Alexander for cutting off the nose and ears of the\n Satrap B\u00eassus, saying that it was an act altogether barbaric,\n (_i. e._ non-Hellenic,) (Exp. Al. iv. 7, 6.) About the \u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 in Asia, see Strabo, xi. p. 526.\n\n [410] Thucyd. i. 6: Herodot. i. 10.\n\nFor we must recollect that, in respect to political sovereignty,\ncomplete disunion was among their most cherished principles. The\nonly source of supreme authority to which a Greek felt respect and\nattachment, was to be sought within the walls of his own city.\nAuthority seated in another city might operate upon his fears,\u2014might\nprocure for him increased security and advantages, as we shall have\noccasion hereafter to show with regard to Athens and her subject\nallies,\u2014might even be mildly exercised, and inspire no special\naversion: but, still, the principle of it was repugnant to the\nrooted sentiment of his mind, and he is always found gravitating\ntowards the distinct sovereignty of his own boul\u00ea, or ekkl\u00easia.\nThis is a disposition common both to democracies and oligarchies,\nand operative even among the different towns belonging to the same\nsubdivision of the Hellenic name,\u2014Ach\u00e6ans, Phokians, B\u0153otians, etc.\nThe twelve Ach\u00e6an cities are harmonious allies, with a periodical\nfestival which partakes of the character of a congress,\u2014but equal\nand independent political communities: the B\u0153otian towns, under the\npresidency of Thebes, their reputed metropolis, recognize certain\ncommon obligations, and obey, on various particular matters, chosen\nofficers named b\u0153otarchs,\u2014but we shall see, in this, as in other\ncases, the centrifugal tendencies constantly manifesting themselves,\nand resisted chiefly by the interests and power of Thebes. That\ngreat, successful, and fortunate revolution, which merged the several\nindependent political communities of Attica into the single unity\nof Athens, took place before the time of authentic history: it is\nconnected with the name of the hero Theseus, but we know not how it\nwas effected, while its comparatively large size and extent, render\nit a signal exception to Hellenic tendencies generally.\n\nPolitical disunion\u2014sovereign authority within the city walls\u2014thus\nformed a settled maxim in the Greek mind. The relation between one\ncity and another was an international relation, not a relation\nsubsisting between members of a common political aggregate. Within\na few miles from his own city-walls, an Athenian found himself in\nthe territory of another city, wherein he was nothing more than an\nalien,\u2014where he could not acquire property in house or land, nor\ncontract a legal marriage with any native woman, nor sue for legal\nprotection against injury, except through the mediation of some\nfriendly citizen. The right of intermarriage, and of acquiring landed\nproperty, was occasionally granted by a city to some individual\nnon-freeman, as matter of special favor, and sometimes (though very\nrarely) reciprocated generally between two separate cities.[411]\nBut the obligations between one city and another, or between the\ncitizen of the one and the citizen of the other, are all matters of\nspecial covenant, agreed to by the sovereign authority in each. Such\ncoexistence of entire political severance with so much fellowship\nin other ways, is perplexing in modern ideas, and modern language\nis not well furnished with expressions to describe Greek political\nphenomena. We may say that an Athenian citizen was an _alien_ when he\narrived as a visitor in Corinth, but we can hardly say that he was\na _foreigner_; and though the relations between Corinth and Athens\nwere in principle _international_, yet that word would be obviously\nunsuitable to the numerous petty autonomies of Hellas, besides that\nwe require it for describing the relations of Hellenes generally with\nPersians or Carthaginians. We are compelled to use a word such as\n_interpolitical_, to describe the transactions between separate Greek\ncities, so numerous in the course of this history.\n\n [411] Aristot. Polit. iii. 6, 12. It is unnecessary to refer\n to the many inscriptions which confer upon some individual\n non-freeman the right of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 and \u1f14\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nAs, on the one hand, a Greek will not consent to look for sovereign\nauthority beyond the limits of his own city, so, on the other hand,\nhe must have a city to look to: scattered villages will not satisfy\nin his mind the exigencies of social order, security, and dignity.\nThough the coalescence of smaller towns into a larger is repugnant\nto his feelings, that of villages into a town appears to him a\nmanifest advance in the scale of civilization. Such, at least, is the\ngoverning sentiment of Greece throughout the historical period; for\nthere was always a certain portion of the Hellenic aggregate\u2014the\nrudest and least advanced among them\u2014who dwelt in unfortified\nvillages, and upon whom the citizen of Athens, Corinth, or Thebes,\nlooked down as inferiors. Such village residence was the character\nof the Epirots[412] universally, and prevailed throughout Hellas\nitself, in those very early and even ante-Homeric times upon which\nThucydid\u00eas looked back as deplorably barbarous;\u2014times of universal\npoverty and insecurity,\u2014absence of pacific intercourse,\u2014petty warfare\nand plunder, compelling every man to pass his life armed,\u2014endless\nmigration without any local attachments. Many of the considerable\ncities of Greece are mentioned as aggregations of pre\u00ebxisting\nvillages, some of them in times comparatively recent. Tegea and\nMantineia in Arcadia, represent, in this way, the confluence of eight\nvillages, and five villages respectively; Dym\u00ea in Achaia was brought\ntogether out of eight villages, and Elis in the same manner, at a\nperiod even later than the Persian invasion;[413] the like seems to\nhave happened with Megara and Tanagra. A large proportion of the\nArcadians continued their village life down to the time of the battle\nof Leuktra, and it suited the purposes of Sparta to keep them thus\ndisunited; a policy which we shall see hereafter illustrated by the\ndismemberment of Mantineia (into its primitive component villages),\nwhich Agesilaus carried into effect, but which was reversed as soon\nas the power of Sparta was no longer paramount,\u2014as well as by the\nfoundation of Megalopolis out of a large number of petty Arcadian\ntowns and villages, one of the capital measures of Epameinondas.[414]\nAs this measure was an elevation of Arcadian importance, so the\nreverse proceeding\u2014the breaking up of a city into its elementary\nvillages\u2014was not only a sentence of privation and suffering, but also\na complete extinction of Grecian rank and dignity.\n\n [412] Skylax, Peripl. c. 28-33; Thucyd. ii. 80. See Dio\n Chrysostom, Or. xlvii. p. 225, vol. ii. ed. Reisk,\u2014\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n [413] Strabo, viii. pp. 337, 342, 386; Pausan. viii. 45, 1;\n Plutarch, Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. c. 17-37.\n\n [414] Pausan. viii. 27, 2-5; Diod. xv. 72: compare Arist. Polit.\n ii. 1, 5.\n\n The description of the \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of Mantineia is in Xenophon,\n Hellen. v. 2, 6-8: it is a flagrant example of his philo-Laconian\n bias. We see by the case of the Phokians after the Sacred War,\n (Diodor. xvi. 60; Pausan. x. 3, 2,) how heavy a punishment\n this \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 was. Compare, also, the instructive speech of\n the Akanthian envoy Kleigen\u00eas, at Sparta, when he invoked\n the Laced\u00e6monian interference for the purpose of crushing\n the incipient federation, or junction of towns into a common\n political aggregate, which was growing up round Olynthus (Xen.\n Hellen. v. 2, 11-2). The wise and admirable conduct of Olynthus,\n and the reluctance of the neighboring cities to merge themselves\n in this union, are forcibly set forth; also, the interest of\n Sparta in keeping all the Greek towns disunited. Compare the\n description of the treatment of Capua by the Romans (Livy, xxvi.\n 16).\n\nThe Ozolian Lokrians, the \u00c6tolians, and the Akarnanians maintained\ntheir separate village residence down to a still later period,\npreserving along with it their primitive rudeness and disorderly\npugnacity.[415] Their villages were unfortified, and defended only\nby comparative inaccessibility; in case of need, they fled for\nsafety with their cattle into the woods and mountains. Amidst such\ninauspicious circumstances, there was no room for that expansion\nof the social and political feelings to which protected intramural\nresidence and increased numbers gave birth; there was no consecrated\nacropolis or agora,\u2014no ornamented temples and porticos, exhibiting\nthe continued offerings of successive generations,[416]\u2014no theatre\nfor music or recitation, no gymnasium for athletic exercises,\u2014none\nof those fixed arrangements, for transacting public business with\nregularity and decorum, which the Greek citizen, with his powerful\nsentiment of locality, deemed essential to a dignified existence.\nThe village was nothing more than a fraction and a subordinate,\nappertaining as a limb to the organized body called the city. But\nthe city and the state are in his mind, and in his language, one\nand the same. While no organization less than the city can satisfy\nthe exigencies[417] of an intelligent freeman, the city is itself a\nperfect and self-sufficient whole, admitting no incorporation into\nany higher political unity. It deserves notice that Sparta, even\nin the days of her greatest power, was not (properly speaking) a\ncity, but a mere agglutination of five adjacent villages, retaining\nunchanged its old-fashioned trim: for the extreme defensibility of\nits frontier and the military prowess of its inhabitants, supplied\nthe absence of walls, while the discipline imposed upon the Spartan,\nexceeded in rigor and minuteness anything known in Greece. And thus\nSparta, though less than a city in respect to external appearance,\nwas more than a city in respect to perfection of drilling and fixity\nof political routine. The contrast between the humble appearance\nand the mighty reality, is pointed out by Thucydides.[418] The\ninhabitants of the small territory of Pisa, wherein Olympia is\nsituated, had once enjoyed the honorable privilege of administering\nthe Olympic festival. Having been robbed of it, and subjected by the\nmore powerful Eleians, they took advantage of various movements and\ntendencies among the larger Grecian powers to try and regain it; and\non one of these occasions, we find their claim repudiated because\nthey were villagers, and unworthy of so great a distinction.[419]\nThere was nothing to be called a city in the Pisatid territory.\n\n [415] Thucyd. i. 5; iii. 94. Xenoph. Hellen. iv. 6, 5.\n\n [416] Pausanias, x. 4, 1: his remarks on the Phokian \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2\n Panopeus indicate what he included in the idea of a \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2: \u03b5\u1f34\u03b3\u03b5\n \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03c1\u1fb3. \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a6\u03c9\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n The \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 of the Pelasgians on the peninsula of Mount\n Ath\u00f4s (Thucyd. iv. 109) seem to have been something between\n villages and cities. When the Phokians, after the Sacred War,\n were deprived of their cities and forced into villages by the\n Amphiktyons, the order was that no village should contain more\n than fifty houses, and that no village should be within the\n distance of a furlong of any other (Diodor. xvi. 60).\n\n [417] Aristot. Polit. i. 1, 8. \u1f21 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Compare\n also iii. 6, 14; and Plato, Legg. viii. p. 848.\n\n [418] Thucyd. i. 10. \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f02\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1.\n\n [419] Xenophon, Hellen. iii. 2, 31.\n\nIn going through historical Greece, we are compelled to accept\nthe Hellenic aggregate with its constituent elements as a primary\nfact to start from, because the state of our information does not\nenable us to ascend any higher. By what circumstances, or out of\nwhat pre\u00ebxisting elements, this aggregate was brought together\nand modified, we find no evidence entitled to credit. There are,\nindeed, various names which are affirmed to designate ante-Hellenic\ninhabitants of many parts of Greece,\u2014the Pelasgi, the Leleges,\nthe Kur\u00eates, the Kauk\u00f4nes, the Aones, the Temmikes, the Hyantes,\nthe Telchines, the B\u0153otian Thracians, the Telebo\u00e6, the Ephyri,\nthe Phlegy\u00e6, etc. These are names belonging to legendary, not\nto historical Greece,\u2014extracted out of a variety of conflicting\nlegends, by the logographers and subsequent historians, who strung\ntogether out of them a supposed history of the past, at a time when\nthe conditions of historical evidence were very little understood.\nThat these names designated real nations, may be true, but here our\nknowledge ends. We have no well-informed witness to tell us their\ntimes, their limits of residence, their acts, or their character;\nnor do we know how far they are identical with or diverse from\nthe historical Hellens,\u2014whom we are warranted in calling, not,\nindeed, the first inhabitants of the country, but the first known\nto us upon any tolerable evidence. If any man is inclined to\ncall the unknown ante-Hellenic period of Greece by the name of\nPelasgic, it is open to him to do so; but this is a name carrying\nwith it no assured predicates, noway enlarging our insight into\nreal history, nor enabling us to explain\u2014what would be the real\nhistorical problem\u2014how or from whom the Hellens acquired that stock\nof dispositions, aptitudes, arts, etc., with which they begin their\ncareer. Whoever has examined the many conflicting systems respecting\nthe Pelasgi,\u2014from the literal belief of Clavier, Larcher, and Raoul\nRochette, (which appears to me, at least, the most consistent\nway of proceeding,) to the interpretative and half-incredulous\nprocesses applied by abler men, such as Niebuhr, or O. M\u00fcller, or Dr.\nThirlwall,[420]\u2014will not be displeased with my resolution to decline\nso insoluble a problem. No attested facts are now present to us\u2014none\nwere present to Herodotus and Thucydid\u00eas, even in their age\u2014on which\nto build trustworthy affirmations respecting the ante-Hellenic\nPelasgians. And where such is the case, we may without impropriety\napply the remark of Herodotus, respecting one of the theories which\nhe had heard for explaining the inundation of the Nile by a supposed\nconnection with the circumfluous Ocean,\u2014that \u201cthe man who carries\nup his story into the invisible world, passes out of the range of\ncriticism.\u201d[421]\n\n [420] Larcher, Chronologie d\u2019H\u00e9rodote, ch. viii. pp. 215, 274;\n Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, book i. ch.\n 5; Niebuhr, R\u00f6mische Geschichte, vol. i. pp. 26-64, 2d ed.\n (the section entitled Die Oenotrer und Pelasger); O. M\u00fcller,\n Die Etrusker, vol. i. (Einleitung, ch. ii. pp. 75-100); Dr.\n Thirlwall, History of Greece, vol. i. ch. ii. pp. 36-64. The\n dissentient opinions of Kruse and Mannert may be found in Kruse,\n Hellas, vol. i. pp. 398-425; Mannert, Geographie der Griechen und\n R\u00f6mer, part viii. Introduct. p. 4, _seqq._\n\n Niebuhr puts together all the mythical and genealogical traces,\n many of them in the highest degree vague and equivocal, of the\n existence of Pelasgi in various localities; and then, summing\n up their cumulative effect, asserts (\u201cnot as an hypothesis, but\n with full historical conviction,\u201d p. 54) \u201cthat there was a time\n when the Pelasgians, perhaps the most extended people in all\n Europe, were spread from the Po and the Arno to the Rhyndakus,\u201d\n (near Kyzikus,) with only an interruption in Thrace. What is\n perhaps the most remarkable of all, is the contrast between his\n feeling of disgust, despair, and aversion to the subject, when he\n begins the inquiry (\u201c_the name Pelasgi_,\u201d he says, \u201c_is odious\n to the historian, who hates the spurious philology out of which\n the pretences to knowledge on the subject of such extinct people\n arise_,\u201d p. 28), and the full confidence and satisfaction with\n which he concludes it.\n\n [421] Herodot. ii. 23: \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f68\u03ba\u03b5\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nAs far as our knowledge extends, there were no towns or villages\ncalled Pelasgian, in Greece proper, since 776 B. C. But there still\nexisted in two different places, even in the age of Herodotus, people\nwhom he believed to be Pelasgians. One portion of these occupied the\ntowns of Plakia and Skylak\u00ea near Kyzikus, on the Propontis; another\ndwelt in a town called Kr\u00east\u00f4n, near the Thermaic gulf.[422] There\nwere, moreover, certain other Pelasgian townships which he does not\nspecify,\u2014it seems, indeed, from Thucydides, that there were some\nlittle Pelasgian townships on the peninsula of Athos.[423] Now,\nHerodotus acquaints us with the remarkable fact, that the people\nof Kr\u00east\u00f4n, those of Plakia and Skylak\u00ea, and those of the other\nunnamed Pelasgian townships, all spoke the same language, and each of\nthem respectively a different language from their neighbors around\nthem. He informs us, moreover, that their language was a barbarous\n(_i. e._ a non-Hellenic) language; and this fact he quotes as an\nevidence to prove that the ancient Pelasgian language was a barbarous\nlanguage, or distinct from the Hellenic. He at the same time states\nexpressly that he has no positive knowledge what language the ancient\nPelasgians spoke,\u2014one proof, among others, that no memorials nor\nmeans of distinct information concerning that people, could have been\nopen to him.\n\n [422] That Kr\u00east\u00f4n is the proper reading in Herodotus, there\n seems every reason to believe\u2014not Krot\u00f4n, as Dionys. Hal.\n represents it (Ant. Rom. i. 26)\u2014in spite of the authority of\n Niebuhr in favor of the latter.\n\n [423] Thucyd. iv. 109. Compare the new Fragmenta of Strabo, lib.\n vii. edited from the Vatican MS. by Kramer, and since by Tafel\n (T\u00fcbingen, 1844), sect. 34, p. 26,\u2014\u1fa4\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a7\u03b5\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03ae\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1fc3\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f48\u03bb\u03cc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03ce\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u0394\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u0398\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThis is the one single fact, amidst so many conjectures concerning\nthe Pelasgians, which we can be said to know upon the testimony of\na competent and contemporary witness: the few townships\u2014scattered\nand inconsiderable, but all that Herodotus in his day knew as\nPelasgian\u2014spoke a barbarous language. And upon such a point, he must\nbe regarded as an excellent judge. If, then, (infers the historian,)\nall the early Pelasgians spoke the same language as those of Kr\u00east\u00f4n\nand Plakia, they must have changed their language at the time when\nthey passed into the Hellenic aggregate, or became Hellens. Now,\nHerodotus conceives that aggregate to have been gradually enlarged\nto its great actual size by incorporating with itself not only the\nPelasgians, but several other nations once barbarians;[424] the\nHellens having been originally an inconsiderable people. Among those\nother nations once barbarian, whom Herodotus supposes to have become\nHellenized, we may probably number the Leleges; and with respect to\nthem, as well as to the Pelasgians, we have contemporary testimony\nproving the existence of barbarian Leleges in later times. Philippus,\nthe Karian historian, attested the present existence, and believed in\nthe past existence, of Leleges in his country, as serfs or dependent\ncultivators under the Karians, analogous to the Helots in Laconia,\nor the Penest\u00e6 in Thessaly.[425] We may be very sure that there were\nno Hellens\u2014no men speaking the Hellenic tongue\u2014standing in such a\nrelation to the Karians. Among those many barbaric-speaking nations\nwhom Herodotus believed to have changed their language and passed\ninto Hellens, we may, therefore, fairly consider the Leleges to have\nbeen included. For next to the Pelasgians and Pelasgus, the Leleges\nand Lelex figure most conspicuously in the legendary genealogies; and\nboth together cover the larger portion of the Hellenic soil.\n\n [424] Herod. i. 57. \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n [425] Athen\u00e6. vi. p. 271. \u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u0395\u1f35\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u0398\u03b5\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u1fb6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039b\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 ~\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd~.\n\nConfining myself to historical evidence, and believing that no\nassured results can be derived from the attempt to transform legend\ninto history, I accept the statement of Herodotus with confidence, as\nto the barbaric language spoken by the Pelasgians of his day; and I\nbelieve the same with regard to the historical Leleges,\u2014but without\npresuming to determine anything in regard to the legendary Pelasgians\nand Leleges, the supposed ante-Hellenic inhabitants of Greece. And I\nthink this course more consonant to the laws of historical inquiry\nthan that which comes recommended by the high authority of Dr.\nThirlwall, who softens and explains away the statement of Herodotus,\nuntil it is made to mean only that the Pelasgians of Plakia and\nKr\u00east\u00f4n spoke a very bad Greek. The affirmation of Herodotus is\ndistinct, and twice repeated, that the Pelasgians of these towns,\nand of his own time, spoke a barbaric language; and that word\nappears to me to admit of but one interpretation.[426] To suppose\nthat a man, who, like Herodotus, had heard almost every variety of\nGreek, in the course of his long travels, as well as Egyptian,\nPh\u0153nician, Assyrian, Lydian, and other languages, did not know how\nto distinguish bad Hellenic from non-Hellenic, is, in my judgment,\ninadmissible; at any rate, the supposition is not to be adopted\nwithout more cogent evidence than any which is here found.\n\n [426] Herod, i. 57. \u1f2d\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f34\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\n \u1f00\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9. \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03ce\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03a4\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u1ff3 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f31\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. \u0395\u1f30 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\n \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f31 \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u00b7\n \u03c3\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72, \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9. \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f20\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf ~\u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1~ \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc7.\n\n In the next chapter, Herodotus again calls the Pelasgian nation\n \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n Respecting this language, heard by Herodotus at Kr\u00east\u00f4n and\n Plakia, Dr. Thirlwall observes (chap. ii. p. 60), \u201cThis language\n Herodotus describes as barbarous, and it is on this fact he\n grounds his general conclusion as to the ancient Pelasgian\n tongue. But he has not entered into any details that might\n have served to ascertain the manner or degree in which it\n differed from the Greek. Still, the expressions he uses would\n have appeared to imply that it was essentially foreign, had he\n not spoken quite as strongly in another passage, where it is\n impossible to ascribe a similar meaning to his words. When he\n is enumerating the dialects that prevailed among the Ionian\n Greeks, he observes that the Ionian cities in Lydia agree not\n at all in their tongue with those of Karia; and he applies the\n very same term to these dialects, which he had before used in\n speaking of the remains of the Pelasgian language. This passage\n affords a measure by which we may estimate the force of the word\n _barbarian_ in the former. Nothing more can be safely inferred\n from it, than that the Pelasgian language which Herodotus heard\n on the Hellespont, and elsewhere, sounded to him a strange\n jargon: as did the dialect of Ephesus to a Milesian, and as\n the Bolognese does to a Florentine. This fact leaves its real\n nature and relation to the Greek quite uncertain; and we are the\n less justified in building on it, as the history of Pelasgian\n settlements is extremely obscure, and the traditions which\n Herodotus reports on that subject have by no means equal weight\n with statements made from his personal observation.\u201d (Thirlwall,\n History of Greece, ch. ii. p. 60, 2d edit.)\n\n In the statement delivered by Herodotus (to which Dr. Thirlwall\n here refers) about the language spoken in the Ionic Greek cities,\n the historian had said (i. 142),\u2014\u0393\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd. Miletus, Myus, and\n Pri\u00eane,\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9.\n Ephesus, Kolophon, etc.,\u2014\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c6\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9. The Chians\n and Erythr\u00e6ans,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f60\u03cb\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03a3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f11\u03c9\u03cb\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. \u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n The words \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 (\u201cdistinctive mode of speech\u201d) are\n common to both these passages, but their meaning in the one and\n in the other is to be measured by reference to the subject-matter\n of which the author is speaking, as well as to the words which\n accompany them,\u2014especially the word \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 in the first\n passage. Nor can I think (with Dr. Thirlwall) that the meaning of\n \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is to be determined by reference to the other two words:\n the reverse is, in my judgment, correct. \u0392\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is a term\n definite and unequivocal, but \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 varies according\n to the comparison which you happen at the moment to be making,\n and its meaning is here determined by its conjunction with\n \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n When Herodotus was speaking of the twelve Ionic cities in Asia,\n he might properly point out the differences of speech among them\n as so many different \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2: the limits of difference\n were fixed by the knowledge which his hearers possessed of\n the persons about whom he was speaking; the Ionians being all\n notoriously Hellens. So an author, describing Italy, might say\n that Bolognese, Romans, Neapolitans, Genoese, etc. had different\n \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2; it being understood that the difference was\n such as might subsist among persons all Italians.\n\n But there is also a \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1 \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 of Greek generally\n (abstraction made of its various dialects and diversities), as\n contrasted with Persian, Ph\u0153nician, or Latin,\u2014and of Italian\n generally, as contrasted with German or English. It is this\n comparison which Herodotus is taking, when he describes the\n language spoken by the people of Kr\u00east\u00f4n and Plakia, and which\n he notes by the word \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd as opposed to \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd: it is\n with reference to this comparison that \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1 \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, in the\n fifty-seventh chapter, is to be construed. The word \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is\n the usual and recognized antithesis of \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd, or \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n It is not the least remarkable part of the statement of\n Herodotus, that the language spoken at Kr\u00east\u00f4n and at Plakia\n was the same, though the places were so far apart from each\n other. This identity of itself shows that he meant to speak of a\n substantive language, not of a \u201cstrange jargon.\u201d\n\n I think it, therefore, certain that Herodotus pronounces the\n Pelasgians of his day to speak a substantive language different\n from Greek; but whether differing from it in a greater or less\n degree (_e. g._ in the degree of Latin or of Ph\u0153nician), we have\n no means of deciding.\n\nAs I do not presume to determine what were the antecedent internal\nelements out of which the Hellenic aggregate was formed, so I\nconfess myself equally uninformed with regard to its external\nconstituents. Kadmus, Danaus, Kekrops,\u2014the eponyms of the Kadmeians,\nof the Danaans, and of the Attic Kekropia,\u2014present themselves to my\nvision as creatures of legend, and in that character I have already\nadverted to them. That there may have been very early settlements in\ncontinental Greece, from Ph\u0153nicia and Egypt, is nowise impossible;\nbut I see neither positive proof, nor ground for probable inference,\nthat there were any such, though traces of Ph\u0153nician settlements\nin some of the islands may doubtless be pointed out. And if we\nexamine the character and aptitudes of Greeks, as compared either\nwith Egyptians or Ph\u0153nicians, it will appear that there is not only\nno analogy, but an obvious and fundamental contrast: the Greek\nmay occasionally be found as a borrower from these ultramarine\ncontemporaries, but he cannot be looked upon as their offspring or\nderivative. Nor can I bring myself to accept an hypothesis which\nimplies (unless we are to regard the supposed foreign emigrants\nas very few in number, in which case the question loses most of\nits importance) that the Hellenic language\u2014the noblest among the\nmany varieties of human speech, and possessing within itself a\npervading symmetry and organization\u2014is a mere confluence of two\nforeign barbaric languages (Ph\u0153nician and Egyptian) with two or more\ninternal barbaric languages,\u2014Pelasgian, Lelegian, etc. In the mode\nof investigation pursued by different historians into this question\nof early foreign colonies, there is great difference (as in the case\nof the Pelasgi) between the different authors,\u2014from the acquiescent\nEuemerism of Raoul Rochette to the refined distillation of Dr.\nThirlwall, in the third chapter of his History. It will be found that\nthe amount of positive knowledge which Dr. Thirlwall guarantees to\nhis readers in that chapter is extremely inconsiderable; for though\nhe proceeds upon the general theory (different from that which I\nhold) that historical matter may be distinguished and elicited from\nthe legends, yet when the question arises respecting any definite\nhistorical result, his canon of credibility is too just to permit him\nto overlook the absence of positive evidence, even when all intrinsic\nincredibility is removed. That which I note as Terra Incognita, is in\nhis view a land which may be known up to a certain point; but the map\nwhich he draws of it contains so few ascertained places as to differ\nvery little from absolute vacuity.\n\nThe most ancient district called Hellas is affirmed by Aristotle to\nhave been near D\u00f4d\u00f4na and the river Achel\u00f4us,\u2014a description which\nwould have been unintelligible (since the river does not flow near\nD\u00f4d\u00f4na), if it had not been qualified by the remark, that the river\nhad often in former times changed its course. He states, moreover,\nthat the deluge of Deukali\u00f4n took place chiefly in this district,\nwhich was in those early days inhabited by the Selli, and by the\npeople then called Gr\u00e6ci, but now Hellenes.[427] The Selli (called\nby Pindar, Helli) are mentioned in the Iliad as the ministers of the\nDodon\u00e6an Zeus,\u2014\u201cmen who slept on the ground, and never washed their\nfeet;\u201d and Hesiod, in one of the lost poems (the Eoiai), speaks of\nthe fat land and rich pastures of the land called Hellopia, wherein\nD\u00f4d\u00f4na was situated.[428] On what authority Aristotle made his\nstatement, we do not know; but the general feeling of the Greeks was\ndifferent,\u2014connecting Deukali\u00f4n, Hellen, and the Hellenes, primarily\nand specially with the territory called Achaia Phthi\u00f4tis, between\nMount Othrys and \u0152ta. Nor can we either affirm or deny his assertion\nthat the people in the neighborhood of D\u00f4d\u00f4na were called Gr\u00e6ci\nbefore they were called Hellenes. There is no ascertained instance\nof the mention of a people called Gr\u00e6ci, in any author earlier than\nthis Aristotelian treatise; for the allusions to Alkman and Sophokl\u00eas\nprove nothing to the point.[429] Nor can we explain how it came\nto pass that the Hellenes were known to the Romans only under the\nname of Gr\u00e6ci, or Graii. But the name by which a people is known to\nforeigners is often completely different from its own domestic name,\nand we are not less at a loss to assign the reason, how the Rasena\nof Etruria came to be known to the Romans by the name of Tuscans, or\nEtruscans.\n\n [427] Aristotel. Meteorol. i. 14.\n\n [428] Homer, Iliad, xvi. 234; Hesiod, Fragm. 149, ed.\n Marktscheffel; Sophokl. Trachin. 1174; Strabo, vii. p. 328.\n\n [429] Stephan. Byz. v. \u0393\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2.\u2014\u0393\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0393\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76\u03be \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd.\n\n The word \u0393\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, in Alkman, meaning \u201cthe mothers of the\n Hellenes,\u201d may well be only a dialectic variety of \u03b3\u03c1\u1fb6\u03b5\u03c2,\n analogous to \u03ba\u03bb\u1fb2\u03be and \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03be, for \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2, etc. (Ahrens, De\n Dialecto Doric\u00e2, sect. 11, p. 91; and sect. 31, p. 242), perhaps\n declined like \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n The term used by Sophokl\u00eas, if we may believe Photius, was not\n \u0393\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, but \u1fec\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (Photius, p. 480, 15; Dindorf, Fragment.\n Soph. 933: compare 455). Eustathius (p. 890) seems undecided\n between the two.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nMEMBERS OF THE HELLENIC AGGREGATE, SEPARATELY TAKEN.\u2014GREEKS NORTH OF\nPELOPONNESUS.\n\n\nHaving in the preceding chapter touched upon the Greeks in their\naggregate capacity, I now come to describe separately the portions\nof which this aggregate consisted, as they present themselves at the\nfirst discernible period of history.\n\nIt has already been mentioned that the twelve races or subdivisions,\nmembers of what is called the Amphiktyonic convocation, were as\nfollows:\u2014\n\nNorth of the pass of Thermopyl\u00e6,\u2014Thessalians, Perrh\u00e6bians, Magn\u00eates,\nAch\u00e6ans, Melians, \u00c6nianes, Dolopes.\n\nSouth of the pass of Thermopyl\u00e6,\u2014Dorians, Ionians, B\u0153otians,\nLokrians, Phokians.\n\nOther Hellenic races, not comprised among the Amphiktyons, were\u2014\n\nThe \u00c6tolians and Akarnanians, north of the gulf of Corinth.\n\nThe Arcadians, Eleians, Pisatans, and Triphylians, in the central and\nwestern portion of Peloponn\u00easus: I do not here name the Ach\u00e6ans, who\noccupied the southern or Peloponnesian coast of the Corinthian gulf,\nbecause they may be presumed to have been originally of the same race\nas the Phthiot Ach\u00e6ans, and therefore participant in the Amphiktyonic\nconstituency, though their actual connection with it may have been\ndisused.\n\nThe Dryopes, an inconsiderable, but seemingly peculiar subdivision,\nwho occupied some scattered points on the sea-coast,\u2014Hermion\u00ea on\nthe Argolic peninsula; Styrus and Karystus in Eub\u0153a; the island of\nKythnus, etc.\n\nThough it may be said, in a general way, that our historical\ndiscernment of the Hellenic aggregate, apart from the illusions of\nlegend, commences with 776 B. C., yet, with regard to the larger\nnumber of its subdivisions just enumerated, we can hardly be said to\npossess any specific facts anterior to the invasion of Xerxes in 480\nB. C. Until the year 560 B. C., (the epoch of Cr\u0153sus in Asia Minor,\nand of Peisistratus at Athens,) the history of the Greeks presents\nhardly anything of a collective character: the movements of each\nportion of the Hellenic world begin and end apart from the rest. The\ndestruction of Kirrha by the Amphiktyons is the first historical\nincident which brings into play, in defence of the Delphian temple, a\ncommon Hellenic feeling of active obligation.\n\nBut about 560 B. C., two important changes are seen to come into\noperation, which alter the character of Grecian history,\u2014extricating\nit out of its former chaos of detail, and centralizing its isolated\nphenomena: 1. The subjugation of the Asiatic Greeks by Lydia and\nby Persia, followed by their struggles for emancipation,\u2014wherein\nthe European Greeks became implicated, first as accessories, and\nafterwards as principals. 2. The combined action of the large mass of\nGreeks under Sparta, as their most powerful state and acknowledged\nchief, succeeded by the rapid and extraordinary growth of Athens,\nthe complete development of Grecian maritime power, and the struggle\nbetween Athens and Sparta for the headship. These two causes, though\ndistinct in themselves, must, nevertheless, be regarded as working\ntogether to a certain degree,\u2014or rather, the second grew out of the\nfirst. For it was the Persian invasions of Greece which first gave\nbirth to a wide-spread alarm and antipathy among the leading Greeks\n(we must not call it Pan-Hellenic, since more than half of the\nAmphiktyonic constituency gave earth and water to Xerxes) against\nthe barbarians of the East, and impressed them with the necessity\nof joint active operations under a leader. The idea of a leadership\nor hegemony of collective Hellas, as a privilege necessarily vested\nin some one state for common security against the barbarians, thus\nbecame current,\u2014an idea foreign to the mind of Sol\u00f4n, or any one\nof the same age. Next, came the miraculous development of Athens,\nand the violent contest between her and Sparta, which should be\nthe leader; the larger portion of Hellas taking side with one or\nthe other, and the common quarrel against the Persian being for\nthe time put out of sight. Athens is put down, Sparta acquires the\nundisputed hegemony, and again the anti-barbaric feeling manifests\nitself, though faintly, in the Asiatic expeditions of Agesilaus.\nBut the Spartans, too incompetent either to deserve or maintain\nthis exalted position, are overthrown by the Thebans,\u2014themselves\nnot less incompetent, with the single exception of Epameinondas.\nThe death of that single man extinguishes the pretensions of Thebes\nto the hegemony, and Hellas is left, like the deserted Penelop\u00ea in\nthe Odyssey, worried by the competition of several suitors, none\nof whom is strong enough to stretch the bow on which the prize\ndepends.[430] Such a manifestation of force, as well as the trampling\ndown of the competing suitors, is reserved, not for any legitimate\nHellenic arm, but for a semi-Hellenized[431] Macedonian, \u201cbrought\nup at Pella,\u201d and making good his encroachments gradually from the\nnorth of Olympus. The hegemony of Greece thus passes forever out of\nGrecian hands; but the conqueror finds his interest in rekindling\nthe old sentiment under the influence of which it had first sprung\nup. He binds to him the discordant Greeks, by the force of their\nancient and common antipathy against the Great King, until the\ndesolation and sacrilege once committed by Xerxes at Athens is\navenged by annihilation of the Persian empire. And this victorious\nconsummation of Pan-Hellenic antipathy,\u2014the dream of Xenophon[432]\nand the Ten Thousand Greeks after the battle of Kunaxa,\u2014the hope of\nJason of Pher\u00e6,\u2014the exhortation of Isokrat\u00eas,[433]\u2014the project of\nPhilip, and the achievement of Alexander,\u2014while it manifests the\nirresistible might of Hellenic ideas and organization in the then\nexisting state of the world, is at the same time the closing scene\nof substantive Grecian life. The citizen-feelings of Greece become\nafterwards merely secondary forces, subordinate to the preponderance\nof Greek mercenaries under Macedonian order, and to the rudest of all\nnative Hellens,\u2014the \u00c6tolian mountaineers. Some few individuals are\nindeed found, even in the third century B. C., worthy of the best\ntimes of Hellas, and the Ach\u00e6an confederation of that century is an\nhonorable attempt to contend against irresistible difficulties: but\non the whole, that free, social, and political march, which gives so\nmuch interest to the earlier centuries, is irrevocably banished from\nGreece after the generation of Alexander the Great.\n\n [430] Xenophon, Hellen. vii. 5, 27; Demosthenes, De Coron. c. 7,\n p. 231\u2014\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae.\n\n [431] Demosthen. de Coron. c. 21, p. 247.\n\n [432] Xenophon, Anabas. iii. 2, 25-26.\n\n [433] Xenophon, Hellen. vi. 1, 12; Isocrates, Orat. ad Philipp.,\n Orat. v. p. 107. This discourse of Isokrat\u00eas is composed\n expressly for the purpose of calling on Philip to put himself at\n the head of united Greece against the Persians: the Oratio iv,\n called Panegyrica, recommends a combination of all Greeks for the\n same purpose, but under the hegemony of Athens, putting aside all\n intestine differences: see Orat. iv. pp. 45-68.\n\nThe foregoing brief sketch will show that, taking the period from\nCr\u0153sus and Peisistratus down to the generation of Alexander (560-300\nB. C.), the phenomena of Hellas generally, and her relations\nboth foreign and interpolitical, admit of being grouped together\nin masses, with continued dependence on one or a few predominant\ncircumstances. They may be said to constitute a sort of historical\nepopee, analogous to that which Herodotus has constructed out of\nthe wars between Greeks and barbarians, from the legends of I\u00f4 and\nEur\u00f4pa down to the repulse of Xerxes. But when we are called back to\nthe period between 776 and 560 B. C., the phenomena brought to our\nknowledge are scanty in number,\u2014exhibiting few common feelings or\ninterests, and no tendency towards any one assignable purpose. To\nimpart attraction to this first period, so obscure and unpromising,\nwe shall be compelled to consider it in its relation with the second;\npartly as a preparation, partly as a contrast.\n\nOf the extra-Peloponnesian Greeks north of Attica, during these two\ncenturies, we know absolutely nothing; but it will be possible to\nfurnish some information respecting the early condition and struggles\nof the great Dorian states in Peloponnesus, and respecting the rise\nof Sparta from the second to the first place in the comparative\nscale of Grecian powers. Athens becomes first known to us at the\nlegislation of Drako and the attempt of Kyl\u00f4n (620 B. C.) to make\nhimself despot; and we gather some facts concerning the Ionic\ncities in Eub\u0153a and Asia Minor, during the century of their chief\nprosperity, prior to the reign and conquests of Cr\u0153sus. In this\nway, we shall form to ourselves some idea of the growth of Sparta\nand Athens,\u2014of the short-lived and energetic development of the\nIonic Greeks,\u2014and of the slow working of those causes which tended\nto bring about increased Hellenic intercommunication,\u2014as contrasted\nwith the enlarged range of ambition, the grand Pan-Hellenic ideas,\nthe systematized party-antipathies, and the intensified action, both\nabroad and at home, which grew out of the contest with Persia.\n\nThere are also two or three remarkable manifestations which will\nrequire special notice during this first period of Grecian history:\n1. The great multiplicity of colonies sent forth by individual\ncities, and the rise and progress of these several colonies; 2. The\nnumber of despots who arose in the various Grecian cities; 3. The\nlyric poetry; 4. The rudiments of that which afterwards ripened into\nmoral philosophy, as manifested in gnomes, or aphorisms,\u2014or the age\nof the Seven Wise Men.\n\nBut before I proceed to relate those earliest proceedings\n(unfortunately too few) of the Dorians and Ionians during the\nhistorical period, together with the other matters just alluded to,\nit will be convenient to go over the names and positions of those\nother Grecian states respecting which we have no information during\nthese first two centuries. Some idea will thus be formed of the less\nimportant members of the Hellenic aggregate, previous to the time\nwhen they will be called into action. We begin by the territory north\nof the pass of Thermopyl\u00e6.\n\nOf the different races who dwelt between this celebrated pass and the\nmouth of the river Peneius, by far the most powerful and important\nwere the Thessalians. Sometimes, indeed, the whole of this area\npasses under the name of Thessaly,\u2014since nominally, though not always\nreally, the power of the Thessalians extended over the whole. We\nknow that the Trachinian Herakleia, founded by the Laced\u00e6monians\nin the early years of the Peloponnesian war, close at the pass of\nThermopyl\u00e6, was planted upon the territory of the Thessalians.[434]\nBut there were also within these limits other races, inferior and\ndependent on the Thessalians, yet said to be of more ancient date,\nand certainly not less genuine subdivisions of the Hellenic name.\nThe Perrh\u00e6bi[435] occupied the northern portion of the territory\nbetween the lower course of the river Peneius and Mount Olympus.\nThe Magn\u00eates[436] dwelt along the eastern coast, between Mount Ossa\nand Pelion on one side and the \u00c6gean on the other, comprising the\nsouth-eastern cape and the eastern coast of the gulf of Pagas\u00e6 as\nfar as I\u00f4lkos. The Ach\u00e6ans occupied the territory called Phthi\u00f4tis,\nextending from near Mount Pindus on the west to the gulf of Pagas\u00e6 on\nthe east,[437]\u2014along the mountain chain of Othrys with its lateral\nprojections northerly into the Thessalian plain, and southerly even\nto its junction with \u0152ta. The three tribes of the Malians dwelt\nbetween Ach\u00e6a Phthi\u00f4tis and Thermopyl\u00e6, including both Trachin and\nHerakleia. Westward of Ach\u00e6a Phthi\u00f4tis, the lofty region of Pindus\nor Tymphr\u00eastus, with its declivities both westward and eastward, was\noccupied by the Dolopes.\n\n [434] Thucyd. iii. 93. \u039f\u1f31 \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3\n \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f67\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf (Herakleia), etc.\n\n [435] Herodot. vii. 173; Strabo, ix. pp. 440-441. Herodotus\n notices the pass over the chain of Olympus or the Cambunian\n mountains by which Xerxes and his army passed out of Macedonia\n into Perrh\u00e6bia; see the description of the pass and the\n neighboring country in Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, ch.\n xxviii. vol. iii. pp. 338-348; compare Livy, xlii. 53.\n\n [436] Skylax, Periplus, c. 66; Herodot. vii. 183-188.\n\n [437] Skylax, Peripl. c. 64; Strabo, ix. pp. 433-434. Sophokl\u00eas\n included the territory of Trachin in the limits of Phthi\u00f4tis\n (Strabo, _l. c._). Herodotus considers Phthi\u00f4tis as terminating a\n little north of the river Spercheius (vii. 198).\n\nAll these five tribes, or subdivisions,\u2014Perrh\u00e6bians, Magnetes,\nAch\u00e6ans of Phthi\u00f4tis, Malians, and Dolopes, together with certain\nEpirotic and Macedonian tribes besides, beyond the boundaries of\nPindus and Olympus,\u2014were in a state of irregular dependence upon\nthe Thessalians, who occupied the central plain or basin drained\nby the Peneius. That river receives the streams from Olympus, from\nPindus, and from Othrys,\u2014flowing through a region which was supposed\nby its inhabitants to have been once a lake, until Poseid\u00f4n cut\nopen the defile of Temp\u00ea, through which the waters found an efflux.\nIn travelling northward from Thermopyl\u00e6, the commencement of this\nfertile region\u2014the amplest space of land continuously productive\nwhich Hellas presents\u2014is strikingly marked by the steep rock and\nancient fortress of Thaumaki;[438] from whence the traveller, passing\nover the mountains of Ach\u00e6a Phthi\u00f4tis and Othrys, sees before him\nthe plains and low declivities which reach northward across Thessaly\nto Olympus. A narrow strip of coast\u2014in the interior of the gulf of\nPagas\u00e6, between the Magn\u00eates and the Ach\u00e6ans, and containing the\ntowns of Amphan\u00e6um and Pagas\u00e6[439]\u2014belonged to this proper territory\nof Thessaly, but its great expansion was inland: within it were\nsituated the cities of Pher\u00e6, Pharsalus, Skotussa, Larissa, Krann\u00f4n,\nAtrax, Pharkad\u00f4n, Trikka, Metropolis, Pelinna, etc.\n\n [438] See the description of Thaumaki in Livy, xxxii. 4, and in\n Dr. Holland\u2019s Travels, ch. xvii. vol. ii. p. 112,\u2014now Thomoko.\n\n [439] Skylax, Peripl. c. 65. Hesychius (v. \u03a0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd)\n seems to reckon Pagas\u00e6 as Ach\u00e6an.\n\n About the towns in Thessaly, and their various positions, see\n Mannert, Geograph. der Gr. und R\u00f6mer, part vii. book iii. ch. 8\n and 9.\n\n There was an ancient religious ceremony, celebrated by the\n Delphians every ninth year (Enna\u00ebt\u00earis): a procession was sent\n from Delphi to the pass of Temp\u00ea, consisting of well-born youths\n under an archi-the\u00f4r, who represented the proceeding ascribed\n by an old legend to Apollo; that god was believed to have gone\n thither to receive expiation after the slaughter of the serpent\n Pytho: at least, this was one among several discrepant legends.\n The chief youth plucked and brought back a branch from the sacred\n laurel at Temp\u00ea, as a token that he had fulfilled his mission:\n he returned by \u201cthe sacred road,\u201d and broke his fast at a place\n called \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2, near Larissa. A solemn festival, frequented\n by a large concourse of people from the surrounding regions,\n was celebrated on this occasion at Temp\u00ea, in honor of Apollo\n Tempeit\u00eas (\u1f08\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03a4\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u1fb3, in the \u00c6olic dialect of Thessaly:\n see Inscript. in Boeckh, Corp. Ins. No. 1767). The procession was\n accompanied by a flute-player.\n\n See Plutarch, Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. ch. xi. p. 292; De Music\u00e2, ch. xiv. p.\n 1136, \u00c6lian, V. II. iii. 1: Stephan. Byz. v. \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac\u03c2.\n\n It is important to notice these religious processions as\n establishing intercourse and sympathies between the distant\n members of Hellas: but the inferences which O. M\u00fcller (Dorians,\n b. ii. 1, p. 222) would build upon them, as to the original seat\n of the Dorians and the worship of Apollo, are not to be trusted.\n\nThe abundance of corn and cattle from the neighboring plains\nsustained in these cities a numerous population, and above all a\nproud and disorderly noblesse, whose manners bore much resemblance\nto those of the heroic times. They were violent in their behavior,\neager in armed feud, but unaccustomed to political discussion or\ncompromise; faithless as to obligations, yet at the same time\ngenerous in their hospitalities, and much given to the enjoyments\nof the table.[440] Breeding the finest horses in Greece, they were\ndistinguished for their excellence as cavalry; but their infantry\nis little noticed, nor do the Thessalian cities seem to have\npossessed that congregation of free and tolerably equal citizens,\neach master of his own arms, out of whom the ranks of hoplites were\nconstituted,\u2014the warlike nobles, such as the Aleuad\u00e6 at Larissa, or\nthe Skopad\u00e6 at Krannon, despising everything but equestrian service\nfor themselves, furnished, from their extensive herds on the plain,\nhorses for the poorer soldiers. These Thessalian cities exhibit\nthe extreme of turbulent oligarchy, occasionally trampled down by\nsome one man of great vigor, but little tempered by that sense of\npolitical communion and reverence for established law, which was\nfound among the better cities of Hellas. Both in Athens and Sparta,\nso different in many respects from each other, this feeling will be\nfound, if not indeed constantly predominant, yet constantly present\nand operative. Both of them exhibit a contrast with Larissa or Pher\u00e6\nnot unlike that between Rome and Capua,\u2014the former, with her endless\ncivil disputes constitutionally conducted, admitting the joint action\nof parties against a common foe; the latter, with her abundant soil\nenriching a luxurious oligarchy, and impelled according to the feuds\nof her great proprietors, the Magii, Blossii, and Jubellii.[441]\n\n [440] Plato, Krito, c. 15, p. 53. \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 (compare the beginning of the Men\u00f4n)\u2014a remark the more\n striking, since he had just before described the B\u0153otian Thebes\n as a well-regulated city, though both Dik\u00e6archus and Polybius\n represent it in their times as so much the contrary.\n\n See also Demosthen. Olynth. i. c. 9, p. 16, cont. Aristokrat.\n c. 29, p. 657; Schol. Eurip. Ph\u0153niss. 1466; Theopomp. Fragment.\n 34-178, ed. Didot; Aristophan\u00eas, Plut. 521.\n\n The march of political affairs in Thessaly is understood from\n Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 1: compare Anabas. i. 1, 10, and Thucyd. iv.\n 78.\n\n [441] See Cicero, Orat. in Pison. c. 11; De Leg. Agrar. cont.\n Rullum, c. 34-35.\n\nThe Thessalians are, indeed, in their character and capacity as much\nEpirotic or Macedonian as Hellenic, forming a sort of link between\nthe two. For the Macedonians, though trained in aftertimes upon\nGrecian principles by the genius of Philip and Alexander, so as to\nconstitute the celebrated heavy-armed phalanx, were originally (even\nin the Peloponnesian war) distinguished chiefly for the excellence\nof their cavalry, like the Thessalians;[442] while the broad-brimmed\nhat, or kausia, and the short spreading-mantle, or chlamys, were\ncommon to both.\n\n [442] Compare the Thessalian cavalry as described by Polybius.\n iv. 8, with the Macedonian as described by Thucydid\u00eas, ii. 100.\n\nWe are told that the Thessalians were originally emigrants from\nThesprotia in Epirus, and conquerors of the plain of the Peneius,\nwhich (according to Herodotus) was then called \u00c6olis, and which\nthey found occupied by the Pelasgi.[443] It may be doubted whether\nthe great Thessalian families,\u2014such as the Aleuad\u00e6 of Larissa,\ndescendants from H\u00earakl\u00eas, and placed by Pindar on the same level\nas the Laced\u00e6monian kings[444]\u2014would have admitted this Thesprotian\norigin; nor does it coincide with the tenor of those legends which\nmake the eponym, Thessalus, son of H\u00earakl\u00eas. Moreover, it is to\nbe remarked that the language of the Thessalians was Hellenic, a\nvariety of the \u00c6olic dialect;[445] the same (so far as we can make\nout) as that of the people whom they must have found settled in the\ncountry at their first conquest. If then it be true that, at some\nperiod anterior to the commencement of authentic history, a body of\nThesprotian warriors crossed the passes of Pindus, and established\nthemselves as conquerors in Thessaly, we must suppose them to have\nbeen more warlike than numerous, and to have gradually dropped their\nprimitive language.\n\n [443] Herodot. vii. 176; Thucyd. i. 12.\n\n [444] Pindar, Pyth. x. init. with the Scholia, and the valuable\n comment of Boeckh, in reference to the Aleuad\u00e6; Schneider ad\n Aristot. Polit. v. 5, 9; and the Essay of Buttmann, Von dem\n Geschlecht der Aleuaden, art. xxii. vol. ii. p. 254, of the\n collection called \u201cMythologus.\u201d\n\n [445] Ahrens, De Dialect. \u00c6olic\u00e2, c. 1, 2.\n\nIn other respects, the condition of the population of Thessaly, such\nas we find it during the historical period, favors the supposition\nof an original mixture of conquerors and conquered: for it seems\nthat there was among the Thessalians and their dependents a triple\ngradation, somewhat analogous to that of Laconia. First, a class\nof rich proprietors distributed throughout the principal cities,\npossessing most of the soil, and constituting separate oligarchies,\nloosely hanging together.[446] Next, the subject Ach\u00e6ans, Magn\u00eates,\nPerrh\u00e6bi, differing from the Laconian Peri\u0153ki in this point, that\nthey retained their ancient tribe-name and separate Amphiktyonic\nfranchise. Thirdly, a class of serfs, or dependent cultivators,\ncorresponding to the Laconian Helots, who, tilling the lands of the\nwealthy oligarchs, paid over a proportion of its produce, furnished\nthe retainers by which these great families were surrounded, served\nas their followers in the cavalry, and were in a condition of\nvillanage,\u2014yet with the important reserve, that they could not be\nsold out of the country,[447] that they had a permanent tenure in\nthe soil, and that they maintained among one another the relations\nof family and village. This last mentioned order of men, in\nThessaly called the Penest\u00e6, is assimilated by all ancient authors\nto the Helots of Laconia, and in both cases the danger attending\nsuch a social arrangement is noticed by Plato and Aristotle. For\nthe Helots as well as the Penest\u00e6 had their own common language\nand mutual sympathies, a separate residence, arms, and courage;\nto a certain extent, also, they possessed the means of acquiring\nproperty, since we are told that some of the Penest\u00e6 were richer\nthan their masters.[448] So many means of action, combined with a\ndegraded social position, gave rise to frequent revolt and incessant\napprehensions. As a general rule, indeed, the cultivation of the\nsoil by slaves, or dependents, for the benefit of proprietors in\nthe cities, prevailed throughout most parts of Greece. The rich\nmen of Thebes, Argos, Athens, or Elis, must have derived their\nincomes in the same manner; but it seems that there was often, in\nother places, a larger intermixture of bought foreign slaves, and\nalso that the number, fellow-feeling, and courage of the degraded\nvillage population was nowhere so great as in Thessaly and Laconia.\nNow the origin of the Penest\u00e6, in Thessaly, is ascribed to the\nconquest of the territory by the Thesprotians, as that of the\nHelots in Laconia is traced to the Dorian conquest. The victors in\nboth countries are said to have entered into a convention with the\nvanquished population, whereby the latter became serfs and tillers\nof the land for the benefit of the former, but were at the same time\nprotected in their holdings, constituted subjects of the state, and\nsecured against being sold away as slaves. Even in the Thessalian\ncities, though inhabited in common by Thessalian proprietors and\ntheir Penest\u00e6, the quarters assigned to each were to a great degree\nseparated: what was called the Free Agora could not be trodden by any\nPenest, except when specially summoned.[449]\n\n [446] See Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 3; Thucyd. ii. 99-100.\n\n [447] The words ascribed by Xenophon (Hellen. vi. 1, 11) to Jason\n of Pher\u00e6, as well as to Theocritus (xvi. 34), attest the numbers\n and vigor of the Thessalian Penest\u00e6, and the great wealth of the\n Aleuad\u00e6 and Skopad\u00e6. Both these families acquired celebrity from\n the verses of Simonides: he was patronized and his muse invoked\n by both of them; see \u00c6lian, V. H. xii. 1; Ovid, Ibis, 512;\n Quintilian, xi. 2, 15. Pindar also boasts of his friendship with\n Thorax the Aleuad (Pyth. x. 99).\n\n The Thessalian \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, alluded to in Aristophanes (Plutus,\n 521), must have sold men out of the country for slaves,\u2014either\n refractory Penest\u00e6, or Perrh\u00e6bian, Magnetic, and Ach\u00e6an freemen,\n seized by violence: the Athenian comic poet Mn\u00easimachus, in\n jesting on the voracity of the Pharsalians, exclaims, ap. Athen\u00e6.\n x. p. 418\u2014\n\n \u1f06\u03c1\u03ac \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n Pagas\u00e6 was celebrated as a place of export for slaves (Hermippus\n ap. Athen\u00e6, i. 49).\n\n Men\u00f4n of Pharsalus assisted the Athenians against Amphipolis\n with 200, or 300 \u201cPenest\u00e6, on horseback, of his own\u201d\u2014(\u03a0\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2) Demosthen. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03be. c. 9, p. 173, cont. Aristokrat. c.\n 51, p. 687.\n\n [448] Archemachus ap. Athen\u00e6. vi. p. 264; Plato, Legg. vi. p.\n 777; Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 3; vii. 9, 9; Dionys. Halic. A. R.\n ii. 84.\n\n Both Plato and Aristotle insist on the extreme danger of having\n numerous slaves, fellow-countrymen and of one language\u2014(\u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9,\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd).\n\n [449] Aristot. Polit. vii. 11, 2.\n\nWho the people were, whom the conquest of Thessaly by the\nThesprotians reduced to this predial villanage, we find differently\nstated. According to Theopompus, they were Perrh\u00e6bians and Magn\u00eates;\naccording to others, Pelasgians; while Archemachus alleged them to\nhave been B\u0153otians of the territory of Arn\u00ea,[450]\u2014some emigrating, to\nescape the conquerors, others remaining and accepting the condition\nof serfs. But the conquest, assuming it as a fact, occurred at far\ntoo early a day to allow of our making out either the manner in\nwhich it came to pass, or the state of things which preceded it. The\nPelasgians whom Herodotus saw at Kr\u00east\u00f4n are affirmed by him to have\nbeen the descendants of those who quitted Thessaly to escape[451] the\ninvading Thesprotians; though others held that the B\u0153otians, driven\non this occasion from their habitations on the gulf of Pagas\u00e6 near\nthe Ach\u00e6ans of Phthi\u00f4tis, precipitated themselves on Orchomenus and\nB\u0153otia, and settled in it, expelling the Miny\u00e6 and the Pelasgians.\n\n [450] Theopompus and Archemachus ap. Athen\u00e6. vi. pp. 264-266:\n compare Thucyd. ii. 12; Steph. Byz. v. \u1f0c\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7\u2014the converse of this\n story in Strabo, ix. pp. 401-411, of the Thessalian Arn\u00ea being\n settled from B\u0153otia. That the villains or Penest\u00e6 were completely\n distinct from the circumjacent dependents,\u2014Ach\u00e6ans, Magn\u00eates,\n Perrh\u00e6bians, we see by Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 3. They had their\n eponymous hero Penest\u00eas, whose descent was traced to Thessalus\n son of H\u00earakl\u00eas; they were thus connected with the mythical\n father of the nation (Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 1271).\n\n [451] Herodot. i. 57: compare vii. 176.\n\nPassing over the legends on this subject, and confining ourselves\nto historical time, we find an established quadruple division of\nThessaly, said to have been introduced in the time of Aleuas, the\nancestor (real or mythical) of the powerful Aleuad\u00e6,\u2014Thessali\u00f4tis,\nPelasgi\u00f4tis, Histi\u00e6\u00f4tis, Phthi\u00f4tis.[452] In Phthi\u00f4tis were\ncomprehended the Ach\u00e6ans, whose chief towns were Melit\u00e6a, It\u00f4nus,\nTheb\u00e6, Phthi\u00f4tides, Alos, Larissa, Kremast\u00ea, and Pteleon, on or near\nthe western coast of the gulf of Pagas\u00e6. Histi\u00e6\u00f4tis, to the north of\nthe Peneius, comprised the Perrh\u00e6bians, with numerous towns strong\nin situation, but of no great size or importance; they occupied the\npasses of Olympus[453] and are sometimes considered as extending\nwestward across Pindus. Pelasgi\u00f4tis included the Magn\u00eates, together\nwith that which was called the Pelasgic plain, bordering on the\nwestern side of Pelion and Ossa.[454] Thessali\u00f4tis comprised the\ncentral plain of Thessaly and the upper course of the river Peneius.\nThis was the political classification of the Thessalian power,\nframed to suit a time when the separate cities were maintained in\nharmonious action by favorable circumstances, or by some energetic\nindividual ascendency; for their union was in general interrupted\nand disorderly, and we find certain cities standing aloof while the\nrest went to war.[455] Though a certain political junction, and\nobligations of some kind towards a common authority, were recognized\nin theory by all, and a chief, or Tagus,[456] was nominated to\nenforce obedience,\u2014yet it frequently happened that the disputes\nof the cities among themselves prevented the choice of a Tagus, or\ndrove him out of the country; and left the alliance little more\nthan nominal. Larissa, Pharsalus,[457] and Pher\u00e6,\u2014each with its\ncluster of dependent towns as adjuncts,\u2014seem to have been nearly\non a par in strength, and each torn by intestine faction, so that\nnot only was the supremacy over common dependents relaxed, but even\nthe means of repelling invaders greatly enfeebled. The dependence\nof the Perrh\u00e6bians, Magnetes, Ach\u00e6ans, and Malians, might, under\nthese circumstances, be often loose and easy. But the condition\nof the Penest\u00e6\u2014who occupied the villages belonging to these great\ncities, in the central plain of Pelasgi\u00f4tis and Thessali\u00f4tis, and\nfrom whom the Aleuad\u00e6 and Skopad\u00e6 derived their exuberance of landed\nproduce\u2014was noway mitigated, if it was not even aggravated, by\nsuch constant factions. Nor were there wanting cases in which the\ndiscontent of this subject-class was employed by members of the\nnative oligarchy,[458] or even by foreign states, for the purpose of\nbringing about political revolutions.\n\n [452] Hellanikus, Fragm. 28, ed. Didot; Harpocration, v.\n \u03a4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1: the quadruple division was older than Hekat\u00e6us (Steph.\n Byz. v. \u039a\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd).\n\n Hekat\u00e6us connected the Perrh\u00e6bians with the genealogy of \u00c6olus\n through Tyr\u00f4, the daughter of Salm\u00f4neus: they passed as \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n (Hekat\u00e6us, Frag. 334, ed. Didot; Stephan. Byz. v. \u03a6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1 and\n \u0393\u03cc\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9).\n\n The territory of the city of Histi\u00e6a (in the north part of\n the island of Eub\u0153a) was also called Histi\u00e6\u00f4tis. The double\n occurrence of this name (no uncommon thing in ancient Greece)\n seems to have given rise to the statement, that the Perrh\u00e6bi\n had subdued the northern parts of Eub\u0153a, and carried over the\n inhabitants of the Eub\u0153an Histi\u00e6a captive into the north-west of\n Thessaly (Strabo, ix. p. 437, x. p. 446).\n\n [453] Pliny, H. N. iv. 1; Strabo, ix. p. 440.\n\n [454] Strabo, ix. p. 443.\n\n [455] Diodor. xviii. 11; Thucyd. ii. 22.\n\n [456] The Inscription No. 1770 in Boeckh\u2019s Corpus Inscript.\n contains a letter of the Roman consul, Titus Quinctius\n Flamininus, addressed to the city of Kyreti\u00e6 (north of Atrax in\n Perrh\u00e6bia). The letter is addressed, \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9,\u2014the title of Tagi seems thus to have been given to the\n magistrates of separate Thessalian cities. The Inscriptions of\n Thaumaki (No. 1773-1774) have the title \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, not \u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03af. The\n title \u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 was peculiar to Thessaly (Pollux, i. 128).\n\n [457] Xenophon, Hellen. vi. 1, 9; Diodor. xiv. 82; Thucyd. i. 3.\n Herod. vii. 6, calls the Aleuad\u00e6 \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n [458] Xenophon, Memorab. i. 2, 24; Hellenic. ii. 3, 37. The loss\n of the comedy called \u03a0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 of Eupolis (see Meineke, Fragm.\n Comicor. Gr\u00e6c. p. 513) probably prevents us from understanding\n the sarcasm of Aristophanes (Vesp. 1263) about the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\n of Amynias among the Penest\u00e6 of Pharsalus; but the incident\n there alluded to can have nothing to do with the proceedings of\n Kritias, touched upon by Xenophon.\n\n\u201cWhen Thessaly is under her Tagus, all the neighboring people pay\ntribute to her; she can send into the field six thousand cavalry\nand ten thousand hoplites, or heavy-armed infantry,\u201d[459] observed\nJason, despot of Pher\u00e6, to Polydamas of Pharsalus, in endeavoring to\nprevail on the latter to second his pretensions to that dignity. The\nimpost due from the tributaries, seemingly considerable, was then\nrealized with arrears, and the duties upon imports at the harbors\nof the Pagas\u00e6an gulf, imposed for the benefit of the confederacy,\nwere then enforced with strictness; but the observation shows\nthat, while unanimous Thessaly was very powerful, her periods of\nunanimity were only occasional.[460] Among the nations which thus\npaid tribute to the fulness of Thessalian power, we may number not\nmerely the Perrh\u00e6bi, Magn\u00eates, and Ach\u00e6ans of Phthi\u00f4tis, but also\nthe Malians and Dolopes, and various tribes of Epirots extending\nto the westward of Pindus.[461] We may remark that they were all\n(except the Malians) javelin-men, or light-armed troops, not serving\nin rank with the full panoply; a fact which, in Greece, counts as\npresumptive evidence of a lower civilization: the Magn\u00eates, too,\nhad a peculiar close-fitting mode of dress, probably suited to\nmovements in a mountainous country.[462] There was even a time when\nthe Thessalian power threatened to extend southward of Thermopyl\u00e6,\nsubjugating the Phokians, Dorians, and Lokrians. So much were the\nPhokians alarmed at this danger, that they had built a wall across\nthe pass of Thermopyl\u00e6, for the purpose of more easily defending it\nagainst Thessalian invaders, who are reported to have penetrated\nmore than once into the Phokian valleys, and to have sustained some\nsevere defeats.[463] At what precise time these events happened,\nwe find no information; but it must have been considerably earlier\nthan the invasion of Xerxes, since the defensive wall which had\nbeen built at Thermopyl\u00e6, by the Phokians, was found by Leonidas in\na state of ruin. But the Phokians, though they no longer felt the\nnecessity of keeping up this wall, had not ceased to fear and hate\nthe Thessalians,\u2014an antipathy which will be found to manifest itself\npalpably in connection with the Persian invasion. On the whole,\nthe resistance of the Phokians was successful, for the power of the\nThessalians never reached southward of the pass.[464]\n\n [459] Xenophon, Hellen. vi. 1, 9-12.\n\n [460] Demosthen. Olynth. i. c. 3, p. 15; ii. c. 5. p. 21. The\n orator had occasion to denounce Philip, as having got possession\n of the public authority of the Thessalian confederation, partly\n by intrigue, partly by force; and we thus hear of the \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 and\n the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76, which formed the revenue of the confederacy.\n\n [461] Xenophon (Hellen. vi. 1, 7) numbers the \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 among these\n tributaries along with the Dolopes: the Maraces are named by\n Pliny (H. N. iv. 3), also, along with the Dolopes, but we do not\n know where they dwelt.\n\n [462] Xenophon, Hellen. vi. 1, 9; Pindar, Pyth. iv. 80.\n\n [463] Herodot. vii. 176; viii. 27-28.\n\n [464] The story of invading Thessalians at Ker\u00eassus, near Leuktra\n in B\u0153otia, (Pausan. ix. 13, 1,) is not at all probable.\n\nIt will be recollected that these different ancient races, Perrh\u00e6bi,\nMagn\u00eates, Ach\u00e6ans, Malians, Dolopes,\u2014though tributaries of the\nThessalians, still retained their Amphiktyonic franchise, and were\nconsidered as legitimate Hellenes: all except the Malians are,\nindeed, mentioned in the Iliad. We shall rarely have occasion to\nspeak much of them in the course of this history: they are found\nsiding with Xerxes (chiefly by constraint) in his attack of Greece,\nand almost indifferent in the struggle between Sparta and Athens.\nThat the Ach\u00e6ans of Phthi\u00f4tis are a portion of the same race as the\nAch\u00e6ans of Peloponnesus it seems reasonable to believe, though we\ntrace no historical evidence to authenticate it. Ach\u00e6a Phthi\u00f4tis\nis the seat of Hell\u00ean, the patriarch of the entire race,\u2014of the\nprimitive Hellas, by some treated as a town, by others as a district\nof some breadth,\u2014and of the great national hero, Achilles. Its\nconnection with the Peloponnesian Ach\u00e6ans is not unlike that of\nDoris with the Peloponnesian Dorians.[465] We have, also, to notice\nanother ethnical kindred, the date and circumstances of which are\ngiven to us only in a mythical form, but which seems, nevertheless,\nto be in itself a reality,\u2014that of the Magn\u00eates on Pelion and Ossa,\nwith the two divisions of Asiatic Magn\u00eates, or Magnesia, on Mount\nSipylus and Magnesia on the river M\u00e6ander. It is said that these two\nAsiatic homonymous towns were founded by migrations of the Thessalian\nMagn\u00eates, a body of whom became consecrated to the Delphian god, and\nchose a new abode under his directions. According to one story, these\nemigrants were warriors, returning from the Siege of Troy; according\nto another, they sought fresh seats, to escape from the Thesprotian\nconquerors of Thessaly. There was a third story, according to which\nthe Thessalian Magn\u00eates themselves were represented as colonists[466]\nfrom Delphi. Though we can elicit no distinct matter of fact\nfrom these legends, we may, nevertheless, admit the connection of\nrace between the Thessalian and the Asiatic Magn\u00eates, as well as\nthe reverential dependence of both, manifested in this supposed\nfiliation, on the temple of Delphi. Of the Magn\u00eates in Krete, noticed\nby Plato as long extinct in his time, we cannot absolutely verify\neven the existence.\n\n [465] One story was, that these Ach\u00e6ans of Phthia went into\n Peloponnesus with Pelops, and settled in Laconia (Strabo, viii.\n p. 365).\n\n [466] Aristoteles ap. Athen\u00e6 iv. p. 173 Conon, Narrat. 29;\n Strabo. xiv. p. 647.\n\n Hoeck (Kreta, b. iii. vol. ii. p. 409) attempts (unsuccessfully,\n in my judgment) to reduce these stories into the form of\n substantial history.\n\nOf the Malians, Thucydid\u00eas notices three tribes (\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7) as existing in\nhis time,\u2014the Paralii, the Hier\u00eas (priests), and the Trachinii, or\nmen of Trachin:[467] it is possible that the second of the two may\nhave been possessors of the sacred spot on which the Amphiktyonic\nmeetings were held. The prevalence of the hoplites or heavy-armed\ninfantry among the Malians, indicates that we are stepping from\nThessalian to more southerly Hellenic habits: the Malians recognized\nevery man as a qualified citizen, who either had served, or was\nserving, in the ranks with his full panoply.[468] Yet the panoply was\nprobably not perfectly suitable to the mountainous regions by which\nthey were surrounded; for, at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war,\nthe aggressive mountaineers of the neighboring region of \u0152ta, had\nso harassed and overwhelmed them in war, that they were forced to\nthrow themselves on the protection of Sparta; and the establishment\nof the Spartan colony of Herakleia, near Trachin, was the result of\ntheir urgent application. Of these mountaineers, described under\nthe general name of \u0152t\u00e6ans, the principal were the \u00c6nianes, (or\nEni\u00eanes, as they are termed in the Homeric Catalogue, as well as by\nHerodotus),\u2014an ancient Hellenic[469] Amphiktyonic race, who are said\nto have passed through several successive migrations in Thessaly and\nEpirus, but who, in the historical times, had their settlement and\ntheir chief town, Hypata, in the upper valley of the Spercheius,\non the northern declivity of Mount \u0152ta. But other tribes were\nprobably also included in the name, such as those \u00c6tolian tribes,\nthe Bomians and Kallians, whose high and cold abodes approached near\nto the Maliac gulf. It is in this sense that we are to understand\nthe name, as comprehending all the predatory tribes along this\nextensive mountain range, when we are told of the damage done by the\n\u0152t\u00e6ans, both to the Malians on the east, and to the Dorians on the\nsouth: but there are some cases in which the name \u0152t\u00e6ans seems to\ndesignate expressly the \u00c6nianes, especially when they are mentioned\nas exercising the Amphiktyonic franchise.[470]\n\n [467] Thucyd. iii. 92. The distinction made by Skylax (c. 61)\n and Diodorus (xviii. 11) between \u039c\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 and \u039c\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\u2014the latter\n adjoining the former on the north\u2014appears inadmissible, though\n Letronne still defends it (P\u00e9riple de Marcien d\u2019H\u00e9racl\u00e9e, etc.,\n Paris, 1839, p. 212).\n\n Instead of \u039c\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, we ought to read \u039b\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, as O. M\u00fcller\n observes (Dorians, i. 6, p. 48).\n\n It is remarkable that the important town of Lamia (the modern\n Zeitun) is not noticed either by Herodotus, Thucydid\u00eas, or\n Xenophon; Skylax is the first who mentions it. The route of\n Xerxes towards Thermopyl\u00e6 lay along the coast from Alos.\n\n The Lamieis (assuming that to be the correct reading) occupied\n the northern coast of the Maliac gulf, from the north bank of the\n Spercheius to the town of Echinus: in which position Dr. Cramer\n places the \u039c\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u2014an error, I think (Geography of\n Greece, vol. i. p. 436).\n\n It is not improbable that Lamia first acquired importance during\n the course of those events towards the close of the Peloponnesian\n war, when the Laced\u00e6monians, in defence of Herakleia, attacked\n the Ach\u00e6ans of Phthi\u00f4tis, and even expelled the \u0152t\u00e6ans for a time\n from their seats (see Thucyd. viii. 3; Diodor. xiv. 38).\n\n [468] Aristot. Polit. iv. 10, 10.\n\n [469] Plutarch, Qu\u00e6stion. Gr\u00e6c. p. 294.\n\n [470] Thucyd. iii. 92-97; viii. 3. Xenoph. Hellen. i. 2, 18; in\n another passage Xenophon expressly distinguishes the \u0152t\u00e6i and the\n \u00c6nianes (Hellen. iii. 5. 6). Diodor. xiv. 38. \u00c6schines, De Fals.\n Leg. c. 44, p. 290.\n\nThe fine soil, abundant moisture, and genial exposure of the southern\ndeclivities of Othrys,[471]\u2014especially the valley of the Spercheius,\nthrough which river all these waters pass away, and which annually\ngives forth a fertilizing inundation,\u2014present a marked contrast with\nthe barren, craggy, and naked masses of Mount \u0152ta, which forms one\nside of the pass of Thermopyl\u00e6. Southward of the pass, the Lokrians,\nPhokians, and Dorians, occupied the mountains and passes between\nThessaly and B\u0153otia. The coast opposite to the western side of\nEub\u0153a, from the neighborhood of Thermopyl\u00e6, as far as the B\u0153otian\nfrontier at Anth\u00ead\u00f4n, was possessed by the Lokrians, whose northern\nfrontier town, Alp\u00eani, was conterminous with the Malians. There was,\nhowever, one narrow strip of Phokis\u2014the town of Daphnus, where the\nPhokians also touched the Eub\u0153an sea\u2014which broke this continuity,\nand divided the Lokrians into two sections,\u2014Lokrians of Mount\nKn\u00eamis, or Epiknemidian Lokrians, and Lokrians of Opus, or Opuntian\nLokrians. The mountain called Kn\u00eamis, running southward parallel\nto the coast from the end of \u0152ta, divided the former section from\nthe inland Phokians and the upper valley of the Kephisus: farther\nsouthward, joining continuously with Mount Pt\u00f4on by means of an\nintervening mountain which is now called Chlomo, it separated the\nLokrians of Opus from the territories of Orchomenus, Thebes, and\nAnth\u00ead\u00f4n, the north-eastern portions of B\u0153otia. Besides these two\nsections of the Lokrian name, there was also a third, completely\nseparate, and said to have been colonized out from Opus,\u2014the Lokrians\nsurnamed Ozol\u00e6,\u2014who dwelt apart on the western side of Phokis,\nalong the northern coast of the Corinthian gulf. They reached from\nAmphissa\u2014which overhung the plain of Krissa, and stood within seven\nmiles of Delphi\u2014to Naupaktus. near the narrow entrance of the gulf;\nwhich latter town was taken from these Lokrians by the Athenians, a\nlittle before the Peloponnesian war. Opus prided itself on being the\nmother-city of the Lokrian name, and the legends of Deukali\u00f4n and\nPyrrha found a home there as well as in Phthi\u00f4tis. Alpeni, Nik\u00e6a,\nThronium, and Skarpheia, were towns, ancient but unimportant, of the\nEpiknemidian Lokrians; but the whole length of this Lokrian coast is\ncelebrated for its beauty and fertility, both by Ancient and modern\nobservers.[472]\n\n [471] About the fertility as well as the beauty of this valley,\n see Dr. Holland\u2019s Travels, ch. xvii. vol. ii. p. 108, and\n Forchhammer (Hellenika, Griechenland, im Neuen das Alte, Berlin,\n 1837). I do not concur with the latter in his attempts to resolve\n the mythes of H\u00earakl\u00eas, Achilles, and others, into physical\n phenomena: but his descriptions of local scenery and attributes\n are most vivid and masterly.\n\n [472] Strabo, ix. p. 425; Forchhammer, Hellenika, pp. 11-12.\n Kynus is sometimes spoken of as the harbor of Opus, but it was\n a city of itself as old as the Homeric Catalogue, and of some\n moment in the later wars of Greece, when military position came\n to be more valued than legendary celebrity (Livy, xxviii. 6;\n Pausan. x. 1, 1; Skylax. c. 61-62); the latter counts Thronium\n and Kn\u00eamis or Kn\u00eamides as being Phokian, not Lokrian; which they\n were for a short time, during the prosperity of the Phokians, at\n the beginning of the Sacred War, though not permanently (\u00c6schin.\n Fals. Legat. c. 42, p. 46). This serves as one presumption about\n the age of the Periplus of Skylax (see the notes of Klausen ad\n Skyl. p. 269). These Lokrian towns lay along the important road\n from Thermopyl\u00e6 to Elateia and B\u0153otia (Pausan. vii. 15, 2; Livy,\n xxxiii. 3).\n\nThe Phokians were bounded on the north by the little territories\ncalled Doris and Dryopis, which separated them from the Malians,\u2014on\nthe north-east, east, and south-west, by the different branches of\nLokrians,\u2014and on the south-east, by the B\u0153otians. They touched the\nEub\u0153an sea, (as has been mentioned) at Daphnus, the point where it\napproaches nearest to their chief town, Elateia; their territory\nalso comprised most part of the lofty and bleak range of Parnassus,\nas far as its southerly termination, where a lower portion of it,\ncalled Kirphis, projects into the Corinthian gulf, between the two\nbays of Antikyra and Krissa; the latter, with its once fertile plain,\nlay immediately under the sacred rock of the Delphian Apollo. Both\nDelphi and Krissa originally belonged to the Phokian race, but the\nsanctity of the temple, together with Laced\u00e6monian aid, enabled the\nDelphians to set up for themselves, disavowing their connection with\nthe Phokian brotherhood. Territorially speaking, the most valuable\npart of Phokis[473] consisted in the valley of the river Kephisus,\nwhich takes its rise from Parnassus, not far from the Phokian town\nof Lil\u00e6a, passes between \u0152ta and Kn\u00eamis on one side, and Parnassus\non the other, and enters B\u0153otia near Ch\u00e6roneia, discharging itself\ninto the lake K\u00f4pa\u00efs. It was on the projecting mountain ledges and\nrocks on each side of this river, that the numerous little Phokian\ntowns were situated. Twenty-two of them were destroyed and broken\nup into villages by the Amphiktyonic order, after the second Sacred\nWar; Ab\u00e6 (one of the few, if not the only one, that was spared) being\nprotected by the sanctity of its temple and oracle. Of these cities,\nthe most important was Elateia, situated on the left bank of the\nKephisus, and on the road from Lokris into Phokis, in the natural\nmarch of an army from Thermopyl\u00e6 into B\u0153otia. The Phokian towns[474]\nwere embodied in an ancient confederacy, which held its periodical\nmeetings at a temple between Daulis and Delphi.\n\n [473] Pausan. x. 33, 4.\n\n [474] Pausan. x. 5, 1; Demosth. Fals. Leg. c. 22-28; Diodor. xvi.\n 60, with the note of Wesseling.\n\n The tenth book of Pausanias, though the larger half of it is\n devoted to Delphi, tells us all that we know respecting the less\n important towns of Phokis. Compare also Dr. Cramer\u2019s Geography\n of Greece, vol. ii. sect. 10; and Leake\u2019s Travels in Northern\n Greece, vol. ii. ch. 13.\n\n Two funeral monuments of the Phokian hero Schedius (who commands\n the Phokian troops before Troy, and is slain in the Iliad) marked\n the two extremities of Phokis,\u2014one at Daphnus on the Eub\u0153an sea,\n the other at Antikyra on the Corinthian gulf (Strabo, ix. p. 425;\n Pausan. x. 36, 4).\n\nThe little territory called Doris and Dryopis, occupied the southern\ndeclivity of Mount \u0152ta, dividing Phokis on the north and north-west,\nfrom the \u00c6tolians, \u00c6nianes, and Malians. That which was called Doris\nin the historical times, and which reached, in the time of Herodotus,\nnearly as far eastward as the Maliac gulf, is said to have formed\na part of what had been once called Dryopis; a territory which had\ncomprised the summit of \u0152ta as far as the Spercheius, northward, and\nwhich had been inhabited by an old Hellenic tribe called Dryopes. The\nDorians acquired their settlement in Dryopis by gift from H\u00earakl\u00eas,\nwho, along with the Malians (so ran the legend), had expelled the\nDryopes, and compelled them to find for themselves new seats at\nHermion\u00ea, and Asin\u00ea, in the Argolic peninsula of Peloponnesus,\u2014at\nStyra and Karystus in Eub\u0153a,\u2014and in the island of Kythnus;[475] it\nis only in these five last-mentioned places, that history recognizes\nthem. The territory of Doris was distributed into four little\ntownships,\u2014Pindus, or Akyphas, B\u0153on, Kytinion, and Erineon,\u2014each\nof which seems to have occupied a separate valley belonging to one\nof the feeders of the river Kephisus,\u2014the only narrow spaces of\ncultivated ground which this \u201csmall and sad\u201d region presented.[476]\nIn itself, this tetrapolis is so insignificant, that we shall rarely\nfind occasion to mention it; but it acquired a factitious consequence\nby being regarded as the metropolis of the great Dorian cities in\nPeloponnesus, and receiving on that ground special protection from\nSparta. I do not here touch upon that string of ante-historical\nmigrations\u2014stated by Herodotus, and illustrated by the ingenuity as\nwell as decorated by the fancy of O. M\u00fcller\u2014through which the Dorians\nare affiliated with the patriarch of the Hellenic race,\u2014moving\noriginally out of Phthi\u00f4tis to Histi\u00e6\u00f4tis, then to Pindus, and lastly\nto Doris. The residence of Dorians in Doris, is a fact which meets\nus at the commencement of history, like that of the Phokians and\nLokrians in their respective territories.\n\n [475] Herodot. viii. 31, 43, 46; Diodor. iv. 57; Aristot. ap.\n Strabo, viii. p. 373.\n\n O. M\u00fcller (History of the Dorians, book i. ch. ii.) has given all\n that can be known about Doris and Dryopis, together with some\n matters which appear to me very inadequately authenticated.\n\n [476] \u03a0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, Strabo, ix. p. 427.\n\nWe next pass to the \u00c6tolians, whose extreme tribes covered the\nbleak heights of \u0152ta and Korax, reaching almost within sight of the\nMaliac gulf, where they bordered on the Dorians and Malians,\u2014while\ntheir central and western tribes stretched along the frontier of\nthe Ozolian Lokrians to the flat plain, abundant in marsh and\nlake, near the mouth of the Eu\u00eanus. In the time of Herodotus and\nThucydid\u00eas, they do not seem to have extended so far westward as\nthe Achel\u00f4us; but in later times, this latter river, throughout\nthe greater part of its lower course, divided them from the\nAkarnanians:[477] on the north, they touched upon the Dolopians,\nand upon a parallel of latitude nearly as far north as Ambrakia.\nThere were three great divisions of the \u00c6tolian name,\u2014the Apod\u00f4ti,\nOphioneis, and Eurytanes,\u2014each of which was subdivided into several\ndifferent village tribes. The northern and eastern portion of the\nterritory[478] consisted of very high mountain ranges, and even in\nthe southern portion, the mountains Arakynthus, Kurion, Chalkis,\nTaphiassus, are found at no great distance from the sea; while the\nchief towns in \u00c6tolia, Kalyd\u00f4n, Pleur\u00f4n, Chalkis,\u2014seem to have\nbeen situated eastward of the Eu\u00eanus, between the last-mentioned\nmountains and the sea.[479] The first two towns have been greatly\nennobled in legend, but are little named in history; while, on the\ncontrary, Thermus, the chief town of the historical \u00c6tolians, and\nthe place where the aggregate meeting and festival of the \u00c6tolian\nname, for the choice of a Pan-\u00c6tolic general, was convoked, is\nnot noticed by any one earlier than Ephorus.[480] It was partly\nlegendary renown, partly ethnical kindred (publicly acknowledged on\nboth sides) with the Eleians in Peloponnesus, which authenticated\nthe title of the \u00c6tolians to rank as Hellens. But the great mass\nof the Apod\u00f4ti, Eurytanes, and Ophioneis in the inland mountains,\nwere so rude in their manners, and so unintelligible[481] in their\nspeech, (which, however, was not barbaric, but very bad Hellenic,)\nthat this title might well seem disputable,\u2014in point of fact it was\ndisputed, in later times, when the \u00c6tolian power and depredations\nhad become obnoxious nearly to all Greece. And it is, probably, to\nthis difference of manners between the \u00c6tolians on the sea-coast and\nthose in the interior, that we are to trace a geographical division\nmentioned by Strabo, into ancient \u00c6tolia, and \u00c6tolia Epikt\u00eatus, or\nacquired. When or by whom this division was introduced, we do not\nknow. It cannot be founded upon any conquest, for the inland \u00c6tolians\nwere the most unconquerable of mankind: and the affirmation which\nEphorus applied to the whole \u00c6tolian race,\u2014that it had never been\nreduced to subjection by any one,\u2014is, most of all, beyond dispute\nconcerning the inland portion of it.[482]\n\n [477] Herod, vii. 126; Thucyd. ii. 102.\n\n [478] See the difficult journey of Fiedler from Wrachori\n northward by Karpenitz, and then across the north-western\n portion of the mountains of the ancient Eurytanes (the southern\n continuation of Mount Tymphr\u00eastus and \u0152ta), into the upper valley\n of the Spercheius (Fiedler\u2019s Reise in Griechenland, vol. i. pp.\n 177-191), a part of the longer journey from Missolonghi to Zeitun.\n\n Skylax (c. 35) reckons \u00c6tolia as extending inland as far as\n the boundaries of the \u00c6nianes on the Spercheius\u2014which is quite\n correct\u2014\u00c6tolia Epikt\u00eatus\u2014\u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039f\u1f30\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, Strabo, x. p. 450.\n\n [479] Strabo, x. pp. 459-460. There is, however, great\n uncertainty about the position of these ancient towns: compare\n Kruse, Hellas, vol. iii. ch. xi. pp. 233-255, and Brandst\u00e4ter,\n Geschichte des \u00c6tolischen Landes, pp. 121-134.\n\n [480] Ephorus, Fragm. 29, Marx. ap. Strabo, p. 463. The situation\n of Thermus, \u201cthe acropolis as it were of all \u00c6tolia,\u201d and placed\n on a spot almost unapproachable by an army, is to a certain\n extent, though not wholly, capable of being determined by the\n description which Polybius gives of the rapid march of Philip and\n the Macedonian army to surprise it. The maps, both of Kruse and\n Kiepert, place it too much on the north of the lake Trich\u00f4nis:\n the map of Fiedler notes it, more correctly, to the east of that\n lake (Polyb. v. 7-8; compare Brandst\u00e4ter, Geschichte des \u00c6tol.\n Landes, p. 133).\n\n [481] Thucyd. iii. 102.\u2014\u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f60\u03bc\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 ~\u1f61\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9~. It seems that Thucydid\u00eas had not himself\n seen or conversed with them, but he does not call them \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n [482] Ephorus, Fragment. 29, ed. Marx.; Skymn. Chius, v. 471;\n Strabo, x. p. 450.\n\nAdjoining the \u00c6tolians were the Akarnanians, the westernmost of\nextra-Peloponnesian Greeks. They extended to the Ionian sea, and\nseem, in the time of Thucydid\u00eas, to have occupied both banks of the\nriver Achel\u00f4us, in the lower part of its course,\u2014though the left bank\nappears afterwards as belonging to the \u00c6tolians, so that the river\ncame to constitute the boundary, often disputed and decided by arms,\nbetween them. The principal Akarnanian towns, Stratus and \u0152niad\u00e6,\nwere both on the right bank; the latter on the marshy and overflowed\nland near its mouth. Near the Akarnanians, towards the gulf of\nAmbrakia, were found barbarian, or non-Hellenic nations,\u2014the Agr\u00e6ans\nand the Amphilochians: in the midst of the latter, on the shores of\nthe Ambrakian gulf, the Greek colony, called Argos Amphilochicum, was\nestablished.\n\nOf the five Hellenic subdivisions now enumerated,\u2014Lokrians, Phokians,\nDorians (of Doris), \u00c6tolians, and Akarnanians (of whom Lokrians,\nPhokians, and \u00c6tolians are comprised in the Homeric catalogue),\u2014we\nhave to say the same as of those north of Thermopyl\u00e6: there is no\ninformation respecting them from the commencement of the historical\nperiod down to the Persian war. Even that important event brings\ninto action only the Lokrians of the Eub\u0153an sea, the Phokians, and\nthe Dorians: we have to wait until near the Peloponnesian war,\nbefore we require information respecting the Ozolian Lokrians, the\n\u00c6tolians, and the Akarnanians. These last three were unquestionably\nthe most backward members of the Hellenic aggregate. Though not\nabsolutely without a central town, they lived dispersed in villages,\nretiring, when attacked, to inaccessible heights, perpetually armed\nand in readiness for aggression and plunder wherever they found an\nopportunity.[483] Very different was the condition of the Lokrians\nopposite Eub\u0153a, the Phokians, and the Dorians. These were all\norderly town communities, small, indeed, and poor, but not less well\nadministered than the average of Grecian townships, and perhaps\nexempt from those individual violences which so frequently troubled\nthe B\u0153otian Thebes or the great cities of Thessaly. Tim\u00e6us affirmed\n(contrary, as it seems, to the supposition of Aristotle) that, in\nearly times, there were no slaves either among the Lokrians or\nPhokians, and that the work required to be done for proprietors was\nperformed by poor freemen;[484] a habit which is alleged to have\nbeen continued until the temporary prosperity of the second Sacred\nWar, when the plunder of the Delphian temple so greatly enriched the\nPhokian leaders. But this statement is too briefly given, and too\nimperfectly authenticated, to justify any inferences.\n\n [483] Thucyd. i. 6; iii. 94. Aristotle, however, included, in his\n large collection of \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, an \u1f08\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 as well as\n an \u0391\u1f30\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 (Aristotelis Rerum Publicarum Reliqui\u00e6, ed.\n Neumann, p. 102; Strabo, vii. p. 321).\n\n [484] Tim\u00e6us, Fragm. xvii. ed. G\u00f6ller; Polyb. xii. 6-7; Athen\u00e6us,\n vi. p. 264.\n\nWe find in the poet Alkman (about 610 B. C.), the Erysich\u00e6an,\nor Kalydonian shepherd, named as a type of rude rusticity,\u2014the\nantithesis of Sardis, where the poet was born.[485] And among the\nsuitors who are represented as coming forward to claim the daughter\nof the Sikyonian Kleisthenes in marriage, there appears both\nthe Thessalian Diaktorid\u00eas from Krann\u00f4n, a member of the Skopad\nfamily,\u2014and the \u00c6tolian Mal\u00eas, brother of that Titormus who in\nmuscular strength surpassed all his contemporary Greeks, and who\nhad seceded from mankind into the inmost recesses of \u00c6tolia: this\n\u00c6tolian seems to be set forth as a sort of antithesis to the delicate\nSmindyrid\u00eas of Sybaris, the most luxurious of mankind. Herodotus\nintroduces these characters into his dramatic picture of this\nmemorable wedding.[486]\n\n [485] This brief fragment of the \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 of Alkman is preserved\n by Stephan. Byz. (\u1f18\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c7\u03b7), and alluded to by Strabo, x. p. 460:\n see Welcker Alkm. Fragm. xi. and Bergk, Alk. Fr. xii.\n\n [486] Herodot. vi. 127.\n\nBetween Phokis and Lokris on one side, and Attica (from which it\nis divided by the mountains Kith\u00e6r\u00f4n and Parn\u00eas) on the other, we\nfind the important territory called B\u0153otia, with its ten or twelve\nautonomous cities, forming a sort of confederacy under the presidency\nof Thebes, the most powerful among them. Even of this territory,\ndestined during the second period of this history, to play a part\nso conspicuous and effective, we know nothing during the first two\ncenturies after 776 B. C. We first acquire some insight into it, on\noccasion of the disputes between Thebes and Plat\u00e6a, about the year\n520 B. C. Orchomenus, on the north-west of the lake K\u00f4pa\u00efs, forms\nthroughout the historical times one of the cities of the B\u0153otian\nleague, seemingly the second after Thebes. But I have already stated\nthat the Orchomenian legends, the Catalogue, and other allusions in\nHomer, and the traces of past power and importance yet visible in the\nhistorical age, attest the early political existence of Orchomenus\nand its neighborhood apart from B\u0153otia.[487] The Amphiktyony in which\nOrchomenus participated, at the holy island of Kalauria near the\nArgolic peninsula, seems to show that it must once have possessed a\nnaval force and commerce, and that its territory must have touched\nthe sea at Hal\u00e6 and the lower town of Larymna, near the southern\nfrontier of Lokris; this sea is separated by a very narrow space\nfrom the range of mountains which join Kn\u00eamis and Pt\u00f4on, and which\ninclose on the east both the basin of Orchomenus, Aspl\u00ead\u00f4n, and K\u00f4p\u00e6,\nand the lake K\u00f4pa\u00efs. The migration of the B\u0153otians out of Thessaly\ninto B\u0153otia (which is represented as a consequence of the conquest\nof the former country by the Thesprotians) is commonly assigned\nas the compulsory force which B\u0153otized Orchomenus. By whatever\ncause, or at whatever time (whether before or after 776 B. C.) the\ntransition may have been effected, we find Orchomenus completely\nB\u0153otian throughout the known historical age,\u2014yet still retaining its\nlocal Minyeian legends, and subject to the jealous rivalry[488] of\nThebes, as being the second city in the B\u0153otian league. The direct\nroad from the passes of Phokis southward into B\u0153otia went through\nCh\u00e6roneia, leaving Lebadeia on the right, and Orchomenus on the left\nhand, and passed the south-western edge of the lake K\u00f4pa\u00efs near the\ntowns of Koroneia, Alalkomen\u00e6, and Haliartus,\u2014all situated on the\nmountain Tilph\u00f4ssion, an outlying ridge connected with Helicon by the\nintervention of Mount Le\u00efbethrius. The Tilphoss\u00e6on was an important\nmilitary post, commanding that narrow pass between the mountain and\nthe lake which lay in the great road from Phokis to Thebes.[489]\nThe territory of this latter city occupied the greater part of\ncentral B\u0153otia, south of the lake K\u00f4pa\u00efs; it comprehended Akr\u00e6phia\nand Mount Pt\u00f4on, and probably touched the Eub\u0153an sea at the village\nof Salganeus south of Anth\u00ead\u00f4n. South-west of Thebes, occupying the\nsouthern descent of lofty Helicon towards the inmost corner of the\nCorinthian gulf, and bordering on the south-eastern extremity of\nPhokis with the Phokian town of Bulis, stood the city of Thespi\u00e6.\nSouthward of the As\u00f4pus, between that river and Mount Kith\u00e6ron, were\nPlat\u00e6a and Tanagra; in the south-eastern corner of B\u0153otia stood\nOr\u00f4pus, the frequent subject of contention between Thebes and Athens;\nand in the road between the Eub\u0153an Chalkis and Thebes, the town of\nMykal\u00eassus.\n\n [487] See an admirable topographical description of the\n north part of B\u0153otia,\u2014the lake K\u00f4pa\u00efs and its environs, in\n Forchhammer\u2019s Hellenika, pp. 159-186, with an explanatory map.\n The two long and laborious tunnels constructed by the old\n Orchomenians for the drainage of the lake, as an aid to the\n insufficiency of the natural Katabothra, are there very clearly\n laid down: one goes to the sea, the other into the neighboring\n lake Hylika, which is surrounded by high rocky banks and can take\n more water without overflowing. The lake K\u00f4pa\u00efs is an inclosed\n basin, receiving all the water from Doris and Phokis through the\n K\u00eaphisus. A copy of Forchhammer\u2019s map will be found at the end of\n the present volume.\n\n Forchhammer thinks that it was nothing but the similarity of the\n name It\u00f4nea (derived from \u1f30\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1, _a willow-tree_) which gave rise\n to the tale of an emigration of people from the Thessalian to the\n B\u0153otian It\u00f4n\u00ea (p. 148).\n\n The Homeric Catalogue presents K\u00f4p\u00e6, on the north of the lake, as\n B\u0153otian, but not Orchomenus nor Aspl\u00ead\u00f4n (Iliad, ii. 502).\n\n [488] See O. M\u00fcller, Orchomenos, cap. xx. p. 418, _seq._\n\n [489] See Demosthen. De Fals. Legat. c. 43-45. Another portion\n of this narrow road is probably meant by the pass of Kor\u00f4neia\u2014\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f70 (Diodor. xv. 52; Xenoph. Hellen. iv. 3,\n 15)\u2014which Epameinondas occupied to prevent the invasion of\n Kleombrotus from Phokis.\n\nFrom our first view of historical B\u0153otia downward, there appears a\nconfederation which embraces the whole territory: and during the\nPeloponnesian war, the Thebans invoke \u201cthe ancient constitutional\nmaxims of the B\u0153otians\u201d as a justification of extreme rigor, as\nwell as of treacherous breach of the peace, against the recusant\nPlat\u00e6ans.[490] Of this confederation, the greater cities were primary\nmembers, while the lesser were attached to one or other of them\nin a kind of dependent union. Neither the names nor the number of\nthese primary members can be certainly known: there seem grounds for\nincluding Thebes, Orchomenus, Lebadeia, Kor\u00f4neia, Haliartus, K\u00f4p\u00e6,\nAnth\u00ead\u00f4n, Tanagra, Thespi\u00e6, and Plat\u00e6a before its secession.[491]\nAkr\u00e6phia, with the neighboring Mount Pt\u00f4on and its oracle, Sk\u00f4lus,\nGlisas, and other places, were dependencies of Thebes: Ch\u00e6roneia,\nAspl\u00ead\u00f4n, Holm\u00f4nes, and Hy\u00eattus, of Orchomenus: Siph\u00e6, Leuktra,\nKer\u00eassus, and Thisb\u00ea, of Thespi\u00e6.[492] Certain generals or\nmagistrates, called B\u0153otarchs, were chosen annually to manage the\ncommon affairs of the confederation. At the time of the battle of\nDelium in the Peloponnesian war, they were eleven in number, two of\nthem from Thebes; but whether this number was always maintained, or\nin what proportions the choice was made by the different cities,\nwe find no distinct information. There were likewise, during the\nPeloponnesian war, four different senates, with whom the B\u0153otarchs\nconsulted on matters of importance; a curious arrangement, of which\nwe have no explanation. Lastly, there was the general concilium and\nreligious festival,\u2014the Pamb\u0153otia,\u2014held periodically at Kor\u00f4neia.\nSuch were the forms, as far as we can make them out, of the B\u0153otian\nconfederacy; each of the separate cities possessing its own senate\nand constitution, and having its political consciousness as an\nautonomous unit, yet with a certain habitual deference to the federal\nobligations. Substantially, the affairs of the confederation will\nbe found in the hands of Thebes, managed in the interests of Theban\nascendency, which appears to have been sustained by no other feeling\nexcept respect for superior force and bravery. The discontents of\nthe minor B\u0153otian towns, harshly repressed and punished, form an\nuninviting chapter in Grecian history.\n\n [490] Thucyd. ii. 2\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd: compare\n the speech of the Thebans to the Laced\u00e6monians after the capture\n of Plat\u00e6a, iii. 61, 65, 66.\n\n [491] Thucyd. iv. 91; C. F. Hermann, Griechische Staats\n Alterth\u00fcmer, sect. 179; Herodot. v. 79; Boeckh, Commentat. ad.\n Inscript. B\u0153otic. ap. Corp. Ins. Gr. part v. p. 726.\n\n [492] Herodot. viii. 135; ix. 15-43. Pausan ix. 13, 1; ix. 23, 3;\n ix. 24, 3; ix. 32, 1-4. Xenophon, Hellen. vi. 4, 3-4: compare O.\n M\u00fcller, Orchomenos, cap. xx. p. 403.\n\nOne piece of information we find, respecting Thebes singly and apart\nfrom the other B\u0153otian towns anterior to the year 700 B. C. Though\nbrief, and incompletely recorded, it is yet highly valuable, as\none of the first incidents of solid and positive Grecian history.\nDiokl\u00eas, the Corinthian, stands enrolled as Olympic victor in the\n13th Olympiad, or 728 B. C., at a time when the oligarchy called\nBacchiad\u00e6 possessed the government of Corinth. The beauty of his\nperson attracted towards him the attachment of Philolaus, one of\nthe members of this oligarchical body,\u2014a sentiment which Grecian\nmanners did not proscribe; but it also provoked an incestuous passion\non the part of his own mother, Halcyon\u00ea, from which Diokl\u00eas shrunk\nwith hatred and horror. He abandoned forever his native city and\nretired to Thebes, whither he was followed by Philolaus, and where\nboth of them lived and died. Their tombs were yet shown in the time\nof Aristotle, close adjoining to each other, yet with an opposite\nfrontage; that of Philolaus being so placed that the inmate could\ncommand a view of the lofty peak of his native city, while that of\nDiokl\u00eas was so disposed as to block out all prospect of the hateful\nspot. That which preserves to us the memory of so remarkable an\nincident, is, the esteem entertained for Philolaus by the Thebans,\u2014a\nfeeling so profound, that they invited him to make laws for them. We\nshall have occasion to point out one or two similar cases, in which\nGrecian cities invoked the aid of an intelligent stranger; and the\npractice became common, among the Italian republics in the Middle\nAges, to nominate a person not belonging to their city either as\npodesta or as arbitrator in civil dissensions. It would have been\nhighly interesting to know, at length, what laws Philolaus made\nfor the Thebans; but Aristotle, with his usual conciseness, merely\nalludes to his regulations respecting the adoption of children and\nrespecting the multiplication of offspring in each separate family.\nHis laws were framed with the view to maintain the original number\nof lots of land, without either subdivision or consolidation; but by\nwhat means the purpose was to be fulfilled we are not informed.[493]\nThere existed a law at Thebes, which perhaps may have been part\nof the scheme of Philolaus, prohibiting exposure of children, and\nempowering a father, under the pressure of extreme poverty, to bring\nhis new-born infant to the magistrates, who sold it for a price to\nany citizen-purchaser,\u2014taking from him the obligation to bring it up,\nbut allowing him in return, to consider the adult as his slave.[494]\nFrom these brief allusions, coming to us without accompanying\nillustration, we can draw no other inference, except that the great\nproblem of population\u2014the relation between the well-being of the\ncitizens and their more or less rapid increase in numbers\u2014had engaged\nthe serious attention even of the earliest Grecian legislators. We\nmay, however, observe that the old Corinthian legislator, Pheid\u00f4n,\n(whose precise date cannot be fixed) is stated by Aristotle,[495] to\nhave contemplated much the same object as that which is ascribed to\nPhilolaus at Thebes; an unchangeable number both of citizens and of\nlots of land, without any attempt to alter the unequal ratio of the\nlots, one to the other.\n\n [493] Aristot. Polit. ii. 9, 6-7. \u039d\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 (to the\n Thebans) \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u0390\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u1fbd\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u1ff4\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd. A perplexing passage follows within three lines of\n this,\u2014\u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\u2014which\n raises two questions: first, whether Philolaus can really be\n meant in the second passage, which talks of what is \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n to Philolaus, while the first passage had already spoken of\n something \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd by the same person. Accordingly,\n G\u00f6ttling and M. Barth\u00e9lemy St. Hilaire follow one of the MSS. by\n writing \u03a6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5 in place of \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03bf\u03c5. Next, what is the meaning of\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2? O. M\u00fcller (Dorians, ch. x. 5, p. 209) considers it\n to mean a \u201cfresh equalization, just as \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 means a fresh\n division,\u201d adopting the translation of Victorius and Schl\u00f6sser.\n\n The point can hardly be decisively settled; but if this\n translation of \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 be correct, there is good ground for\n preferring the word \u03a6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5 to \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03bf\u03c5; since the proceeding\n described would harmonize better with the ideas of Phaleas\n (Aristot. Pol. ii. 4, 3).\n\n [494] \u00c6lian, V. H. ii. 7.\n\n [495] Aristot. Polit. ii. 3, 7. This Pheid\u00f4n seems different from\n Pheid\u00f4n of Argos, as far as we are enabled to judge.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nEARLIEST HISTORICAL VIEW OF PELOPONNESUS. DORIANS IN ARGOS AND THE\nNEIGHBORING CITIES.\n\n\nWe now pass from the northern members to the heart and head of\nGreece,\u2014Peloponnesus and Attica, taking the former first in order,\nand giving as much as can be ascertained respecting its early\nhistorical phenomena.\n\nThe traveller who entered Peloponnesus from B\u0153otia during the\nyouthful days of Herodotus and Thucydid\u00eas, found an array of\npowerful Doric cities conterminous to each other, and beginning\nat the isthmus of Corinth. First came Megara, stretching across\nthe isthmus from sea to sea, and occupying the high and rugged\nmountain-ridge called Geraneia; next Corinth, with its strong and\nconspicuous acropolis, and its territory including Mount Oneion as\nwell as the portion of the isthmus at once most level and narrowest,\nwhich divided its two harbors called Lech\u00e6um and Kenchre\u00e6. Westward\nof Corinth, along the Corinthian gulf, stood Siky\u00f4n, with a plain\nof uncommon fertility, between the two towns: southward of Siky\u00f4n\nand Corinth were Phlius and Kleon\u00e6, both conterminous, as well as\nCorinth, with Argos and the Argolic peninsula. The inmost bend of\nthe Argolic gulf, including a considerable space of flat and marshy\nground adjoining to the sea, was possessed by Argos; the Argolic\npeninsula was divided by Argos with the Doric cities of Epidaurus and\nTr\u0153zen, and the Dryopian city of Hermion\u00ea, the latter possessing the\nsouth-western corner. Proceeding southward along the western coast\nof the gulf, and passing over the little river called Tanos, the\ntraveller found himself in the dominion of Sparta, which comprised\nthe entire southern region of the peninsula from its eastern to\nits western sea, where the river Neda flows into the latter. He\nfirst passed from Argos across the difficult mountain range called\nParn\u00f4n (which bounds to the west the southern portion of Argolis),\nuntil he found himself in the valley of the river \u0152nus, which he\nfollowed until it joined the Eurotas. In the larger valley of the\nEurotas, far removed from the sea, and accessible only through the\nmost impracticable mountain roads, lay the five unwalled, unadorned,\nadjoining villages, which bore collectively the formidable name\nof Sparta. The whole valley of the Eurotas, from Skiritis and\nBeleminatis at the border of Arcadia, to the Laconian gulf,\u2014expanding\nin several parts into fertile plain, especially near to its mouth,\nwhere the towns of Gythium and Helos were found,\u2014belonged to Sparta;\ntogether with the cold and high mountain range to the eastward,\nwhich projects into the promontory of Malea,\u2014and the still loftier\nchain of Taygetus to the westward, which ends in the promontory of\nT\u00e6narus. On the other side of Taygetus, on the banks of the river\nPamisus, which there flows into the Messenian gulf, lay the plain\nof Mess\u00ean\u00ea, the richest land in the peninsula. This plain had once\nyielded its ample produce to the free Messenian Dorians, resident in\nthe towns of Stenykl\u00earus and Andania. But in the time of which we\nspeak, the name of Messenians was borne only by a body of brave but\nhomeless exiles, whose restoration to the land of their forefathers\noverpassed even the exile\u2019s proverbially sanguine hope. Their land\nwas confounded with the western portion of Laconia, which reached in\na south-westerly direction down to the extreme point of Cape Akritas,\nand northward as far as the river Neda.\n\nThroughout his whole journey to the point last mentioned, from the\nborders of B\u0153otia and Megaris, the traveller would only step from\none Dorian state into another. But on crossing from the south to the\nnorth bank of the river Neda, at a point near to its mouth, he would\nfind himself out of Doric land altogether: first, in the territory\ncalled Triphylia,\u2014next, in that of Pisa, or the Pisatid,\u2014thirdly,\nin the more spacious and powerful state called Elis; these three\ncomprising the coast-land of Peloponnesus from the mouth of the\nNeda to that of the Larissus. The Triphylians, distributed into a\nnumber of small townships, the largest of which was Lepreon,\u2014and the\nPisatans, equally destitute of any centralizing city,\u2014had both, at\nthe period of which we are now speaking, been conquered by their more\npowerful northern neighbors of Elis, who enjoyed the advantage of a\nspacious territory united under one government; the middle portion,\ncalled the Hollow Elis, being for the most part fertile, though the\ntracts near the sea were more sandy and barren. The Eleians were a\nsection of \u00c6tolian emigrants into Peloponnesus, but the Pisatans and\nTriphylians had both been originally independent inhabitants of the\npeninsula,\u2014the latter being affirmed to belong to the same race as\nthe Miny\u00e6 who had occupied the ante-B\u0153otian Orchomenos: both, too,\nbore the ascendency of Elis with perpetual murmur and occasional\nresistance.\n\nCrossing the river Larissus, and pursuing the northern coast of\nPeloponnesus south of the Corinthian gulf, the traveller would pass\ninto Achaia,\u2014a name which designated the narrow strip of level land,\nand the projecting spurs and declivities, between that gulf and\nthe northernmost mountains of the peninsula,\u2014Skollis, Erymanthus,\nAroania, Krathis, and the towering eminence called Kyll\u00ean\u00ea. Ach\u00e6an\ncities,\u2014twelve in number at least, if not more,\u2014divided this long\nstrip of land amongst them, from the mouth of the Larissus and the\nnorth-western Cape Araxus on one side, to the western boundary of the\nSikyonian territory on the other. According to the accounts of the\nancient legends and the belief of Herodotus, this territory had once\nbeen occupied by Ionian inhabitants whom the Ach\u00e6ans had expelled.\n\nIn making this journey, the traveller would have finished the\ncircuit of Peloponnesus; but he would still have left untrodden\nthe great central region, inclosed between the territories just\nenumerated,\u2014approaching nearest to the sea on the borders of\nTriphylia, but never touching it anywhere. This region was Arcadia,\npossessed by inhabitants who are uniformly represented as all of\none race, and all aboriginal. It was high and bleak, full of wild\nmountain, rock, and forest, and abounding, to a degree unusual even\nin Greece, with those land-locked basins from whence the water finds\nonly a subterraneous issue. It was distributed among a large number\nof distinct villages and cities. Many of the village tribes,\u2014the\nM\u00e6nalii, Parrhasii, Azanes, etc., occupying the central and the\nwestern regions, were numbered among the rudest of the Greeks: but\nalong its eastern frontier there were several Arcadian cities which\nranked deservedly among the more civilized Peloponnesians. Tegea,\nMantineia, Orchomenus, Stymphalus, Pheneus, possessed the whole\neastern frontier of Arcadia from the borders of Laconia to those of\nSiky\u00f4n and Pell\u00ean\u00ea in Achaia: Phigaleia at the south-western corner,\nnear the borders of Triphylia, and Her\u00e6a, on the north bank of the\nAlpheius, near the place where that river quits Arcadia to enter the\nPisatis, were also towns deserving of notice. Towards the north of\nthis cold and thinly-peopled region, near Pheneos, was situated the\nsmall town of Nonakris, adjoining to which rose the hardly accessible\ncrags where the rivulet of Styx[496] flowed down: a point of common\nfeeling for all Arcadians, from the terrific sanction which this\nwater was understood to impart to their oaths.\n\n [496] Herodot. vi. 74; Pausan. viii. 18, 2. See the description\n and print of the river Styx, and the neighboring rocks, in\n Fiedler\u2019s Reise durch Griechenland, vol. i. p. 400.\n\n He describes a scene amidst these rocks, in 1826, when the\n troops of Ibrahim Pasha were in the Morea, which realizes the\n fearful pictures of war after the manner of the ancient Gauls,\n or Thracians. A crowd of five thousand Greeks, of every age and\n sex, had found shelter in a grassy and bushy spot embosomed\n amidst these crags,\u2014few of them armed. They were pursued by\n five thousand Egyptians and Arabians: a very small resistance,\n in such ground, would have kept the troops at bay, but the poor\n men either could not or would not offer it. They were forced\n to surrender: the youngest and most energetic cast themselves\n headlong from the rocks and perished: three thousand prisoners\n were carried away captive, and sold for slaves at Corinth,\n Patras, and Modon: all those who were unfit for sale were\n massacred on the spot by the Egyptian troops.\n\nThe distribution of Peloponnesus here sketched, suitable to the\nPersian invasion and the succeeding half century, may also be said\n(with some allowances) to be adapted to the whole interval between\nabout B. C. 550-370; from the time of the conquest of Thyreatis\nby Sparta to the battle of Leuktra. But it is not the earliest\ndistribution which history presents to us. Not presuming to criticize\nthe Homeric map of Peloponnesus, and going back only to 776 B. C., we\nfind this material difference,\u2014that Sparta occupies only a very small\nfraction of the large territory above described as belonging to her.\nWestward of the summit of Mount Taygetus are found another section\nof Dorians, independent of Sparta: the Messenian Dorians, whose city\nis on the hill of Stenykl\u00earus, near the south-western boundary of\nArcadia, and whose possessions cover the fertile plain of Mess\u00eane\nalong the river Pamisus to its mouth in the Messenian gulf: it is to\nbe noted that Mess\u00ean\u00ea was then the name of the plain generally, and\nthat no town so called existed until after the battle of Leuktra.\nAgain, eastward of the valley of the Eurotas, the mountainous region\nand the western shores of the Argolic gulf down to Cape Malea are\nalso independent of Sparta; belonging to Argos, or rather to Dorian\ntowns in unison with Argos. All the great Dorian towns, from the\nborders of the Megarid to the eastern frontier of Arcadia, as above\nenumerated, appear to have existed in 776 B. C.: Achaia was in the\nsame condition, so far as we are able to judge, as well as Arcadia,\nexcept in regard to its southern frontier, conterminous with Sparta,\nof which more will hereafter be said. In respect to the western\nportion of Peloponnesus, Elis (properly so called) appears to have\nembraced the same territory in 776 B. C. as in 550 B. C.: but\nthe Pisatid had been recently conquered, and was yet imperfectly\nsubjected by the Eleians; while Triphylia seems to have been quite\nindependent of them. Respecting the south-western promontory of\nPeloponnesus down to Cape Akritas, we are altogether without\ninformation: reasons will hereafter be given for believing that it\ndid not at that time form part of the territory of the Messenian\nDorians.\n\nOf the different races or people whom Herodotus knew in Peloponnesus,\nhe believed three to be aboriginal,\u2014the Arcadians, the Ach\u00e6ans, and\nthe Kynurians. The Ach\u00e6ans, though belonging indigenously to the\npeninsula, had yet removed from the southern portion of it to the\nnorthern, expelling the previous Ionian tenants: this is a part\nof the legend respecting the Dorian conquest, or Return of the\nHerakleids, and we can neither verify nor contradict it. But neither\nthe Arcadians nor the Kynurians had ever changed their abodes. Of the\nlatter, I have not before spoken, because they were never (so far\nas history knows them) an independent population. They occupied the\nlarger portion[497] of the territory of Argolis, from Orne\u00e6, near the\nnorthern[498] or Phliasian border, to Thyrea and the Thyreatis, on\nthe Laconian border: and though belonging originally (as Herodotus\nimagines rather than asserts) to the Ionic race\u2014they had been so long\nsubjects of Argos in his time, that almost all evidence of their\nante-Dorian condition had vanished.\n\n [497] This is the only way of reconciling Herodotus (viii. 73)\n with Thucydid\u00eas (iv. 56, and v. 41). The original extent of the\n Kynurian territory is a point on which neither of them had any\n means of very correct information, but there is no occasion to\n reject the one in favor of the other.\n\n [498] Herod. viii. 73. \u039f\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f3c\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72, \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f48\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nBut the great Dorian states in Peloponnesus\u2014the capital powers in\nthe peninsula\u2014were all originally emigrants, according to the belief\nnot only of Herodotus, but of all the Grecian world: so also were\nthe \u00c6tolians of Elis, the Triphylians, and the Dryopes at Hermion\u00ea\nand Asin\u00ea. All these emigrations are so described as to give them\na root in the Grecian legendary world: the Triphylians are traced\nback to Lemnos, as the offspring of the Argonautic heroes,[499] and\nwe are too uninformed about them to venture upon any historical\nguesses. But respecting the Dorians, it may perhaps be possible, by\nexamining the first historical situation in which they are presented\nto us, to offer some conjectures as to the probable circumstances\nunder which they arrived. The legendary narrative of it has\nalready been given in the first chapter of this volume,\u2014that great\nmythical event called the Return of the Children of H\u00earakl\u00eas, by\nwhich the first establishment of the Dorians in the promised land\nof Peloponnesus was explained to the full satisfaction of Grecian\nfaith. One single armament and expedition, acting by the special\ndirection of the Delphian god, and conducted by three brothers,\nlineal descendants of the principal Ach\u00e6o-Dorian heroes through\nHyllus, (the eponymus of the principal tribe,)\u2014the national heroes of\nthe pre\u00ebxisting population vanquished and expelled, and the greater\npart of the peninsula both acquired and partitioned at a stroke,\u2014the\ncircumstances of the partition adjusted to the historical relations\nof Laconia and Messenia,\u2014the friendly power of \u00c6tolian Elis, with its\nOlympic games as the bond of union in Peloponnesus, attached to this\nevent as an appendage, in the person of Oxylus,\u2014all these particulars\ncompose a narrative well calculated to impress the retrospective\nimagination of a Greek. They exhibit an epical fitness and\nsufficiency which it would be unseasonable to impair by historical\ncriticism.\n\n [499] Herodot. iv. 145-146.\n\nThe Alexandrine chronology sets down a period of 328 years from the\nReturn of the Herakleids to the first Olympiad (1104 B. C.-776 B.\nC.,),\u2014a period measured by the lists of the kings of Sparta, on the\ntrustworthiness of which some remarks have already been offered.\nOf these 328 years, the first 250, at the least, are altogether\nbarren of facts; and even if we admitted them to be historical, we\nshould have nothing to recount except a succession of royal names.\nBeing unable either to guarantee the entire list, or to discover any\nvalid test for discriminating the historical and the non-historical\nitems, I here enumerate the Laced\u00e6monian kings as they appear in Mr.\nClinton\u2019s Fasti Hellenici. There were two joint kings at Sparta,\nthroughout nearly all the historical time of independent Greece,\ndeducing their descent from H\u00earakl\u00eas through Eurysthen\u00eas and Prokl\u00eas,\nthe twin sons of Aristod\u00eamus; the latter being one of those three\nHerakleid brothers to whom the conquest of the peninsula is ascribed:\u2014\n\n _Line of Eurysthen\u00eas._ _Line of Prokl\u00eas._\n Eurysthen\u00eas reigned 42 years. Prokl\u00eas reigned 51 years.\n Agis \u201d 31 \u201d S\u00f6us \u201d -- \u201d\n Echestratus \u201d 35 \u201d Euryp\u00f4n \u201d -- \u201d\n Lab\u00f4tas \u201d 37 \u201d Prytanis \u201d 49 \u201d\n Doryssus \u201d 29 \u201d Eunomus \u201d 45 \u201d\n Agesilaus \u201d 44 \u201d Charilaus \u201d 60 \u201d\n Archelaus \u201d 60 \u201d Nikander \u201d 38 \u201d\n Teleklus \u201d 40 \u201d Theopompus \u201d 10 \u201d\n Alkamen\u00eas \u201d 10 \u201d\n ---\n 328\n\nBoth Theopompus and Alkamen\u00eas reigned considerably longer, but the\nchronologists affirm that the year 776 B. C. (or the first Olympiad)\noccurred in the tenth year of each of their reigns. It is necessary\nto add, with regard to this list, that there are some material\ndiscrepancies between different authors even as to the names of\nindividual kings, and still more as to the duration of their reigns,\nas may be seen both in Mr. Clinton\u2019s chronology and in M\u00fcller\u2019s\nAppendix to the History of the Dorians.[500] The alleged sum total\ncannot be made to agree with the items without great license of\nconjecture. O. M\u00fcller observes,[501] in reference to this Alexandrine\nchronology, \u201cthat our materials only enable us to restore it to its\noriginal state, not to verify its correctness.\u201d In point of fact\nthey are insufficient even for the former purpose, as the dissensions\namong learned critics attest.\n\n [500] Herodotus omits S\u00f6us between Prokl\u00eas and Euryp\u00f4n, and\n inserts Polydekt\u00eas between Prytanis and Eunomus: moreover, the\n accounts of the Laced\u00e6monians, as he states them, represented\n Lykurgus, the lawgiver, as uncle and guardian of Lab\u00f4tas, of _the\n Eurysthenid house_,\u2014while Simonid\u00eas made him son of Prytanis, and\n others made him son of Eunomus, of _the Proklid line_: compare\n Herod. i. 65; viii. 131. Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 2.\n\n Some excellent remarks on this early series of Spartan kings will\n be found in Mr. G. C. Lewis\u2019s article in the Philological Museum,\n vol. ii. pp. 42-48, in a review of Dr. Arnold on the Spartan\n Constitution.\n\n Compare also Larcher, Chronologie d\u2019H\u00e9rodote, ch. 13, pp.\n 484-514. He lengthens many of the reigns considerably, in order\n to suit the earlier epoch which he assigns to the capture of Troy\n and the Return of the Herakleids.\n\n [501] History of the Dorians, vol. ii. Append. p. 442.\n\nWe have a succession of names, still more barren of facts, in the\ncase of the Dorian sovereigns of Corinth. This city had its own line\nof Herakleids, descended from H\u00earakl\u00eas, but not through Hyllus.\nHippot\u00eas, the progenitor of the Corinthian Herakleids, was reported\nin the legend to have originally joined the Dorian invaders of the\nPeloponnesus, but to have quitted them in consequence of having slain\nthe prophet Karnus.[502] The three brothers, when they became masters\nof the peninsula, sent for Al\u00eat\u00eas, the son of Hippot\u00eas, and placed\nhim in possession of Corinth, over which the chronologists make\nhim begin to reign thirty years after the Herakleid conquest. His\nsuccessors are thus given:\u2014\n\n [502] This story\u2014that the heroic ancestor of the great Corinthian\n Bacchiad\u00e6 had slain the holy man Karnus, and had been punished\n for it by long banishment and privation\u2014leads to the conjecture,\n that the Corinthians did not celebrate the festival of the\n Karneia, common to the Dorians generally.\n\n Herodotus tells us, with regard to the Ionic cities, that all\n of them celebrated the festival of Apaturia, except Ephesus\n and Kolophon; and that these two cities did not celebrate it,\n \u201cbecause of a certain reason of murder committed,\u201d\u2014\u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f38\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\n \u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd (Herod. i. 147).\n\n The murder of Karnus by Hippot\u00eas was probably the \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2\n which forbade the Corinthians from celebrating the Karneia; at\n least, this supposition gives to the legend a special pertinence\n which is otherwise wanting to it. Respecting the Karneia and\n Hyacinthia, see Schoell De Origine Gr\u00e6ci Dramatis, pp. 70-78.\n T\u00fcbingen, 1828.\n\n There were various singular customs connected with the Grecian\n festivals, which it was usual to account for by some legendary\n tale. Thus, no native of Elis ever entered himself as a\n competitor, or contended for the prize, at the Isthmian games.\n The legendary reason given for this was, that H\u00earakl\u00eas had\n waylaid and slain (at Kle\u00f4n\u00e6) the two Molionid brothers, when\n they were proceeding to the Isthmian games as The\u00f4rs or sacred\n envoys from the Eleian king Augeas. Redress was in vain demanded\n for this outrage, and Molion\u00ea, mother of the slain envoys,\n imprecated a curse upon the Eleians generally if they should ever\n visit the Isthmian festival. This legend is the \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2,\n explaining why no Eleian runner or wrestler was ever known to\n contend there (Pausan. ii. 15, 1; v. 2, 1-4. Ister, Fragment. 46,\n ed. Didot).\n\n Aletes reigned 38 years,\n Ixion \u201d 38 \u201d\n Agelas \u201d 37 \u201d\n Prymnis \u201d 35 \u201d\n Bacchis \u201d 35 \u201d\n Agelas \u201d 30 \u201d\n Eud\u00eamus \u201d 25 \u201d\n Aristom\u00ead\u00eas \u201d 35 \u201d\n Ag\u00eam\u00f4n \u201d 16 \u201d\n Alexander \u201d 25 \u201d\n Telest\u00eas \u201d 12 \u201d\n Automen\u00eas \u201d 1 \u201d\n ---\n 327\n\nSuch was the celebrity of Bacchis, we are told, that those who\nsucceeded him took the name of Bacchiads in place of Aletiads or\nHerakleids. One year after the accession of Automen\u00eas, the family\nof the Bacchiads generally, amounting to 200 persons, determined to\nabolish royalty, to constitute themselves a standing oligarchy, and\nto elect out of their own number an annual Prytanis. Thus commenced\nthe oligarchy of the Bacchiads, which lasted for ninety years,\nuntil it was subverted by Kypselus in 657 B. C.[503] Reckoning the\nthirty years previous to the beginning of the reign of Al\u00eat\u00eas, the\nchronologists thus provide an interval of 447 years between the\nReturn of the Herakleids and the accession of Kypselus, and 357\nyears between the same period and the commencement of the Bacchiad\noligarchy. The Bacchiad oligarchy is unquestionably historical; the\nconquest of the Herakleids belongs to the legendary world; while the\ninterval between the two is filled up, as in so many other cases, by\na mere barren genealogy.\n\n [503] Diodor. Fragm. lib. vii. p. 14, with the note of Wesseling.\n Strabo (viii. p. 378) states the Bacchiad oligarchy to have\n lasted nearly two hundred years.\n\nWhen we jump this vacant space, and place ourselves at the first\nopening of history, we find that, although ultimately Sparta came to\nhold the first place, not only in Peloponnesus, but in all Hellas,\nthis was not the case at the earliest moment of which we have\nhistorical cognizance. Argos, and the neighboring towns connected\nwith her by a bond of semi-religious, semi-political union,\u2014Siky\u00f4n,\nPhlius, Epidaurus, and Tr\u0153z\u00ean,\u2014were at first of greater power and\nconsideration than Sparta; a fact which the legend of the Herakleids\nseems to recognize by making T\u00eamenus the eldest brother of the\nthree. And Herodotus assures us that at one time all the eastern\ncoast of Peloponnesus down to Cape Melea, including the island\nof Cyth\u00eara, all which came afterwards to constitute a material\npart of Laconia, had belonged to Argos.[504] Down to the time of\nthe first Messenian war, the comparative importance of the Dorian\nestablishments in Peloponnesus appears to have been in the order\nin which the legend placed them,\u2014Argos first,[505] Sparta second,\nMess\u00ean\u00ea third. It will be seen hereafter that the Argeians never lost\nthe recollection of this early pre\u00ebminence, from which the growth of\nSparta had extruded them; and the liberties of entire Hellas were\nmore than once in danger from their disastrous jealousy of a more\nfortunate competitor.\n\n [504] Herodot. i. 82. The historian adds, besides Cyth\u00eara, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd. What other islands are meant, I do not\n distinctly understand.\n\n [505] So Plato (Legg. iii. p. 692), whose mind is full of the old\n mythe and the tripartite distribution of Peloponnesus among the\n Herakleids,\u2014\u1f21 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f56, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, etc.\n\nAt a short distance of about three miles from Argos, and at the\nexact point where that city approaches nearest to the sea,[506] was\nsituated the isolated hillock called Temenion, noticed both by Strabo\nand Pausanias. It was a small village, deriving both its name and\nits celebrity from the chapel and tomb of the hero T\u00eamenus, who was\nthere worshipped by the Dorians; and the statement which Pausanias\nheard was, that T\u00eamenus, with his invading Dorians, had seized and\nfortified the spot, and employed it as an armed post to make war upon\nTisamenus and the Ach\u00e6ans. What renders this report deserving of the\ngreater attention, is, that the same thing is affirmed with regard to\nthe eminence called Solygeius, near Corinth: this too was believed to\nbe the place which the Dorian assailants had occupied and fortified\nagainst the pre\u00ebxisting Corinthians in the city. Situated close upon\nthe Sar\u00f4nic gulf, it was the spot which invaders landing from that\ngulf would naturally seize upon, and which Nikias with his powerful\nAthenian fleet did actually seize and occupy against Corinth in the\nPeloponnesian war.[507] In early days, the only way of overpowering\nthe inhabitants of a fortified town, generally also planted in a\nposition itself very defensible, was,\u2014that the invaders, entrenching\nthemselves in the neighborhood, harassed the inhabitants and ruined\ntheir produce until they brought them to terms. Even during the\nPeloponnesian war, when the art of besieging had made some progress,\nwe read of several instances in which this mode of aggressive warfare\nwas adopted with efficient results.[508] We may readily believe that\nthe Dorians obtained admittance both into Argos and Corinth in this\nmanner. And it is remarkable that, except Siky\u00f4n (which is affirmed\nto have been surprised by night), these were the only towns in the\nArgolic region which are said to have resisted them; the story being,\nthat Phlius, Epidaurus, and Tr\u0153z\u00ean had admitted the Dorian intruders\nwithout opposition, although a certain portion of the previous\ninhabitants seceded. We shall hereafter see that the non-Dorian\npopulation of Siky\u00f4n and Corinth still remained considerable.\n\n [506] Pausan. ii. 38, 1; Strabo, viii. p. 368. Professor Ross\n observes, respecting the line of coast near Argos, \u201cThe sea-side\n is thoroughly flat, and for the most part marshy; only at the\n single point where Argos comes nearest to the coast,\u2014between the\n mouth, now choked by sand, of the united Inachus and Charadrus,\n and the efflux of the Erasinus, overgrown with weeds and\n bulrushes,\u2014stands an eminence of some elevation and composed\n of firmer earth, upon which the ancient Temenion was placed.\u201d\n (Reisen im Peloponnes, vol. i. sect. 5, p. 149, Berlin, 1841.)\n\n [507] Thucyd. iv. 42.\n\n [508] Thucyd. i. 122; iii. 85, vii. 18-27; viii. 38-40.\n\nThe separate statements which we thus find, and the position of the\nTemenion and the Solygeius, lead to two conjectures,\u2014first, that\nthe acquisitions of the Dorians in Peloponnesus were also isolated\nand gradual, not at all conformable to the rapid strides of the old\nHerakleid legend; next, that the Dorian invaders of Argos and Corinth\nmade their attack from the Argolic and the Saronic gulfs,\u2014by sea\nand not by land. It is, indeed, difficult to see how they can have\ngot to the Temenion in any other way than by sea; and a glance at\nthe map will show that the eminence Solygeius presents itself,[509]\nwith reference to Corinth, as the nearest and most convenient\nholding-ground for a maritime invader, conformably to the scheme\nof operations laid by Nikias. To illustrate the supposition of a\nDorian attack by sea on Corinth, we may refer to a story quoted\nfrom Aristotle (which we find embodied in the explanation of an\nold adage), representing Hippot\u00eas the father of Al\u00eat\u00eas as having\ncrossed the Maliac gulf[510] (the sea immediately bordering on the\nancient Maleans, Dryopians, and Dorians) in ships, for the purpose of\ncolonizing. And if it be safe to trust the mention of Dorians in the\nOdyssey, as a part of the population of the island of Crete, we there\nhave an example of Dorian settlements which must have been effected\nby sea, and that too at a very early period. \u201cWe must suppose\n(observes O. M\u00fcller,[511] in reference to these Kretan Dorians) that\nthe Dorians, pressed by want or restless from inactivity, constructed\npiratical canoes, manned these frail and narrow barks with soldiers\nwho themselves worked at the oar, and thus being changed from\nmountaineers into seamen,\u2014the Normans of Greece,\u2014set sail for the\ndistant island of Kr\u00eate.\u201d In the same manner, we may conceive the\nexpeditions of the Dorians against Argos and Corinth to have been\neffected; and whatever difficulties may attach to this hypothesis,\ncertain it is that the difficulties of a long land-march, along such\na territory as Greece, are still more serious.\n\n [509] Thucyd. iv. 42.\n\n [510] Aristot. ap. Prov. Vatican, iv. 4, \u039c\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd,\u2014also\n Prov. Suidas, x. 2.\n\n [511] Hist. of Dorians, ch. i. 9. Andr\u00f4n positively affirms that\n the Dorians came from Histi\u00e6\u00f4tis to Kr\u00eate; but his affirmation\n does not seem to me to constitute any additional evidence of the\n fact: it is a conjecture adapted to the passage in the Odyssey\n (xix. 174), as the mention of Ach\u00e6ans and Pelasgians evidently\n shows.\n\n Aristotle (ap. Strab. viii. p. 374) appears to have believed that\n the Herakleids returned to Argos out of the Attic Tetrapolis\n (where, according to the Athenian legend, they had obtained\n shelter when persecuted by Eurystheus), accompanying a body of\n Ionians who then settled at Epidaurus. He cannot, therefore, have\n connected the Dorian occupation of Argos with the expedition from\n Naupaktus.\n\nThe supposition of Dorian emigrations by sea, from the Maliac gulf to\nthe north-eastern promontory of Peloponnesus, is farther borne out\nby the analogy of the Dryopes, or Dryopians. During the historical\ntimes, this people occupied several detached settlements in various\nparts of Greece, all maritime, and some insular;\u2014they were found\nat Hermion\u00ea, Asin\u00ea, and Ei\u00f4n, in the Argolic peninsula (very near\nto the important Dorian towns constituting the Amphiktyony of\nArgos,[512])\u2014at Styra and Karystus in the island of Eub\u0153a,\u2014in the\nisland of Kythnus, and even at Cyprus. These dispersed colonies\ncan only have been planted by expeditions over the sea. Now we are\ntold that the original Dryopis, the native country of this people,\ncomprehended both the territory near the river Spercheius, and\nnorth of \u0152ta, afterwards occupied by the Malians, as well as the\nneighboring district south of \u0152ta, which was afterwards called\nDoris. From hence the Dryopians were expelled,\u2014according to one\nstory, by the Dorians,\u2014according to another, by H\u00earakl\u00eas and the\nMalians: however this may be, it was from the Maliac gulf that they\nstarted on shipboard in quest of new homes, which some of them found\non the headlands of the Argolic peninsula.[513] And it was from\nthis very country, according to Herodotus,[514] that the Dorians\nalso set forth, in order to reach Peloponnesus. Nor does it seem\nunreasonable to imagine, that the same means of conveyance, which\nbore the Dryopians from the Maliac gulf to Hermion\u00ea and Asin\u00ea, also\ncarried the Dorians from the same place to the Temenion, and the hill\nSolygeius.\n\n [512] Herod. viii. 43-46; Diodor. iv. 37; Pausan. iv. 34, 6.\n\n [513] Strabo, viii. p. 373; ix. p. 434. Herodot. viii. 43.\n Pherekyd\u00eas, Fr. 23 and 38, ed. Didot. Steph. Byz. v. \u0394\u03c1\u03c5\u03cc\u03c0\u03b7.\n Apollodor. ii. 7, 7. Schol. Apollon. Rhod. i. 1213.\n\n [514] Herodot. i. 56.\u2014\u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f56\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u0394\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd, \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7,\u2014to the same purpose, viii. 31-43.\n\nThe legend represents Siky\u00f4n, Epidaurus, Tr\u0153z\u00ean, Phlius, and Kle\u00f4n\u00e6,\nas all occupied by Dorian colonists from Argos, under the different\nsons of T\u00eamenus: the first three are on the sea, and fit places for\nthe occupation of maritime invaders. Argos and the Dorian towns\nin and near the Argolic peninsula are to be regarded as a cluster\nof settlements by themselves, completely distinct from Sparta and\nthe Messenian Stenykl\u00earus, which appear to have been formed under\ntotally different conditions. First, both of them are very far\ninland,\u2014Stenykl\u00earus not easy, Sparta very difficult of access from\nthe sea; next, we know that the conquests of Sparta were gradually\nmade down the valley of the Eurotas seaward. Both these acquisitions\npresent the appearance of having been made from the land-side, and\nperhaps in the direction which the Herakleid legend describes,\u2014by\nwarriors entering Peloponnesus across the narrow mouth of the\nCorinthian gulf, through the aid or invitation of those \u00c6tolian\nsettlers who at the same time colonized Elis. The early and intimate\nconnection (on which I shall touch presently) between Sparta and the\nOlympic games as administered by the Eleians, as well as the leading\npart ascribed to Lykurgus in the constitution of the solemn Olympic\ntruce, tend to strengthen such a persuasion.\n\nIn considering the early affairs of the Dorians in Peloponnesus, we\nare apt to have our minds biased, first, by the Herakleid legend,\nwhich imparts to them an impressive, but deceitful, epical unity;\nnext, by the aspect of the later and better-known history, which\npresents the Spartan power as unquestionably preponderant, and\nArgos only as second by a long interval. But the first view (as I\nhave already remarked) which opens to us, of real Grecian history,\na little before 776 B. C., exhibits Argos with its alliance or\nconfederacy of neighboring cities colonized from itself, as the great\nseat of Dorian power in the peninsula, and Sparta as an outlying\nstate of inferior consequence. The recollection of this state of\nthings lasted after it had ceased to be a reality, and kept alive\npretensions on the part of Argos to the headship of the Greeks as\na matter of right, which she became quite incapable of sustaining\neither by adequate power or by statesmanlike sagacity. The growth of\nSpartan power was a succession of encroachments upon Argos.[515]\n\n [515] See Herodot. vii. 148. The Argeians say to the\n Laced\u00e6monians, in reference to the chief command of the\n Greeks\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f11\u03c9\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n etc. Schweigh\u00e4user and others explain the point by reference to\n the command of Agamemn\u00f4n; but this is at best only a part of the\n foundation of their claim: they had a more recent historical\n reality to plead also: compare Strabo, viii. p. 376.\n\nHow Sparta came constantly to gain upon Argos will be matter for\nfuture explanation: at present, it is sufficient to remark, that\nthe ascendency of Argos was derived not exclusively from her own\nterritory, but came in part from her position as metropolis of\nan alliance of autonomous neighboring cities, all Dorian and all\ncolonized from herself,\u2014and this was an element of power essentially\nfluctuating. What Th\u00eabes was to the cities of B\u0153otia, of which she\neither was, or professed to have been, the founder,[516] the same\nwas Argos in reference to Kle\u00f4n\u00e6, Phlius, Siky\u00f4n, Epidaurus, Tr\u0153z\u00ean,\nand \u00c6gina. These towns formed, in mythical language, \u201cthe lot of\nT\u00eamenus,\u201d[517]\u2014in real matter of fact, the confederated allies or\nsubordinates of Argos: the first four of them were said to have\nbeen _Dorized_ by the sons or immediate relatives of T\u00eamenus; and\nthe kings of Argos, as acknowledged descendants of the latter,\nclaimed and exercised a sort of _suzerainet\u00e9_ over them. Hermion\u00ea,\nAsin\u00ea, and Nauplia seem also to have been under the supremacy of\nArgos, though not colonies.[518] But this supremacy was not claimed\ndirectly and nakedly: agreeably to the ideas of the time, the\nostensible purposes of the Argeian confederacy or Amphiktyony were\nreligious, though its secondary and not less real effects, were\npolitical. The great patron-god of the league was Apollo Pytha\u00ebus,\nin whose name the obligations incumbent on the members of the league\nwere imposed. While in each of the confederated cities there was a\ntemple to this god, his most holy and central sanctuary was on the\nLarissa or acropolis of Argos. At this central Argeian sanctuary,\nsolemn sacrifices were offered by Epidaurus as well as by other\nmembers of the confederacy, and, as it should seem, accompanied by\nmoney-payments,[519]\u2014which the Argeians, as chief administrators\non behalf of the common god, took upon them to enforce against\ndefaulters, and actually tried to enforce during the Peloponnesian\nwar against Epidaurus. On another occasion, during the 66th Olympiad\n(B. C. 514), they imposed the large fine of 500 talents upon each of\nthe two states Siky\u00f4n and \u00c6gina, for having lent ships to the Spartan\nking Kleomenes, wherewith he invaded the Argeian territory. The\n\u00c6ginetans set the claim at defiance, but the Sikyonians acknowledged\nits justice, and only demurred to its amount, professing themselves\nready to pay 100 talents.[520] There can be no doubt that, at this\nlater period, the ascendency of Argos over the members of her\nprimitive confederacy had become practically inoperative; but the\ntenor of the cases mentioned shows that her claims were revivals of\nbygone privileges, which had once been effective and valuable.\n\n [516] \u1f29\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (so runs the accusation of the Theban\n orators against the captive Plat\u00e6ans, before their Laced\u00e6monian\n judges, Thucyd. iii. 61.) \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u2014\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n \u1f20\u03be\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n [517] Respecting Pheid\u00f4n, king of Argos, Ephorus said,\u2014\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u1fc6\u03be\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 (ap. Strabo.\n viii. p. 358).\n\n [518] The worship of Apollo Pytha\u00ebus, adopted from Argos both\n at Hermion\u00ea and Asin\u00ea, shows the connection between them and\n Argos (Pausan. ii. 35, 2; ii. 36, 5): but Pausanias can hardly\n be justified in saying that the Argeians actually _Dorized_\n Hermion\u00ea: it was Dryopian in the time of Herodotus, and seemingly\n for a long time afterwards (Herodot. viii. 43). The Hermionian\n Inscription, No. 1193, in Boeckh\u2019s Collection, recognizes their\n old Dryopian connection with Asin\u00ea in Laconia: that town had once\n been neighbor of Hermion\u00ea, but was destroyed by the Argeians,\n and the inhabitants received a new home from the Spartans. The\n dialect of the Hermionians (probably that of the Dryopians\n generally) was Doric. See Ahrens, De Dialecto Doric\u00e2, pp. 2-12.\n\n [519] Thucyd. v. 53. ~\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9~ \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9.\n The word \u03b5\u1f34\u03c3\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, which the historian uses in regard to the\n claim of Argos against Epidaurus, seems to imply a money-payment\n withheld: compare the offerings exacted by Athens from Epidaurus\n (Herod. v. 82).\n\n The peculiar and intimate connection between the Argeians, and\n Apollo, with his surname of Pytha\u00ebus, was dwelt upon by the\n Argeian poetess Telesilla (Pausan. ii. 36, 2).\n\n [520] Herodot. vi. 92. See O. M\u00fcller, History of the Dorians, ch.\n 7, 13.\n\nHow valuable the privileges of Argos were, before the great rise of\nthe Spartan power,\u2014how important an ascendency they conferred, in\nthe hands of an energetic man, and how easily they admitted of being\nused in furtherance of ambitious views, is shown by the remarkable\ncase of Pheid\u00f4n, the Temenid. The few facts which we learn respecting\nthis prince exhibit to us, for the first time, something like a\nreal position of parties in the Peloponnesus, wherein the actual\nconflict of living historical men and cities, comes out in tolerable\ndistinctness.\n\nPheid\u00f4n was designated by Ephorus as the tenth, and by Theopompus\nas the sixth, in lineal descent from T\u00eamenus. Respecting the date\nof his existence, opinions the most discrepant and irreconcilable\nhave been delivered; but there seems good reason for referring\nhim to the period a little before and a little after the 8th\nOlympiad,\u2014between 770 B. C. and 730 B. C.[521] Of the preceding\nkings of Argos we hear little: one of them, Eratus, is said to have\nexpelled the Dryopian inhabitants of Asin\u00ea from their town on the\nArgolic peninsula, in consequence of their having co\u00f6perated with\nthe Spartan king, Nikander, when he invaded the Argeian territory,\nseemingly during the generation preceding Pheid\u00f4n; there is another,\nDamokratidas, whose date cannot be positively determined, but he\nappears rather as subsequent than as anterior to Pheid\u00f4n.[522] We\nare informed, however, that these anterior kings, even beginning\nwith Med\u00f4n, the grandson of T\u00eamenus, had been forced to submit to\ngreat abridgment of their power and privileges, and that a form of\ngovernment substantially popular, though nominally regal, had been\nestablished.[523] Pheid\u00f4n, breaking through the limits imposed,\nmade himself despot of Argos. He then re-established the power of\nArgos over all the cities of her confederacy, which had before\nbeen so nearly dissolved as to leave all the members practically\nindependent.[524] Next, he is said to have acquired dominion over\nCorinth, and to have endeavored to assure it, by treacherously\nentrapping a thousand of her warlike citizens; but his artifice\nwas divulged and frustrated by Abr\u00f4n, one of his confidential\nfriends.[525] He is farther reported to have aimed at extending his\nsway over the greater part of Peloponnesus,\u2014laying claim, as the\ndescendant of H\u00earakl\u00eas, through the eldest son of Hyllus, to all the\ncities which that restless and irresistible hero had ever taken.[526]\nAccording to Grecian ideas, this legendary title was always seriously\nconstrued, and often admitted as conclusive; though of course, where\nthere were strong opposing interests, reasons would be found to elude\nit. Pheid\u00f4n would have the same ground of right as that which, two\nhundred and fifty years afterwards, determined the Herakleid D\u00f4rieus,\nbrother of Kleomen\u00eas king of Sparta, to acquire for himself the\nterritory near Mount Eryx in Sicily, because his progenitor,[527]\nH\u00earakl\u00eas, had conquered it before him. So numerous, however, were\nthe legends respecting the conquests of H\u00earakl\u00eas, that the claim of\nPheid\u00f4n must have covered the greater part of Peloponnesus, except\nSparta and the plain of Mess\u00eane, which were already in the hands of\nHerakleids.\n\n [521] Ephor. Fragm. 15, ed. Marx; ap. Strabo, viii. p. 358;\n Theopompus, Fragm. 30, ed. Didot; ap. Diodor. Fragm. lib. iv.\n\n The Parian Marble makes Pheid\u00f4n the eleventh from H\u00earakl\u00eas, and\n places him B. C. 895; Herodotus, on the contrary (in a passage\n which affords considerable grounds for discussion), places him at\n a period which cannot be much higher than 600 B. C. (vi. 127.)\n Some authors suspect the text of Herodotus to be incorrect: at\n any rate, the real epoch of Pheid\u00f4n is determined by the 8th\n Olympiad. Several critics suppose _two_ Pheid\u00f4ns, each king\n of Argos,\u2014among others, O. M\u00fcller (Dorians, iii. 6, 10); but\n there is nothing to countenance this, except the impossibility\n of reconciling Herodotus with the other authorities. And\n Weissenborn, in a dissertation of some length, vindicates the\n emendation of Pausanias proposed by some former critics,\u2014altering\n the 8th Olympiad, which now stands in the text of Pausanias,\n into the _twenty-eighth_, as the date of Pheid\u00f4n\u2019s usurpation at\n the Olympic games. Weissenborn endeavors to show that Pheid\u00f4n\n cannot have flourished earlier than 660 B. C.; but his arguments\n do not appear to me very forcible, and certainly not sufficient\n to justify so grave an alteration in the number of Pausanias\n (Beitr\u00e4ge zur Griechischen Alterthumskunde, p. 18, Jena, 1844).\n Mr. Clinton (Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. App. 1, p. 249) places\n Pheid\u00f4n between 783 and 744 B. C.; also, Boeckh. ad Corp.\n Inscript. No. 2374, p. 335, and M\u00fcller, \u00c6ginetica, p. 63.\n\n [522] Pausan. ii. 36, 5; iv. 35, 2.\n\n [523] Pausan. ii. 19, 1. \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72, \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f30\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u039c\u03ae\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. This passage has all the air\n of transferring back to the early government of Argos, feelings\n which were only true of the _later_. It is curious that, in this\n chapter, though devoted to the Argeian regal line and government,\n Pausanias takes no notice of Pheid\u00f4n: he mentions him only with\n reference to the disputed Olympic ceremony.\n\n [524] Ephorus, _ut supr\u00e0_. \u03a6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n \u03a4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f27\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\n \u03bb\u1fc6\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7, etc.\n What is meant by _the lot of T\u00eamenus_ has been already explained.\n\n [525] Plutarch, Narrat. Amator. p. 772; Schol. Apollon. Rhod. iv.\n 1212; compare Didymus, ap. Schol. Pindar. Olymp. xiii. 27.\n\n I cannot, however, believe that Pheid\u00f4n, the ancient Corinthian\n law giver mentioned by Aristotle, is the same person as Pheid\u00f4n\n the king of Argos (Polit. ii. 6, 4).\n\n [526] Ephor. _ut supr\u00e0_.\u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c6\u1fbd\n \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, etc.\n\n [527] Herodot. v. 43.\n\nNor was the ambition of Pheid\u00f4n satisfied even with these large\npretensions. He farther claimed the right of presiding at the\ncelebration of those religious games, or Ag\u00f4nes, which had been\ninstituted by H\u00earakl\u00eas,\u2014and among these was numbered the Olympic\nAg\u00f4n, then, however, enjoying but a slender fraction of the lustre\nwhich afterwards came to attach to it. The presidency of any of the\nmore celebrated festivals current throughout Greece, was a privilege\nimmensely prized. It was at once dignified and lucrative, and the\ncourse of our history will present more than one example in which\nblood was shed to determine what state should enjoy it. Pheid\u00f4n\nmarched to Olympia, at the epoch of the 8th recorded Olympiad, or 747\nB. C.; on the occasion of which event we are made acquainted with the\nreal state of parties in the peninsula.\n\nThe plain of Olympia,\u2014now ennobled only by immortal recollections,\nbut once crowded with all the decorations of religion and art, and\nforming for many centuries the brightest centre of attraction known\nin the ancient world,\u2014was situated on the river Alpheius, in the\nterritory called the Pisatid, hard by the borders of Arcadia. At what\ntime its agonistic festival, recurring every fifth year, at the first\nfull moon after the summer solstice, first began or first acquired\nits character of special sanctity, we have no means of determining.\nAs with so many of the native waters of Greece,\u2014we follow the stream\nupward to a certain point, but the fountain-head, and the earlier\nflow of history, is buried under mountains of unsearchable legend.\nThe first celebration of the Olympic contests was ascribed by Grecian\nlegendary faith to H\u00earakl\u00eas,\u2014and the site of the place, in the middle\nof the Pisatid, with its eight small townships, is quite sufficient\nto prove that the inhabitants of that little territory were warranted\nin describing themselves as the original administrators of the\nceremony.[528] But this state of things seems to have been altered by\nthe \u00c6tolian settlement in Elis, which is represented as having been\nconducted by Oxylus and identified with the Return of the Herakleids.\nThe \u00c6tolo-Eleians, bordering upon the Pisatid to the north, employed\ntheir superior power in subduing their weaker neighbors,[529] who\nthus lost their autonomy and became annexed to the territory of Elis.\nIt was the general rule throughout Greece, that a victorious state\nundertook to perform[530] the current services of the conquered\npeople towards the gods,\u2014such services being conceived as attaching\nto the soil: hence, the celebration of the Olympic games became\nnumbered among the incumbences of Elis, just in the same way as the\nworship of the Eleusinian D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear, when Eleusis lost its autonomy,\nwas included among the religious obligations of Athens. The Pisatans,\nhowever, never willingly acquiesced in this absorption of what had\nonce been their separate privilege; they long maintained their\nconviction, that the celebration of the games was their right, and\nstrove on several occasions to regain it. On those occasions, the\nearliest, so far as we hear, was connected with the intervention of\nPheid\u00f4n. It was at their invitation that the king of Argos went to\nOlympia, and celebrated the games himself, in conjunction with the\nPisatans, as the lineal successor of H\u00earakl\u00eas; while the Eleians,\nbeing thus forcibly dispossessed, refused to include the 8th Olympiad\nin their register of the victorious runners. But their humiliation\ndid not last long, for the Spartans took their part, and the contest\nended in the defeat of Pheid\u00f4n. In the next Olympiad, the Eleian\nmanagement and the regular enrolment appear as before, and the\nSpartans are even said to have confirmed Elis in her possession both\nof Pisatis and Triphylia.[531]\n\n [528] Xenoph. Hellen. vii. 4, 28; Diodor. xv. 78.\n\n [529] Strabo, viii. p. 354.\n\n [530] Thucyd. iv. 98.\n\n [531] Pausan. v. 22, 2; Strabo, viii. pp. 354-358; Herodot. vi.\n 127. The name of the victor (Antikl\u00eas the Messenian), however,\n belonging to the 8th Olympiad, appears duly in the lists; it must\n have been supplied afterwards.\n\nUnfortunately, these scanty particulars are all which we learn\nrespecting the armed conflict at the 8th Olympiad, in which the\nreligious and the political grounds of quarrel are so intimately\nblended,\u2014as we shall find to be often the case in Grecian history.\nBut there is one act of Pheid\u00f4n yet more memorable, of which also\nnothing beyond a meagre notice has come down to us. He first coined\nboth copper and silver money in \u00c6gina, and first established a scale\nof weights and measures,[532] which, through his influence, became\nadopted throughout Peloponnesus, and acquired, ultimately, footing\nboth in all the Dorian states, and in B\u0153otia, Thessaly, northern\nHellas generally, and Macedonia,\u2014under the name of the \u00c6gin\u00e6an Scale.\nThere arose subsequently another rival scale in Greece, called the\nEuboic, differing considerably from the \u00c6gin\u00e6an. We do not know at\nwhat time it was introduced, but it was employed both at Athens and\nin the Ionic cities generally, as well as in Eub\u0153a,\u2014being modified at\nAthens, so far as money was concerned, by Solon\u2019s debasement of the\ncoinage.\n\n [532] Herodot. vi. 127; Ephor. ap. Strab. viii. pp. 358-376.\n\nThe copious and valuable information contained in M. Boeckh\u2019s recent\npublication on Metrology, has thrown new light upon these monetary\nand statical scales.[533] He has shown that both the \u00c6gin\u00e6an and the\nEuboic scales\u2014the former standing to the latter in the proportion\nof 6 : 5\u2014had contemporaneous currency in different parts of the\nPersian empire; the divisions and denominations of the scale being\nthe same in both, 100 drachm\u00e6 to a mina, and 60 min\u00e6 to a talent. The\nBabylonian talent, mina, and drachma are identical with the \u00c6gin\u00e6an:\nthe word mina is of Asiatic origin; and it has now been rendered\nhighly probable, that the scale circulated by Pheid\u00f4n was borrowed\nimmediately from the Ph\u0153nicians, and by them originally from the\nBabylonians. The Babylonian, Hebraic, Ph\u0153nician, Egyptian,[534] and\nGrecian scales of weight (which were subsequently followed wherever\ncoined money was introduced) are found to be so nearly conformable,\nas to warrant a belief that they are all deduced from one common\norigin; and that origin the Chald\u00e6an priesthood of Babylon. It is to\nPheid\u00f4n, and to his position as chief of the Argeian confederacy,\nthat the Greeks owe the first introduction of the Babylonian scale of\nweight, and the first employment of coined and stamped money.\n\n [533] Metrologische Untersuchungen \u00fcber Gewichte, M\u00fcnzfusse, und\n M\u00e4sse des Alterthums in ihrem Zusammenhange dargestellt, von Aug.\n Boeckh; Berlin, 1838.\n\n See chap. 7, 1-3. But I cannot agree with M. Boeckh, in thinking\n that Pheid\u00f4n, in celebrating the Olympic games, deduced from the\n Olympic stadium, and formally adopted, the measure of the _foot_,\n or that he at all settled measures of _length_. In general, I\n do not think that M. Boeckh\u2019s conclusions are well made out, in\n respect to the Grecian measures of _length_ and _capacity_. In an\n examination of this eminently learned treatise (inserted in the\n Classical Museum, 1844, vol. i.), I endeavored to set forth both\n the new and interesting points established by the author, and the\n various others in which he appeared to me to have failed.\n\n [534] I have modified this sentence as it stood in my first\n edition. It is not correct to speak of the Egyptian _money_\n scale: the Egyptians had no _coined money_. See a valuable\n article, in review of my History, in the Christian Reformer, by\n Mr. Kenrick, who pointed out this inaccuracy.\n\nIf we maturely weigh the few, but striking acts of Pheid\u00f4n which have\nbeen preserved to us, and which there is no reason to discredit,\nwe shall find ourselves introduced to an early historical state\nof Peloponnesus very different from that to which another century\nwill bring us. That Argos, with the federative cities attached to\nher, was at this early time decidedly the commanding power in that\npeninsula, is sufficiently shown by the establishment and reception\nof the Pheidonian weights, measures, and monetary system,\u2014while the\nother incidents mentioned completely harmonize with the same idea.\nAgainst the oppressions of Elis, the Pisatans invoked Pheidon,\u2014partly\nas exercising a primacy in Peloponnesus, just as the inhabitants\nof Lepreum in Triphylia,[535] three centuries afterwards, called\nin the aid of Sparta for the same object, at a time when Sparta\npossessed the headship,\u2014and partly as the lineal representative\nof H\u00earakl\u00eas, who had founded those games from the management of\nwhich they had been unjustly extruded. On the other hand, Sparta\nappears as a second-rate power. The \u00c6gin\u00e6an scale of weight and\nmeasure was adopted there as elsewhere,[536]\u2014the Messenian Dorians\nwere still equal and independent,\u2014and we find Sparta interfering\nto assist Elis by virtue of an obligation growing (so the legend\nrepresents it) out of the common \u00c6tolo-Dorian emigration; not at all\nfrom any acknowledged primacy, such as we shall see her enjoying\nhereafter. The first coinage of copper and silver money is a capital\nevent in Grecian history, and must be held to imply considerable\ncommerce as well as those extensive views which belong only to a\nconspicuous and leading position. The ambition of Pheid\u00f4n to resume\nall the acquisitions made by his ancestor H\u00earakl\u00eas, suggests the\nsame large estimate of his actual power. He is characterized as a\ndespot, and even as the most insolent of all despots:[537] how far\nhe deserved such a reputation, we have no means of judging. We may\nremark, however, that he lived before the age of despots or tyrants,\nproperly so called, and before the Herakleid lineage had yet lost\nits primary, half-political, half-religious character. Moreover, the\nlater historians have invested his actions with a color of exorbitant\naggression, by applying them to a state of things which belonged to\ntheir time and not to his. Thus Ephorus represents him as having\ndeprived the Laced\u00e6monians of the headship of Peloponnesus, which\nthey never possessed until long after him,\u2014and also as setting at\nnaught the sworn inviolability of the territory of the Eleians,\nenjoyed by the latter as celebrators of the Olympic games; whereas\nthe Agonothesia, or right of superintendence claimed by Elis, had\nnot at that time acquired the sanction of prescription,\u2014while the\nconquest of Pisa by the Eleians themselves had proved that this\nsacred function did not protect the territory of a weaker people.\n\n [535] Thucyd. v. 31.\n\n [536] Plutarch, Apophthegm. Laconic. p. 226; Dik\u00e6archus ap.\n Athen\u00e6. iv. p. 141.\n\n The \u00c6gin\u00e6an mina, drachma, and obolus were the denominations\n employed in stipulations among the Peloponnesian states (Thucyd.\n v. 47).\n\n [537] Herodot. vi. 127. \u03a6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f51\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Pausanias (vi. 22, 2)\n copies the expression.\n\n Aristotle cites Pheid\u00f4n as a person who, being a \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, made\n himself a \u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (Politic. viii. 8, 5).\n\nHow Pheid\u00f4n fell, and how the Argeians lost that supremacy which\nthey once evidently possessed, we have no positive details to inform\nus: with respect to the latter point, however, we can discern a\nsufficient explanation. The Argeians stood predominant as an entire\nand unanimous confederacy, which required a vigorous and able hand\nto render its internal organization effective or its ascendency\nrespected without. No such leader afterwards appeared at Argos, the\nwhole history of which city is destitute of eminent individuals:\nher line of kings continued at least down to the Persian war,[538]\nbut seemingly with only titular functions, for the government had\nlong been decidedly popular. The statements, which represent the\ngovernment as popular anterior to the time of Pheid\u00f4n, appear\nunworthy of trust. That prince is rather to be taken as wielding\nthe old, undiminished prerogatives of the Herakleid kings, but\nwielding them with unusual effect,\u2014enforcing relaxed privileges, and\nappealing to the old heroic sentiment in reference to H\u00earakl\u00eas,\nrather than revolutionizing the existing relations either of Argos\nor of Peloponnesus. It was in fact the great and steady growth of\nSparta, for three centuries after the Lykurgean institutions, which\noperated as a cause of subversion to the previous order of command\nand obedience in Greece.\n\n [538] Herodot. vii. 149.\n\nThe assertion made by Herodotus,\u2014that, in earlier times, the whole\neastern coast of Laconia as far as Cape Malea, including the island\nof Kyth\u00eara and several other islands, had belonged to Argos,\u2014is\nreferred by O. M\u00fcller to about the 50th Olympiad, or 580 B. C.\nPerhaps it had ceased to be true at that period; but that it was true\nin the age of Pheid\u00f4n, there seem good grounds for believing. What\nis probably meant is, that the Dorian towns on this coast, Prasi\u00e6,\nZar\u00eax, Epidaurus Lim\u00eara, and B\u0153\u00e6, were once autonomous, and members\nof the Argeian confederacy,\u2014a fact highly probable, on independent\nevidence, with respect to Epidaurus Lim\u00eara, inasmuch as that town\nwas a settlement from Epidaurus in the Argolic peninsula: and B\u0153\u00e6\ntoo had its own \u0153kist and eponymus, the Herakleid B\u0153us,[539] noway\nconnected with Sparta,\u2014perhaps derived from the same source as the\nname of the town B\u0153on in Doris. The Argeian confederated towns\nwould thus comprehend the whole coast of the Argolic and Saronic\ngulfs, from Kyth\u00eara as far as \u00c6gina, besides other islands which we\ndo not know: \u00c6gina had received a colony of Dorians from Argos and\nEpidaurus, upon which latter town it continued for some time in a\nstate of dependence.[540] It will at once be seen that this extent\nof coast implies a considerable degree of commerce and maritime\nactivity. We have besides to consider the range of Doric colonies\nin the southern islands of the \u00c6gean and in the south-western\ncorner of Asia Minor,\u2014Kr\u00eate, K\u00f4s, Rhodes (with its three distinct\ncities), Halikarnassus, Knidus, Myndus, Nisyrus, Sym\u00ea, Karpathus,\nKalydna, etc. Of the Doric establishments here named, several are\nconnected (as has been before stated) with the great emigration of\nthe T\u00eamenid Alth\u00e6men\u00eas from Argos: but what we particularly observe\nis, that they are often referred as colonies promiscuously to Argos,\nTr\u0153z\u00ean, Epidaurus[541]\u2014more frequently however, as it seems, to\nArgos. All these settlements are doubtless older than Pheid\u00f4n, and\nwe may conceive them as proceeding conjointly from the allied Dorian\ntowns in the Argolic peninsula, at a time when they were more in\nthe habit of united action than they afterwards became: a captain\nof emigrants selected from the line of H\u00earakl\u00eas and T\u00eamenus was\nsuitable to the feelings of all of them. We may thus look back to a\nperiod, at the very beginning of the Olympiads, when the maritime\nDorians on the east of Peloponnesus maintained a considerable\nintercourse and commerce, not only among themselves, but also\nwith their settlements on the Asiatic coast and islands. That the\nArgolic peninsula formed an early centre for maritime rendezvous,\nwe may farther infer from the very ancient Amphiktyony of the seven\ncities (Hermion\u00ea, Epidaurus, \u00c6gina, Athens, Prasi\u00e6, Nauplia, and the\nMinyeian Orchomenus), on the holy island of Kalauria, off the harbor\nof Tr\u0153z\u00ean.[542]\n\n [539] Pausan. iii. 22, 9; iii. 23, 4.\n\n [540] Herodot. v. 83; Strabo, viii. p. 375.\n\n [541] Rhodes, K\u00f4s, Knidus, and Halikarnassus are all treated by\n Strabo (xiv. p. 653) as colonies of Argos: Rhodes is so described\n by Thucydid\u00eas (vii. 57), and K\u00f4s by Tacitus (xii. 61). K\u00f4s,\n Kalydna, and Nisyrus are described by Herodotus as colonies of\n Epidaurus (vii. 99): Halikarnassus passes sometimes for a colony\n of Tr\u0153z\u00ean, sometimes of Tr\u0153z\u00ean and Argos conjointly: \u201cCum Melas\n et Areuanius ab Argis et Tr\u0153zene coloniam communem eo loco\n induxerunt, barbaros Caras et Leleges ejecerunt (Vitruv. ii. 8,\n 12: Steph. Byz. v. \u1f09\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2).\u201d Compare Strabo, x. p. 479;\n Conon, Narr. 47; Diodor. v. 80.\n\n Raoul Rochette (Histoire des Colonies Grecques, t. iii. ch. 9)\n and O. M\u00fcller (History of the Dorians, ch. 6) have collected the\n facts about these Asiatic Dorians.\n\n The little town of B\u0153\u00e6 had its counterpart of the same name in\n Kr\u00eate (Steph. Byz. v. \u0392\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd).\n\n [542] Strabo, p. 374.\n\nThe view here given of the early ascendency of Argos, as the head of\nthe Peloponnesian Dorians and the metropolis of the Asiatic Dorians,\nenables us to understand the capital innovation of Pheid\u00f4n,\u2014the first\ncoinage, and the first determinate scale of weight and measure,\nknown in Greece. Of the value of such improvements, in the history\nof Grecian civilization, it is superfluous to speak, especially\nwhen we recollect that the Hellenic states, having no political\nunity, were only held together by the aggregate of spontaneous\nuniformities, in language, religion, sympathies, recreations, and\ngeneral habits. We see both how Pheid\u00f4n came to contract the wish,\nand how he acquired the power, to introduce throughout so much of the\nGrecian world an uniform scale; we also see that the Asiatic Dorians\nform the link between him and Ph\u0153nicia, from whence the scale was\nderived, just as the Euboic scale came, in all probability, through\nthe Ionic cities in Asia, from Lydia. It is asserted by Ephorus,\nand admitted even by the ablest modern critics, that Pheid\u00f4n first\ncoined money \u201cin \u00c6gina:\u201d[543] other authors (erroneously believing\nthat his scale was the Euboic scale) alleged that his coinage had\nbeen carried on \u201cin a place of Argos called Eub\u0153a.\u201d[544] Now both\nthese statements appear highly improbable, and both are traceable to\nthe same mistake,\u2014of supposing that the title, by which the scale\nhad come to be commonly known, must necessarily be derived from the\nplace in which the coinage had been struck. There is every reason to\nconclude, that what Pheid\u00f4n did was done in Argos, and nowhere else:\nhis coinage and scale were the earliest known in Greece, and seem to\nhave been known by his own name, \u201cthe Pheidonian measures,\u201d under\nwhich designation they were described by Aristotle, in his account of\nthe constitution of Argos.[545] They probably did not come to bear\nthe specific epithet of _\u00c6gin\u00e6an_ until there was another scale in\nvogue, the _Euboic_, from which to distinguish them; and both the\nepithets were probably derived, not from the place where the scale\nfirst originated, but from the people whose commercial activity\ntended to make them most generally known,\u2014in the one case, the\n\u00c6ginetans; in the other case, the inhabitants of Chalkis and Eretria.\nI think, therefore, that we are to look upon the Pheidonian measures\nas emanating from Argos, and as having no greater connection,\noriginally, with \u00c6gina, than with any other city dependent upon Argos.\n\n [543] Ephorus ap. Strabo, viii. p. 376; Boeckh, Metrologie,\n Abschn. 7, 1: see also the Marmor Parium, Epoch 30.\n\n [544] Etymologicon Magn. \u0395\u1f50\u03b2\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n [545] Pollux, Onomastic. x. 179. \u0395\u1f34\u03b7 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f02\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f60\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f66\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n Also Ephorus ap. Strab. viii. p. 358. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70\n \u03a6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, etc.\n\nThere is, moreover, another point which deserves notice. What was\nknown by the name of the \u00c6gin\u00e6an scale, as contrasted with and\nstanding in a definite ratio (6 : 5) with the Euboic scale, related\nonly to weight and money, so far as our knowledge extends:[546] we\nhave no evidence to show that the same ratio extended either to\nmeasures of length or measures of capacity. But there seems ground\nfor believing that the Pheidonian regulations, taken in their full\ncomprehension, embraced measures of capacity as well as weights:\nPheid\u00f4n, at the same time when he determined the talent, mina, and\ndrachm, seems also to have fixed the dry and liquid measures,\u2014the\nmedimnus and metr\u00eat\u00eas, with their parts and multiples: and there\nexisted[547] Pheidonian measures of capacity, though not of length,\nso far as we know. The \u00c6gin\u00e6an scale may thus have comprised only\na portion of what was established by Pheid\u00f4n, namely, that which\nrelated to weight and money.\n\n [546] This differs from Boeckh\u2019s opinion: see the note in page\n 315.\n\n [547] Theophrast. Character. c. 13; Pollux, x. 179.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\u00c6TOLO-DORIAN EMIGRATION INTO PELOPONNESUS.\u2014ELIS, LACONIA, AND\nMESSENIA.\n\n\nIt has already been stated that the territory properly called Elis,\napart from the enlargement which it acquired by conquest, included\nthe westernmost land in Peloponnesus, south of Achaia, and west\nof Mount Pholo\u00ea and Olenus in Arcadia,\u2014but not extending so far\nsouthward as the river Alpheius, the course of which lay along the\nsouthern portion of Pisatis and on the borders of Triphylia. This\nterritory, which appears in the Odyssey as \u201cthe divine Elis, where\nthe Epeians hold sway,\u201d[548] is in the historical times occupied by\na population of \u00c6tolian origin. The connection of race between the\nhistorical Eleians and the historical \u00c6tolians was recognized by both\nparties, nor is there any ground for disputing it.[549]\n\n [548] Odyss. xv. 297.\n\n [549] Strabo, x. p. 479.\n\nThat \u00c6tolian invaders, or emigrants, into Elis, would cross from\nNaupaktus, or some neighboring point in the Corinthian gulf, is in\nthe natural course of things,\u2014and such is the course which Oxylus,\nthe conductor of the invasion, is represented by the Herakleid legend\nas taking. That legend (as has been already recounted) introduces\nOxylus as the guide of the three Herakleid brothers,\u2014T\u00eamenus,\nKresphont\u00eas, and Aristod\u00eamus,\u2014and as stipulating with them that, in\nthe new distribution about to take place of Peloponnesus, he shall\nbe allowed to possess the Eleian territory, coupled with many holy\nprivileges as to the celebration of the Olympic games.\n\nIn the preceding chapter, I have endeavored to show that the\nsettlements of the Dorians in and near the Argolic peninsula, so\nfar as the probabilities of the case enable us to judge, were not\naccomplished by any inroad in this direction. But the localities\noccupied by the Dorians of Sparta, and by the Dorians of Stenykl\u00earus,\nin the territory called Mess\u00ean\u00ea, lead us to a different conclusion.\nThe easiest and most natural road through which emigrants could\nreach either of these two spots, is through the Eleian and the\nPisatid country. Colonel Leake observes,[550] that the direct road\nfrom the Eleian territory to Sparta, ascending the valley of the\nAlpheius, near Olympia, to the sources of its branch, the Theius,\nand from thence descending the Eurotas, affords the only easy march\ntowards that very inaccessible city: and both ancients and moderns\nhave remarked the vicinity of the source of the Alpheius to that\nof the Eurotas. The situation of Stenykl\u00earus and Andania, the\noriginal settlements of the Messenian Dorians, adjoining closely\nthe Arcadian Parrhasii, is only at a short distance from the course\nof the Alpheius; being thus reached most easily by the same route.\nDismissing the idea of a great collective Dorian armament, powerful\nenough to grasp at once the entire peninsula,\u2014we may conceive two\nmoderate detachments of hardy mountaineers, from the cold regions\nin and near Doris, attaching themselves to the \u00c6tolians, their\nneighbors, who were proceeding to the invasion of Elis. After having\naided the \u00c6tolians, both to occupy Elis and to subdue the Pisatid,\nthese Dorians advanced up the valley of the Alpheius in quest of\nsettlements for themselves. One of these bodies ripens into the\nstately, stubborn, and victorious Spartans; the other, into the\nshort-lived, trampled, and struggling Messenians.\n\n [550] Leake, Travels in Morea, vol. iii. ch. 23, p. 29; compare\n Diodor. xv. 66.\n\n The distance from Olympia to Sparta, as marked on a pillar which\n Pausanias saw at Olympia, was 660 stadia,\u2014about 77 English miles\n (Pausan. vi. 16, 6).\n\nAmidst the darkness which overclouds these original settlements, we\nseem to discern something like special causes to determine both of\nthem. With respect to the Spartan Dorians, we are told that a person\nnamed Philonomus betrayed Sparta to them, persuading the sovereign\nin possession to retire with his people into the habitations of the\nIonians, in the north of the peninsula,\u2014and that he received as a\nrecompense for this acceptable service Amykl\u00e6, with the district\naround it. It is farther stated,\u2014and this important fact there\nseems no reason to doubt,\u2014that Amykl\u00e6,\u2014though only twenty stadia\nor two miles and a half distant from Sparta, retained both its\nindependence and its Ach\u00e6an inhabitants, long after the Dorian\nemigrants had acquired possession of the latter place, and was only\ntaken by them under the reign of T\u00ealeklus, one generation before\nthe first Olympiad.[551] Without presuming to fill up by conjecture\nincurable gaps in the statements of our authorities, we may from\nhence reasonably presume that the Dorians were induced to invade,\nand enabled to acquire, Sparta, by the invitation and assistance of\na party in the interior of the country. Again, with respect to the\nMessenian Dorians, a different, but not less effectual temptation\nwas presented by the alliance of the Arcadians, in the south-western\nportion of that central region of Peloponnesus. Kresphont\u00eas, the\nHerakleid leader, it is said, espoused the daughter[552] of the\nArcadian king, Kypselus, which procured for him the support of a\npowerful section of Arcadia. His settlement at Stenykl\u00earus was a\nconsiderable distance from the sea, at the north-east corner of\nMessenia,[553] close to the Arcadian frontier; and it will be seen\nhereafter that this Arcadian alliance is a constant and material\nelement in the disputes of the Messenian Dorians with Sparta.\n\n [551] Strabo, viii. pp. 364, 365; Pausan. iii. 2, 5: compare the\n story of Krius, Pausan. iii. 13, 3.\n\n [552] Pausan. iv. 3, 3; viii. 29, 4.\n\n [553] Strabo (viii. p. 366) blames Euripid\u00eas for calling Mess\u00ean\u00ea\n an inland country; but the poet seems to have been quite correct\n in doing so.\n\nWe may thus trace a reasonable sequence of events, showing how\ntwo bodies of Dorians, having first assisted the \u00c6tolo-Eleians to\nconquer the Pisatid, and thus finding themselves on the banks of\nthe Alpheius, followed the upward course of that river, the one to\nsettle at Sparta, the other at Stenykl\u00earus. The historian Ephorus,\nfrom whom our scanty fragments of information respecting these early\nsettlements are derived,\u2014it is important to note that he lived in the\nage immediately succeeding the first foundation of Mess\u00ean\u00ea as a city,\nthe restitution of the long-exiled Messenians, and the amputation\nof the fertile western half of Laconia, for their benefit, by\nEpameinondas,\u2014imparts to these proceedings an immediate decisiveness\nof effect which does not properly belong to them: as if the Spartans\nhad become at once possessed of all Laconia, and the Messenians of\nall Messenia: Pausanias, too, speaks as if the Arcadians collectively\nhad assisted and allied themselves with Kresphont\u00eas. This is the\ngeneral spirit which pervades his account, though the particular\nfacts in so far as we find any such, do not always harmonize with\nit. Now we are ignorant of the pre\u00ebxisting divisions of the country,\neither east or west of Mount Taygetus, at the time when the Dorians\ninvaded it. But to treat the one and the other as integral kingdoms,\nhanded over at once to two Dorian leaders, is an illusion borrowed\nfrom the old legend, from the historicizing fancies of Ephorus, and\nfrom the fact that, in the well-known times, this whole territory\ncame to be really united under the Spartan power.\n\nAt what date the Dorian settlements at Sparta and Stenykl\u00earus\nwere effected, we have no means of determining. Yet, that there\nexisted between them in the earliest times a degree of fraternity\nwhich did not prevail between Laced\u00e6mon and Argos, we may fairly\npresume from the common temple, with joint religious sacrifices, of\nArtemis Limnatis, or Artemis on the Marsh, erected on the confines\nof Messenia and Laconia.[554] Our first view of the two, at all\napproaching to distinctness, seems to date from a period about half\na century earlier than the first Olympiad (776 B. C.),\u2014about the\nreign of king T\u00ealeklus of the Eurystheneid or Agid line, and the\nintroduction of the Lykurgean discipline. T\u00ealeklus stands in the\nlist as the eighth king dating from Eurysthenes. But how many of the\nseven kings before him are to be considered as real persons,\u2014or how\nmuch, out of the brief warlike expeditions ascribed to them, is to be\ntreated as authentic history,\u2014I pretend not to define.\n\n [554] Pausan. iv. 2, 2. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b5\n \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nThe earliest determinable event in the _internal_ history of\nSparta is the introduction of the Lykurgean discipline; the\nearliest _external_ events are the conquest of Amykl\u00e6, Pharis, and\nGeronthr\u00e6, effected by king T\u00ealeklus, and the first quarrel with\nthe Messenians, in which that prince was slain. When we come to see\nhow deplorably great was the confusion and ignorance which reigned\nwith reference to a matter so pre\u00ebminently important as Lykurgus\nand his legislation, we shall not be inclined to think that facts\nmuch less important, and belonging to an earlier epoch, can have\nbeen handed down upon any good authority. And in like manner, when\nwe learn that Amykl\u00e6, Pharis, and Geronthr\u00e6 (all south of Sparta,\nand the first only two and a half miles distant from that city)\nwere independent of the Spartans until the reign of T\u00ealeklus, we\nshall require some decisive testimony before we can believe that a\ncommunity so small, and so hemmed in as Sparta must then have been,\nhad in earlier times undertaken expeditions against Helos on the\nsea-coast, against Kleitor on the extreme northern side of Arcadia,\nagainst the Kynurians, or against the Argeians. If Helos and Kynuria\nwere conquered by these early kings, it appears that they had to be\nconquered a second time by kings succeeding T\u00ealeklus. It would be\nmore natural that we should hear when and how they conquered the\nplaces nearer to them,\u2014Sellasia, or Belemina, the valley of the \u0152nus,\nor the upper valley of the Eurotas. But these seem to be assumed\nas matters of course; the proceedings ascribed to the early Spartan\nkings are such only as might beseem the palmy days when Sparta was\nundisputed mistress of all Laconia.\n\nThe succession of Messenian kings, beginning with Kresphont\u00eas,\nthe Herakleid brother, and continuing from father to son,\u2014\u00c6pytus,\nGlaukus, Isthnius, Dotadas, Subotas, Phintas, the last being\ncontemporary with T\u00ealeklus,\u2014is still less marked by incident than\nthat of the early Spartan kings. It is said that the reign of\nKresphont\u00eas was troubled, and himself ultimately slain by mutinies\namong his subjects: \u00c6pytus, then a youth, having escaped into\nArcadia, was afterwards restored to the throne by the Arcadians,\nSpartans, and Argeians.[555] From \u00c6pytus, the Messenian line of\nkings are stated to have been denominated \u00c6pytids in preference to\nHerakleids,\u2014which affords another proof of their intimate connection\nwith the Arcadians, since \u00c6pytus was a very ancient name in Arcadian\nheroic antiquity.[556]\n\n [555] Pausan. iv. 3, 5-6.\n\n [556] Homer, Iliad, ii. 604.\u2014\n\n \u039f\u1f33 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7a,\n \u0391\u1f30\u03c0\u03cd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n Schol. _ad loc._ \u1f41 \u03b4\u1fbd \u0391\u1f34\u03c0\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nThere is considerable resemblance between the alleged behavior of\nKresphont\u00eas on first settling at Stenykl\u00earus, and that of Eurysthen\u00eas\nand Prokl\u00eas at Sparta,\u2014so far as we gather from statements alike\nmeagre and uncertified, resting on the authority of Ephorus. Both\nare said to have tried to place the pre\u00ebxisting inhabitants of\nthe country on a level with their own Dorian bands; both provoked\ndiscontents and incurred obloquy, with their contemporaries as\nwell as with posterity, by the attempt; nor did either permanently\nsucceed. Kresphont\u00eas was forced to concentrate all his Dorians in\nStenykl\u00earus, while after all, the discontents ended in his violent\ndeath. And Agis, the son of Eurysthen\u00eas, is said to have reversed\nall the liberal tentatives of his father, so as to bring the whole\nof Laconia into subjection and dependence on the Dorians at Sparta,\nwith the single exception of Amykl\u00e6. So odious to the Spartan Dorians\nwas the conduct of Eurysthen\u00eas, that they refused to acknowledge him\nas their \u0153kist, and conferred that honor upon Agis; the two lines of\nkings being called Agiads and Eurypontids, instead of Eurystheneids\nand Prokleids.[557] We see in these statements the same tone of mind\nas that which pervades the Panathenaic oration of Isokrat\u00eas, the\nmaster of Ephorus,\u2014the facts of an unknown period, so colored as to\nsuit an _id\u00e9al_ of haughty Dorian exclusiveness.\n\n [557] Compare the two citations from Ephorus, Strabo, viii.\n pp. 361-365. Unfortunately, a portion of the latter citation\n is incurably mutilated in the text: O. M\u00fcller (History of the\n Dorians, book i. ch. v. 13) has proposed an ingenious conjecture,\n which, however, cannot be considered as trustworthy. Grosskurd,\n the German translator, usually skilful in these restorations,\n leaves the passage untouched.\n\n For a new coloring of the death of Kresphont\u00eas, adjusted by\n Isokrat\u00eas so as to suit the purpose of the address which he puts\n into the mouth of Archidamus king of Sparta, see the discourse\n in his works which passes under that name (Or. iv. pp. 120-122).\n Isokrat\u00eas says that the Messenian Dorians slew Kresphont\u00eas,\n whose children fled as suppliants to Sparta, imploring revenge\n for the death of their father, and surrendering the territory to\n the Spartans. The Delphian god advised the latter to accept the\n tender, and they accordingly attacked the Messenians, avenged\n Kresphont\u00eas, and appropriated the territory.\n\n Isokrat\u00eas always starts from the basis of the old legend,\u2014the\n triple Dorian conquest made all at once: compare Panathenaic. Or.\n xii. pp. 270-287.\n\nAgain, as Eurysthen\u00eas and Prokl\u00eas appear, in the picture of Ephorus,\nto carry their authority at once over the whole of Laconia, so\ntoo does Kresphont\u00eas over the whole of Messenia,\u2014over the entire\nsouth-western region of Peloponnesus, westward of Mount Taygetus\nand Cape T\u00e6narus, and southward of the river Neda. He sends an\nenvoy to Pylus and Rhium, the western and southern portions\nof the south-western promontory of Peloponnesus, treating the\nentire territory as if it were one sovereignty, and inviting the\ninhabitants to submit under equal laws.[558] But it has already been\nobserved, that this supposed oneness and indivisibility is not less\nuncertified in regard to Messenia than in regard to Laconia. How\nlarge a proportion of the former territory these kings of Stenykl\u00earus\nmay have ruled, we have no means of determining, but there were\ncertainly portions of it which they did not rule,\u2014not merely during\nthe reign of T\u00ealeklus at Sparta, but still later, during the first\nMessenian war. For not only are we informed that T\u00ealeklus established\nthree townships, Poi\u00eaessa, Echei\u00e6,[559] and Tragium, near the\nMessenian gulf, and on the course of the river Nedon, but we read\nalso a farther matter of evidence in the roll of Olympic victors.\nEvery competitor for the prize at one of these great festivals was\nalways entered as member of some autonomous Hellenic community,\nwhich constituted his title to approach the lists; if successful, he\nwas proclaimed with the name of the community to which he belonged.\nNow during the first ten Olympiads, seven winners are proclaimed\nas Messenians; in the 11th Olympiad, we find the name of Oxythemis\nKor\u00f4n\u00e6us,\u2014Oxythemis, not of Kor\u00f4neia in B\u0153otia, but of Kor\u00f4n\u00ea in the\nwestern bend of the Messenian gulf,[560] some miles on the right\nbank of the Pamisus, and a considerable distance to the north of the\nmodern Coron. Now if Kor\u00f4n\u00ea had then been comprehended in Messenia,\nOxythemis would have been proclaimed as a Messenian, like the seven\nwinners who preceded him; and the fact of his being proclaimed as a\nKor\u00f4n\u00e6an, proves that Kor\u00f4n\u00ea was then an independent community, not\nunder the dominion of the Dorians of Stenykl\u00earus. It seems clear,\ntherefore, that the latter did not reign over the whole territory\ncommonly known as Messenia, though we are unable to assign the\nproportion of it which they actually possessed.\n\n [558] Ephorus ap. Strabo, viii. p. 361. Dr. Thirlwall observes\n (History of Greece, ch. vii. p. 300, 2d edit.), \u201cThe Messenian\n Pylus seems long to have retained its independence, and to have\n been occupied for several centuries by one branch of the family\n of Neleus; for descendants of Nestor are mentioned as allies of\n the Messenians in their struggle with Sparta in the latter half\n of the seventh century B. C.\u201d\n\n For this assertion, Dr. Thirlwall cites Strabo (viii. p. 355).\n I agree with him as to the matter of fact: I see no proof that\n the Dorians of Stenykl\u00earus ever ruled over what is called the\n Messenian Pylus; for, of course, if they did not rule over it\n before the second Messenian war, they never acquired it at all.\n But on reference to the passage in Strabo, it will not be found\n to prove anything to the point; for Strabo is speaking, not of\n the Messenian Pylus, but of the _Triphylian Pylus_: he takes\n pains to show that Nestor had nothing to do with the _Messenian\n Pylus_,\u2014\u039d\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 means the inhabitants of Triphylia,\n near Lepreum: compare p. 350.\n\n [559] Strabo, viii. p. 360. Concerning the situation of Kor\u00f4n\u00ea,\n in the Messenian gulf, see Pausanias, iv. 34, 2; Strabo, viii. p.\n 361; and the observations of Colonel Leake, Travels in Morea, ch.\n x. vol. i. pp. 439-448. He places it near the modern Petalidhi,\n seemingly on good grounds.\n\n [560] See Mr. Clinton\u2019s Chronological Tables for the year 732\n B. C.; O. M\u00fcller (in the Chronological Table subjoined to\n his History of the Dorians) calls this victor, _Oxythemis of\n Kor\u00f4neia_, in B\u0153otia. But this is inadmissible, on two grounds:\n 1. The occurrence of a B\u0153otian competitor in that early day\n at the Olympic games. The first eleven victors (I put aside\n Oxythemis, because he is the subject of the argument) are all\n from western and southern Peloponnesus; then come victors from\n Corinth, Megara, and Epidaurus; then from Athens; there is one\n from Thebes in the 41st Olympiad. I infer from hence that the\n celebrity and frequentation of the Olympic games increased only\n by degrees, and had not got beyond Peloponnesus in the eighth\n century B. C. 2. The name Coron\u00e6us, \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, is the proper\n and formal title for a citizen of Kor\u00f4n\u00ea, not for a citizen of\n Kor\u00f4neia: the latter styles himself \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. The ethnical name\n \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, as belonging to Kor\u00f4neia in B\u0153otia, is placed beyond\n doubt by several inscriptions in Boeckh\u2019s collection; especially\n No. 1583, in which a citizen of that town is proclaimed as\n victorious at the festival of the Charitesia at Orchomenus:\n compare Nos. 1587-1593, in which the same ethnical name occurs.\n The B\u0153otian Inscriptions attest in like manner the prevalence\n of the same etymological law in forming ethnical names, for\n the towns near Kor\u00f4neia: thus, _Ch\u00e6r\u00f4neia_ makes \u03a7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2;\n _Lebadeia_, \u039b\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2; _Elateia_, \u1f18\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, or \u1f18\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n The Inscriptions afford evidence perfectly decisive as to the\n ethnical title under which a citizen of Kor\u00f4neia in B\u0153otia would\n have caused himself to be entered and proclaimed at the Olympic\n games; better than the evidence of Herodotus and Thucydid\u00eas,\n who both call them \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 (Herodot. v. 79; Thucyd. iv. 93):\n Polybius agrees with the Inscription, and speaks of the \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2,\n \u039b\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03a7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 (xxvii. 1). O. M\u00fcller himself admits, in\n another place (Orchomenos, p. 480), that the proper ethnical\n name is \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. The reading of Strabo (ix. p. 411) is not\n trustworthy: see Grosskurd, _ad loc._; compare Steph. Byz.\n \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 and \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n In regard to the formation of ethnical names, it seems the\n general rule, that a town ending in \u03b7 or \u03b1\u03b9, preceded by a\n consonant, had its ethnical derivative in \u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2; such as \u03a3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7,\n \u03a4\u03bf\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7, \u039a\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7, \u0398\u1fc6\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f08\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; while names ending in \u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 had their\n ethnicon in \u03b5\u03c5\u03c2, as \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u1f08\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03a3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u039b\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\n (the recent cities thus founded by the successors of Alexander\n are perhaps the best evidences that can be taken of the analogies\n of the language), \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, in addition to the\n B\u0153otian names of towns above quoted. There is, however, great\n irregularity in particular cases, and the number of towns called\n by the same name created an anxiety to vary the ethnicon for\n each: see Stephan. Byz. v. \u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nThe Olympic festival, in its origin doubtless a privilege of\nthe neighboring Pisatans, seems to have derived its great and\ngradually expanding importance from the \u00c6tolo-Eleian settlement in\nPeloponnesus, combined with the Dorians of Laconia and Messenia.\nLykurgus of Sparta, and Iphitus of Elis, are alleged to have joined\ntheir efforts for the purpose of establishing both the sanctity of\nthe Olympic truce and the inviolability of the Eleian territory.\nHence, though this tale is not to be construed as matter of fact,\nwe may see that the Laced\u00e6monians regarded the Olympic games as a\nportion of their own antiquities. Moreover, it is certain, both that\nthe dignity of the festival increased simultaneously with their\nascendency,[561] and that their peculiar fashions were very early\nintroduced into the practice of the Olympic competitors. Probably,\nthe three bands of co\u00f6perating invaders, \u00c6tolians and Spartan and\nMessenian Dorians, may have adopted this festival as a periodical\nrenovation of mutual union and fraternity; from which cause the games\nbecame an attractive centre for the western portion of Peloponnesus,\nbefore they were much frequented by people from the eastern, or still\nmore from extra-Peloponnesian Hellas. For it cannot be altogether\naccidental, when we read the names of the first twelve proclaimed\nOlympic victors (occupying nearly half a century from 776 B. C.\ndownwards), to find that seven of them are Messenians, three Eleians,\none from Dym\u00ea, in Achaia, and one from Kor\u00f4n\u00ea; while after the 12th\nOlympiad, Corinthians and Megarians and Epidaurians begin to occur;\nlater still, extra-Peloponnesian victors. We may reasonably infer\nfrom hence that the Olympic ceremonies were at this early period\nchiefly frequented by visitors and competitors from the western\nregions of Peloponnesus, and that the affluence to them, from the\nmore distant parts of the Hellenic world, did not become considerable\nuntil the first Messenian war had closed.\n\n [561] The entire nakedness of the competitors at Olympia was\n adopted from the Spartan practice, seemingly in the 14th\n Olympiad, as is testified by the epigram on Orsippus the\n Megarian. Previous to that period, the Olympic competitors had\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1 (Thucyd. i. 6).\n\nHaving thus set forth the conjectures, to which our very scanty\nknowledge points, respecting the first establishment of the \u00c6tolian\nand Dorian settlements in Elis, Laconia, and Messenia, connected\nas they are with the steadily increasing dignity and frequentation\nof the Olympic festival, I proceed, in the next chapter, to that\nmemorable circumstance which both determined the character, and\nbrought about the political ascendency, of the Spartans separately: I\nmean, the laws and discipline of Lykurgus.\n\nOf the pre\u00ebxisting inhabitants of Laconia and Messenia, whom we are\naccustomed to call Ach\u00e6ans and Pylians, so little is known, that we\ncannot at all measure the difference between them and their Dorian\ninvaders, either in dialect, in habits, or in intelligence. There\nappear no traces of any difference of dialect among the various\nparts of the population of Laconia: the Messenian allies of Athens,\nin the Peloponnesian war, speak the same dialect as the Helots,\nand the same also as the Ambrakiotic colonists from Corinth: all\nDoric.[562] Nor are we to suppose that the Doric dialect was at all\npeculiar to the people called Dorians. As far as can be made out\nby the evidence of Inscriptions, it seems to have been the dialect\nof the Phokians, Delphians, Lokrians, \u00c6tolians, and Ach\u00e6ans of\nPhthi\u00f4tis: with respect to the latter, the Inscriptions of Thaumaki,\nin Ach\u00e6a Phthi\u00f4tis, afford a proof the more curious and the more\ncogent of native dialect, because the Phthi\u00f4ts were both immediate\nneighbors and subjects of the Thessalians, who spoke a variety\nof the \u00c6olic. So, too, within Peloponnesus, we find evidences of\nDoric dialect among the Ach\u00e6ans in the north of Peloponnesus,\u2014the\nDryopic inhabitants of Hermion\u00ea,[563]\u2014and the Eleuthero-Lacones, or\nLaconian townships (compounded of Peri\u0153ki and Helots), emancipated\nby the Romans in the second century B. C. Concerning the speech\nof that population whom the invading Dorians found in Laconia, we\nhave no means of judging: the presumption would rather be that it\ndid not differ materially from the Doric. Thucydid\u00eas designates\nthe Corinthians, whom the invading Dorians attacked from the hill\nSolygeius, as being \u00c6olians, and Strabo speaks both of the Ach\u00e6ans as\nan \u00c6olic nation, and of the \u00c6olic dialect as having been originally\npreponderant in Peloponnesus.[564] But we do not readily see what\nmeans of information either of these authors possessed respecting the\nspeech of a time which must have been four centuries anterior even to\nThucydid\u00eas.\n\n [562] Thucyd. iii. 112: iv. 41: compare vii. 44, about the\n sameness of sound of the war-shout, or p\u00e6an, as delivered by all\n the different Dorians.\n\n [563] Corpus Inscript. Boeckh, Nos. 1771, 1772, 1773; Ahrens, De\n Dialecto Doric\u00e2, sect. i-ii. 48.\n\n [564] Thucyd. iv. 42: Strabo, viii. p. 333.\n\nOf that which is called the \u00c6olic dialect there are three marked\nand distinguishable varieties,\u2014the Lesbian, the Thessalian, and the\nB\u0153otian; the Thessalian forming a mean term between the other two.\nAhrens has shown that the ancient grammatical critics are accustomed\nto affirm peculiarities, as belonging to the \u00c6olic dialect generally,\nwhich in truth belong only to the Lesbian variety of it, or to\nthe poems of Alk\u00e6us and Sappho, which these critics attentively\nstudied. Lesbian \u00c6olic, Thessalian \u00c6olic, and B\u0153otian \u00c6olic, are\nall different: and if, abstracting from these differences, we\nconfine our attention to that which is common to all three, we shall\nfind little to distinguish this abstract \u00c6olic from the abstract\nDoric, or that which is common to the many varieties of the Doric\ndialect.[565] These two are sisters, presenting, both of them, more\nor less the Latin side of the Greek language, while the relationship\nof either of them to the Attic and Ionic is more distant. Now it\nseems that, putting aside Attica, the speech of all Greece,[566]\nfrom Perrh\u00e6bia and Mount Olympus to Cape Malea and Cape Akritas,\nconsisted of different varieties, either of the Doric or of the\n\u00c6olic dialect; this being true (as far as we are able to judge) not\nless of the aboriginal Arcadians than of the rest. The Laconian\ndialect contained more specialties of its own, and approached\nnearer to the \u00c6olic and to the Eleian, than any other variety of\nthe Dorian: it stands at the extreme of what has been classified\nas the strict Dorian,\u2014that is, the farthest removed from Ionic and\nAttic. The Kretan towns manifest also a strict Dorism; as well as\nthe Laced\u00e6monian colony of Tarentum, and, seemingly, most of the\nItaliotic Greeks, though some of them are called Ach\u00e6an colonies.\nMost of the other varieties of the Doric dialect (Phokian, Lokrian,\nDelphian, Ach\u00e6an of Phthi\u00f4tis) exhibit a form departing less widely\nfrom the Ionic and Attic: Argos, and the towns in the Argolic\npeninsula, seem to form a stepping-stone between the two.\n\n [565] See the valuable work of Ahrens, De Dialecto \u00c6olic\u00e2. sect.\n 51. He observes, in reference to the Lesbian, Thessalian, and\n B\u0153otian dialects: \u201cTres illas dialectos, qu\u00e6 optimo jure \u00c6olic\u00e6\n vocari videntur\u2014quia, qui illis usi sunt, \u00c6oles erant\u2014comparantem\n mirum habere oportet, quod Asianorum \u00c6olum et B\u0153otorum dialecti\n tantum inter se distant, quantum vix ab ali\u00e2 qu\u00e2vis Gr\u00e6c\u00e6 lingu\u00e6\n dialecto.\u201d He then enumerates many points of difference: \u201cContra\n tot tantasque differentias pauca reperiuntur eaque fere levia,\n qu\u00e6 utrique dialecto, neque simul Doric\u00e6, communia sint.... Vides\n his comparatis tantum interesse inter utramque dialectum, ut\n dubitare liceat, an \u00c6oles B\u0153oti non magis cum \u00c6olibus Asianis\n conjuncti fuerint, quam qui hodie miro quodam casu Saxones\n vocantur cum antiquis Saxonibus. Nihilominus Thessalic\u00e2 dialecto\n in comparationem vocata, diversissima qu\u00e6 videntur aliquo vinculo\n conjungere licet. Quamvis enim pauca de e\u00e2 comperta habeamus,\n hoc tamen certum est, alia Thessalis cum Lesbiis, alia cum solis\n B\u0153otis communia esse.\u201d (P. 222-223.)\n\n [566] About the \u00c6olic dialect of the Perrh\u00e6bians, see Stephanus\n Byz. v. \u0393\u03cc\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and ap. Eustath. ad Iliad, p. 335.\n\n The Attic judgment, in comparing these different varieties\n of Greek speech, is expressed in the story of a man being\n asked\u2014Whether the B\u0153otians or the Thessalians were most of\n barbarians? He answered\u2014The Eleians (Eustath. ad Iliad. p. 304).\n\nThese positions represent the little which can be known respecting\nthose varieties of Grecian speech which are not known to us by\nwritten works. The little presumption which can be raised upon them\nfavors the belief that the Dorian invaders of Laconia and Messenia\nfound there a dialect little different from that which they brought\nwith them,\u2014a conclusion which it is the more necessary to state\ndistinctly, since the work of O. M\u00fcller has caused an exaggerated\nestimate to be formed of the distinctive peculiarities whereby Dorism\nwas parted off from the rest of Hellas.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nLAWS AND DISCIPLINE OF LYKURGUS AT SPARTA.\n\n\nPlutarch begins his biography of Lykurgus with the following ominous\nwords:\u2014\n\n\u201cConcerning the lawgiver Lykurgus, we can assert absolutely nothing\nwhich is not controverted: there are different stories in respect to\nhis birth, his travels, his death, and also his mode of proceeding,\npolitical as well as legislative: least of all is the time in which\nhe lived agreed upon.\u201d\n\nAnd this exordium is but too well borne out by the unsatisfactory\nnature of the accounts which we read, not only in Plutarch himself,\nbut in those other authors out of whom we are obliged to make up our\nidea of the memorable Lykurgean system. If we examine the sources\nfrom which Plutarch\u2019s life of Lykurgus is deduced, it will appear\nthat\u2014excepting the poets Alkman, Tyrt\u00e6us, and Simonid\u00eas, from whom\nhe has borrowed less than we could have wished\u2014he has no authorities\nolder than Xenophon and Plato: Aristotle is cited several times, and\nis unquestionably the best of his witnesses, but the greater number\nof them belong to the century subsequent to that philosopher. Neither\nHerodotus nor Ephorus are named, though the former furnishes some\nbrief, but interesting particulars,\u2014and the latter also (as far as\nwe can judge from the fragments remaining) entered at large into the\nproceedings of the Spartan lawgiver.[567]\n\n [567] See Heeren, Dissertatio de Fontibus Plutarchi, pp. 19-25.\n\nLykurgus is described by Herodotus as uncle and guardian to king\nLab\u00f4tas, of the Eurystheneid or Agid line of Spartan kings; and this\nwould place him, according to the received chronology, about 220\nyears before the first recorded Olympiad (about B. C. 996).[568]\nAll the other accounts, on the contrary, seem to represent him as a\nyounger brother, belonging to the other or Prokleid line of Spartan\nkings, though they do not perfectly agree respecting his parentage.\nWhile Simonid\u00eas stated him to be the son of Prytanis, Dieutychidas\ndescribed him as grandson of Prytanis, son of Eunomus, brother\nof Polydekt\u00eas, and uncle as well as guardian to Charilaus,\u2014thus\nmaking him eleventh in descent from H\u00earakl\u00eas.[569] This latter\naccount was adopted by Aristotle, coinciding, according to the\nreceived chronology, with the date of Iphitus the Eleian, and the\nfirst celebration of the Olympic games by Lykurgus and Iphitus\nconjointly,[570] which Aristotle accepted as a fact. Lykurgus, on\nthe hypothesis here mentioned, would stand about B. C. 880, a century\nbefore the recorded Olympiads. Eratosthen\u00eas and Apollodorus placed\nhim \u201cnot a few years earlier than the first Olympiad.\u201d If they meant\nhereby the epoch commonly assigned as the Olympiad of Iphitus, their\ndate would coincide pretty nearly with that of Herodotus: if, on\nthe other hand, they meant the first recorded Olympiad (B. C. 776),\nthey would be found not much removed from the opinion of Aristotle.\nAn unequivocal proof of the inextricable confusion in ancient times\nrespecting the epoch of the great Spartan lawgiver is indirectly\nafforded by Tim\u00e6us, who supposed that there had existed two persons\nnamed Lykurgus, and that the acts of both had been ascribed to one.\nIt is plain from hence that there was no certainty attainable, even\nin the third century before the Christian era, respecting the date or\nparentage of Lykurgus.\n\n [568] Herodot. i. 65. Moreover, Herodotus gives this as the\n statement of the Laced\u00e6monians themselves.\n\n [569] Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 1. According to Dionys. Halik. (Ant.\n Rom. ii. 49) Lykurgus was uncle, not son, of Eunomus.\n\n Aristotle considers Lykurgus as guardian of Charilaus (Politic.\n ii. 7, 1): compare v. 10, 3. See O. M\u00fcller (Hist. of Dorians, i.\n 7, 3).\n\n [570] Phleg\u00f4n also adds Kleosthen\u00eas of Pisa (De Olympiis ap.\n Meursii Opp. vii. p. 128). It appears that there existed a quoit\n at Olympia, upon which the formula of the Olympic truce was\n inscribed, together with the names of Iphitus and Lykurgus as the\n joint authors and proclaimers of it. Aristotle believed this to\n be genuine, and accepted it as an evidence of the fact which it\n professed to certify: and O. M\u00fcller is also disposed to admit it\n as genuine,\u2014that is, as _contemporary_ with the times to which\n it professes to relate. I come to a different conclusion: that\n the quoit existed, I do not doubt; but that the inscription upon\n it was actually set down in writing, in or near B. C. 880, would\n be at variance with the reasonable probabilities resulting from\n Grecian pal\u00e6ography. Had this ancient and memorable instrument\n existed at Olympia in the days of Herodotus, he could hardly have\n assigned to Lykurgus the epoch which we now read in his writings.\n\n The assertions in M\u00fcller\u2019s History of the Dorians (i. 7, 7),\n about Lykurgus, Iphitus, and Kleosthen\u00eas \u201cdrawing up the\n fundamental law of the Olympic armistice,\u201d are unsupported by any\n sufficient evidence. In the later times of established majesty of\n the Olympic festival, the Eleians did undoubtedly exercise the\n power which he describes; but to connect this with any deliberate\n regulation of Iphitus and Lykurgus, is in my judgment incorrect.\n See the mention of a similar truce proclaimed throughout\n Triphylia by the Makistians as presidents of the common festival\n at the temple of the Samian Poseidon (Strabo, viii. p. 343).\n\nThucydid\u00eas, without mentioning the name of Lykurgus, informs us\nthat it was \u201c400 years and somewhat more\u201d anterior to the close of\nthe Peloponnesian war,[571] when the Spartans emerged from their\nprevious state of desperate internal disorder, and entered upon\n\u201ctheir present polity.\u201d We may fairly presume that this alludes to\nthe Lykurgean discipline and constitution, which Thucydides must\nthus have conceived as introduced about B. C. 830-820,\u2014coinciding\nwith something near the commencement of the reign of king T\u00ealeklus.\nIn so far as it is possible to form an opinion, amidst evidence at\nonce so scanty and so discordant, I incline to adopt the opinion\nof Thucydid\u00eas as to the time at which the Lykurgean constitution\nwas introduced at Sparta. The state of \u201ceunomy\u201d and good order\nwhich that constitution brought about,\u2014combined with the healing of\ngreat previous internal sedition, which had tended much to enfeeble\nthem,\u2014is represented (and with great plausibility) as the grand\ncause of the victorious career beginning with king T\u00ealeklus, the\nconqueror of Amykl\u00e6, Pharis, and Geronthr\u00e6. Therefore it would seem,\nin the absence of better evidence, that a date, connecting the fresh\nstimulus of the new discipline with the reign of T\u00ealeklus, is more\nprobable than any epoch either later or earlier.[572]\n\n [571] Thucyd. i. 18.\n\n [572] Mr. Clinton fixes the legislation of Lykurgus, \u201cin\n conformity with Thucydid\u00eas,\u201d at about 817 B. C., and his regency\n at 852 B. C., about thirty-five years previous (Fasti Hellen. v.\n i. c. 7, p. 141): he also places the Olympiad of Iphitus B. C.\n 828 (F. H. vol. ii. p. 410; App. c. 22).\n\n In that chapter, Mr. Clinton collects and discusses the various\n statements respecting the date of Lykurgus: compare, also,\n Larcher ad Herodot. i. 67, and Chronologie, pp. 486-492.\n\n The differences in these statements must, after all, be taken\n as they stand, for they cannot be reconciled except by the help\n of arbitrary suppositions, which only mislead us by producing a\n show of agreement where there is none in reality. I agree with\n Mr. Clinton, in thinking that the assertion of Thucydid\u00eas is\n here to be taken as the best authority. But I altogether dissent\n from the proceeding which he (in common with Larcher, Wesseling,\n Sir John Marsham, and others) employs with regard to the passage\n of Herodotus, where that author calls Lykurgus the guardian and\n uncle of Lab\u00f4tas (of the Eurystheneid line). Mr. Clinton says:\n \u201cFrom the notoriety of the fact that Lycurgus was ascribed to the\n other house (the Prokleids), it is manifest that _the passage\n must be corrupted_\u201d (p. 144); and he then goes on to correct the\n text of Herodotus, agreeably to the proposition of Sir J. Marsham.\n\n This proceeding seems to me inadmissible. The text of Herodotus\n reads perfectly well, and is not contradicted by anything to\n be found elsewhere _in Herodotus himself_: moreover, we have\n here a positive guarantee of its accuracy, for Mr. Clinton\n himself admits that it stood in the days of Pausanias just as\n we now read it (Pausan. iii. 2, 3). By what right, then, do we\n alter it? or what do we gain by doing so? Our only right to do\n so, is, the assumption that there must have been uniformity of\n belief and means of satisfactory ascertainment, (respecting\n facts and persons of the ninth and tenth centuries before the\n Christian era,) existing among Greeks of the fifth and succeeding\n centuries; an assumption which I hold to be incorrect. And all we\n gain is, an illusory unanimity produced by gratuitously putting\n words into the mouth of one of our witnesses.\n\n If we can prove Herodotus to have been erroneously informed,\n it is right to do so; but we have no ground for altering his\n deposition. It affords a clear proof that there were very\n different stories as to the mere question, to which of the two\n lines of Herakleids the Spartan lawgiver belonged,\u2014and that there\n was an enormous difference as to the time in which he lived.\n\nO. M\u00fcller,[573] after glancing at the strange and improbable\ncircumstances handed down to us respecting Lykurgus, observes, \u201cthat\nwe have absolutely no account of him as an individual person.\u201d This\nremark is perfectly just: but another remark, made by the same\ndistinguished author, respecting the Lykurgean system of laws,\nappears to me erroneous,\u2014and requires more especially to be noticed,\ninasmuch as the corollaries deduced from it pervade a large portion\nof his valuable History of the Dorians. He affirms that the laws of\nSparta were considered the true Doric institutions, and that their\norigin was identical with that of the people: Sparta is, in his view,\nthe full type of Dorian principles, tendencies, and sentiments,\u2014and\nis so treated throughout his entire work.[574] But such an opinion\nis at once gratuitous (for the passage of Pindar cited in support\nof it is scarcely of any value) and contrary to the whole tenor of\nancient evidence. The institutions of Sparta were not Dorian, but\npeculiar to herself;[575] distinguishing her not less from Argos,\nCorinth, Megara, Epidaurus, Siky\u00f4n, Korkyra, or Knidus, than from\nAthens or Thebes. Kr\u00eate was the only other portion of Greece in\nwhich there prevailed institutions in many respects analogous, yet\nstill dissimilar in those two attributes which form the real mark\nand pinch of Spartan legislation, namely, the military discipline\nand the rigorous private training. There were doubtless Dorians in\nKr\u00eate, but we have no proof that these peculiar institutions belonged\nto them more than to the other inhabitants of the island. That the\nSpartans had an original organization, and tendencies common to them\nwith the other Dorians, we may readily concede; but the Lykurgean\nconstitution impressed upon them a peculiar tendency, which took them\nout of the general march, and rendered them the least fit of all\nstates to be cited as an example of the class-attributes of Dorism.\nOne of the essential causes, which made the Spartan institutions work\nso impressively upon the Grecian mind, was their perfect singularity,\ncombined with the conspicuous ascendency of the state in which they\nwere manifested; while the Kretan communities, even admitting their\npartial resemblance (which was chiefly in the institution of the\nSyssitia, and was altogether more in form than in spirit) to Sparta,\nwere too insignificant to attract notice except from speculative\nobservers. It is therefore a mistake on the part of O. M\u00fcller, to\ntreat Sparta as the type and representative of Dorians generally, and\nvery many of the positions advanced in his History of the Dorians\nrequire to be modified when this mistake is pointed out.\n\n [573] History of the Dorians, i. 7, 6.\n\n [574] History of the Dorians, iii. 1, 8. Alf. Kopstadt recognizes\n this as an error in M\u00fcller\u2019s work: see his recent valuable\n Dissertation \u201cDe Rerum Laconicarum Constitutionis Lycurge\u00e6\n Origine et Indole,\u201d Gryphi\u00e6, 1849, sect. 3, p. 18.\n\n [575] Among the many other evidences to this point, see\n Aristotle, Ethic. x. 9; Xenophon, Republ. Laced. 10, 8.\n\nThe first capital fact to notice respecting the institutions\nascribed to Lykurgus, is the very early period at which they had\ntheir commencement: it seems impossible to place this period later\nthan 825 B. C. We do not find, nor have we a right to expect,\ntrustworthy history in reference to events so early. If we have one\nfoot on historical ground, inasmuch as the institutions themselves\nare real,\u2014the other foot still floats in the unfaithful region of\nmythe, when we strive to comprehend the generating causes: the mist\nyet prevails which hinders us from distinguishing between the god\nand the man. The light in which Lykurgus appeared, to an intelligent\nGreek of the fifth century before the Christian era, is so clearly,\nyet briefly depicted, in the following passage of Herodotus, that I\ncannot do better than translate it:\u2014\n\n\u201cIn the very early times (Herodotus observes) the Spartans were\namong themselves the most lawless of all Greeks, and unapproachable\nby foreigners. Their transition to good legal order took place in\nthe following manner. When Lycurgus, a Spartan of consideration,\nvisited Delphi to consult the oracle, the instant that he entered the\nsanctuary, the Pythian priestess exclaimed,\u2014\n\n\u201cThou art come, Lycurgus, to my fat shrine, beloved by Zeus, and by\nall the Olympic gods. Is it as god or as man that I am to address\nthee in the spirit? I hesitate,\u2014and yet, Lycurgus, I incline more to\ncall thee a god.\u201d\n\nSo spake the Pythian priestess. \u201cMoreover, in addition to these\nwords, some affirm that the Pythia revealed to him the order of\nthings now established among the Spartans. _But the Laced\u00e6monians\nthemselves_ say, that Lycurgus, when guardian of his nephew Lab\u00f4tas,\nking of the Spartans, introduced these institutions out of Krete. No\nsooner had he obtained this guardianship, than he changed all the\ninstitutions into their present form, and took security against any\ntransgression of it. Next, he constituted the military divisions, the\nEn\u00f4moties and the Triakads, as well as the Syssitia, or public mess:\nhe also, farther, appointed the ephors and the senate. By this means\nthe Spartans passed from bad to good order: to Lycurgus, after his\ndeath, they built a temple, and they still worship him reverentially.\nAnd as might naturally be expected in a productive soil, and with no\ninconsiderable numbers of men, they immediately took a start forward,\nand flourished so much that they could not be content to remain\ntranquil within their own limits,\u201d etc.\n\nSuch is our oldest statement (coming from Herodotus) respecting\nLykurgus, ascribing to him that entire order of things which the\nwriter witnessed at Sparta. Thucydid\u00eas also, though not mentioning\nLykurgus, agrees in stating that the system among the Laced\u00e6monians,\nas he saw it, had been adopted by them four centuries previously,\u2014had\nrescued them from the most intolerable disorders, and had immediately\nconducted them to prosperity and success.[576] Hellanikus, whose\nwritings a little preceded those of Herodotus, not only did not\n(any more than Thucydid\u00eas) make mention of Lykurgus, but can hardly\nbe thought to have attached any importance to the name; since he\nattributed the constitution of Sparta to the first kings, Eurysthenes\nand Prokles.[577]\n\n [576] Herodot. i. 65-66; Thucyd. i. 18.\n\n [577] Strabo, viii. p. 363.\n\nBut those later writers, from whom Plutarch chiefly compiled his\nbiography, profess to be far better informed on the subject of\nLykurgus, and enter more into detail. His father, we are told, was\nassassinated during the preceding state of lawlessness; his elder\nbrother Polydekt\u00eas died early, leaving a pregnant widow, who made to\nLykurgus propositions that he should marry her and become king. But\nLykurgus, repudiating the offer with indignation, awaited the birth\nof his young nephew Charilaus, held up the child publicly in the\nagora, as the future king of Sparta, and immediately relinquished the\nauthority which he had provisionally exercised. However, the widow\nand her brother Leonidas raised slanderous accusations against him,\nof designs menacing to the life of the infant king,\u2014accusations which\nhe deemed it proper to obviate, by a temporary absence. Accordingly,\nhe left Sparta and went to Kr\u00eate, where he studied the polity and\ncustoms of the different cities; next, he visited Ionia and Egypt,\nand (as some authors affirmed) Libya, Iberia, and even India. While\nin Ionia, he is reported to have obtained from the descendants of\nKreophylus a copy of the Homeric poems, which had not up to that time\nbecome known in Peloponnesus: there were not wanting authors, indeed,\nwho said that he had conversed with Homer himself.[578]\n\n [578] Plutarch, Lykurg. 3, 4, 5.\n\nMeanwhile, the young king Charilaus grew up and assumed the sceptre,\nas representing the Prokleid or Eurypontid family. But the reins of\ngovernment had become more relaxed, and the disorders worse than\never, when Lykurgus returned. Finding that the two kings as well as\nthe people were weary of so disastrous a condition, he set himself\nto the task of applying a corrective, and with this view consulted\nthe Delphian oracle; from which he received strong assurances of the\ndivine encouragement, together with one or more special injunctions\n(the primitive Rhetr\u00e6 of the constitution), which he brought with\nhim to Sparta.[579] He then suddenly presented himself in the agora,\nwith thirty of the most distinguished Spartans, all in arms, as his\nguards and partisans. King Charilaus, though at first terrified, when\ninformed of the designs of his uncle, stood forward willingly to\nsecond them; while the bulk of the Spartans respectfully submitted\nto the venerable Herakleid, who came as reformer and missionary\nfrom Delphi.[580] Such were the steps by which Lykurgus acquired his\nascendency: we have now to see how he employed it.\n\n [579] For an instructive review of the text as well as the\n meaning of this ancient Rhetra, see Urlichs, Ueber die\n Lycurgischen Rhetren, published since the first edition of this\n History. His refutation of the rash charges of G\u00f6ttling seems\n to me complete: but his own conjectures are not all equally\n plausible; nor can I subscribe to his explanation of \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n [580] Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 5-6. Hermippus, the scholar of\n Aristotle, professed to give the names of twenty out of these\n thirty devoted partisans.\n\n There was, however, a different story, which represented that\n Lykurgus, on his return from his travels, found Charilaus\n governing like a despot (Heraclid. Pontic. c. 2).\n\nHis first proceeding, pursuant to the Rhetra or Compact brought\nfrom Delphi, was to constitute the Spartan senate, consisting\nof twenty-eight ancient men; making an aggregate of thirty in\nconjunction with the two kings, who sat and voted in it. With this\nwere combined periodical assemblies of the Spartan people, in the\nopen air, between the river Knaki\u00f4n and the bridge Babyka. Yet\nno discussion was permitted in these assemblies,\u2014their functions\nwere limited to the simple acceptance or rejection of that which\nhad previously been determined in the senate.[581] Such was the\nSpartan political constitution as fixed by Lykurgus; but a century\nafterwards (so Plutarch\u2019s account runs), under the kings Polyd\u00f4rus\nand Theopompus, two important alterations were made. A rider was then\nattached to the old Lykurgean Rhetra, by which it was provided that,\n\u201cin case the people decided crookedly, the senate, with the kings,\nshould reverse their decisions:\u201d[582] while another change, perhaps\nintended as a sort of compensation for this bridle on the popular\nassembly, introduced into the constitution a new executive Directory\nof five men, called Ephors. This Board\u2014annually chosen, by some\ncapricious method, the result of which could not well be foreseen,\nand open to be filled by every Spartan citizen\u2014either originally\nreceived, or gradually drew to itself, functions so extensive and\ncommanding, in regard to internal administration and police, as to\nlimit the authority of the kings to little more than the exclusive\ncommand of the military force. Herodotus was informed, at Sparta,\nthat the ephors as well as the senate had been constituted by\nLykurgus; but the authority of Aristotle, as well as the internal\nprobability of the case, sanctions the belief that they were\nsubsequently added.[583]\n\n [581] The words of the old Rhetra\u2014\u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2\n \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f60\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f60\u03b2\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. (Plutarch, _ib._)\n\n The reading \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd (last word but three) is that of Coray\u2019s\n edition: other readings proposed are \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c9\u03b3\u1f70\u03bd, \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\n etc. The MSS., however, are incurably corrupt, and none of the\n conjectures can be pronounced certain.\n\n The Rhetra contains various remarkable\n archaisms,\u2014\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u2014\u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\u2014the latter word in the sense of\n putting the question for decision, corresponding to the function\n of the \u1f08\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 at Knidus, (Plutarch, Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. c. 4; see\n Schneider, Lexicon, _ad voc._)\n\n O. M\u00fcller connects \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 with \u1f60\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2, and lays it down that\n there were thirty Obes at Sparta: I rather agree with those\n critics who place the comma after \u1f60\u03b2\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, and refer the number\n thirty to the senate. Urlichs, in his Dissertation Ueber Die\n Lykurgisch. Rhetren (published in the Rheinisches Museum for\n 1847, p. 204), introduces the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 after \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1;\n which seems a just conjecture, when we look to the addition\n afterwards made by Theopompus. The statements of M\u00fcller about the\n Obes seem to me to rest on no authority.\n\n The word Rhetra means a solemn compact, either originally\n emanating from, or subsequently sanctioned by, the gods, who are\n always parties to such agreements: see the old Treaty between the\n Eleians and Her\u00e6ans,\u2014\u1f09 \u03dd\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, between the two,\u2014commemorated in\n the valuable inscription still preserved,\u2014as ancient, according\n to Boeckh, as Olymp. 40-60, (Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 2, p.\n 26, part i.) The words of Tyrt\u00e6us imply such a compact between\n contracting parties: first the kings, then the senate, lastly the\n people\u2014\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 ~\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2~\u2014where the participle\n last occurring applies not to the people alone, but to all the\n three. The Rhetra of Lykurgus emanated from the Delphian god;\n but the kings, senate, and people all bound themselves, both to\n each other and to the gods, to obey it. The explanations given of\n the phrase by Nitzsch and Sch\u00f6mann (in Dr. Thirlwall\u2019s note, ch.\n viii. p. 334) seem to me less satisfactory than what appears in\n C. F. Hermann (Lehrbuch der Griech. Staatsalterth\u00fcmer, s. 23).\n\n Nitzsch (Histor. Homer. sect. xiv. pp. 50-55) does not take\n sufficient account of the distinction between the meaning of\n \u1fe5\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 in the early and in the later times. In the time of the\n Ephor Epitadeus, or of Agis the Third, he is right in saying that\n \u1fe5\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 is equivalent to _scitum_,\u2014still, however, with an idea\n of greater solemnity and unchangeability than is implied in the\n word \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, analogous to what is understood by a fundamental or\n organic enactment in modern ideas. The old ideas, of a mandate\n from the Delphian god, and a compact between the kings and the\n citizens, which had once been connected with the word, gradually\n dropped away from it. There is no contradiction in Plutarch,\n therefore, such as that to which Nitzsch alludes (p. 54).\n\n Kopstadt\u2019s Dissertation (pp. 22, 30) touches on the same subject.\n I agree with Kopstadt (Dissert. pp. 28-30), in thinking it\n probable that Plutarch copied the words of the old Lykurgean\n constitutional Rhetra, from the account given by Aristotle of the\n Spartan polity.\n\n King Theopompus probably brought from the Delphian oracle the\n important rider which he tacked to the mandate as originally\n brought by Lykurgus\u2014\u03bf\u1f31 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\n \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd. The authority of the oracle, together\n with their own influence, would enable them to get these words\n accepted by the people.\n\n [582] \u0391\u1f32 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b4\u1fb6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. (Plutarch, _ib._)\n\n Plutarch tells us that the primitive Rhetra, anterior to this\n addition, specially enjoined the assembled citizens either to\n adopt or reject, without change, the Rhetra proposed by the\n kings and senate, and that the rider was introduced because the\n assembly had disobeyed this injunction, and adopted amendments\n of its own. It is this latter sense which he puts on the word\n \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd. Urlichs (Ueber Lyc. Rhetr. p. 232) and Nitzsch (Hist.\n Homer. p. 54) follow him, and the latter even construes the\n epithet \u0395\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 of Tyrt\u00e6us in a\n corresponding sense: he says, \u201cPopulus iis (rhetris) \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, i.\n e. _nihil inflexis_, suffragari jubetur: nam lex cujus Tyrt\u00e6us\n admonet, ita sanxerat\u2014si populus rogationem _inflexam_ (_i.\n e._ non nisi ad suum arbitrium immutatam) accipere voluerit,\n senatores et auctores abolento totam.\u201d\n\n Now, in the first place, it seems highly improbable that the\n primitive Rhetra, with its antique simplicity, would contain\n any such preconceived speciality of restriction upon the\n competence of the assembly. That restriction received its formal\n commencement only from the rider annexed by king Theopompus,\n which evidently betokens a previous dispute and refractory\n behavior on the part of the assembly.\n\n In the second place, the explanation which these authors give\n of the words \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd and \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, is not conformable to the\n ancient Greek, as we find it in Homer and Hesiod: and these\n early analogies are the proper test, seeing that we are dealing\n with a very ancient document. In Hesiod, \u1f30\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 are\n used in a sense which almost exactly corresponds to _right_ and\n _wrong_ (which words, indeed, in their primitive etymology, maybe\n traced back to the meaning of _straight_ and _crooked_). See\n Hesiod. Opp. Di. 36, 192, 218, 221, 226, 230, 250, 262, 264; also\n Theogon. 97, and Fragm. 217, ed. G\u00f6ttling; where the phrases are\n constantly repeated, \u1f30\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9.\n There is also the remarkable expression, Opp. Di. 9. \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad\n \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f30\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd: compare v. 263. \u1f30\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2: also Homer,\n Iliad, xvi. 387. \u039f\u1f33 \u03b2\u03af\u1fc3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2; and\n xxiii. 580. \u1f30\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1; xviii. 508. \u1f43\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u1f30\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u1fc3,\n etc.\n\n If we judge by these analogies, we shall see that the words of\n Tyrt\u00e6us, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, mean \u201c_straightforward_, _honest_,\n statutes or conventions\u201d\u2014not _propositions adopted without\n change_, as Nitzsch supposes. And so the words \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u1f15\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf,\n mean, \u201cadopt a _wrong or dishonest determination_,\u201d\u2014not a\n determination different from what was proposed to them.\n\n These words gave to the kings and senate power to cancel any\n decision of the public assembly which they disapproved. It\n retained only the power of refusing assent to some substantive\n propositions of the authorities, first of the kings and senate,\n afterwards of the ephors. And this limited power it seems always\n to have preserved.\n\n Kopstadt explains well the expression \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd, as the antithesis\n to the epithet of Tyrt\u00e6us, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 (Dissertat. sect. 15,\n p. 124).\n\n [583] Herod. i. 65: compare Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 7; Aristot.\n Polit. v. 9, 1 (where he gives the answer of king Theopompus).\n\n Aristotle tells us that the ephors were chosen, but not _how_\n they were chosen; only, that it was in some manner excessively\n puerile,\u2014\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (ii. 6, 16).\n\n M. Barth\u00e9lemy St. Hilaire, in his note to the passage of\n Aristotle, presumes that they were of course chosen in the same\n manner as the senators; but there seems no sufficient ground in\n Aristotle to countenance this. Nor is it easy to reconcile the\n words of Aristotle respecting the election of the senators, where\n he assimilates it to an \u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 (Polit. v. 5, 8; ii.\n 6, 18), with the description which Plutarch (Lycurg. 26) gives of\n that election.\n\nTaking the political constitution of Sparta ascribed to Lykurgus, it\nappears not to have differed materially from the rude organization\nexhibited in the Homeric poems, where we always find a council of\nchiefs or old men, and occasional meetings of a listening agora. It\nis hard to suppose that the Spartan kings can ever have governed\nwithout some formalities of this sort; so that the innovation\n(if innovation there really was) ascribed to Lykurgus, must have\nconsisted in some new details respecting the senate and the agora,\u2014in\nfixing the number[584] thirty, and the life-tenure of the former,\u2014and\nthe special place of meeting of the latter, as well as the extent of\nprivilege which it was to exercise; consecrating the whole by the\nerection of the temples of Zeus Hellanius and Ath\u00ean\u00ea Hellania. The\nview of the subject presented by Plutarch as well as by Plato,[585]\nas if the senate were an entire novelty, does not consist with the\npictures of the old epic. Hence we may more naturally imagine that\nthe Lykurgean political constitution, apart from the ephors who\nwere afterwards tacked to it, presents only the old features of the\nheroic government of Greece, defined and regularized in a particular\nmanner. The presence of two coexistent and coordinate kings, indeed,\nsucceeding in hereditary descent, and both belonging to the gens of\nHerakleids, is something peculiar to Sparta,\u2014the origin of which\nreceives no other explanation than a reference to the twin sons of\nAristod\u00eamus, Eurysthen\u00eas and Prokl\u00eas. These two primitive ancestors\nare a type of the two lines of Spartan kings; for they are said to\nhave passed their lives in perpetual dissensions, which was the\nhabitual state of the two contemporaneous kings at Sparta. While\nthe coexistence of the pair of kings, equal in power and constantly\nthwarting each other, had often a baneful effect upon the course\nof public measures, it was, nevertheless, a security to the state\nagainst successful violence,[586] ending in the establishment of a\ndespotism, on the part of any ambitious individual among the regal\nline.\n\n [584] Kopstadt agrees in this supposition, that the number of the\n senate was probably not peremptorily fixed before the Lykurgean\n reform (Dissertat. ut sup. sect. 13, p. 109).\n\n [585] Plato, Legg. iii. p. 691; Plato Epist. viii. p. 354, B.\n\n [586] Plato, Legg. iii. p. 691; Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 20.\n\nDuring five successive centuries of Spartan history, from Polyd\u00f4rus\nand Theopompus downward, no such violence was attempted by any of\nthe kings,[587] until the times of Agis the Third and Kleomen\u00eas the\nThird,\u2014240 B. C. to 220 B. C. The importance of Greece had at this\nlast-mentioned period irretrievably declined, and the independent\npolitical action which she once possessed had become subordinate\nto the more powerful force either of the \u00c6tolian mountaineers (the\nrudest among her own sons) or to Epirotic, Macedonian, and Asiatic\nforeigners, preparatory to the final absorption by the Romans.\nBut amongst all the Grecian states, Sparta had declined the most;\nher ascendency was totally gone, and her peculiar training and\ndiscipline (to which she had chiefly owed it) had degenerated in\nevery way. Under these untoward circumstances, two young kings,\nAgis and Kleomen\u00eas,\u2014the former a generous enthusiast, the latter\nmore violent and ambitious,\u2014conceived the design of restoring the\nLykurgean constitution in its supposed pristine purity, with the\nhope of reviving both the spirit of the people and the ascendency\nof the state. But the Lykurgean constitution had been, even in the\ntime of Xenophon,[588] in part, an _id\u00e9al_ not fully realized in\npractice\u2014much less was it a reality in the days of Kleomen\u00eas and\nAgis moreover, it was an _id\u00e9al_ which admitted of being colored\naccording to the fancy or feelings of those reformers who professed,\nand probably believed, that they were aiming at its genuine\nrestoration. What the reforming kings found most in their way, was\nthe uncontrolled authority, and the conservative dispositions, of the\nephors,\u2014which they naturally contrasted with the original fulness\nof the kingly power, when kings and senate stood alone. Among the\nvarious ways in which men\u2019s ideas of what the primitive constitution\n_had_ been, were modified by the feelings of their own time (we\nshall presently see some other instances of this), is probably to be\nreckoned the assertion of Kleomen\u00eas respecting the first appointment\nof the ephors. Kleomen\u00eas affirmed that the ephors had originally been\nnothing more than subordinates and deputies of the kings, chosen\nby the latter to perform for a time their duties during the long\nabsence of the Messenian war. Starting from this humble position,\nand profiting by the dissensions of the two kings,[589] they had in\nprocess of time, especially by the ambition of the ephor Aster\u00f4pus,\nfound means first to constitute themselves an independent board, then\nto usurp to themselves more and more of the kingly authority, until\nthey at last reduced the kings to a state of intolerable humiliation\nand impotence. As a proof of the primitive relation between the kings\nand the ephors, he alluded to that which was the custom at Sparta\nin his own time. When the ephors sent for either of the kings, the\nlatter had a right to refuse obedience to two successive summonses,\nbut the third summons he was bound to obey.[590]\n\n [587] The conspiracy of Pausanias, after the repulse of Xerxes,\n was against the liberty of combined Hellas, to constitute himself\n satrap of Hellas under the Persian monarch, rather than against\n the established Laced\u00e6monian government; though undoubtedly one\n portion of his project was to excite the Helots to revolt, and\n Aristotle treats him as specially aiming to put down the power of\n the ephors (Polit. v. 5, 6: compare Thucyd. i. 128-134; Herodot.\n v. 32).\n\n [588] Xenophon, Republic. Laced, c. 14.\n\n [589] Plutarch, Agis, c. 12. \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (the ephors)\n \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, etc.\n\n [590] Plutarch, Kleomen\u00eas, c. 10. \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, ~\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\n \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd~, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, etc.\n\nIt is obvious that the fact here adduced by Kleomen\u00eas (a curious\npoint in Spartan manners) contributes little to prove the conclusion\nwhich he deduced from it, of the original nomination of the ephors\nas mere deputies by the kings. That they were first appointed at the\ntime of the Messenian war is probable, and coincides with the tale\nthat king Theopompus was a consenting party to the measure,\u2014that\ntheir functions were at first comparatively circumscribed, and\nextended by successive encroachments, is also probable; but they\nseem to have been from the beginning a board of specially popular\norigin, in contraposition to the kings and the senate. One proof\nof this is to be found in the ancient oath, which was every month\ninterchanged between the kings and the ephors; the king swearing for\nhimself, that he would exercise his regal functions according to the\nestablished laws,\u2014the ephors swearing on behalf of the city, that\nhis authority should on that condition remain unshaken.[591] This\nmutual compact, which probably formed a part of the ceremony during\nthe monthly sacrifices offered by the king,[592] continued down to\na time when it must have become a pure form, and when the kings had\nlong been subordinate in power to the ephors. But it evidently began\nfirst as a reality,\u2014when the king was predominant and effective chief\nof the state, and when the ephors, clothed with functions chiefly\ndefensive, served as guarantees to the people against abuse of the\nregal authority. Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero,[593] all interpret the\noriginal institution of the ephors as designed to protect the people\nand restrain the kings: the latter assimilates them to the tribunes\nat Rome.\n\n [591] Xenophon, Republic. Laced\u00e6mon. c. 15. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f1c\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n [592] Herodot. vi. 57.\n\n [593] Plato, Legg. iii. p. 692; Aristot. Polit. v. 11, 1; Cicero\n de Republic. Fragm. ii. 33, ed. Maii\u2014\u201cUt contra consulare\n imperium tribuni plebis, sic illi (ephori) contra vim regiam\n constituti;\u201d\u2014also, De Legg. iii. 7. and Valer. Max. iv. 1.\n\n Compare Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 7: Tittmann, Griechisch.\n Staatsverfassung, p. 108, _seqq._\n\nSuch were the relations which had once subsisted between the kings\nand the ephors: though in later times these relations had been\nso completely reversed, that Polybius considers the former as\nessentially subordinate to the latter,\u2014reckoning it as a point of\nduty in the kings to respect the ephors \u201cas their fathers.\u201d[594]\nAnd such is decidedly the state of things throughout all the\nbetter-known period of history which we shall hereafter traverse.\nThe ephors are the general directors of public affairs[595] and the\nsupreme controlling board, holding in check every other authority\nin the state, without any assignable limit to their powers. The\nextraordinary ascendency of these magistrates is particularly\nmanifested in the fact stated by Aristotle, that they exempted\nthemselves from the public discipline, so that their self-indulgent\nyear of office stood in marked contrast with the toilsome exercises\nand sober mess common to rich and poor alike. The kings are reduced\nto a certain number of special functions, combined with privileges\npartly religious, partly honorary: their most important political\nattribute is, that they are _ex officio_ generals of the military\nforce on foreign expeditions. But even here, we trace the sensible\ndecline of their power. For whereas Herodotus was informed, and it\nprobably had been the old privilege, that the king could levy war\nagainst whomsoever he chose, and that no Spartan could impede him\non pain of committing sacrilege,[596]\u2014we shall see, throughout the\nbest-known periods of this history, that it is usually the ephors\n(with or without the senate and public assembly) who determine\nupon war,\u2014the king only takes the command when the army is put on\nthe march. Aristotle seems to treat the Spartan king as a sort of\nhereditary general; but even in this privilege, shackles were put\nupon him,\u2014for two, out of the five ephors, accompanied the army, and\ntheir power seems to have been not seldom invoked to insure obedience\nto his orders.[597]\n\n [594] Polyb. xxiv. 8.\n\n [595] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 14-16; \u1f18\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f18\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, etc.\n\n [596] Herodot. vi. 56.\n\n [597] Aristot. ii. 7, 4; Xenoph. Republ. Laced. c. 13. \u03a0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u00ed\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd, Xenoph. Hellen. ii. 4,\n 29; \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u1fc3\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f1c\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, iii. 2, 23.\n\n A special restriction was put on the functions of the king,\n as military commander-in-chief, in 417 B. C., after the\n ill-conducted expedition of Agis, son of Archidamus, against\n Argos. It was then provided that ten Spartan counsellors should\n always accompany the king in every expedition (Thucyd. v. 63).\n\nThe direct political powers of the kings were thus greatly curtailed;\nyet importance, in many ways, was still left to them. They possessed\nlarge royal domains, in many of the townships of the Peri\u0153ki:\nthey received frequent occasional presents, and when victims were\noffered to the gods, the skins and other portions belonged to them\nas perquisites:[598] they had their votes in the senate, which,\nif they were absent, were given on their behalf, by such of the\nother senators as were most nearly related to them: the adoption of\nchildren received its formal accomplishment in their presence,\u2014and\nconflicting claims at law, for the hand of an unbequeathed orphan\nheiress, were adjudicated by them. But above all, their root was deep\nin the religious feelings of the people. Their pre\u00ebminent lineage\nconnected the entire state with a divine paternity. They, the chiefs\nof the Herakleids, were the special grantees of the soil of Sparta\nfrom the gods,\u2014the occupation of the Dorians being only sanctified\nand blest by Zeus for the purpose of establishing the children of\nH\u00earakl\u00eas in the valley of the Eurotas.[599] They represented the\nstate in its relations with the gods, being by right priests of\nZeus Laced\u00e6mon, (the ideas of the god and the country coalescing\ninto one), and of Zeus Uranius, and offering the monthly sacrifices\nnecessary to insure divine protection to the people. Though\nindividual persons might sometimes be put aside, nothing short of a\nnew divine revelation could induce the Spartans to step out of the\ngenuine lineage of Eurysthen\u00eas and Prokl\u00eas. Moreover, the remarkable\nmourning ceremony, which took place at the death of every king, seems\nto indicate that the two kingly families\u2014which counted themselves\nAch\u00e6an,[600] not Dorian\u2014were considered as the great common bond\nof union between the three component parts of the population of\nLaconia,\u2014Spartans, Peri\u0153ki, and Helots. Not merely was it required,\non this occasion, that two members of every house in Sparta should\nappear in sackcloth and ashes,\u2014but the death of the king was formally\nmade known throughout every part of Laconia, and deputies from the\ntownships of the Peri\u0153ki, and the villages of the Helots, to the\nnumber of several thousand, were summoned to Sparta to take their\nshare in the profuse and public demonstrations of sorrow,[601] which\nlasted for ten days, and which imparted to the funeral obsequies a\nsuperhuman solemnity. Nor ought we to forget, in enumerating the\nprivileges of the Spartan king, that he (conjointly with two officers\ncalled Pythii, nominated by him,) carried on the communications\nbetween the state and the temple of Delphi, and had the custody of\noracles and prophecies generally. In most of the Grecian states, such\ninspired declarations were treasured up, and consulted in cases of\npublic emergency: but the intercourse of Sparta with the Delphian\noracle was peculiarly frequent and intimate, and the responses of\nthe Pythian priestess met with more reverential attention from the\nSpartans than from any other Greeks.[602] So much the more important\nwere the king\u2019s functions, as the medium of this intercourse: the\noracle always upheld his dignity, and often even seconded his\nunderhand personal schemes.[603]\n\n [598] The hide-money (\u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd) arising from the numerous\n victims offered at public sacrifices at Athens, is accounted for\n as a special item of the public revenue in the careful economy of\n that city: see Boeckh, Public Econ. of Athens, iii. 7, p. 333;\n Eng. Trans. Corpus Inscription. No. 157.\n\n [599] Tyrt\u00e6us, Fragm. 1, ed. Bergk; Strabo, xviii. p. 362:\u2014\n\n \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2\n \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7\n \u039f\u1f36\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n Compare Thucyd. v. 16; Herodot. v. 39; Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 3, 3;\n Plutarch, Lysand. c. 22.\n\n [600] Herod, v. 72. See the account in Plutarch, of the abortive\n stratagem of Lysander, to make the kingly dignity elective,\n by putting forward a youth who passed for the son of Apollo\n (Plutarch, Lysand. c. 25-26).\n\n [601] Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 3, 1. \u1f0c\u03b3\u03b9\u03c2\u2014\u1f14\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n [602] For the privileges of the Spartan kings, see Herodot. vi.\n 56-57; Xenophon, Republ. Laced. c. 15; Plato, Alcib. i. p. 123.\n\n [603] Herodot. vi. 66, and Thucyd. v. 16, furnish examples of\n this.\n\nSustained by so great a force of traditional reverence, a Spartan\nking, of military talent and individual energy, like Agesilaus,\nexercised great ascendency; but such cases were very rare, and we\nshall find the king throughout the historical period only a secondary\nforce, available on special occasions. For real political orders,\nin the greatest cases as well as the least, the Spartan looks to\nthe council of ephors, to whom obedience is paid with a degree of\nprecision which nothing short of the Spartan discipline could have\nbrought about,\u2014by the most powerful citizens not less than by the\nmeanest.[604] Both the internal police and the foreign affairs of\nthe state are in the hands of the ephors, who exercise an authority\napproaching to despotism, and altogether without accountability.\nThey appoint and direct the body of three hundred young and active\ncitizens, who performed the immediate police service of Laconia: they\ncashier at pleasure any subordinate functionary, and inflict fine or\narrest at their own discretion: they assemble the military force, on\noccasion of foreign war, and determine its destination, though the\nking has the actual command of it: they imprison on suspicion even\nthe regent or the king himself:[605] they sit as judges, sometimes\nindividually and sometimes as a board, upon causes and complaints\nof great moment, and they judge without the restraint of written\nlaws, the use of which was peremptorily forbidden by a special\nRhetra,[606] erroneously connected with Lykurgus himself, but at any\nrate ancient. On certain occasions of peculiar moment, they take the\nsense of the senate and the public assembly,[607]\u2014such seems to have\nbeen the habit on questions of war and peace. It appears, however,\nthat persons charged with homicide, treason, or capital offences\ngenerally, were tried before the senate. We read of several instances\nin which the kings were tried and severely fined, and in which their\nhouses were condemned to be razed to the ground, probably by the\nsenate, on the proposition of the ephors: in one instance, it seems\nthat the ephors inflicted by their own authority a fine even upon\nAgesilaus.[608]\n\n [604] Xenophon, Republ. Laced. c. 8, 2, and Agesilaus, cap. 7, 2.\n\n [605] Xenoph. Rep. Laced. 8, 4; Thucydid. i. 131; Aristot. Polit.\n ii. 6,14\u2014\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Plutarch, Lycurg. c.\n 13.\u2014\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n Plato, in his Republic, in like manner disapproves of any general\n enactments, tying up beforehand the discretion of perfectly\n educated men, like his guardians, who will always do what is best\n on each special occasion (Republic, iv. p. 425).\n\n [606] Besides the primitive constitutional Rhetra mentioned\n above, page 345, various other Rhetr\u00e6 are also attributed to\n Lykurgus: and Plutarch singles out three under the title of \u201cThe\n Three Rhetr\u00e6,\u201d as if they were either the only genuine Lykurgean\n Rhetr\u00e6, or at least stood distinguished by some peculiar sanctity\n from all others (Plutarch, Qu\u00e6st. Roman. c. 87. Agesilaus, c. 26).\n\n These three were (Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 13; comp. Apophth. Lacon.\n p. 227): 1. Not to resort to written laws. 2. Not to employ in\n house-building any other tools than the axe and the saw. 3. Not\n to undertake military expeditions often against the same enemies.\n\n I agree with Nitzsch (Histor. Homer. pp. 61-65) that these\n Rhetr\u00e6, though doubtless not actually Lykurgean, are,\n nevertheless, ancient (that is, probably dating somewhere between\n 650-550 B. C.) and not the mere fictions of recent writers,\n as Sch\u00f6mann (Ant. Jur. Pub. iv. 1; xiv. p. 132) and Urlichs\n (p. 241) seem to believe. And though Plutarch specifies the\n number _three_, yet there seems to have been still more, as the\n language of Tyrt\u00e6us must be held to indicate: out of which, from\n causes which we do not now understand, the three which Plutarch\n distinguishes excited particular notice.\n\n These maxims or precepts of state were probably preserved along\n with the dicta of the Delphian oracle, from which authority,\n doubtless, many of them may have emanated,\u2014such as the famous\n ancient prophecy \u1f09 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u03a3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f41\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd\n (Krebs, Lectiones Diodore\u00e6, p. 140. Aristotel. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd,\n ap. Schol. ad Eurip. Andromach. 446. Sch\u00f6mann, Comm. ad Plutarch.\n Ag. et Cleomen. p. 123).\n\n Nitzsch has good remarks in explanation of the prohibition\n against \u201cusing written laws.\u201d This prohibition was probably\n called forth by the circumstance that other Grecian states were\n employing lawgivers like Zaleukus, Drako, Charondas, or Solon,\u2014to\n present them, at once, with a series of written enactments, or\n provisions. Some Spartans may have proposed that an analogous\n lawgiver should be nominated for Sparta: upon which proposition a\n negative was put in the most solemn manner possible, by a formal\n Rhetra, perhaps passed after advice from Delphi. There is no such\n contradiction, therefore, (when we thus conceive the event,) as\n some authors represent, in forbidding the use of written laws by\n a Rhetra itself, put into writing. To employ a phrase in greater\n analogy with modern controversies\u2014\u201cThe Spartans, on the direction\n of the oracle, resolve to retain their unwritten common law, and\n not to codify.\u201d\n\n [607] \u1f1c\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 (Xen. Hellen. iii. 2,\n 23).\n\n [608] The case of _Leotychides_, Herod. vi. 72; of _Pleistoanax_,\n Thucyd. ii. 21-v. 16; _Agis the Second_, Thucyd. v. 63; _Agis the\n Third_, Plutarch, Agis, c. 19: see Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 5.\n\n Respecting the ephors generally, see Wachsmuth, Hellen.\n Alterthumskunde, v. 4, 42, vol. i. p. 223; Cragius, Rep. Lac. ii.\n 4, p. 121.\n\n Aristotle distinctly marks the ephors as \u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9: so that the\n story alluded to briefly in the Rhetoric (iii. 18) is not easy to\n be understood.\n\nWar and peace appear to have been submitted, on most, if not on all\noccasions, to the senate and the public assembly; no matter could\nreach the latter until it had passed through the former. And we find\nsome few occasions on which the decision of the public assembly was a\nreal expression of opinion, and operative as to the result,\u2014as, for\nexample, the assembly which immediately preceded and resolved upon\nthe Peloponnesian war. Here, in addition to the serious hazard of the\ncase, and the general caution of a Spartan temperament, there was\nthe great personal weight and experience of king Archidamus opposed\nto the war, though the ephors were favorable to it.[609] The public\nassembly, under such peculiar circumstances, really manifested an\nopinion and came to a division. But, for the most part, it seems to\nhave been little better than an inoperative formality. The general\nrule permitted no open discussion, nor could any private citizen\nspeak except by special leave from the magistrates. Perhaps even\nthe general liberty to discuss, if given, might have been of no\navail, for not only was there no power of public speaking, but no\nhabit of canvassing public measures, at Sparta; nothing was more\ncharacteristic of the government than the extreme secrecy of its\nproceedings.[610] The propositions brought forward by the magistrates\nwere either accepted or rejected, without any license of amending.\nThere could be no attraction to invite the citizen to be present at\nsuch an assembly: and we may gather from the language of Xenophon\nthat, in his time, it consisted only of a certain number of notables\nspecially summoned in addition to the senate, which latter body is\nitself called \u201cthe lesser Ekklesia.[611]\u201d Indeed, the constant and\nformidable diminution in the number of qualified citizens was alone\nsufficient to thin the attendance of the assembly, as well as to\nbreak down any imposing force which it might once have possessed.\n\n [609] Thucyd. i. 67, 80, 87. \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c9\u03b8\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n [610] Thucyd. iv. 68. \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd: compare iv. 74;\n also, his remarkable expression about so distinguished a man as\n Brasidas, \u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b1\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, and iv.\n 24, about the Laced\u00e6monian envoys to Athens. Compare Sch\u00f6mann,\n Antiq. Jur. Pub. Gr\u00e6c. iv. 1, 10, p. 122. Aristotel. Polit. ii.\n 8, 3.\n\n [611] \u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 3,\n 8), which means the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, or senate, and none besides, except\n the ephors, who convoked it. (See Lachmann, Spart. Verfass. sect.\n 12, p. 216.) What is still more to be noted, is the expression\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f14\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 as the equivalent of \u1f21 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 (compare Hellen. v.\n 2, 11; vi. 3, 3), evidently showing a special and limited number\n of persons convened: see, also, ii. 4, 38; iv. 6, 3; v. 2, 33;\n Thucyd. v. 77.\n\n The expression \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f14\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 could never have got into use as an\n equivalent for the Athenian ecclesia.\n\nAn assembly thus circumstanced,\u2014though always retained as a\nformality, and though its consent on considerable matters and for the\npassing of laws (which, however, seems to have been a rare occurrence\nat Sparta) was indispensable,\u2014could be very little of a practical\ncheck upon the administration of the ephors. The senate, a permanent\nbody, with the kings included in it, was the only real check upon\nthem, and must have been to a certain extent a concurrent body in\nthe government,\u2014though the large and imposing language in which\nits political supremacy is spoken of by Demosthen\u00eas and Isokrat\u00eas\nexceeds greatly the reality of the case. Its most important function\nwas that of a court of criminal justice, before whom every man put\non trial for his life was arraigned.[612] But both in this and in\ntheir other duties, we find the senators as well as the kings and\nthe ephors charged with corruption and venality.[613] As they were\nnot appointed until sixty years of age, and then held their offices\nfor life, we may readily believe that some of them continued to act\nafter the period of extreme and disqualifying senility,\u2014which, though\nthe extraordinary respect of the Laced\u00e6monians for old age would\ndoubtless tolerate it, could not fail to impair the influence of the\nbody as a concurrent element of government.\n\n [612] Xenoph. Republ. Laced. 10; Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 17; iii.\n 1, 7; Demosthen. cont. Leptin. c. 23, p. 489; Isokrat\u00eas, Or.\n xii. (Panathenaic.) p. 266. The language of Demosthen\u00eas seems\n particularly inaccurate.\n\n Plutarch (Agesilaus, c. 32), on occasion of some suspected\n conspirators, who were put to death by Agesilaus and the\n ephors, when Sparta was in imminent danger from the attack of\n Epameinondas, asserts, that this was the first time that any\n Spartan had ever been put to death without trial.\n\n [613] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 18. Compare, also, Thucydid.\n i. 131, about the guilty Pausanias,\u2014\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd; Herodot. v. 72; Thucyd. v. 16,\u2014about\n the kings Leotychides and Pleistoanax; the brave and able\n Gylippus,\u2014Plutarch, Lysand. c. 16.\n\nThe brief sketch here given of the Spartan government will show\nthat, though Greek theorists found a difficulty in determining\nunder what class they should arrange it,[614] it was in substance\na close, unscrupulous, and well-obeyed oligarchy,\u2014including within\nit, as subordinate, those portions which had once been dominant,\nthe kings and the senate, and softening the odium, without abating\nthe mischief, of the system, by its annual change of the ruling\nephors. We must at the same time distinguish the government from\nthe Lykurgean discipline and education, which doubtless tended much\nto equalize rich and poor, in respect to practical life, habits,\nand enjoyments. Herodotus (and seemingly, also, Xenophon) thought\nthat the form just described was that which the government had\noriginally received from the hand of Lykurgus. Now, though there is\ngood reason for supposing otherwise, and for believing the ephors\nto be a subsequent addition,\u2014yet, the mere fact that Herodotus\nwas so informed at Sparta, points our attention to one important\nattribute of the Spartan polity, which it is proper to bring into\nview. This attribute is, its unparalleled steadiness, for four or\nfive successive centuries, in the midst of governments like the\nGrecian, all of which had undergone more or less of fluctuation.\nNo considerable revolution\u2014not even any palpable or formal\nchange\u2014occurred in it, from the days of the Messenian war, down to\nthose of Agis the Third: in spite of the irreparable blow which\nthe power and territory of the state sustained from Epameinondas\nand the Thebans, the form of government, nevertheless, remained\nunchanged. It was the only government in Greece which could trace\nan unbroken, peaceable descent from a high antiquity, and from its\nreal or supposed founder. Now this was one of the main circumstances\n(among others which will hereafter be mentioned) of the astonishing\nascendency which the Spartans acquired over the Hellenic mind, and\nwhich they will not be found at all to deserve by any superior\nability in the conduct of affairs. The steadiness of their political\nsympathies,\u2014exhibited at one time, by putting down the tyrants,\nor despots, at another, by overthrowing the democracies,\u2014stood in\nthe place of ability; and even the recognized failings of their\ngovernment were often covered by the sentiment of respect for\nits early commencement and uninterrupted continuance. If such a\nfeeling acted on the Greeks generally,[615] much more powerful\nwas its action upon the Spartans themselves, in inflaming that\nhaughty exclusiveness for which they stood distinguished. And it is\nto be observed that the Spartan mind continued to be cast on the\nold-fashioned scale, and unsusceptible of modernizing influences,\nlonger than that of most other people of Greece. The ancient\nlegendary faith, and devoted submission to the Delphian oracle,\nremained among them unabated, at a time when various influences had\nconsiderably undermined it among their fellow-Hellens and neighbors.\nBut though the unchanged title and forms of the government thus\ncontributed to its imposing effect, both at home and abroad, the\ncauses of internal degeneracy were not the less really at work, in\nundermining its efficiency. It has been already stated, that the\nnumber of qualified citizens went on continually diminishing, and\neven of this diminished number a larger proportion than before were\nneedy, since the landed property tended constantly to concentrate\nitself in fewer hands. There grew up in this way a body of\ndiscontent, which had not originally existed, both among the poorer\ncitizens, and among those who had lost their franchise as citizens;\nthus aggravating the danger arising from Peri\u0153ki and Helots, who will\nbe presently noticed.\n\n [614] The ephors are sometimes considered as a democratical\n element, because every Spartan citizen had a chance of becoming\n ephor; sometimes as a despotical element, because in the exercise\n of their power they were subject to little restraint and no\n responsibility: see Plato, Legg. iv. p. 712; Aristot. Polit. ii.\n 3, 10; iv. 7, 4, 5.\n\n [615] A specimen of the way in which this antiquity was lauded,\n may be seen in Isokrat\u00eas, Or. xii. (Panathenaic.) p. 288.\n\nWe pass from the political constitution of Sparta to the civil\nranks and distribution, economical relations, and lastly, the\npeculiar system of habits, education, and discipline, said to have\nbeen established among the Laced\u00e6monians by Lykurgus. Here, again,\nwe shall find ourselves imperfectly informed as to the existing\ninstitutions, and surrounded by confusion when we try to explain how\nthose institutions arose.\n\nIt seems, however, ascertained that the Dorians, in all their\nsettlements, were divided into three tribes,\u2014the Hylleis, the\nPamphyli, and the Dymanes: in all Dorian cities, moreover, there\nwere distinguished Herakleid families, from whom \u0153kists were chosen\nwhen new colonies were formed. These three tribes can be traced at\nArgos, Siky\u00f4n, Epidaurus, Tr\u0153z\u00ean, Megara, Korkyra, and seemingly,\nalso, at Sparta.[616] The Hylleis recognized, as their eponym and\nprogenitor, Hyllus, the son of H\u00earakl\u00eas, and were therefore, in\ntheir own belief, descended from H\u00earakl\u00eas himself: we may suppose the\nHerakleids, specially so called, comprising the two regal families,\nto have been the elder brethren of the tribe of Hylleis, the whole\nof whom are sometimes spoken of as Herakleids, or descendants of\nH\u00earakl\u00eas.[617] But there seem to have been also at Sparta, as\nin other Dorian towns, non-Dorian inhabitants, apart from these\nthree tribes, and embodied in tribes of their own. One of these,\nthe \u00c6geids, said to have come from Thebes as allies of the Dorian\ninvaders, is named by Aristotle, Pindar, and Herodotus,[618]\u2014while\nthe \u00c6gialeis at Siky\u00f4n, the tribe Hyrn\u00eathia at Argos and Epidaurus,\nand others, whose titles we do not know, at Corinth, represent,\nin like manner, the non-Dorian portions of their respective\ncommunities.[619] At Corinth, the total number of tribes is said\nto have been eight.[620] But at Sparta, though we seem to make out\nthe existence of the three Dorian tribes, we do not know how many\ntribes there were in all: still less do we know what relation the\nOb\u00e6, or Obes, another subordinate distribution of the people, bore\nto the tribes. In the ancient Rhetra of Lykurgus, the Tribes and\nOb\u00eas are directed to be maintained unaltered: but the statement\nof O. M\u00fcller and Boeckh[621]\u2014that there were thirty Ob\u00eas in all,\nten to each tribe\u2014rests upon no other evidence than a peculiar\npunctuation of this Rhetra, which various other critics reject; and\nseemingly, with good reason. We are thus left without any information\nrespecting the Ob\u00ea, though we know that it was an old, peculiar,\nand lasting division among the Spartan people, since it occurs in\nthe oldest Rhetra of Lykurgus, as well as in late inscriptions of\nthe date of the Roman empire. In similar inscriptions, and in the\naccount of Pausanias, there is, however, recognized a classification\nof Spartans distinct from and independent of the three old Dorian\ntribes, and founded upon the different quarters of the city,\u2014Limn\u00e6,\nMesoa, Pitan\u00ea, and Kynosura;[622] from one of these four was derived\nthe usual description of a Spartan in the days of Herodotus. There\nis reason to suppose that the old Dorian tribes became antiquated\nat Sparta, (as the four old Ionian tribes did at Athens,) and that\nthe topical classification derived from the quarters of the city\nsuperseded it,\u2014these quarters having been originally the separate\nvillages, of the aggregate of which Sparta was composed.[623] That\nthe number of the old senators, thirty, was connected with the three\nDorian tribes, deriving ten members from each, is probable enough,\nthough there is no proof of it.\n\n [616] Herodot. v. 68; Stephan. Byz. \u1f59\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 and \u0394\u03c5\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd; O. M\u00fcller,\n Dorians, iii. 5, 2; Boeckh ad Corp. Inscrip. No. 1123.\n\n Thucyd. i. 24, about Phalius, the Herakleid, at Corinth.\n\n [617] See Tyrt\u00e6us, Fragm. 8, 1, ed. Schneidewin, and Pindar,\n Pyth. i. 61. v. 71, where the expressions \u201cdescendants of\n H\u00earakl\u00eas\u201d plainly comprehend more than the two kingly families.\n Plutarch, Lysand. c. 22; Diodor. xi. 58.\n\n [618] Herodot. iv. 149; Pindar, Pyth. v. 67; Aristot. \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd.\n \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4. p. 127, Fragm. ed. Neuman. The Talthybiad\u00e6, or heralds, at\n Sparta, formed a family or caste apart (Herod. vii. 134).\n\n O. M\u00fcller supposes, without any proof, that the \u00c6geids _must_\n have been adopted into one of the three Dorian tribes; this is\n one of the corollaries from his fundamental supposition, that\n Sparta is the type of pure Dorism (vol. ii. p. 78). Kopstadt\n thinks (Dissertat. p. 67) that I have done injustice to O.\n M\u00fcller, in not assenting to his proof: but, on studying the point\n over again, I can see no reason for modifying what is here stated\n in the text. The Section of Sch\u00f6mann\u2019s work (Antiq. Jur. Publ.\n Gr\u00e6c. iv. 1, 6, p. 115) on this subject asserts a great deal more\n than can be proved.\n\n [619] Herod. v. 68-92; Boeckh, Corp. Inscrip. Nos. 1130, 1131;\n Stephan. Byz. v. \u1f59\u03c1\u03bd\u03af\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; Pausan. ii. 28, 3.\n\n [620] Photius \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u03ce; also. Proverb. Vatic. Suidas, xi. 64;\n compare Hesychius, v. \u039a\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n [621] M\u00fcller, Dorians, iii. 5, 3-7; Boeckh ad Corp. Inscription.\n part iv. sect. 3, p. 609.\n\n [622] Pausan. iii. 16, 6; Herodot. iii. 55; Boeckh, Corp.\n Inscript. Nos. 1241, 1338, 1347, 1425; Steph. Byz. v. \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03b1;\n Strabo, viii. p. 364; Hesych. v. \u03a0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n There is much confusion and discrepancy of opinion about the\n Spartan tribes. Cragius admits six (De Republ. Lacon. i. 6);\n Meursius, eight (Rep. Lacon. i. 7): Barth\u00e9lemy (Voyage du Jeune\n Anacharsis, iv. p. 185) makes them five. Manso has discussed the\n subject at large, but I think not very satisfactorily, in the\n eighth Beilage to the first book of his History of Sparta (vol.\n ii. p. 125); and Dr. Thirwall\u2019s second Appendix (vol. i. p. 517)\n both notices all the different modern opinions on this obscure\n topic, and adds several useful criticisms. Our scanty stock of\n original evidence leaves much room for divergent hypotheses, and\n little chance of any certain conclusion.\n\n [623] Thucyd. i. 10.\n\nOf the population of Laconia, three main divisions are\nrecognized,\u2014Spartans, Peri\u0153ki, and Helots. The first of the three\nwere the full qualified citizens, who lived in Sparta itself,\nfulfilled all the exigences of the Lykurgean discipline, paid their\nquota to the Syssitia, or public mess, and were alone eligible to\nhonors[624] or public offices. These men had neither time, nor\ntaste even, for cultivation of the land, still less for trade or\nhandicraft: such occupations were inconsistent with the prescribed\ntraining, even if they had not been positively interdicted. They\nwere maintained from the lands round the city, and from the large\nproportion of Laconia which belonged to them; the land being\ntilled for them by Helots, who seem to have paid over to them a\nfixed proportion of the produce; in some cases, at least, as much\nas one-half.[625] Each Spartan retained his qualification, and\ntransmitted it to his children, on two conditions,\u2014first, that of\nsubmitting to the prescribed discipline; next, that of paying, each,\nhis stipulated quota to the public mess, which was only maintained\nby these individual contributions. The multiplication of children\nin the poorer families, after acquisitions of new territory ceased,\ncontinually augmented both the number and the proportion of citizens\nwho were unable to fulfil the second of these conditions, and who\ntherefore lost their franchise: so that there arose towards the\nclose of the Peloponnesian war, a distinction, among the Spartans\nthemselves, unknown to the earlier times,\u2014the reduced number of\nfully qualified citizens being called The Equals, or Peers,\u2014the\ndisfranchised poor, The Inferiors. The latter, disfranchised as they\nwere, nevertheless, did not become Peri\u0153ki: it was probably still\ncompetent to them to resume their qualification, should any favorable\naccident enable them to make their contributions to the public mess.\n\n [624] One or two Peri\u0153kic officers appear in military command\n towards the end of the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. viii. 6, 22),\n but these seem rare exceptions, even as to foreign service by sea\n or land, while a Peri\u0153kus, as magistrate at Sparta, was unheard\n of.\n\n [625] One half was paid by the enslaved Messenians (Tyrt\u00e6us,\n Frag. 4, Bergk): \u1f25\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nThe Peri\u0153kus was also a freeman and a citizen, not of Sparta, but\nof some one of the hundred townships of Laconia.[626] Both he and\nthe community to which he belonged received their orders only from\nSparta, having no political sphere of their own, and no share in\ndetermining the movements of the Spartan authorities. In the island\nof Kyth\u00eara,[627] which formed one of the Peri\u0153kic townships, a\nSpartan bailiff resided as administrator. But whether the same was\nthe case with others, we cannot affirm: nor is it safe to reason\nfrom one of these townships to all,\u2014there may have been considerable\ndifferences in the mode of dealing with one and another. For they\nwere spread through the whole of Laconia, some near and some distant\nfrom Sparta: the free inhabitants of Amykl\u00e6 must have been Peri\u0153ki,\nas well as those of Kyth\u00eara, Thuria, \u00c6theia, or Aul\u00f4n: nor can we\npresume that the feeling on the part of the Spartan authorities\ntowards all of them was the same. Between the Spartans and their\nneighbors, the numerous Peri\u0153ki of Amykl\u00e6, there must have subsisted\na degree of intercourse and mutual relation in which the more distant\nPeri\u0153ki did not partake,\u2014besides, that both the religious edifices\nand the festivals of Amykl\u00e6 were most reverentially adopted by\nthe Spartans and exalted into a national dignity: and we seem to\nperceive, on some occasions, a degree of consideration manifested\nfor the Amykl\u00e6an hoplites,[628] such as perhaps other Peri\u0153ki might\nnot have obtained. The class-name, Peri\u0153ki,[629]\u2014circumresidents,\nor dwellers around the city,\u2014usually denoted native inhabitants of\ninferior political condition as contrasted with the full-privileged\nburghers who lived in the city, but it did not mark any precise or\nuniform degree of inferiority. It is sometimes so used by Aristotle\nas to imply a condition no better than that of the Helots, so that,\nin a large sense, all the inhabitants of Laconia (Helots as well as\nthe rest) might have been included in it. But when used in reference\nto Laconia, it bears a technical sense, whereby it is placed in\ncontraposition with the Spartan on one side, and with the Helot\non the other: it means, native freemen and proprietors, grouped\nin subordinate communities[630] with more or less power of local\nmanagement, but (like the subject towns belonging to Bern, Zurich,\nand most of the old thirteen cantons of Switzerland) embodied in the\nLaced\u00e6monian aggregate, which was governed exclusively by the kings,\nsenate, and citizens of Sparta.\n\n [626] Strabo, viii. p. 362. Stephanus Byz. alludes to this total\n of one hundred townships in his notice of several different\n items among them,\u2014\u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u2014\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd; also, v.\n \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2, \u0392\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, \u0394\u03c5\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, etc: but he probably copied Strabo,\n and, therefore, cannot pass for a distinct authority. The total\n of one hundred townships belongs to the maximum of Spartan power,\n after the conquest and before the severance of Messenia; for\n Aul\u00f4n, Boi\u00e6, and Meth\u00f4n\u00ea (the extreme places) are included among\n them.\n\n Mr. Clinton (Fast. Hellen. ii. p. 401) has collected the names of\n above sixty out of the one hundred.\n\n [627] Thucyd. iv. 53.\n\n [628] Xenophon, Hellen. iv. 5, 11; Herod. ix. 7; Thucyd. v.\n 18-23. The Amykl\u00e6an festival of the Hyacinthia, and the Amykl\u00e6an\n temple of Apollo, seem to stand foremost in the mind of the\n Spartan authorities. \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd (Thucyd.\n iv. 8), who are ready before the rest, and march against the\n Athenians at Pylus, probably include the Amykl\u00e6ans.\n\n Laconia generally is called by Thucydid\u00eas (iii. 16) as the\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76\u03c2 of Sparta.\n\n [629] The word \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 is sometimes used to signify simply\n \u201csurrounding neighbor states,\u201d in its natural geographical sense:\n see Thucyd. i. 17, and Aristot. Polit. ii. 7, 1.\n\n But the more usual employment of it is, to mean, the unprivileged\n or less privileged members of the same political aggregate living\n without the city, in contrast with the full-privileged burghers\n who lived within it. Aristotle uses it to signify, in Kr\u00eate,\n the class corresponding to the Laced\u00e6monian Helots (Pol. ii. 7,\n 3): there did not exist in Kr\u00eate any class corresponding to the\n Laced\u00e6monian Peri\u0153ki. In Kr\u00eate, there were not two stages of\n inferiority,\u2014there was only one, and that one is marked by the\n word \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9; while the Laced\u00e6monian Peri\u0153kus had the Helot\n below him. To an Athenian the word conveyed the idea of undefined\n degradation.\n\n To understand better the _status_ of the Peri\u0153kus, we may\n contrast him with the Met\u0153kus, or Metic. The latter resides\n in the city, but he is an alien resident on sufferance, not a\n native: he pays a special tax, stands excluded from all political\n functions, and cannot even approach the magistrate except through\n a friendly citizen, or Prostat\u00eas (\u03b5\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u2014Lycurgus\n cont. Leocrat. c. 21-53): he bears arms for the defence of the\n state. The situation of a Metic was, however, very different\n in different cities of Greece. At Athens, that class were\n well-protected in person and property, numerous and domiciliated:\n at Sparta, there were at first none,\u2014the Xen\u00ealasy excluded them;\n but this must have been relaxed long before the days of Agis the\n Third.\n\n The Peri\u0153kus differs from the Metic, in being a native of the\n soil, subject by birth to the city law.\n\n M. Kopstadt (in his Dissertation above cited, on Laced\u00e6monian\n affairs, sect. 7, p. 60) expresses much surprise at that which\n I advance in this note respecting Kr\u00eate and Laced\u00e6mon,\u2014that in\n Kr\u00eate there was no class of men analogous to the Laced\u00e6monian\n Peri\u0153ki, but only two classes,\u2014_i. e._ free citizens and Helots.\n He thinks that this position is \u201cprorsus falsum.\u201d\n\n But I advance nothing more here than what is distinctly stated\n by Aristotle, as Kopstadt himself admits (pp. 60, 71). Aristotle\n calls the subject class in Kr\u00eate by the name of \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9. And\n in this case, the general presumptions go far to sustain the\n authority of Aristotle. For Sparta was a dominant or capital\n city, including in its dependence not only a considerable\n territory, but a considerable number of inferior, distinct,\n organized townships. In Kr\u00eate, on the contrary, each autonomous\n state included only a town with its circumjacent territory, but\n without any annexed townships. There was, therefore, no basis\n for the intermediate class called, in Laconia, Peri\u0153ki: just as\n Kopstadt himself remarks (p. 78) about the Dorian city of Megara.\n There were only the two classes of free Kr\u00eatan citizens, and\n serf-cultivators in various modifications and subdivisions.\n\n Kopstadt (following Hoeck, Kr\u00eata, b. iii. vol. iii. p. 23) says\n that the authority of Aristotle on this point is overborne by\n that of Dosiadas and Sosikrat\u00eas,\u2014authors who wrote specially on\n Kr\u00eatan affairs. Now if we were driven to make a choice, I confess\n that I should prefer the testimony of Aristotle,\u2014considering\n that we know little or nothing respecting the other two. But in\n this case I do not think that we are driven to make a choice:\n Dosiadas (ap. Athen\u00e6. xiv. p. 143) is not cited in terms, so that\n we cannot affirm him to contradict Aristotle: and Sosikrat\u00eas\n (upon whom Hoeck and Kopstadt rely) says something which does not\n necessarily contradict him, but admits of being explained so as\n to place the two witnesses in harmony with each other.\n\n Sosikrat\u00eas says (ap. Athen\u00e6. vi. p. 263), \u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u039a\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Now the word \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 seems to be here\n used just as Aristotle would have used it, to comprehend the\n Kr\u00eatan serfs universally: it is not distinguished from \u03bc\u03bd\u03ce\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n and \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, but comprehends both of them as different species\n under a generic term. The authority of Aristotle affords a reason\n for preferring to construe the passage in this manner, and the\n words appear to me to admit of it fairly.\n\n [630] The \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 of the Laced\u00e6monian Peri\u0153ki are often noticed:\n see Xenophon (Agesilaus, ii. 24; Laced. Repub. xv. 3; Hellenic.\n vi. 5, 21).\n\nWhen we come to describe the democracy of Athens after the revolution\nof Kleisthenes, we shall find the demes, or local townships and\nvillages of Attica, incorporated as equal and constituent fractions\nof the integer called The Deme (or The City) of Athens, so that a\ndemot of Acharn\u00e6 or Sph\u00eattus is at the same time a full Athenian\ncitizen. But the relation of the Peri\u0153kic townships to Sparta is\none of inequality and obedience, though both belong to the same\npolitical aggregate, and make up together the free Laced\u00e6monian\ncommunity. In like manner, Orne\u00e6 and other places were townships of\nmen personally free, but politically dependent on Argos,\u2014Akr\u00e6phi\u00e6\non Thebes,\u2014Ch\u00e6roneia on Orchomenus,\u2014and various Thessalian towns\non Pharsalus and Larissa.[631] Such, moreover, was, in the main,\nthe state into which Athens would have brought her allies, and\nThebes the free B\u0153otian communities,[632] if the policy of either\nof these cities had permanently prospered. This condition carried\nwith it a sentiment of degradation, and a painful negation of that\nautonomy for which every Grecian community thirsted; while being\nmaintained through superior force, it had a natural tendency, perhaps\nwithout the deliberate wish of the reigning city, to degenerate into\npractical oppression. But in addition to this general tendency, the\npeculiar education of a Spartan, while it imparted force, fortitude,\nand regimental precision, was at the same time so rigorously\npeculiar, that it rendered him harsh, unaccommodating, and incapable\nof sympathizing with the ordinary march of Grecian feeling,\u2014not to\nmention the rapacity and love of money, which is attested, by good\nevidence, as belonging to the Spartan character,[633] and which\nwe should hardly have expected to find in the pupils of Lykurgus.\nAs Harmosts out of their native city,[634] and in relations with\ninferiors, the Spartans seem to have been more unpopular than other\nGreeks, and we may presume that a similar haughty roughness pervaded\ntheir dealings with their own Peri\u0153ki; who were bound to them\ncertainly by no tie of affection, and who for the most part revolted\nafter the battle of Leuktra, as soon as the invasion of Laconia by\nEpameinondas enabled them to do so with safety.\n\n [631] Herod. viii. 73-135; Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 1, 8; Thucyd. iv.\n 76-94.\n\n [632] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 3, 5, 9, 19. Isokrat\u00eas, writing in the\n days of Theban power, after the battle of Leuktra, characterizes\n the B\u0153otian towns as \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 of Thebes (Or. viii. De Pace, p.\n 182); compare Orat. xiv. Plataic. pp. 299-303. Xenophon holds the\n same language, Hellen. v. 4, 46: compare Plutarch, Agesilaus, 28.\n\n [633] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 23.\n\n [634] Thucyd. i. 77-95; vi. 105. Isokrat\u00eas (Panathenaic. Or.\n xii. p. 283), \u03a3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f35\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9. Compare his\n Oratio de Pace (Or. viii. pp. 180-181); Oratio Panegyr. (Or. iv.\n pp. 64-67).\n\nIsokrat\u00eas, taking his point of departure from the old Herakleid\nlegend, with its instantaneous conquest and triple partition of all\nDorian Peloponnesus, among the three Herakleid brethren, deduces the\nfirst origin of the Peri\u0153kic townships from internal seditions among\nthe conquerors of Sparta. According to him, the period immediately\nsucceeding the conquest was one of fierce intestine warfare in\nnewly-conquered Sparta, between the Few and the Many,\u2014the oligarchy\nand the demus. The former being victorious, two important measures\nwere the consequences of their victory. They banished the defeated\nMany from Sparta into Laconia, retaining the residence in Sparta\nexclusively for themselves; they assigned to them the smallest and\nleast fertile half of Laconia, monopolizing the larger and better\nfor themselves; and they disseminated them into many very small\ntownships, or subordinate little communities, while they concentrated\nthemselves entirely at Sparta. To these precautions for insuring\ndominion, they added another not less important. They established\namong their own Spartan citizens equality of legal privilege and\ndemocratical government, so as to take the greatest securities\nfor internal harmony; which harmony, according to the judgment of\nIsokrat\u00eas, had been but too effectually perpetuated, enabling the\nSpartans to achieve their dominion over oppressed Greece,\u2014like the\naccord of pirates[635] for the spoliation of the peaceful. The\nPeri\u0153kic townships, he tells us, while deprived of all the privileges\nof freemen, were exposed to all the toils, as well as to an unfair\nshare of the dangers, of war. The Spartan authorities put them in\nsituations and upon enterprises which they deemed too dangerous for\ntheir own citizens; and, what was still worse, the ephors possessed\nthe power of putting to death, without any form of preliminary trial,\nas many Peri\u0153ki as they pleased.[636]\n\n [635] Isokrat\u00eas, Panathenaic. Or. xii. p. 280. \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u1fc4\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n [636] Isokrat\u00eas, Orat. xii. (Panathenaic.) pp. 270-271. The\n statement in the same oration (p. 246), that the Laced\u00e6monians\n \u201chad put to death without trial more Greeks (\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd)\n than had ever been tried at Athens since Athens was a city,\u201d\n refers to their allies or dependents out of Laconia.\n\nThe statement here delivered by Isokrat\u00eas, respecting the first\norigin of the distinction of Spartans and Peri\u0153ki, is nothing better\nthan a conjecture, nor is it even a probable conjecture, since it\nis based on the historical truth of the old Herakleid legend, and\ntransports the disputes of his own time, between the oligarchy and\nthe demus, into an early period, to which such disputes do not\nbelong. Nor is there anything, so far as our knowledge of Grecian\nhistory extends, to bear out his assertion, that the Spartans took\nto themselves the least dangerous post in the field, and threw undue\nperil upon their Peri\u0153ki. Such dastardly temper was not among the\nsins of Sparta; but it is undoubtedly true that, as the number of\ncitizens continually diminished, so the Peri\u0153ki came to constitute,\nin the later times, a larger and larger proportion of the Spartan\nforce. Yet the power which Isokrat\u00eas represents to have been vested\nin the ephors, of putting to death Peri\u0153ki without preliminary\ntrial, we may fully believe to be real, and to have been exercised\nas often as the occasion seemed to call for it. We shall notice,\npresently, the way in which these magistrates dealt with the Helots,\nand shall see ample reason from thence to draw the conclusion that,\nwhenever the ephors believed any man to be dangerous to the public\npeace,\u2014whether an inferior Spartan, a Peri\u0153kus, or a Helot,\u2014the most\nsummary mode of getting rid of him would be considered as the best.\nTowards Spartans of rank and consideration, they were doubtless\ncareful and measured in their application of punishment, but the\nsame necessity for circumspection did not exist with regard to the\ninferior classes: moreover, the feeling that the exigences of justice\nrequired a fair trial before punishment was inflicted, belongs to\nAthenian associations much more than to Spartan. How often any such\nsummary executions may have taken place, we have no information.\n\nWe may remark that the account which Isokrat\u00eas has here given of the\norigin of the Laconian Peri\u0153ki is not essentially irreconcilable\nwith that of Ephorus,[637] who recounted that Eurysthen\u00eas and\nProkl\u00eas, on first conquering Laconia, had granted to the pre\u00ebxisting\npopulation equal rights with the Dorians,\u2014but that Agis, son\nof Eurysthen\u00eas, had deprived them of this equal position, and\ndegraded them into dependent subjects of the latter. At least, the\ntwo narratives both agree in presuming that the Peri\u0153ki had once\nenjoyed a better position, from which they had been extruded by\nviolence. And the policy which Isokrat\u00eas ascribes to the victorious\nSpartan oligarchs,\u2014of driving out the demus from concentrated\nresidence in the city to disseminated residence in many separate\nand insignificant townships,\u2014seems to be the expression of that\nproceeding which in his time was numbered among the most efficient\nprecautions against refractory subjects,\u2014the Di\u0153kisis, or breaking up\nof a town-aggregate into villages. We cannot assign to the statement\nany historical authority.[638] Moreover, the division of Laconia\ninto six districts, together with its distribution into townships\n(or the distribution of settlers into pre\u00ebxisting townships), which\nEphorus ascribed to the first Dorian kings, are all deductions from\nthe primitive legendary account, which described the Dorian conquest\nas achieved by one stroke, and must all be dismissed, if we suppose\nit to have been achieved gradually. This gradual conquest is admitted\nby O. M\u00fcller, and by many of the ablest subsequent inquirers,\u2014who,\nnevertheless, seem to have the contrary supposition involuntarily\npresent to their minds when they criticize the early Spartan history,\nand always unconsciously imagine the Spartans as masters of all\nLaconia. We cannot even assert that Laconia was ever under one\ngovernment before the consummation of the successive conquests of\nSparta.\n\n [637] Ephorus, Fragm. 18, ed. Marx; ap. Strabo, viii. p. 365.\n\n [638] Dr. Arnold (in his Dissertation on the Spartan\n Constitution, appended to the first volume of his Thucydid\u00eas, p.\n 643) places greater confidence in the historical value of this\n narrative of Isokrat\u00eas than I am inclined to do. On the other\n hand, Mr. G. C. Lewis, in his Review of Dr. Arnold\u2019s Dissertation\n (Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 45), considers the \u201caccount\n of Isokrat\u00eas as completely inconsistent with that of Ephorus;\u201d\n which is saying rather more, perhaps, than the tenor of the two\n strictly warrants. In Mr. Lewis\u2019s excellent article, most of the\n difficult points respecting the Spartan constitution will be\n found raised and discussed in a manner highly instructive.\n\n Another point in the statement of Isokrat\u00eas is, that the Dorians,\n at the time of the original conquest of Laconia, were only\n two thousand in number (Or. xii. Panath. p. 286). Mr. Clinton\n rejects this estimate as too small, and observes, \u201cI suspect\n that Isokrat\u00eas, in describing the numbers of the Dorians at the\n original conquest, has adapted to the description the actual\n numbers of the Spartans in his own time.\u201d (Fast. Hellen. ii. p.\n 408.)\n\n This seems to me a probable conjecture, and it illustrates as\n well the absence of data under which Isokrat\u00eas or his informants\n labored, as the method which they took to supply the deficiency.\n\nOf the assertion of O. M\u00fcller\u2014repeated by Sch\u00f6mann[639]\u2014\u201cthat the\ndifference of races was strictly preserved, and that the Peri\u0153ki\nwere always considered as Ach\u00e6ans,\u201d\u2014I find no proof, and I believe\nit to be erroneous. Respecting Pharis, Geronthr\u00e6, and Amykl\u00e6, three\nPeri\u0153kic towns, Pausanias gives us to understand that the pre\u00ebxisting\ninhabitants either retired or were expelled on the Dorian conquest,\nand that a Dorian population replaced them.[640] Without placing\ngreat faith in this statement, for which Pausanias could hardly\nhave any good authority, we may yet accept it as representing the\nprobabilities of the case, and as counterbalancing the unsupported\nhypothesis of M\u00fcller. The Peri\u0153kic townships were probably composed\neither of Dorians entirely, or of Dorians incorporated in greater\nor less proportion with the pre\u00ebxisting inhabitants. But whatever\ndifference of race there may once have been, it was effaced before\nthe historical times,[641] during which we find no proof of\nAch\u00e6ans, known as such, in Laconia. The Herakleids, the \u00c6geids, and\nthe Talthybiads, all of whom belong to Sparta, seem to be the only\nexamples of separate races, partially distinguishable from Dorians,\nknown after the beginning of authentic history. The Spartans and\nthe Peri\u0153ki constitute one political aggregate, and that too so\ncompletely melted together in the general opinion (speaking of the\ntimes before the battle of Leuktra), that the peace of Antalkidas,\nwhich guaranteed autonomy to every separate Grecian city, was never\nso construed as to divorce the Peri\u0153kic towns from Sparta. Both are\nknown as Laconians, or Laced\u00e6monians, and Sparta is regarded by\nHerodotus only as the first and bravest among the many and brave\nLaced\u00e6monian cities.[642] The victors at Olympia are proclaimed, not\nas Spartans, but as Laconians,\u2014a title alike borne by the Peri\u0153ki.\nAnd many of the numerous winners, whose names we read in the Olympic\nlists as Laconians, may probably have belonged to Amykl\u00e6 or other\nPeri\u0153kic towns.\n\n [639] Sch\u00f6mann, Antiq. Jurisp. Gr\u00e6corum, iv. 1, 5, p. 112.\n\n [640] Pausan. iii. 2, 6; iii. 22, 5. The statement of M\u00fcller is\n to be found (History of the Dorians, iii. 2, 1): he quotes a\n passage of Pausanias, which is noway to the point.\n\n Mr. G. C. Lewis (Philolog. Mus. _ut. sup._ p. 41) is of the same\n opinion as M\u00fcller.\n\n [641] M. Kopstadt (in the learned Dissertation which I have\n before alluded to, De Rerum Laconicarum Constitutionis Lycurge\u00e6\n Origine et Indole, cap. ii. p. 31) controverts this position\n respecting the Peri\u0153ki. He appears to understand it in a sense\n which my words hardly present,\u2014at least, a sense which I did\n not intend them to present: as if the majority of inhabitants\n in _each_ of the hundred Peri\u0153kic towns were Dorians,\u2014\u201cut per\n centum Laconi\u00e6 oppida distributi _ubique majorem_ incolarum\n numerum efficerent,\u201d (p. 32.) I meant only to affirm that some\n of the Peri\u0153kic towns, such as Amykl\u00e6, were wholly, or almost\n wholly, Dorian; many others of them partially Dorian. But what\n may have been the comparative numbers (probably different in\n each town) of Dorian and non-Dorian inhabitants,\u2014there are no\n means of determining. M. Kopstadt (p. 35) admits that Amykl\u00e6,\n Pharis, and Geronthr\u00e6, were Peri\u0153kic towns peopled by Dorians;\n and if this be true, it negatives the general maxim on the faith\n of which he contradicts what I affirm: his maxim is\u2014\u201cnunquam\n Dorienses \u00e0 Doriensibus nisi bello victi erant, civitate \u00e6quoque\n jure privati sunt,\u201d (p. 31.) It is very unsafe to lay down such\n large positions respecting a supposed uniformity of Dorian rules\n and practice. The high authority of O. M\u00fcller has been extremely\n misleading in this respect.\n\n It is plain that Herodotus (compare his expression, viii. 73 and\n i. 145) conceived all the free inhabitants of Laconia not as\n Ach\u00e6ans, but as Dorians. He believes in the story of the legend,\n that the Ach\u00e6ans, driven out of Laconia by the invading Dorians\n and Herakleid\u00e6, occupied the territory in the north-west of\n Peloponnesus which was afterwards called Ach\u00e6a,\u2014expelling from\n it the Ionians. Whatever may be the truth about this legendary\n statement,\u2014and whatever may have been the original proportions\n of Dorians and Ach\u00e6ans in Laconia,\u2014these two races had (in the\n fifth century B. C.) become confounded in one undistinguishable\n ethnical and political aggregate called Laconian, or\n Laced\u00e6monian,\u2014comprising both Spartans and Peri\u0153ki, though with\n very unequal political franchises, and very material differences\n in individual training and habits. The case was different in\n Thessaly, where the Thessalians held in dependence Magn\u00eates,\n Perrh\u00e6bi, and Ach\u00e6ans: the separate nationality of these latter\n was never lost.\n\n [642] Herod. vii. 234.\n\nThe Peri\u0153kic hoplites constituted always a large\u2014in later times a\npreponderant\u2014numerical proportion of the Laced\u00e6monian army, and\nmust undoubtedly have been trained, more or less perfectly, in the\npeculiar military tactics of Sparta; since they were called upon\nto obey the same orders as the Spartans in the field,[643] and to\nperform the same evolutions. Some cases appear, though rare, in which\na Peri\u0153kus has high command in a foreign expedition. In the time of\nAristotle, the larger proportion of Laconia (then meaning only the\ncountry eastward of Taygetus, since the foundation of Mess\u00ean\u00ea by\nEpameinondas had been consummated) belonged to Spartan citizens,[644]\nbut the remaining smaller half must have been the property of the\nPeri\u0153ki, who must besides have carried on most of the commerce of\nexport and import,\u2014the metallurgic enterprise, and the distribution\nof internal produce,\u2014which the territory exhibited; since no Spartan\never meddled in such occupations. And thus the peculiar training\nof Lykurgus, by throwing all these employments into the hands of\nthe Peri\u0153ki, opened to them a new source of importance, which the\ndependent townships of Argos, of Thebes, or of Orchomenus, would not\nenjoy.\n\n [643] Thucyd. viii. 6-22. They did not, however, partake in the\n Lykurgean discipline; but they seem to be named \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, as contrasted with \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 (Sosibius ap. Athen\u00e6.\n xv. p. 674).\n\n [644] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 23. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2.\n\n Mr. G. C. Lewis, in the article above alluded to (Philolog. Mus.\n ii. p. 54), says, about the Peri\u0153ki: \u201cThey lived in the country\n or in small towns of the Laconian territory, and cultivated the\n land, which they did not hold of any individual citizen, but\n paid for it a tribute or rent to the state; being exactly in the\n same condition as the _possessores_ of the Roman domain, or the\n Ryots, in Hindostan, before the introduction of the Permanent\n Settlement.\u201d It may be doubted, I think, whether the Peri\u0153ki paid\n any such rent or tribute as that which Mr. Lewis here supposes.\n The passage just cited from Aristotle seems to show that they\n paid direct taxation individually, and just upon the same\n principle as the Spartan citizens, who are distinguished only\n by being larger landed-proprietors. But though the principle of\n taxation be the same, there was practical injustice (according to\n Aristotle) in the mode of assessing it. \u201cThe Spartan citizens (he\n observes) being the largest landed-proprietors, take care not to\n canvass strictly _each other\u2019s payment of property-tax_\u201d\u2014_i. e._\n they wink mutually at each other\u2019s evasions. If the Spartans had\n been the _only_ persons who paid \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70, or property-tax, this\n observation of Aristotle would have had no meaning. In principle,\n the tax was assessed, both on their larger properties and on the\n smaller properties of the Peri\u0153ki: in practice, the Spartans\n helped each other to evade the due proportion.\n\nThe Helots of Laconia were Coloni, or serfs, bound to the\nsoil, who tilled it for the benefit of the Spartan proprietors\ncertainly,\u2014probably, of Peri\u0153kic proprietors also. They were the\nrustic population of the country, who dwelt, not in towns, but either\nin small villages[645] or in detached farms, both in the district\nimmediately surrounding Sparta, and round the Peri\u0153kic Laconian\ntowns also. Of course, there were also Helots who lived in Sparta\nand other towns, and did the work of domestic slaves,\u2014but such was\nnot the general character of the class. We cannot doubt that the\nDorian conquest from Sparta found this class in the condition of\nvillagers and detached rustics; but whether they were dependent\nupon pre\u00ebxisting Ach\u00e6an proprietors, or independent, like much of\nthe Arcadian village population, is a question which we cannot\nanswer. In either case, however, it is easy to conceive that the\nvillage lands (with the cultivators upon them) were the most easy\nto appropriate for the benefit of masters resident at Sparta; while\nthe towns, with the district immediately around them, furnished both\ndwelling and maintenance to the outgoing detachments of Dorians.\nIf the Spartans had succeeded in their attempt to enlarge their\nterritory by the conquest of Arcadia,[646] they might very probably\nhave converted Tegea and Mantineia into Peri\u0153kic towns, with a\ndiminished territory inhabited (either wholly or in part) by Dorian\nsettlers,\u2014while they would have made over to proprietors in Sparta\nmuch of the village lands of the M\u00e6nalii, Azanes, and Parrhasii,\nhelotizing the inhabitants. The distinction between a town and a\nvillage population seems the main ground of the different treatment\nof Helots and Peri\u0153ki in Laconia. A considerable proportion of the\nHelots were of genuine Dorian race, being the Dorian Messenians\nwest of Mount Taygetus, subsequently conquered and aggregated to\nthis class of dependent cultivators, who, as a class, must have\nbegun to exist from the very first establishment of the invading\nDorians in the district round Sparta. From whence the name of\nHelots arose, we do not clearly make out: Ephorus deduced it from\nthe town of Helus, on the southern coast, which the Spartans are\nsaid to have taken after a resistance so obstinate as to provoke\nthem to deal very rigorously with the captives. There are many\nreasons for rejecting this story, and another etymology has been\nproposed, according to which Helot is synonymous with _captive_:\nthis is more plausible, yet still not convincing.[647] The Helots\nlived in the rural villages, as _adscripti gleb\u00e6_, cultivating\ntheir lands and paying over their rent to the master at Sparta,\nbut enjoying their homes, wives, families, and mutual neighborly\nfeelings, apart from the master\u2019s view. They were never sold out\nof the country, and probably never sold at all; belonging, not so\nmuch to the master as to the state, which constantly called upon\nthem for military service, and recompensed their bravery or activity\nwith a grant of freedom. Meno, the Thessalian of Pharsalus, took\nout three hundred Penest\u00e6 of his own, to aid the Athenians against\nAmphipolis: these Thessalian Penest\u00e6 were in many points analogous\nto the Helots, but no individual Spartan possessed the like power\nover the latter. The Helots were thus a part of the state, having\ntheir domestic and social sympathies developed, a certain power of\nacquiring property,[648] and the consciousness of Grecian lineage and\ndialect,\u2014points of marked superiority over the foreigners who formed\nthe slave population of Athens or Chios. They seem to have been noway\ninferior to any village population of Greece; while the Grecian\nobserver sympathized with them more strongly than with the bought\nslaves of other states,\u2014not to mention that their homogeneous aspect,\ntheir numbers, and their employment in military service, rendered\nthem more conspicuous to the eye.\n\n [645] The village-character of the Helots is distinctly marked\n by Livy, xxxiv. 27, in describing the inflictions of the\n despot Nabis: \u201cIlotarum quidam (hi sunt jam inde antiquitus\n _castellani_, agreste genus) transfugere voluisse insimulati, per\n omnes _vicos_ sub verberibus acti necantur.\u201d\n\n [646] Herodot. i. 66. \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u0394\u03ad\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u1fc3.\n\n [647] See O. M\u00fcller, Dorians, iii. 3, 1; Ephorus ap. Strabo,\n viii. p. 365: Harpocration, v. \u0395\u1f35\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n [648] Kleomenes the Third, offered manumission to every Helot,\n who could pay down five Attic min\u00e6: he was in great immediate\n want of money, and he raised, by this means, five hundred\n talents. Six thousand Helots must thus have been in a condition\n to find five min\u00e6 each, which was a very considerable sum\n (Plutarch, Kleomenes, c. 23).\n\nThe service in the Spartan house was all performed by members of the\nHelot class; for there seem to have been few, if any, other slaves in\nthe country. The various anecdotes which are told respecting their\ntreatment at Sparta, betoken less of cruelty than of ostentatious\nscorn,[649]\u2014a sentiment which we are noway surprised to discover\namong the citizens at the mess-table. But the great mass of the\nHelots, who dwelt in the country, were objects of a very different\nsentiment on the part of the Spartan ephors, who knew their bravery,\nenergy, and standing discontent, and yet were forced to employ\nthem as an essential portion of the state army. The Helots commonly\nserved as light-armed, in which capacity the Spartan hoplites could\nnot dispense with their attendance. At the battle of Plat\u00e6a, every\nSpartan hoplite had seven Helots,[650] and every Peri\u0153kic hoplite\none Helot, to attend him:[651] but, even in camp, the Spartan\narrangements were framed to guard against any sudden mutiny of these\nlight-armed companions, while, at home, the citizen habitually\nkept his shield disjoined from its holding-ring, to prevent the\npossibility of its being snatched for the like purpose. Sometimes,\nselect Helots were clothed in heavy armor, and thus served in\nthe ranks, receiving manumission from the state as the reward of\ndistinguished bravery.[652]\n\n [649] Such is the statement, that Helots were compelled to appear\n in a state of drunkenness, in order to excite in the youths a\n sentiment of repugnance against intoxication (Plutarch, Lycurg.\n c. 28; also, Adversus Stoicos de Commun. Notit. c. 19, p. 1067).\n\n [650] Herod. ix. 29. The Spartans, at Thermopyl\u00e6, seem to have\n been attended each by only one Helot (vii. 229).\n\n O. M\u00fcller seems to consider that the light-armed, who attended\n the Peri\u0153kic hoplites at Plat\u00e6a, were _not_ Helots (Dor. iii. 3,\n 6). Herodotus does not distinctly say that they were so, but I\n see no reason for admitting two different classes of light-armed\n in the Spartan military force.\n\n The calculation which M\u00fcller gives of the number of Peri\u0153ki and\n Helots altogether, proceeds upon very untrustworthy data. Among\n them is to be noticed his supposition that \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 means\n the district of Sparta as distinguished from Laconia, which is\n contrary to the passage in Polybius (vi. 45): \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1, in\n Polybius, means the territory of the state generally.\n\n [651] Xenophon, Rep. Lac. c. 12, 4; Kritias, De Laced\u00e6m. Repub.\n ap. Libanium, Orat. de Servitute, t. ii. p. 85, Reisk. \u1f61\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f35\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u0395\u1f35\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03a3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1, etc.\n\n [652] Thucyd. i. 101; iv. 80; v. 14-23.\n\nBut Sparta, even at the maximum of her power, was more than once\nendangered by the reality, and always beset with the apprehension,\nof Helotic revolt. To prevent or suppress it, the ephors submitted\nto insert express stipulations for aid in their treaties with\nAthens,\u2014to invite Athenian troops into the heart of Laconia,\u2014and to\npractice combinations of cunning and atrocity which even yet stand\nwithout parallel in the long list of precautions for fortifying\nunjust dominion. It was in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war,\nafter the Helots had been called upon for signal military efforts\nin various ways, and when the Athenians and Messenians were in\npossession of Pylus, that the ephors felt especially apprehensive\nof an outbreak. Anxious to single out the most forward and daring\nHelots, as the men from whom they had most to dread, they issued\nproclamation that every member of that class who had rendered\ndistinguished services should make his claims known at Sparta,\npromising liberty to the most deserving. A large number of Helots\ncame forward to claim the boon: not less than two thousand of them\nwere approved, formally manumitted, and led in solemn procession\nround the temples, with garlands on their heads, as an inauguration\nto their coming life of freedom. But the treacherous garland only\nmarked them out as victims for the sacrifice: every man of them\nforthwith disappeared,\u2014the manner of their death was an untold\nmystery.\n\nFor this dark and bloody deed, Thucydid\u00eas is our witness,[653]\nand Thucydid\u00eas describing a contemporary matter into which he had\ninquired. Upon any less evidence we should have hesitated to believe\nthe statement; but standing as it thus does above all suspicion,\nit speaks volumes as to the inhuman character of the Laced\u00e6monian\ngovernment, while it lays open to us at the same time the intensity\nof their fears from the Helots. In the assassination of this fated\nregiment of brave men, a large number of auxiliaries and instruments\nmust have been concerned: yet Thucydid\u00eas, with all his inquiries,\ncould not find out how any of them perished: he tells us, that\nno man knew. We see here a fact which demonstrates unequivocally\nthe impenetrable mystery in which the proceedings of the Spartan\ngovernment were wrapped,\u2014the absence not only of public discussion,\nbut of public curiosity,\u2014and the perfection with which the ephors\nreigned over the will, the hands, and the tongues, of their Spartan\nsubjects. The Venetian Council of Ten, with all the facilities for\nnocturnal drowning which their city presented, could hardly have\naccomplished so vast a _coup-d\u2019\u00e9tat_ with such invisible means. And\nwe may judge from hence, even if we had no other evidence, how little\nthe habits of a public assembly could have suited either the temper\nof mind or the march of government at Sparta.\n\n [653] Thucyd. iv. 80. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff7 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f94\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f45\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c6\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7.\n\nOther proceedings, ascribed to the ephors against the Helots, are\nconceived in the same spirit as the incident just recounted from\nThucydid\u00eas, though they do not carry with them the same certain\nattestation. It was a part of the institutions of Lykurgus (according\nto a statement which Plutarch professes to have borrowed from\nAristotle) that the ephors should every year declare war against\nthe Helots, in order that the murder of them might be rendered\ninnocent; and that active young Spartans should be armed with\ndaggers and sent about Laconia, in order that they might, either\nin solitude or at night, assassinate such of the Helots as were\nconsidered formidable.[654] This last measure passes by the name of\nthe Krypteia, yet we find some difficulty in determining to what\nextent it was ever realized. That the ephors, indeed, would not\nbe restrained by any scruples of justice or humanity, is plainly\nshown by the murder of the two thousand Helots above noticed; but\nthis latter incident really answered its purpose, while a standing\npractice, such as that of the Krypteia, and a formal notice of war\ngiven beforehand, would provoke the reaction of despair rather\nthan enforce tranquillity. There seems, indeed, good evidence that\nthe Krypteia was a real practice,[655]\u2014that the ephors kept up a\nsystem of police or espionage throughout Laconia, by the employment\nof active young citizens, who lived a hard and solitary life, and\nsuffered their motions to be as little detected as possible. The\nephors might naturally enough take this method of keeping watch\nboth over the Peri\u0153kic townships and the Helot villages, and the\nassassination of individual Helots by these police-men, or Krypts,\nwould probably pass unnoticed. But it is impossible to believe in\nany standing murderous order, or deliberate annual assassination of\nHelots, for the purpose of intimidation, as Aristotle is alleged to\nhave represented,\u2014for we may well doubt whether he really did make\nsuch a representation, when we see that he takes no notice of this\nmeasure in his Politics, where he speaks at some length both of the\nSpartan constitution and of the Helots. The well-known hatred and\nfear, entertained by the Spartans towards their Helots, has probably\ncolored Plutarch\u2019s description of the Krypteia, so as to exaggerate\nthose unpunished murders which occasionally happened into a constant\nphenomenon with express design. A similar deduction is to be made\nfrom the statement of Myr\u00f4n of Pri\u00ean\u00ea,[656] who alleged that they\nwere beaten every year without any special fault, in order to put\nthem in mind of their slavery,\u2014and that those Helots, whose superior\nbeauty or stature placed them above the visible stamp of their\ncondition, were put to death; while such masters as neglected to keep\ndown the spirit of their vigorous Helots were punished. That secrecy,\nfor which the ephors were so remarkable, seems enough of itself to\nrefute the assertion that they publicly proclaimed war against the\nHelots; though we may well believe that this unhappy class of men may\nhave been noticed as objects for jealous observation in the annual\nephoric oath of office. Whatever may have been the treatment of the\nHelots in later times, it is at all events hardly to be supposed\nthat any regulation hostile to them can have emanated from Lykurgus.\nFor the dangers arising from that source did not become serious\nuntil after the Messenian war,\u2014nor, indeed, until after the gradual\ndiminution of the number of Spartan citizens had made itself felt.\n\n [654] Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 28; Heraclides Pontic. p. 504, ed.\n Crag.\n\n [655] Plato, Legg. i. p. 633: the words of the Laced\u00e6monian\n Megillus designate an existing Spartan custom. Compare the same\n treatise, vi. p. 763, where Ast suspects, without reason, the\n genuineness of the word \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03af.\n\n [656] Myron, ap. Athen\u00e6. xiv. p. 657. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n does not strictly mean \u201cto put to death.\u201d\n\nThe manumitted Helots did not pass into the class of Peri\u0153ki,\u2014for\nthis purpose a special grant, of the freedom of some Peri\u0153kic\ntownship, would probably be required,\u2014but constituted a class apart,\nknown at the time of the Peloponnesian war by the name of Neodam\u00f4des.\nBeing persons who had earned their liberty by signal bravery, they\nwere of course regarded by the ephors with peculiar apprehension,\nand, if possible, employed on foreign service,[657] or planted on\nsome foreign soil as settlers. In what manner these freedmen employed\nthemselves, we find no distinct information; but we can hardly\ndoubt that they quitted the Helot village and field, together with\nthe rural costume (the leather cap and sheepskin) which the Helot\ncommonly wore, and the change of which exposed him to suspicion,\nif not to punishment, from his jealous masters. Probably they, as\nwell as the disfranchised Spartan citizens (called Hypomeiones, or\nInferiors), became congregated at Sparta, and found employment either\nin various trades or in the service of the government.\n\n [657] Thucyd. v. 34.\n\nIt has been necessary to give this short sketch of the orders of\nmen who inhabited Laconia, in order to enable us to understand the\nstatements given about the legislation of Lykurgus. The arrangements\nascribed to that lawgiver, in the way that Plutarch describes them,\npresuppose, and do not create, the three orders of Spartans, Peri\u0153ki,\nand Helots. We are told by Plutarch that the disorders which Lykurgus\nfound existing in the state arose in a great measure from the gross\ninequality of property, and from the luxurious indulgence and\nunprincipled rapacity of the rich,\u2014who had drawn to themselves the\ngreater proportion of the lands in the country, leaving a large body\nof poor, without any lot of land, in hopeless misery and degradation.\nTo this inequality (according to Plutarch) the reforming legislator\napplied at once a stringent remedy. He redistributed the whole\nterritory belonging to Sparta, as well as the remainder of Laconia;\nthe former, in nine thousand equal lots, one to each Spartan citizen;\nthe latter, in thirty thousand equal lots, one to each Peri\u0153kus: of\nthis alleged distribution, I shall speak farther presently. Moreover,\nhe banished the use of gold and silver money, tolerating nothing\nin the shape of circulating medium but pieces of iron, heavy and\nscarcely portable; and he forbade[658] to the Spartan citizen every\nspecies of industrious or money-seeking occupation, agriculture\nincluded. He farther constituted,\u2014though not without strenuous\nopposition, during the course of which his eye is said to have\nbeen knocked out by a violent youth, named Alkander,\u2014the Syssitia,\nor public mess. A certain number of joint tables were provided,\nand every citizen was required to belong to some one of them,\nand habitually to take his meals at it,[659]\u2014no new member being\nadmissible without an unanimous ballot in his favor by the previous\noccupants. Each provided from his lot of land a specified quota of\nbarley-meal, wine, cheese, and figs, and a small contribution of\nmoney for condiments: game was obtained in addition by hunting in\nthe public forests of the state, while every one who sacrificed to\nthe gods,[660] sent to his mess-table a part of the victim killed.\nFrom boyhood to old age, every Spartan citizen took his sober meals\nat this public mess, where all shared alike; nor was distinction of\nany kind allowed, except on signal occasions of service rendered by\nan individual to the state.\n\n [658] Xenophon, Rep. Lac. c. 7.\n\n [659] Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 15; substantially confirmed by\n Xenophon, Rep. Lac. c. 1, 5.\n\n [660] See the authors quoted in Athen\u00e6us, iv. p. 141.\n\nThese public Syssitia, under the management of the Polemarchs, were\nconnected with the military distribution, the constant gymnastic\ntraining, and the rigorous discipline of detail, enforced by\nLykurgus. From the early age of seven years, throughout his whole\nlife, as youth and man no less than as boy, the Spartan citizen\nlived habitually in public, always either himself under drill,\ngymnastic and military, or a critic and spectator of others,\u2014always\nunder the fetters and observances of a rule partly military,\npartly monastic,\u2014estranged from the independence of a separate\nhome,\u2014seeing his wife, during the first years after marriage, only\nby stealth, and maintaining little peculiar relation with his\nchildren. The supervision, not only of his fellow-citizens, but\nalso of authorized censors, or captains nominated by the state, was\nperpetually acting upon him: his day was passed in public exercises\nand meals, his nights in the public barrack to which he belonged.\nBesides the particular military drill, whereby the complicated\nmovements required from a body of Laced\u00e6monian hoplites in the\nfield, were made familiar to him from his youth,\u2014he also became\nsubject to severe bodily discipline of other kinds, calculated to\nimpart strength, activity, and endurance. To manifest a daring\nand pugnacious spirit,\u2014to sustain the greatest bodily torture\nunmoved,\u2014to endure hunger and thirst, heat, cold, and fatigue,\u2014to\ntread the worst ground barefoot,\u2014to wear the same garment winter\nand summer,\u2014to suppress external manifestations of feeling, and to\nexhibit in public, when action was not called for, a bearing shy,\nsilent, and motionless as a statue,\u2014all these were the virtues of\nthe accomplished Spartan youth.[661] Two squadrons were often\nmatched against each other to contend (without arms) in the little\ninsular circumscription called the Platanist\u00fbs, and these contests\nwere carried on, under the eye of the authorities, with the utmost\nextremity of fury. Nor was the competition among them less obstinate,\nto bear without murmuring the cruel scourgings inflicted before the\naltar of Artemis Orthia, supposed to be highly acceptable to the\ngoddess, though they sometimes terminated even in the death of the\nuncomplaining sufferer.[662] Besides the various descriptions of\ngymnastic contests, the youths were instructed in the choric dances\nemployed in festivals of the gods, which contributed to impart to\nthem methodized and harmonious movements. Hunting in the woods and\nmountains of Laconia was encouraged, as a means of inuring them to\nfatigue and privation. The nourishment supplied to the youthful\nSpartans was purposely kept insufficient, but they were allowed to\nmake up the deficiency not only by hunting, but even by stealing\nwhatever they could lay hands upon, provided they could do so without\nbeing detected in the fact; in which latter case they were severely\nchastised.[663] In reference simply to bodily results,[664] the\ntraining at Sparta was excellent, combining strength and agility\nwith universal aptitude and endurance, and steering clear of that\nmistake by which Thebes and other cities impaired the effect of their\ngymnastics,\u2014the attempt to create an athletic habit, suited for the\ngames, but suited for nothing else.\n\n [661] Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 2-3, 3-5, 4-6. The extreme pains taken to\n enforce \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 (fortitude and endurance) in the Spartan system\n is especially dwelt upon by Aristotle (Politica, ii. 6, 5-16);\n compare Plato, De Legibus, i. p. 633; Xenophon, De Laced. Repub.\n ii. 9, with the references in Schneider\u2019s note,\u2014likewise Cragius,\n De Republica Laced. iii. 8, p. 325.\n\n [662] It is remarkable that these violent contentions of the\n youth, wherein kicking, biting, gouging out each other\u2019s\n eyes, was resorted to,\u2014as well as the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, or\n scourging-match, before the altar of Artemis,\u2014lasted down to\n the closing days of Sparta, and were actually seen by Cicero,\n Plutarch, and even Pausanias. Plutarch had seen several persons\n die under the suffering (Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 16, 18-30; and\n Instituta Laconica, p. 239; Pausan. iii. 14, 9, 16, 7; Cicero,\n Tuscul. Disp. ii. 15).\n\n The voluntary tortures, undergone by the young men among the\n Mandan tribe of Indians, at their annual religious festival,\n in the presence of the elders of the tribe,\u2014afford a striking\n illustration of the same principles and tendencies as this\n Spartan \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. They are endured partly under the\n influence of religious feelings, as an acceptable offering to\n the Great Spirit,\u2014partly as a point of emulation and glory\n on the part of the young men, to show themselves worthy and\n unconquerable in the eyes of their seniors. The intensity of\n these tortures is, indeed, frightful to read, and far surpasses\n in that respect anything ever witnessed at Sparta. It would be\n incredible, were it not attested by a trustworthy eye-witness.\n\n See Mr. Catlin\u2019s Letters on the North American Indians, Letter\n 22, vol. i. p. 157, _seq._\n\n \u201cThese religious ceremonies are held, in part, for the purpose\n of conducting all the young men of the tribe, as they annually\n arrive at manhood, through an ordeal of privation and torture;\n which, while it is supposed to harden their muscles and prepare\n them for extreme endurance,\u2014enables the chiefs who are spectators\n of the scene, to decide upon their comparative bodily strength\n and ability, to endure the extreme privations and sufferings\n that often fall to the lot of Indian warriors; and that they may\n decide who is the most hardy and best able to lead a war-party in\n case of emergency.\u201d\u2014Again, p. 173, etc.\n\n The \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 or power of endurance (Aristot. Pol. ii. 6, 5-16)\n which formed one of the prominent objects of the Lycurgean\n training, dwindles into nothing compared to that of the Mandan\n Indians.\n\n [663] Xenophon, Anab. iv. 6, 14; and De Repub. Lac. c. 2, 6;\n Isokrat\u00eas, Or. xii. (Panath.) p. 277. It is these licensed\n expeditions for thieving, I presume, to which Isokrat\u00eas alludes,\n when he speaks of \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 at Sparta, which, in its\n natural sense, would be the reverse of the truth (p. 277).\n\n [664] Aristot. Polit. viii. 3, 3,\u2014the remark is curious,\u2014\u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03b8\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f15\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, \u03bb\u03c9\u03b2\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\n etc. Compare the remark in Plato, Protagor. p. 342.\n\nOf all the attributes of this remarkable community, there is none\nmore difficult to make out clearly than the condition and character\nof the Spartan women. Aristotle asserts that, in his time, they were\nimperious and unruly, without being really so brave and useful in\nmoments of danger as other Grecian females;[665] that they possessed\ngreat influence over the men, and even exercised much ascendency\nover the course of public affairs; and that nearly half the landed\nproperty of Laconia had come to belong to them. The exemption of the\nwomen from all control, formed, in his eye, a pointed contrast with\nthe rigorous discipline imposed upon the men,\u2014and a contrast hardly\nless pointed with the condition of women in other Grecian cities,\nwhere they were habitually confined to the interior of the house, and\nseldom appeared in public. While the Spartan husband went through\nthe hard details of his ascetic life, and dined on the plainest fare\nat the Pheidition, or mess, the wife (it appears) maintained an\nample and luxurious establishment at home; and the desire to provide\nfor such outlay was one of the causes of that love of money which\nprevailed among men forbidden to enjoy it in the ordinary ways. To\nexplain this antithesis between the treatment of the two sexes at\nSparta, Aristotle was informed that Lykurgus had tried to bring the\nwomen no less than the men under a system of discipline, but that\nthey made so obstinate a resistance as to compel him to desist.[666]\n\n [665] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 5; Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 31.\n Aristotle alludes to the conduct of the Spartan women on the\n occasion of the invasion of Laconia by the Thebans, as an\n evidence of his opinion respecting their want of courage. His\n judgment in this respect seems hard upon them, and he probably\n had formed to himself exaggerated notions of what their courage\n under such circumstances ought to have been, as the result\n of their peculiar training. We may add that their violent\n demonstrations on that trying occasion may well have arisen quite\n as much from the agony of wounded honor as from fear, when we\n consider what an event the appearance of a conquering army in\n Sparta was.\n\n [666] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 5, 8, 11.\n\nThe view here given by the philosopher, and deserving of course\ncareful attention, is not easy to reconcile with that of Xenophon\nand Plutarch, who look upon the Spartan women from a different side,\nand represent them as worthy and homogeneous companions to the men.\nThe Lykurgean system (as these authors describe it) considering\nthe women as a part of the state, and not as a part of the house,\nplaced them under training hardly less than the men. Its grand\npurpose, the maintenance of a vigorous breed of citizens, determined\nboth the treatment of the younger women, and the regulations as\nto the intercourse of the sexes. \u201cFemale slaves are good enough\n(Lykurgus thought) to sit at home spinning and weaving,\u2014but who\ncan expect a splendid offspring, the appropriate mission and duty\nof a free Spartan woman towards her country, from mothers brought\nup in such occupations?\u201d[667] Pursuant to these views, the Spartan\ndamsels underwent a bodily training analogous to that of the Spartan\nyouth,\u2014being formally exercised, and contending with each other\nin running, wrestling, and boxing, agreeably to the forms of the\nGrecian ag\u00f4nes. They seem to have worn a light tunic, cut open\nat the skirts, so as to leave the limbs both free and exposed to\nview,\u2014hence Plutarch speaks of them as completely uncovered, while\nother critics, in different quarters of Greece, heaped similar\nreproach upon the practice, as if it had been perfect nakedness.[668]\nThe presence of the Spartan youths, and even of the kings and the\nbody of citizens, at these exercises, lent animation to the scene. In\nlike manner, the young women marched in the religious processions,\nsung and danced at particular festivals, and witnessed as spectators\nthe exercises and contentions of the youths; so that the two sexes\nwere perpetually intermingled with each other in public, in a way\nforeign to the habits, as well as repugnant to the feelings, of other\nGrecian states. We may well conceive that such an education imparted\nto the women both a demonstrative character and an eager interest in\nmasculine accomplishments, so that the expression of their praise\nwas the strongest stimulus, and that of their reproach the bitterest\nhumiliation, to the youthful troop who heard it.\n\n [667] Xenoph. Rep. Lac. i. 3-4; Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 13-14.\n\n [668] Eurip. Androm. 598; Cicero, Tuscul. Qu\u00e6st. ii. 15. The\n epithet \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, as old as the poet Ibykus, shows that the\n Spartan women were not uncovered (see Julius Pollux, vii. 55).\n\n It is scarcely worth while to notice the poetical allusions of\n Ovid and Propertius.\n\n How completely the practice of gymnastic and military training\n for young women, analogous to that of the other sex, was approved\n by Plato, may be seen from the injunctions in his Republic.\n\nThe age of marriage (which in some of the unrestricted cities\nof Greece was so early as to deteriorate visibly the breed of\ncitizens)[669] was deferred by the Spartan law, both in women and\nmen, until the period supposed to be most consistent with the\nperfection of the offspring. And when we read the restriction which\nSpartan custom imposed upon the intercourse even between married\npersons, we shall conclude without hesitation that the public\nintermixture of the sexes, in the way just described, led to no\nsuch liberties, between persons not married, as might be likely\nto arise from it under other circumstances.[670] Marriage was\nalmost universal among the citizens, enforced by general opinion at\nleast, if not by law. The young Spartan carried away his bride by a\nsimulated abduction, but she still seems, for some time at least, to\nhave continued to reside with her family, visiting her husband in\nhis barrack in the disguise of male attire, and on short and stolen\noccasions.[671] To some married couples, according to Plutarch, it\nhappened, that they had been married long enough to have two or\nthree children, while they had scarcely seen each other apart by\ndaylight. Secret intrigue on the part of married women was unknown\nat Sparta; but to bring together the finest couples was regarded by\nthe citizens as desirable, and by the lawgiver as a duty. No personal\nfeeling or jealousy on the part of the husband found sympathy from\nany one,\u2014and he permitted without difficulty, sometimes actively\nencouraged, compliances on the part of his wife, consistent with this\ngenerally acknowledged object. So far was such toleration carried,\nthat there were some married women who were recognized mistresses\nof two houses,[672] and mothers of two distinct families,\u2014a sort of\nbigamy strictly forbidden to the men, and never permitted, except in\nthe remarkable case of king Anaxandrides, when the royal Herakleidan\nline of Eurysthenes was in danger of becoming extinct. The wife of\nAnaxandrides being childless, the ephors strongly urged him, on\ngrounds of public necessity, to repudiate her and marry another. But\nhe refused to dismiss a wife who had given him no cause of complaint;\nupon which, when they found him inexorable, they desired him to\nretain her, but to marry another wife besides, in order that at any\nrate there might be issue to the Eurystheneid line. \u201cHe thus (says\nHerodotus) married two wives, and inhabited two family-hearths, a\nproceeding unknown at Sparta;\u201d[673] yet the same privilege which,\naccording to Xenophon, some Spartan women enjoyed without reproach\nfrom any one, and with perfect harmony between the inmates of both\ntheir houses. O. M\u00fcller[674] remarks\u2014and the evidence, as far as we\nknow it, bears him out\u2014that love-marriages and genuine affection\ntowards a wife were more familiar to Sparta than to Athens; though\nin the former, marital jealousy was a sentiment neither indulged nor\nrecognized,\u2014while in the latter, it was intense and universal.[675]\n\n [669] Aristot. Polit. vii. 14, 4.\n\n [670] \u201cIt is certain (observes Dr. Thirlwall, speaking of the\n Spartan unmarried women) that in this respect the Spartan morals\n were as pure as those of any ancient, perhaps of any modern,\n people.\u201d (History of Greece, ch. viii. vol. i. p. 371.)\n\n [671] Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 15; Xenoph. Rep. Lac. i. 5. Xenophon\n does not make any allusion to the abduction as a general custom.\n There occurred cases in which it was real and violent: see Herod.\n v. 65. Demaratus carried off and married the betrothed bride of\n Leotychides.\n\n [672] Xenoph. Rep. Lac. i. 9. \u0395\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f25\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff4\u03b7,\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9. ~\u0391\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd~, \u03bf\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f33\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n [673] Herodot. v. 39-40. \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf, \u03b4\u03b9\u03be\u1f70\u03c2\n \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03b5\u03b5, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u1fb6 \u03a3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac.\n\n [674] M\u00fcller, Hist. of Dorians, iv. 4, 1. The stories recounted\n by Plutarch, (Agis, c. 20; Kleomen\u00eas, c. 37-38,) of the conduct\n of Agesistrata and Kratesikleia, the wives of Agis and Kleomen\u00eas,\n and of the wife of Panteus (whom he does not name) on occasion of\n the deaths of their respective husbands, illustrate powerfully\n the strong conjugal affection of a Spartan woman, and her devoted\n adherence and fortitude in sharing with her husband the last\n extremities of suffering.\n\n [675] See the Oration of Lysias, De C\u00e6de Eratosthenis, Orat. i.\n p. 94, _seq._\n\nTo reconcile the careful gymnastic training, which Xenophon and\nPlutarch mention, with that uncontrolled luxury and relaxation which\nAristotle condemns in the Spartan women, we may perhaps suppose that,\nin the time of the latter, the women of high position and wealth\nhad contrived to emancipate themselves from the general obligation,\nand that it is of such particular cases that he chiefly speaks. He\ndwells especially upon the increasing tendency to accumulate property\nin the hands of the women,[676] which seems to have been still more\nconspicuous a century afterwards, in the reign of Agis the Third. And\nwe may readily imagine that one of the employments of wealth thus\nacquired would be to purchase exemption from laborious training,\u2014an\nobject more easy to accomplish in their case than in that of the\nmen, whose services were required by the state as soldiers. By what\nsteps so large a proportion as two-fifths of the landed property\nof the state came to be possessed by women, he partially explains\nto us. There were (he says) many sole heiresses,\u2014the dowries given\nby fathers to their daughters were very large,\u2014and the father had\nunlimited power of testamentary bequest, which he was disposed to\nuse to the advantage of his daughter over his son. In conjunction\nwith this last circumstance, we have to notice that peculiar sympathy\nand yielding disposition towards women in the Spartan mind, of which\nAristotle also speaks,[677] and which he ascribes to the warlike\ntemper both of the citizen and the state,\u2014Ar\u00eas bearing the yoke of\nAphrodit\u00ea. But, apart from such a consideration, if we suppose, on\nthe part of a wealthy Spartan father, the simple disposition to\ntreat sons and daughters alike as to bequest,\u2014nearly one half of the\ninherited mass of property would naturally be found in the hands of\nthe daughters, since on an average of families the number of the two\nsexes born is nearly equal. In most societies, it is the men who make\nnew acquisitions: but this seldom or never happened with Spartan men,\nwho disdained all money-getting occupations.\n\n [676] Plutarch, Agis, c. 4.\n\n [677] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 6; Plutarch, Agis, c. 4. \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f22 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nXenophon, a warm panegyrist of Spartan manners, points with some\npride to the tall and vigorous breed of citizens which the Lykurgic\ninstitutions had produced. The beauty of the Laced\u00e6monian women was\nnotorious throughout Greece, and Lampit\u00f4, the Laced\u00e6monian woman\nintroduced in the Lysistrata of Aristophan\u00eas, is made to receive\nfrom the Athenian women the loudest compliments upon her fine shape\nand masculine vigor.[678] We may remark that, on this as well as on\nthe other points, Xenophon emphatically insists on the peculiarity\nof Spartan institutions, contradicting thus the views of those who\nregard them merely as something a little Hyper-Dorian. Indeed, such\npeculiarity seems never to have been questioned in antiquity, either\nby the enemies or by the admirers of Sparta. And those who censured\nthe public masculine exercises of the Spartan maidens, as well as\nthe liberty tolerated in married women, allowed at the same time\nthat the feelings of both were actively identified with the state\nto a degree hardly known in Greece; that the patriotism of the men\ngreatly depended upon the sympathy of the other sex, which manifested\nitself publicly, in a manner not compatible with the recluse life\nof Grecian women generally, to the exaltation of the brave as well\nas to the abasement of the recreant; and that the dignified bearing\nof the Spartan matrons under private family loss seriously assisted\nthe state in the task of bearing up against public reverses. \u201cReturn\neither with your shield or upon it,\u201d was their exhortation to their\nsons when departing for foreign service: and after the fatal day of\nLeuktra, those mothers who had to welcome home their surviving sons\nin dishonor and defeat, were the bitter sufferers; while those whose\nsons had perished, maintained a bearing comparatively cheerful.[679]\n\n [678] Aristophan. Lysistr. 80.\n\n [679] See the remarkable account in Xenophon, Hellen. iv. 16;\n Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 29; one of the most striking incidents in\n Grecian history. Compare, also, the string of sayings ascribed to\n Laced\u00e6monian women, in Plutarch, Lac. Apophth. p. 241, _seq._\n\nSuch were the leading points of the memorable Spartan discipline,\nstrengthened in its effect on the mind by the absence of\ncommunication with strangers. For no Spartan could go abroad without\nleave, nor were strangers permitted to stay at Sparta; they came\nthither, it seems, by a sort of sufferance, but the uncourteous\nprocess called xen\u00ealasy[680] was always available to remove them, nor\ncould there arise in Sparta that class of resident metics or aliens\nwho constituted a large part of the population of Athens, and seem to\nhave been found in most other Grecian towns. It is in this universal\nschooling, training, and drilling, imposed alike upon boys and men,\nyouths and virgins, rich and poor, that the distinctive attribute of\nSparta is to be sought,\u2014not in her laws or political constitution.\n\n [680] How offensive the Laced\u00e6monian xen\u00ealasy or expulsion of\n strangers appeared in Greece, we may see from the speeches of\n Perikl\u00eas in Thucydid\u00eas (i. 144; ii. 39). Compare Xenophon, Rep.\n Lac. xiv. 4; Plutarch, Agis, c. 10; Lykurgus, c. 27; Plato,\n Protagoras, p. 348.\n\n No Spartan left the country without permission: Isokrat\u00eas, Orat.\n xi. (Busiris), p. 225; Xenoph. _ut sup._\n\n Both these regulations became much relaxed after the close of the\n Peloponnesian war.\n\nLykurgus (or the individual to whom this system is owing, whoever\nhe was) is the founder of a warlike brotherhood rather than the\nlawgiver of a political community; his brethren live together like\nbees in a hive (to borrow a simile from Plutarch), with all their\nfeelings implicated in the commonwealth, and divorced from house\nand home.[681] Far from contemplating the society as a whole, with\nits multifarious wants and liabilities, he interdicts beforehand,\nby one of the three primitive Rhetr\u00e6, all written laws, that is\nto say, all formal and premeditated enactments on any special\nsubject. When disputes are to be settled or judicial interference\nis required, the magistrate is to decide from his own sense of\nequity; that the magistrate will not depart from the established\ncustoms and recognized purposes of the city, is presumed from the\npersonal discipline which he and the select body to whom he belongs,\nhave undergone. It is this select body, maintained by the labor of\nothers, over whom Lykurgus exclusively watches, with the provident\neye of a trainer, for the purpose of disciplining them into a state\nof regimental preparation,[682] single-minded obedience, and bodily\nefficiency and endurance, so that they may be always fit and ready\nfor defence, for conquest and for dominion. The parallel of the\nLykurgean institutions is to be found in the Republic of Plato, who\napproves the Spartan principle of select guardians carefully trained\nand administering the community at discretion; with this momentous\ndifference, indeed, that the Spartan character[683] formed by\nLykurgus is of a low type, rendered savage and fierce by exclusive\nand overdone bodily discipline,\u2014destitute even of the elements of\nletters,\u2014immersed in their own narrow specialities, and taught to\ndespise all that lay beyond,\u2014possessing all the qualities requisite\nto procure dominion, but none of those calculated to render dominion\npopular or salutary to the subject; while the habits and attributes\nof the guardians, as shadowed forth by Plato, are enlarged as well\nas philanthropic, qualifying them not simply to govern, but to\ngovern for purposes protective, conciliatory, and exalted. Both\nPlato and Aristotle conceive as the perfection of society something\nof the Spartan type,\u2014a select body of equally privileged citizens,\ndisengaged from industrious pursuits, and subjected to public and\nuniform training. Both admit (with Lykurgus) that the citizen\nbelongs neither to himself nor to his family, but to his city; both\nat the same time note with regret, that the Spartan training was\nturned only to one portion of human virtue,\u2014that which is called\nforth in a state of war;[684] the citizens being converted into a\nsort of garrison, always under drill, and always ready to be called\nforth either against Helots at home or against enemies abroad. Such\nexclusive tendency will appear less astonishing if we consider the\nvery early and insecure period at which the Lykurgean institutions\narose, when none of those guarantees which afterwards maintained\nthe peace of the Hellenic world had as yet become effective,\u2014no\nconstant habits of intercourse, no custom of meeting in Amphiktyony\nfrom the distant parts of Greece, no common or largely frequented\nfestivals, no multiplication of proxenies (or standing tickets of\nhospitality) between the important cities, no pacific or industrious\nhabits anywhere. When we contemplate the general insecurity of\nGrecian life in the ninth or eighth century before the Christian era,\nand especially the precarious condition of a small band of Dorian\nconquerors in Sparta and its district, with subdued Helots on their\nown lands and Ach\u00e6ans unsubdued all around them,\u2014we shall not be\nsurprised that the language which Brasidas in the Peloponnesian\nwar addresses to his army in reference to the original Spartan\nsettlement, was still more powerfully present to the mind of Lykurgus\nfour centuries earlier\u2014\u201cWe are a few in the midst of many enemies; we\ncan only maintain ourselves by fighting and conquering.\u201d[685]\n\n [681] Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 25.\n\n [682] Plutarch observes justly about Sparta, under the discipline\n of Lykurgus, that it was \u201cnot the polity of a city, but the life\n of a trained and skilful man,\u201d\u2014\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03a3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 (Plutarch, Lyk. c. 30).\n\n About the perfect habit of obedience at Sparta, see Xenophon,\n Memorab. iii. 5, 9, 15-iv. 4, 15, the grand attributes of Sparta\n in the eyes of its admirers (Isokrat\u00eas, Panathen. Or. xii. pp.\n 256-278), \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u2014\u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u2014\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f04\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n [683] Aristot. Polit. viii. 3, 3. \u039f\u1f31 \u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n That the Spartans were absolutely ignorant of letters, and could\n not read, is expressly stated by Isokrat\u00eas (Panathen. Or. xii. p.\n 277). \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, etc.\n\n The preference of rhetoric to accuracy, is so manifest in\n Isokrat\u00eas, that we ought to understand his expressions with some\n reserve; but in this case it is evident that he means literally\n what he says, for in another part of the same discourse, there\n is an expression dropped, almost unconsciously, which confirms\n it. \u201cThe most rational Spartans (he says) will appreciate this\n discourse, if they _find any one to read it to them_,\u201d\u2014\u1f22\u03bd \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (p. 285).\n\n [684] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 22; vii. 13, 11; viii. 1, 3; viii.\n 3, 3. Plato, Legg. i. pp. 626-629. Plutarch, Sol\u00f4n, c. 22.\n\n [685] Thucyd. iv. 126. \u039f\u1f35 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f25\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5,\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n The most remarkable circumstance is, that these words are\n addressed by Brasidas to an army composed, in large proportion,\n of manumitted Helots (Thucyd. iv. 81).\n\nUnder such circumstances, the exclusive aim which Lykurgus proposed\nto himself is easily understood; but what is truly surprising, is the\nviolence of his means and the success of the result. He realized his\nproject of creating, in the eight thousand or nine thousand Spartan\ncitizens, unrivalled habits of obedience, hardihood, self-denial, and\nmilitary aptitude,\u2014complete subjection on the part of each individual\nto the local public opinion, and preference of death to the\nabandonment of Spartan maxims, intense ambition on the part of every\none to distinguish himself within the prescribed sphere of duties,\nwith little ambition for anything else. In what manner so rigorous\na system of individual training can have been first brought to bear\nupon any community, mastering the course of the thoughts and actions\nfrom boyhood to old age,\u2014a work far more difficult than any political\nrevolution,\u2014we are not permitted to discover. Nor does the influence\nof an earnest and energetic Herakleidman,\u2014seconded by the still\nmore powerful working of the Delphian god behind, upon the strong\npious susceptibilities of the Spartan mind,\u2014sufficiently explain a\nphenomenon so remarkable in the history of mankind, unless we suppose\nthem aided by some combination of co\u00f6perating circumstances which\nhistory has not transmitted to us,[686] and preceded by disorders so\nexaggerated as to render the citizens glad to escape from them at any\nprice.\n\n [686] Plato treats of the system of Lykurgus, as emanating from\n the Delphian Apollo and Lykurgus as his missionary (Legg. i. p.\n 632).\n\nRespecting the ante-Lykurgean Sparta we possess no positive\ninformation whatever. But although this unfortunate gap cannot be\nfilled up, we may yet master the negative probabilities of the case\nsufficiently to see that, in what Plutarch has told us (and from\nPlutarch the modern views have, until lately, been derived), there is\nindeed a basis of reality, but there is also a large superstructure\nof romance,\u2014in not a few particulars essentially misleading. For\nexample, Plutarch treats Lykurgus as introducing his reforms at a\ntime when Sparta was mistress of Laconia, and distributing the whole\nof that territory among the Peri\u0153ki. Now we know that Laconia was\nnot then in possession of Sparta, and that the partition of Lykurgus\n(assuming it to be real) could only have been applied to the land in\nthe immediate vicinity of the latter. For even Amykl\u00e6, Pharis, and\nGeronthr\u00e6, were not conquered until the reign of T\u00ealeklus, posterior\nto any period which we can reasonably assign to Lykurgus: nor can\nany such distribution of Laconia have really occurred. Farther, we\nare told that Lykurgus banished from Sparta coined gold and silver,\nuseless professions and frivolities, eager pursuit of gain, and\nostentatious display. Without dwelling upon the improbability that\nany one of these anti-Spartan characteristics should have existed at\nso early a period as the ninth century before the Christian era, we\nmay at least be certain that coined silver was not then to be found,\nsince it was first introduced into Greece by Pheidon of Argos in the\nsucceeding century, as has been stated in the preceding section.\n\nBut amongst all the points stated by Plutarch, the most suspicious\nby far, and the most misleading, because endless calculations have\nbeen built upon it, is the alleged redivision of landed property.\nHe tells us that Lykurgus found fearful inequality in the landed\npossessions of the Spartans; nearly all the land in the hands of a\nfew, and a great multitude without any land; that he rectified this\nevil by a redivision of the Spartan district into nine thousand equal\nlots, and the rest of Laconia into thirty thousand, giving to each\ncitizen as much as would produce a given quota of barley, etc.; and\nthat he wished, moreover, to have divided the movable property upon\nsimilar principles of equality, but was deterred by the difficulties\nof carrying his design into execution.\n\nNow we shall find on consideration that this new and equal partition\nof lands by Lykurgus is still more at variance with fact and\nprobability than the two former alleged proceedings. All the\nhistorical evidences exhibit decided inequalities of property among\nthe Spartans,\u2014inequalities which tended constantly to increase;\nmoreover, the earlier authors do not conceive this evil as having\ngrown up by way of abuse out of a primeval system of perfect\nequality, nor do they know anything of the original equal redivision\nby Lykurgus. Even as early as the poet Alk\u00e6us (B. C. 600-580) we\nfind bitter complaints of the oppressive ascendency of wealth, and\nthe degradation of the poor man, cited as having been pronounced\nby Aristod\u00eamus at Sparta: \u201cWealth (said he) makes the man,\u2014no poor\nperson is either accounted good or honored.\u201d[687] Next, the historian\nHellanikus certainly knew nothing of the Lykurgean redivision,\u2014for\nhe ascribed the whole Spartan polity to Eurysthen\u00eas and Prokl\u00eas,\nthe original founders, and hardly noticed Lykurgus at all. Again,\nin the brief, but impressive description of the Spartan lawgiver by\nHerodotus, several other institutions are alluded to, but nothing\nis said about a redivision of the lands; and this latter point is\nin itself of such transcendent moment, and was so recognized among\nall Grecian thinkers, that the omission is almost a demonstration of\nignorance. Thucydid\u00eas certainly could not have believed that equality\nof property was an original feature in the Lykurgean system; for\nhe says that, at Laced\u00e6mon, \u201cthe rich men assimilated themselves\ngreatly in respect of clothing and general habits of life to the\nsimplicity of the poor, and thus set an example which was partially\nfollowed in the rest of Greece:\u201d a remark which both implies the\nexistence of unequal property, and gives a just appreciation of\nthe real working of Lykurgic institutions.[688] The like is the\nsentiment of Xenophon:[689] he observes that the rich at Sparta\ngained little by their wealth in point of superior comfort; but he\nnever glances at any original measure carried into effect by Lykurgus\nfor equalizing possessions. Plato too,[690] while he touches upon the\ngreat advantage possessed by the Dorians, immediately after their\nconquest of Peloponnesus, in being able to apportion land suitably\nto all,\u2014never hints that this original distribution had degenerated\ninto an abuse, and that an entire subsequent redivision had been\nresorted to by Lykurgus: moreover, he is himself deeply sensible\nof the hazards of that formidable proceeding. Lastly, Aristotle\nclearly did not believe that Lykurgus had redivided the soil. For he\ninforms us first, that, \u201cboth in Laced\u00e6mon and in Krete,[691] the\nlegislator had rendered the enjoyment of property common through\nthe establishment of the Syssitia, or public mess.\u201d Now this remark\n(if read in the chapter of which it forms a part, a refutation of\nthe scheme of Communism for the select guardians in the Platonic\nRepublic) will be seen to tell little for its point, if we assume\nthat Lykurgus at the same time equalized all individual possessions.\nHad Aristotle known that fact, he could not have failed to notice it:\nnor could he have assimilated the legislators in Laced\u00e6mon and Krete,\nseeing that in the latter no one pretends that any such equalization\nwas ever brought about. Next, not only does Aristotle dwell upon\nthe actual inequality of property at Sparta as a serious public\nevil, but he nowhere treats this as having grown out of a system\nof absolute equality once enacted by the lawgiver as a part of the\nprimitive constitution: he expressly notices inequality of property\nso far back as the second Messenian war. Moreover, in that valuable\nchapter of his Politics, where the scheme of equality of possessions\nis discussed, Phaleas of Chalked\u00f4n is expressly mentioned as the\nfirst author of it, thus indirectly excluding Lykurgus.[692] The mere\nsilence of Aristotle is in this discussion a negative argument of\nthe greatest weight. Isokrat\u00eas,[693] too, speaks much about Sparta\nfor good and for evil,\u2014mentions Lykurgus as having established\na political constitution much like that of the earliest days of\nAthens,\u2014praises the gymnasia and the discipline, and compliments\nthe Spartans upon the many centuries which they have gone through\nwithout violent sedition, extinction of debts, and redivision of the\nland,\u2014those \u201cmonstrous evils,\u201d as he terms them. Had he conceived\nLykurgus as being himself the author of a complete redivision of\nland, he could hardly have avoided some allusion to it.\n\n [687] Alc\u00e6i Fragment. 41, p. 279, ed. Schneidewin:\u2014\n\n \u1f69\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd ~\u03a3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u1fb3 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd~\n \u0395\u1f30\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bd\u2014~\u03a7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1~\u00b7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n Compare the Schol. ad Pindar. Isthm. ii. 17, and Diogen. La\u00ebrt.\n i. 31.\n\n [688] Thucydid. i. 6. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f56 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. See, also,\n Plutarch, Apophthegm. Lacon. p. 210. A.-F.\n\n [689] Xenoph. Republ. Laced. c. 7.\n\n [690] Plato, Legg. iii. p. 684.\n\n [691] Aristotel. Politic. ii. 2, 10. \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5.\n\n [692] Aristot. Politic. ii. 4, 1, about Phaleas; and about Sparta\n and Krete, generally, the whole sixth and seventh chapters of the\n second book; also, v. 6, 2-7.\n\n Theophrastus (apud Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 10) makes a similar\n observation, that the public mess, and the general simplicity\n of habits, tended to render wealth of little service to the\n possessor: \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3. Compare Plutarch.\n Apophthegm. Lacon. p. 226 E. The wealth, therefore, was not\n formally done away with in the opinion of Theophrastus: there was\n no positive equality of possessions.\n\n Both the Spartan kings dined at the public mess at the same\n pheidition (Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 30).\n\n Herakleid\u00eas Ponticus mentions nothing, either about equality of\n Spartan lots or fresh partition of lands, by Lykurgus (ad calcem\n Cragii, De Spartanorum Repub. p. 504), though he speaks about the\n Spartan lots and law of succession as well as about Lykurgus.\n\n [693] Isokrat\u00eas, Panathen. Or. xii. pp. 266, 270, 278: \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nIt appears, then, that none of the authors down to Aristotle\nascribe to Lykurgus a redivision of the lands, either of Sparta\nor of Laconia. The statement to this effect in Plutarch, given in\ngreat detail and with precise specification of number and produce,\nmust have been borrowed from some author later than Aristotle; and\nI think we may trace the source of it, when we study Plutarch\u2019s\nbiography of Lykurgus in conjunction with that of Agis and\nKleomen\u00eas. The statement is taken from authors of the century after\nAristotle, either in, or shortly before, the age when both those\nkings tried extreme measures to renovate the sinking state: the\nformer by a thorough change of system and property, yet proposed\nand accepted according to constitutional forms; the latter by\nprojects substantially similar, with violence to enforce them. The\naccumulation of landed property in few hands, the multiplication of\npoor, and the decline in the number of citizens, which are depicted\nas grave mischiefs by Aristotle, had become greatly aggravated\nduring the century between him and Agis. The number of citizens,\nreckoned by Herodotus in the time of the Persian invasion at eight\nthousand, had dwindled down in the time of Aristotle to one thousand,\nand in that of Agis to seven hundred, out of which latter number\none hundred alone possessed most of the landed property of the\nstate.[694] Now, by the ancient rule of Lykurgus, the qualification\nfor citizenship was the ability to furnish the prescribed quota,\nincumbent on each individual, at the public mess: so soon as a\ncitizen became too poor to answer to this requisition, he lost his\nfranchise and his eligibility to offices.[695] The smaller lots\nof land, though it was held discreditable either to buy or sell\nthem,[696] and though some have asserted (without ground, I think)\nthat it was forbidden to divide them,\u2014became insufficient for\nnumerous families, and seem to have been alienated in some indirect\nmanner to the rich; while every industrious occupation being both\ninterdicted to a Spartan citizen and really inconsistent with his\nrigorous personal discipline, no other means of furnishing his\nquota, except the lot of land, was open to him. The difficulty felt\nwith regard to these smaller lots of land may be judged of from the\nfact stated by Polybius,[697] that three or four Spartan brothers\nhad often one and the same wife, the paternal land being just\nsufficient to furnish contributions for all to the public mess, and\nthus to keep alive the citizen-rights of all the sons. The tendency\nto diminution in the number of Spartan citizens seems to have gone\non uninterruptedly from the time of the Persian war, and must have\nbeen aggravated by the foundation of Mess\u00ean\u00ea, with its independent\nterritory around, after the battle of Leuktra, an event which robbed\nthe Spartans of a large portion of their property. Apart from these\nspecial causes, moreover, it has been observed often as a statistical\nfact, that a close corporation of citizens, or any small number\nof families, intermarrying habitually among one another, and not\nreinforced from without, have usually a tendency to diminish.\n\n [694] Plutarch, Agis, c. iv.\n\n [695] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 21. \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb7\u03bd.... ~\u1f4d\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2~. So also Xenophon, Rep. Lac. c. vii. \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n The existence of this rate-paying qualification, is the capital\n fact in the history of the Spartan constitution; especially\n when we couple it with the other fact, that no Spartan acquired\n anything by any kind of industry.\n\n [696] Herakleid\u00eas Ponticus, ad calcem Cragii De Repub. Laced. p.\n 504. Compare Cragius, iii. 2, p. 196.\n\n Aristotle (ii. 6, 10) states that it was discreditable to buy or\n sell a lot of land, but that the lot might be either given or\n bequeathed at pleasure. He mentions nothing about the prohibition\n to divide, and even states what contradicts it,\u2014that it was the\n practice to give a large dowry when a rich man\u2019s daughter married\n (ii. 6, 11). The sister of Agesilaus, Kyniska, was a person of\n large property, which apparently implies the division of his\n father\u2019s estate (Plutarch, Agesilaus, 30).\n\n Whether there was ever any law prohibiting a father from dividing\n his lot among his children, may well be doubted. The Rhetra of\n the ephor Epitadeus (Plutarch, Agis, 5), granted unlimited power\n of testamentary disposition to the possessor, so that he might\n give away or bequeathe his land to a stranger if he chose. To\n this law great effects are ascribed: but it is evident that the\n tendency to accumulate property in few hands, and the tendency to\n diminution in the number of qualified citizens, were powerfully\n manifested before the time of Epitadeus, who came after Lysander.\n Plutarch, in another place, notices Hesiod, Xenokrates, and\n Lykurgus, as having concurred with Plato, in thinking that it\n was proper to leave only one single heir (\u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) (\u1f59\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, Fragm. vol. v. p. 777,\n Wyttenb.). But Hesiod does not lay down this as a necessity or as\n a universal rule; he only says, that a man is better off who has\n only one son (Opp. Di. 374). And if Plato had been able to cite\n Lykurgus as an authority for that system of an invariable number\n of separate \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, or lots, which he sets forth in his treatise\n De Legibus (p. 740), it is highly probable that he would have\n done so. Still less can Aristotle have supposed that Lykurgus or\n the Spartan system either insured, or intended to insure, the\n maintenance of an unalterable number of distinct proprietary\n lots; for he expressly notices that scheme as a peculiarity of\n Philolaus the Corinthian, in his laws for the Thebans (Polit. ii.\n 9, 7).\n\n [697] Polybius, Fragm. ap. Maii. Collect. Vett. Scrip. vol. ii.\n p. 384.\n\n Perhaps, as O. M\u00fcller remarks, this may mean only, that none\n except the eldest brother could afford to marry; but the feelings\n of the Spartans in respect to marriage were, in many other\n points, so different from ours, that we are hardly authorized to\n reject the literal statement (History of the Dorians, iii. 10,\n 2),\u2014which, indeed, is both illustrated and rendered credible by\n the permission granted in the laws of Sol\u00f4n to an \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 who\n had been claimed in marriage by a relative in his old age,\u2014\u1f02\u03bd\n \u1f41 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f96\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c0\u03c5\u03af\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (Plutarch, Sol\u00f4n,\n c. 20).\n\n I may observe that of O. M\u00fcller\u2019s statements, respecting the lots\n of land at Sparta, several are unsupported and some incorrect.\n\nThe present is not the occasion to enter at length into that\ncombination of causes which partly sapped, partly overthrew, both\nthe institutions of Lykurgus and the power of Sparta. But taking the\ncondition of that city as it stood in the time of Agis the Third\n(say about 250 B. C.), we know that its citizens had become few in\nnumber, the bulk of them miserably poor, and all the land in a small\nnumber of hands. The old discipline and the public mess (as far as\nthe rich were concerned) had degenerated into mere forms,\u2014a numerous\nbody of strangers or non-citizens (the old xen\u00ealasy, or prohibition\nof resident strangers, being long discontinued) were domiciled in the\ntown, forming a powerful moneyed interest; and lastly, the dignity\nand ascendency of the state amongst its neighbors were altogether\nruined. It was insupportable to a young enthusiast like king Agis, as\nwell as to many ardent spirits among his contemporaries, to contrast\nthis degradation with the previous glories of their country: nor\ndid they see any other way of reconstructing the old Sparta except\nby again admitting the disfranchised poor citizens, redividing\nthe lands, cancelling all debts, and restoring the public mess\nand military training in all their strictness. Agis endeavored to\ncarry through these subversive measures, (such as no demagogue in\nthe extreme democracy of Athens would ever have ventured to glance\nat,) with the consent of the senate and public assembly, and the\nacquiescence of the rich. His sincerity is attested by the fact, that\nhis own property, and that of his female relatives, among the largest\nin the state, was cast as the first sacrifice into the common stock.\nBut he became the dupe of unprincipled coadjutors, and perished in\nthe unavailing attempt to realize his scheme by persuasion. His\nsuccessor, Kleomen\u00eas, afterwards accomplished by violence a change\nsubstantially similar, though the intervention of foreign arms\nspeedily overthrew both himself and his institutions.\n\nNow it was under the state of public feeling which gave birth to\nthese projects of Agis and Kleomen\u00eas at Sparta, that the historic\nfancy, unknown to Aristotle and his predecessors, first gained\nground, of the absolute equality of property as a primitive\ninstitution of Lykurgus. How much such a belief would favor the\nschemes of innovation is too obvious to require notice; and without\nsupposing any deliberate imposture, we cannot be astonished that the\npredispositions of enthusiastic patriots interpreted, according to\ntheir own partialities, an old unrecorded legislation from which they\nwere separated by more than five centuries. The Lykurgean discipline\ntended forcibly to suggest to men\u2019s minds the _idea_ of equality\namong the citizens,\u2014that is, the negation of all inequality not\nfounded on some personal attribute,\u2014inasmuch as it assimilated the\nhabits, enjoyments, and capacities of the rich to those of the poor;\nand the equality thus existing in idea and tendency, which seemed to\nproclaim the wish of the founder, was strained by the later reformers\ninto a positive institution which he had at first realized, but from\nwhich his degenerate followers had receded. It was thus that the\nfancies, longings, and indirect suggestions of the present assumed\nthe character of recollections out of the early, obscure, and extinct\nhistorical past. Perhaps the philosopher Sph\u00e6rus of Borysthen\u00eas\n(friend and companion of Kleomen\u00eas,[698] disciple of Zeno the Stoic,\nand author of works now lost, both on Lykurgus and Socrates, and\non the constitution of Sparta) may have been one of those who gave\ncurrency to such an hypothesis. And we shall readily believe that, if\nadvanced, it would find easy and sincere credence, when we recollect\nhow many similar delusions have obtained vogue in modern times, far\nmore favorable to historical accuracy,\u2014how much false coloring has\nbeen attached by the political feeling of recent days to matters of\nancient history, such as the Saxon Witenagemote, the Great Charter,\nthe rise and growth of the English House of Commons, or even the Poor\nLaw of Elizabeth.\n\n [698] Plutarch, Kleomen\u00eas, cap. 2-11, with the note of Sch\u00f6mann,\n p. 175; also, Lycurg. cap. 8; Athen\u00e6. iv. p. 141.\n\n Phylarchus, also, described the proceedings of Kleomen\u00eas,\n seemingly with favor (Athen\u00e6. ib.); compare Plutarch, Agis, c. 9.\n\n Polybius believed, that Lykurgus had introduced equality of\n landed possession, both in the district of Sparta, and throughout\n Laconia: his opinion is, probably, borrowed from these same\n authors, of the third century before the Christian era. For he\n expresses his great surprise, how the best-informed ancient\n authors (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd), Plato, Xenophon,\n Ephorus, Kallisthen\u00eas, can compare the Kretan polity to the old\n Laced\u00e6monian, the main features of the two being (as he says) so\n different,\u2014equality of property at Sparta, great inequality of\n property in Krete, among other differences (Polyb. vi. 45-48).\n\n This remark of Polybius, exhibits the difference of opinion of\n the earlier writers, as compared with those during the third\n century before the Christian era. The former compared Spartan and\n Kretan institutions, because they did not conceive equality of\n landed property as a feature in old Sparta.\n\nWhen we read the division of lands really proposed by king Agis, it\nis found to be a very close copy of the original division ascribed to\nLykurgus. He parcels the lands bounded by the four limits of Pell\u00ean\u00ea,\nSellasia, Malea, and Taygetus, into four thousand five hundred lots,\none to every Spartan; and the lands beyond these limits into fifteen\nthousand lots, one to each Peri\u0153kus; and he proposes to constitute\nin Sparta fifteen pheiditia, or public mess-tables, some including\nfour hundred individuals, others two hundred,\u2014thus providing a place\nfor each of his four thousand five hundred Spartans. With respect to\nthe division originally ascribed to Lykurgus, different accounts were\ngiven. Some considered it to have set out nine thousand lots for the\ndistrict of Sparta, and thirty thousand for the rest of Laconia;[699]\nothers affirmed that six thousand lots had been given by Lykurgus,\nand three thousand added afterwards by king Polydorus; a third tale\nwas, that Lykurgus had assigned four thousand five hundred lots, and\nking Polydorus as many more. This last scheme is much the same as\nwhat was really proposed by Agis.\n\n [699] Respecting Sph\u00e6rus, see Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 8; Kleomen. c.\n 2; Athen\u00e6. v. p. 141; Diogen. La\u00ebrt. vii. sect. 137.\n\nIn the preceding argument respecting the redivision of land ascribed\nto Lykurgus, I have taken that measure as it is described by\nPlutarch. But there has been a tendency, in some able modern writers,\nwhile admitting the general fact of such redivision, to reject the\naccount given by Plutarch in some of its main circumstances. That,\nfor instance, which is the capital feature in Plutarch\u2019s narrative,\nand which gives soul and meaning to his picture of the lawgiver\u2014the\nequality of partition\u2014is now rejected by many as incorrect, and it\nis supposed that Lykurgus made some new agrarian regulations tending\ntowards a general equality of landed property, but not an entirely\nnew partition; that he may have resumed from the wealthy men lands\nwhich they had unjustly taken from the conquered Ach\u00e6ans, and thus\nprovided allotments both for the poorer citizens and for the subject\nLaconians. Such is the opinion of Dr. Thirlwall, who at the same time\nadmits that the exact proportion of the Lykurgean distribution can\nhardly be ascertained.[700]\n\n [700] Hist. of Greece, ch. viii. vol. i. pp. 344-347.\n\n C. F. Hermann, on the contrary, considers the equal partition of\n Laconia into lots indivisible and inalienable, as \u201can essential\n condition\u201d (eine wesentliche Bedingung) of the whole Lykurgean\n system (Lehrbuch der Griechischen Staatsalterth\u00fcmer, sect. 28).\n\n Tittmann (Griechische Staatsverfassungen, pp. 588-596) states\n and seems to admit the equal partition as a fact, without any\n commentary.\n\n Wachsmuth (Hellenisch. Alterthumskunde, v. 4, 42, p. 217)\n supposes \u201cthat the best land was already parcelled, before the\n time of Lykurgus, into lots of equal magnitude, corresponding to\n the number of Spartans, which number afterwards increased to nine\n thousand.\u201d For this assertion, I know no evidence: it departs\n from Plutarch, without substituting anything better authenticated\n or more plausible. Wachsmuth notices the partition of Laconia\n among the Peri\u0153ki in thirty thousand equal lots, without any\n comment, and seemingly as if there were no doubt of it (p. 218).\n\n Manso, also, supposes that there had once been an equal division\n of land prior to Lykurgus,\u2014that it had degenerated into\n abuse,\u2014and that Lykurgus corrected it, restoring, not absolute\n equality, but something near to equality (Manso, Sparta, vol. i.\n pp. 110-121). This is the same gratuitous supposition as that of\n Wachsmuth.\n\n O. M\u00fcller admits the division as stated by Plutarch, though he\n says that the whole number of nine thousand lots cannot have been\n set out before the Messenian war; and he adheres to the idea of\n equality as contained in Plutarch; but he says that the equality\n consisted in \u201cequal estimate of average produce,\u201d\u2014not in equal\n acreable dimensions. He goes so far as to tell us that \u201cthe lots\n of the Spartans, which supported twice as many men as the lots of\n the Peri\u0153ki, must, upon the whole, have been twice as extensive\n (_i. e._ in the aggregate): each lot must, therefore, have been\n seven times greater,\u201d (compare History of the Dorians, iii. 3,\n 6; iii. 10, 2.) He also supposes, that \u201csimilar partitions of\n land had been made from the time of the first occupation of\n Laconia by the Dorians.\u201d Whoever compares his various positions\n with the evidence brought to support them, will find a painful\n disproportion between the basis and the superstructure.\n\n The views of Sch\u00f6mann, as far as I collect from expressions\n somewhat vague, seem to coincide with those of Dr. Thirlwall. He\n admits, however that the alleged Lykurgean equalization is at\n variance with the representations of Plato (Sch\u00f6mann, Antiq. Jur.\n Pub. iv. 1, 7, note 4, p. 116).\n\nI cannot but take a different view of the statement made by Plutarch.\nThe moment that we depart from that rule of equality, which stands\nso prominently marked in his biography of Lykurgus, we step into\na boundless field of possibility, in which there is nothing to\ndetermine us to one point more than to another. The surmise started\nby Dr. Thirlwall, of lands unjustly taken from the conquered Ach\u00e6ans\nby wealthy Spartan proprietors, is altogether gratuitous; and\ngranting it to be correct, we have still to explain how it happened\nthat this correction of a partial injustice came to be transformed\ninto the comprehensive and systematic measure which Plutarch\ndescribes; and to explain, farther, from whence it arose that none of\nthe authors earlier than Plutarch take any notice of Lykurgus as an\nagrarian equalizer. These two difficulties will still remain, even if\nwe overlook the gratuitous nature of Dr. Thirlwall\u2019s supposition, or\nof any other supposition which can be proposed respecting the real\nLykurgean measure which Plutarch is affirmed to have misrepresented.\n\nIt appears to me that these difficulties are best obviated by\nadopting a different canon of historical interpretation. We cannot\naccept as real the Lykurgean land division described in the life\nof the lawgiver; but treating this account as a fiction, two modes\nof proceeding are open to us. We may either consider the fiction,\nas it now stands, to be the exaggeration and distortion of some\nsmall fact, and then try to guess, without any assistance, what\nthe small fact was. Or we may regard it as fiction from first to\nlast, the expression of some large idea and sentiment so powerful\nin its action on men\u2019s minds at a given time, as to induce them to\nmake a place for it among the realities of the past. Now the latter\nsupposition, applied to the times of Agis the Third, best meets\nthe case before us. The eighth chapter of the life of Lykurgus by\nPlutarch, in recounting the partition of land, describes the dream\nof king Agis, whose mind is full of two sentiments,\u2014grief and shame\nfor the actual condition of his country,\u2014together with reverence\nfor its past glories, as well as for the lawgiver from whose\ninstitutions those glories had emanated. Absorbed with this double\nfeeling, the reveries of Agis go back to the old ante-Lykurgean\nSparta, as it stood more than five centuries before. He sees, in the\nspirit, the same mischiefs and disorders as those which afflict his\nwaking eye,\u2014gross inequalities of property, with a few insolent and\nluxurious rich, a crowd of mutinous and suffering poor, and nothing\nbut fierce antipathy reigning between the two. Into the midst of this\nfroward, lawless, and distempered community, steps the venerable\nmissionary from Delphi,\u2014breathes into men\u2019s minds new impulses, and\nan impatience to shake off the old social and political Adam,\u2014and\npersuades the rich, voluntarily abnegating their temporal advantages,\nto welcome with satisfaction a new system, wherein no distinction\nshall be recognized, except that of good or evil desert.[701] Having\nthus regenerated the national mind, he parcels out the territory of\nLaconia into equal lots, leaving no superiority to any one. Fraternal\nharmony becomes the reigning sentiment, while the coming harvests\npresent the gratifying spectacle of a paternal inheritance recently\ndistributed, with the brotherhood contented, modest, and docile. Such\nis the picture with which \u201cmischievous Oneirus\u201d cheats the fancy of\nthe patriotic Agis, whispering the treacherous message that the gods\nhave promised _him_ success in a similar attempt, and thus seducing\nhim into that fatal revolutionary course, which is destined to bring\nhimself, his wife, and his aged mother, to the dungeon and the\nhangman\u2019s rope.[702]\n\n [701] Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 8. \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2,\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c8\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. \u1f18\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5, etc.\n\n [702] Plutarch, Agis, c. 19-20.\n\nThat the golden dream just described was dreamed by some Spartan\npatriots is certain, because it stands recorded in Plutarch; that it\nwas not dreamed by the authors of centuries preceding Agis, I have\nalready endeavored to show; that the earnest feelings, of sickness\nof the present and yearning for a better future under the colors\nof a restored past, which filled the soul of this king and his\nbrother-reformers,\u2014combined with the levelling tendency between rich\nand poor which really was inherent in the Lykurgean discipline,\u2014were\namply sufficient to beget such a dream, and to procure for it a place\namong the great deeds of the old lawgiver, so much venerated and so\nlittle known,\u2014this too I hold to be unquestionable. Had there been\nany evidence that Lykurgus had interfered with private property,\nto the limited extent which Dr. Thirlwall and other able critics\nimagine,\u2014that he had resumed certain lands unjustly taken by the\nrich from the Ach\u00e6ans,\u2014I should have been glad to record it; but,\nfinding no such evidence, I cannot think it necessary to presume the\nfact, simply in order to account for the story in Plutarch.[703]\n\n [703] I read with much satisfaction, in M. Kopstadt\u2019s\n Dissertation, that the general conclusion which I have endeavored\n to establish respecting the alleged Lykurgean redivision of\n property, appears to him successfully proved. (Dissert. De Rerum\n Laconic. Const. sect. 18, p. 138.)\n\n He supposes, with perfect truth, that, at the time when the\n first edition of these volumes was published, I was ignorant of\n the fact, that Lachmann and Kort\u00fcm had both called in question\n the reality of the Lykurgean redivision. In regard to Professor\n Kort\u00fcm, the fact was first brought to my knowledge, by his notice\n of these two volumes, in the Heidelberger Jahrb\u00fccher, 1846, No.\n 41, p. 649.\n\n Since the first edition, I have read the treatise of Lachmann\n (Die Spartanische Staats Verfassung in ihrer Entwicklung und\n ihrem Verfalle, sect. 10, p. 170) wherein the redivision ascribed\n to Lykurgus is canvassed. He, too, attributes the origin of\n the tale, as a portion of history, to the social and political\n feelings current in the days of Agis the Third, and Kleomen\u00eas the\n Third. He notices, also, that it is in contradiction with Plato\n and Isokrat\u00eas. But a large proportion of the arguments which\n he brings to disprove it, are connected with ideas of his own\n respecting the social and political constitution of Sparta, which\n I think either untrue or uncertified. Moreover, he believes in\n the inalienability as well as the indivisibility of the separate\n lots of land,\u2014which I believe to be just as little correct as\n their supposed equality.\n\n Kopstadt (p. 139) thinks that I have gone too far in rejecting\n every middle opinion. He thinks that Lykurgus must have done\n something, though much less than what is affirmed, tending to\n realize equality of individual property.\n\n I shall not say that this is impossible. If we had ampler\n evidence, perhaps such facts might appear. But as the evidence\n stands now, there is nothing whatever to show it. Nor are we\n entitled (in my judgment) to presume that it was so, in the\n absence of evidence, simply in order to make out that the\n Lykurgean mythe is only an exaggeration, and not entire fiction.\n\nThe various items in that story all hang together, and must be\nunderstood as forming parts of the same comprehensive fact, or\ncomprehensive fancy. The fixed total of nine thousand Spartan, and\nthirty thousand Laconian lots,[704] the equality between them,\nand the rent accruing from each, represented by a given quantity\nof moist and dry produce,\u2014all these particulars are alike true\nor alike uncertified. Upon the various numbers here given, many\nauthors have raised calculations as to the population and produce of\nLaconia, which appear to me destitute of any trustworthy foundation.\nThose who accept the history, that Lykurgus constituted the\nabove-mentioned numbers both of citizens and of lots of land, and\nthat he contemplated the maintenance of both numbers in unchangeable\nproportion,\u2014are perplexed to assign the means whereby this adjustment\nwas kept undisturbed. Nor are they much assisted in the solution of\nthis embarrassing problem by the statement of Plutarch, who tells us\nthat the number remained fixed of itself, and that the succession ran\non from father to son, without either consolidation or multiplication\nof parcels, down to the period when foreign wealth flowed into\nSparta, as a consequence of the successful conclusion of the\nPeloponnesian war. Shortly after that period (he tells us) a citizen\nnamed Epitadeus became ephor,\u2014a vindictive and malignant man, who,\nhaving had a quarrel with his son, and wishing to oust him from the\nsuccession, introduced and obtained sanction to a new Rhetra, whereby\npower was granted to every father of a family either to make over\nduring life, or to bequeathe after death, his house and his estate to\nany one whom he chose.[705] But it is plain that this story (whatever\nbe the truth about the family quarrel of Epitadeus) does not help\nus out of the difficulty. From the time of Lykurgus to that of this\ndisinheriting ephor, more than four centuries must be reckoned: now,\nhad there been real causes at work sufficient to maintain inviolate\nthe identical number of lots and families during this long period, we\nsee no reason why his new law, simply permissive and nothing more,\nshould have overthrown it. We are not told by Plutarch what was\nthe law of succession prior to Epitadeus. If the whole estate went\nby law to one son in the family, what became of the other sons, to\nwhom industrious acquisition in any shape was repulsive as well as\ninterdicted? If, on the other hand, the estate was divided between\nthe sons equally (as it was by the law of succession at Athens), how\ncan we defend the maintenance of an unchanged aggregate number of\nparcels?\n\n [704] Aristotle (Polit. ii. 6, 11) remarks that the territory of\n the Spartans would maintain fifteen hundred horsemen and thirty\n thousand hoplites, while the number of citizens was, in point of\n fact, less than one thousand. Dr. Thirlwall seems to prefer the\n reading of G\u00f6ttling,\u2014three thousand instead of thirty thousand;\n but the latter seems better supported by MSS, and most suitable.\n\n [705] Plutarch, Agis, c. 5.\n\nDr. Thirlwall, after having admitted a modified interference with\nprivate property by Lykurgus, so as to exact from the wealthy a\ncertain sacrifice in order to create lots for the poor, and to\nbring about something approaching to equi-producing lots for all,\nobserves: \u201cThe average amount of the rent, paid by the cultivating\nHelots from each lot, seems to have been no more than was required\nfor the frugal maintenance of a family with six persons. The right of\ntransfer was as strictly confined as that of enjoyment; the patrimony\nwas indivisible, inalienable, and descended to the eldest son; in\ndefault of a male heir, to the eldest daughter. The object seems to\nhave been, after the number of the allotments became fixed, that\neach should be constantly represented by one head of a household.\nBut the nature of the means employed for this end is one of the\nmost obscure points of the Spartan system.... In the better times\nof the commonwealth, this seems to have been principally effected\nby adoptions and marriages with heiresses, which provided for the\nmarriages of younger sons in families too numerous to be supported on\ntheir own hereditary property. It was then probably seldom necessary\nfor the state to interfere, in order to direct the childless owner\nof an estate, or the father of a rich heiress, to a proper choice.\nBut as all adoption required the sanction of the kings, and they\nhad also the disposal of the hand of orphan heiresses, there can be\nlittle doubt that the magistrate had the power of interposing on\nsuch occasions, even in opposition to the wishes of individuals, to\nrelieve poverty and check the accumulation of wealth.\u201d (Hist. Gr. ch.\n8, vol. i. p. 367).\n\nI cannot concur in the view which Dr. Thirlwall here takes of the\nstate of property, or the arrangements respecting its transmission,\nin ancient Sparta. Neither the equal modesty of possession which\nhe supposes, nor the precautions for perpetuating it, can be shown\nto have ever existed among the pupils of Lykurgus. Our earliest\ninformation intimates the existence of rich men at Sparta: the story\nof king Aristo and Ag\u00eatus, in Herodotus, exhibits to us the latter\nas a man who cannot be supposed to have had only just \u201cenough to\nmaintain six persons frugally,\u201d\u2014while his beautiful wife, whom\nAristo coveted and entrapped from him, is expressly described as the\ndaughter of opulent parents. Sperthi\u00eas and Bulis, the Talthybiads,\nare designated as belonging to a distinguished race, and among the\nwealthiest men in Sparta.[706] Demaratus was the only king of Sparta,\nin the days of Herodotus, who had ever gained a chariot-victory in\nthe Olympic games; but we know by the case of Lichas, during the\nPeloponnesian war, Evagoras, and others, that private Spartans were\nequally successful;[707] and for one Spartan who won the prize,\nthere must of course have been many who bred their horses and\nstarted their chariots unsuccessfully. It need hardly be remarked,\nthat chariot-competition at Olympia was one of the most significant\nevidences of a wealthy house: nor were there wanting Spartans who\nkept horses and dogs without any exclusive view to the games. We\nknow from Xenophon that, at the time of the battle of Leuktra,\n\u201cthe very rich Spartans\u201d provided the horses to be mounted for the\nstate-cavalry.[708] These and other proofs, of the existence of rich\nmen at Sparta, are inconsistent with the idea of a body of citizens\neach possessing what was about enough for the frugal maintenance of\nsix persons, and no more.\n\n [706] Herod. vi. 61. \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f40\u03bb\u03b2\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, etc; vii.\n 134.\n\n [707] Herod. vi. 70-103; Thucyd. v. 50.\n\n [708] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 4, 11; Xenoph. de Rep. Lac. v. 3;\n Molpis ap. Athen\u00e6. iv. p. 141; Aristot. Polit. ii. 2, 5.\n\nAs we do not find that such was in practice the state of property\nin the Spartan community, so neither can we discover that the\nlawgiver ever tried either to make or to keep it so. What he did\nwas to impose a rigorous public discipline, with simple clothing\nand fare, incumbent alike upon the rich and the poor (this was his\nspecial present to Greece, according to Thucydid\u00eas,[709] and his\ngreat point of contact with democracy, according to Aristotle); but\nhe took no pains either to restrain the enrichment of the former, or\nto prevent the impoverishment of the latter. He meddled little with\nthe distribution of property, and such neglect is one of the capital\ndeficiencies for which Aristotle censures him. That philosopher\ntells us, indeed, that the Spartan law had made it dishonorable\n(he does not say, peremptorily forbidden) to buy or sell landed\nproperty, but that there was the fullest liberty both of donation\nand bequest: and the same results, he justly observes, ensued from\nthe practice tolerated as would have ensued from the practice\ndiscountenanced,\u2014since it was easy to disguise a real sale under an\nostensible donation. He notices pointedly the tendency of property\nat Sparta to concentrate itself in fewer hands, unopposed by any\nlegal hindrances: the fathers married their daughters to whomsoever\nthey chose, and gave dowries according to their own discretion,\ngenerally very large: the rich families, moreover, intermarried\namong one another habitually, and without restriction. Now all these\nare indicated by Aristotle as cases in which the law might have\ninterfered, and ought to have interfered, but did not,\u2014for the great\npurpose of disseminating the benefits of landed property as much as\npossible among the mass of the citizens. Again, he tells us that the\nlaw encouraged the multiplication of progeny, and granted exemptions\nto such citizens as had three or four children,\u2014but took no thought\nhow the numerous families of poorer citizens were to live, or to\nmaintain their qualification at the public tables, most of the lands\nof the state being in the hands of the rich.[710] His notice, and\ncondemnation, of that law, which made the franchise of the Spartan\ncitizen dependent upon his continuing to furnish his quota to the\npublic table,\u2014has been already adverted to; as well as the potent\nlove of money[711] which he notes in the Spartan character, and which\nmust have tended continually to keep together the richer families\namong themselves: while amongst a community where industry was\nunknown, no poor citizen could ever become rich.\n\n [709] Thucyd. i. 6; Aristot. Polit. iv. 7, 4, 5; viii. 1, 3.\n\n [710] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 10-13; v. 6, 7.\n\n [711] The panegyrist Xenophon acknowledges much the same\n respecting the Sparta which he witnessed; but he maintains that\n it had been better in former times (Repub. Lac. c. 14).\n\nIf we duly weigh these evidences, we shall see that equality of\npossessions neither existed in fact, nor ever entered into the\nscheme and tendencies of the lawgiver at Sparta. And the picture\nwhich Dr. Thirlwall[712] has drawn of a body of citizens each\npossessing a lot of land about adequate to the frugal maintenance of\nsix persons,\u2014of adoptions and marriages of heiresses arranged with\na deliberate view of providing for the younger children of numerous\nfamilies,\u2014of interference on the part of the kings to insure this\nobject,\u2014of a fixed number of lots of land, each represented by one\nhead of a household,\u2014this picture is one, of which the reality\nmust not be sought on the banks of the Eurotas. The \u201cbetter times\nof the commonwealth,\u201d to which he refers, may have existed in the\nglowing retrospect of Agis, but are not acknowledged in the sober\nappreciation of Aristotle. That the citizens were far more numerous\nin early times, the philosopher tells us, and that the community had\nin his day greatly declined in power, we also know: in this sense,\nthe times of Sparta had doubtless once been better. We may even\nconcede that during the three centuries succeeding Lykurgus, when\nthey were continually acquiring new territory, and when Aristotle had\nbeen told that they had occasionally admitted new citizens, so that\nthe aggregate number of citizens had once been ten thousand,\u2014we may\nconcede that in these previous centuries the distribution of land had\nbeen less unequal, so that the disproportion between the great size\nof the territory and the small number of citizens was not so marked\nas it had become at the period which the philosopher personally\nwitnessed; for the causes tending to augmented inequality were\nconstant and uninterrupted in their working. But this admission will\nstill leave us far removed from the sketch drawn by Dr. Thirlwall,\nwhich depicts the Lykurgean Sparta as starting from a new agrarian\nscheme not far removed from equality of landed property,\u2014the citizens\nas spontaneously disposed to uphold this equality, by giving to\nunprovided men the benefit of adoptions and heiress-marriages,\u2014and\nthe magistrate as interfering to enforce this latter purpose, even\nin cases where the citizens were themselves unwilling. All our\nevidence exhibits to us both decided inequality of possessions and\ninclinations on the part of rich men, the reverse of those which\nDr. Thirlwall indicates; nor will the powers of interference which\nhe ascribes to the magistrate be found sustained by the chapter of\nHerodotus on which he seems to rest them.[713]\n\n [712] The view of Dr. Thirlwall agrees, in the main, with that of\n Manso and O. M\u00fcller (Manso, Sparta, vol. i. pp. 118-128; and vol.\n ii. Beilage, 9, p. 129; and M\u00fcller, History of the Dorians, vol.\n ii. b. iii. c. 10, sect. 2, 3).\n\n Both these authors maintain the proposition stated by Plutarch\n (Agis c. 5, in his reference to the ephor Epitadeus, and the\n new law carried by that ephor), that the number of Spartan\n lots, nearly equal and rigorously indivisible, remained with\n little or no change from the time of the original division, down\n to the return of Lysander, after his victorious close of the\n Peloponnesian war. Both acknowledge that they cannot understand\n by what regulations this long unalterability, so improbable in\n itself, was maintained: but both affirm the fact positively.\n The period will be more than four hundred years if the original\n division be referred to Lykurgus: more than three hundred years,\n if the nine thousand lots are understood to date from the\n Messenian war.\n\n If this alleged fact be really a fact, it is something almost\n without a parallel in the history of mankind: and before we\n consent to believe it, we ought at least to be satisfied that\n there is considerable show of positive evidence in its favor,\n and not much against it. But on examining Manso and M\u00fcller, it\n will be seen that not only is there very slender evidence in its\n favor,\u2014there is a decided balance of evidence against it.\n\n The evidence produced to prove the indivisibility of the\n Spartan lot, is a passage of Herakleid\u00eas Ponticus, c. 2 (ad.\n calc. Cragii, p. 504), \u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\u2014\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (or \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9. The first portion of this assertion is confirmed by,\n and probably borrowed from, Aristotle, who says the same thing,\n nearly in the same words: the second portion of the sentence\n ought, according to all reasonable rules of construction, to be\n understood with reference to the first part; that is, to the\n _sale_ of the original lot. \u201cTo sell land, is held disgraceful\n among the Laced\u00e6monians, nor is it permitted to sever off any\n portion of the original lot,\u201d i. e. _for sale_. Herakleid\u00eas is\n not here speaking of the law of _succession_ to property at\n Laced\u00e6mon, nor can we infer from his words that the whole lot\n was transmitted entire to one son. No evidence except this very\n irrelevant sentence is produced by M\u00fcller and Manso to justify\n their positive assertion, that the Spartan lot of land was\n indivisible in respect to inheritance.\n\n Having thus determined the indivisible transmission of lots\n to one son of a family, Manso and M\u00fcller presume, without any\n proof, that that son must be the eldest: and M\u00fcller proceeds\n to state something equally unsupported by proof: \u201cThe extent\n of his rights, however, was perhaps no farther than that he\n was considered master of the house and property; while the\n other members of the family had an equal right to the enjoyment\n of it.... The master of the family was, therefore, obliged\n to contribute for all these to the syssitia, without which\n contribution no one was admitted.\u201d\u2014pp. 199, 200.\n\n All this is completely gratuitous, and will be found to produce\n as many difficulties in one way as it removes in another.\n\n The next law as to the transmission of property, which Manso\n states to have prevailed, is, that all daughters were to marry\n without receiving any dowry,\u2014the case of a sole daughter is here\n excepted. For this proposition he cites Plutarch, Apophtheg.\n Laconic. p. 227; Justin, iii. 3; \u00c6lian. V. H. vi. 6. These\n authors do certainly affirm, that there was such a regulation,\n and both Plutarch and Justin assign reasons for it, real or\n supposed. \u201cLykurgus, being asked why he directed that maidens\n should be married without dowry, answered,\u2014In order that\n maidens of poor families might not remain unmarried, and that\n character and virtue might be exclusively attended to in the\n choice of a wife.\u201d The same general reason is given by Justin.\n Now the _reason_ here given for the prohibition of dowry, goes,\n indirectly, to prove that there existed no such law of general\n succession, as that which had been before stated, namely, the\n sacred indivisibility of the primitive lot. For had this latter\n been recognized, the reason would have been obvious why daughters\n could receive no dowry; the father\u2019s whole landed property (and\n a Spartan could have little of any other property, since he\n never acquired anything by industry) was under the strictest\n entail to his eldest son. Plutarch and Justin, therefore, while\n in their statement as to the matter of fact, they warrant\n Manso in affirming the prohibition of dowry (about this matter\n of fact, more presently), do, by the reason which they give,\n discountenance his former supposition as to the indivisibility of\n the primitive family lots.\n\n Thirdly, Manso understands Aristotle (Polit. ii. 6, 11), by\n the use of the adverb \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd, to affirm something respecting his\n own time specially, and to imply at the same time that the\n ancient custom had been the reverse. I cannot think that the\n adverb, as Aristotle uses it in that passage, bears out such a\n construction: \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72, there, does not signify present time as\n opposed to past, but the antithesis between the actual custom\n and that which Aristotle pronounces to be expedient. Aristotle\n gives no indication of being aware that any material change had\n taken place in the laws of succession at Sparta: this is one\n circumstance, for which both Manso and M\u00fcller, who both believe\n in the extraordinary revolution caused by the permissive law of\n the ephor Epitadeus, censure him.\n\n Three other positions are laid down by Manso about the laws of\n property at Sparta. 1. A man might give away or bequeathe his\n land to whomsoever he pleased. 2. But none except childless\n persons could do this. 3. They could only give or bequeathe\n it to citizens who had no land of their own. Of these three\n regulations, the first is distinctly affirmed by Aristotle, and\n may be relied upon: the second is a restriction not noticed by\n Aristotle, and supported by no proof except that which arises out\n of the story of the ephor Epitadeus, who is said to have been\n unable to disinherit his son without causing a new law to be\n passed: the third is a pure fancy.\n\n So much for the positive evidence, on the faith of which Manso\n and M\u00fcller affirm the startling fact, that the lots of land in\n Sparta remained distinct, indivisible, and unchanged in number,\n down to the close of the Peloponnesian war. I venture to say that\n such positive evidence is far too weak to sustain an affirmation\n in itself so improbable, even if there were no evidence on the\n other side for contradiction. But in this case there is powerful\n contradictory evidence.\n\n First, the assertions of these authors are distinctly in the\n teeth of Aristotle, whose authority they try to invalidate,\n by saying that he spoke altogether with reference to his\n own time at Sparta, and that he misconceived the primitive\n Lykurgean constitution. Now this might form a reasonable ground\n of presumption against the competency of Aristotle, if the\n witnesses produced on the other side were older than he. But it\n so happens, that _every one_ of the witnesses produced by Manso\n and M\u00fcller, are _younger_ than Aristotle: Herakleid\u00eas Ponticus,\n Plutarch, Justin, \u00c6lian, etc. Nor is it shown that these authors\n copied from any source earlier than Aristotle,\u2014for his testimony\n cannot be contradicted by any inferences drawn from Herodotus,\n Thucydid\u00eas, Xenophon, Plato, Isokrat\u00eas, or Ephorus. None of\n these writers, anterior to, or contemporary with, Aristotle,\n countenance the fancy of equal, indivisible, perpetual lots, or\n prohibition of dowry.\n\n The fact is, that Aristotle is not only our best witness, but\n also our oldest witness, respecting the laws of property in\n the Spartan commonwealth. I could have wished, indeed, that\n earlier testimonies had existed, and I admit that even the most\n sagacious observer of 340-330 B. C. is liable to mistake when he\n speaks of one or two centuries before. But if Aristotle is to be\n discredited on the ground of late date, what are we to say to\n Plutarch? To insist on the intellectual eminence of Aristotle\n would be superfluous: and on this subject he is a witness the\n more valuable, as he had made careful, laborious, and personal\n inquiries into the Grecian governments generally, and that\n of Sparta among them,\u2014the great _point de mire_ for ancient\n speculative politicians.\n\n Now the statements of Aristotle, distinctly exclude the idea of\n equal, indivisible, inalienable, perpetual lots,\u2014and prohibition\n of dowry. He particularly notices the habit of giving very large\n dowries, and the constant tendency of the lots of land to become\n consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. He tells us nothing upon\n the subject which is not perfectly consistent, intelligible, and\n uncontradicted by any known statements belonging to his own,\n or to earlier times. But the reason why men refuse to believe\n him, and either set aside or explain away his evidence, is,\n that they sit down to the study with their minds full of the\n division of landed property ascribed to Lykurgus by Plutarch.\n I willingly concede that, on this occasion, we have to choose\n between Plutarch and Aristotle. We cannot reconcile them except\n by arbitrary suppositions, every one of which breaks up the\n simplicity, beauty, and symmetry of Plutarch\u2019s agrarian idea,\u2014and\n every one of which still leaves the perpetuity of the original\n lots unexplained. And I have no hesitation in preferring the\n authority of Aristotle (which is in perfect consonance with what\n we indirectly gather from other authors, his contemporaries and\n predecessors) as a better witness on every ground; rejecting the\n statement of Plutarch, and rejecting it altogether, with all its\n consequences.\n\n But the authority of Aristotle is not the only argument which may\n be urged to refute this supposition that the distinct Spartan\n lots remained unaltered in number down to the time of Lysander.\n For if the number of distinct lots remained undiminished, the\n number of citizens cannot have greatly diminished. Now the\n conspiracy of Kinad\u00f4n falls during the life of Lysander, within\n the first ten years after the close of the Peloponnesian war:\n and in the account which Xenophon gives of that conspiracy, the\n paucity of the number of citizens is brought out in the clearest\n and most emphatic manner. And this must be before the time when\n the new law of Epitadeus is said to have passed, at least before\n that law can have had room to produce any sensible effects.\n If, then, the ancient nine thousand lots still remained all\n separate, without either consolidation or subdivision, how are we\n to account for the small number of citizens at the time of the\n conspiracy of Kinad\u00f4n?\n\n This examination of the evidence, for the purpose of which I\n have been compelled to prolong the present note, shows\u20141. That\n the hypothesis of indivisible, inalienable lots, maintained\n for a long period in undiminished number at Sparta, is not\n only sustained by the very minimum of affirmative evidence,\n but is contradicted by very good negative evidence. 2. That\n the hypothesis which represents dowries to daughters as being\n prohibited by law, is, indeed, affirmed by Plutarch, \u00c6lian, and\n Justin, but is contradicted by the better authority of Aristotle.\n\n The recent edition of Herakleid\u00eas Ponticus, published by\n Schneidewin, in 1847, since my first edition, presents an amended\n text, which completely bears out my interpretation. His text,\n derived from a fuller comparison of existing MSS., as well as\n from better critical judgment (see his Prolegg. c. iii. p.\n liv.), stands\u2014\u03a0\u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd (p. 7). It is plain that all\n this passage relates to sale of land, and not to testation, or\n succession, or division. Thus much _negatively_ is certain, and\n Schneidewin remarks in his note (p. 53) that it contradicts\n M\u00fcller, Hermann, and Sch\u00f6mann,\u2014adding, that the distinction\n drawn is, between land inherited from the original family lots,\n and land otherwise acquired, by donation, bequest, etc. Sale\n of the former was absolutely illegal: sale of the latter was\n discreditable, yet not absolutely illegal. Aristotle in the\n Politics (ii. 6, 10) takes no notice of any such distinction,\n between land inherited from the primitive lots, and land\n otherwise acquired. Nor was there, perhaps, any well-defined line\n of distinction, in a country of unwritten customs, like Sparta,\n between what was simply disgraceful and what was positively\n illegal. Schneidewin, in his note, however, assumes the original\n equality of the lots as certain in itself, and as being the cause\n of the prohibition: neither of which appears to me true.\n\n I speak of this confused compilation still under the name of\n Herakleid\u00eas Ponticus, by which it is commonly known: though\n Schneidewin, in the second chapter of his Prolegomena, has shown\n sufficient reason for believing that there is no authority for\n connecting it with the name of Herakleid\u00eas. He tries to establish\n the work as consisting of Excerpta from the lost treatise of\n Aristotle\u2019s \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd: which is well made out with regard\n to some parts, but not enough to justify his inference as to the\n whole. The article, wherein Welcker vindicates the ascribing\n of the work to an Excerptor of Herakleid\u00eas, is unsatisfactory\n (Kleine Schriften, p. 451).\n\n Beyond this irrelevant passage of Herakleid\u00eas Ponticus, no\n farther evidence is produced by M\u00fcller and Manso to justify their\n positive assertion, that the Spartan lot of land was indivisible\n in respect to inheritance.\n\n [713] Herod. vi. 57, in enumerating the privileges and\n perquisites of the kings\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\n \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f31\u03ba\u03bd\u03ad\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f22\u03bd \u03bc\u03ae\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u1fc3, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n It seems curious that \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 should mean a damsel who\n has _no father_ (literally, _lucus a non lucendo_): but I suppose\n that we must accept this upon the authority of Julius Pollux and\n Tim\u00e6us. Proceeding on this interpretation, Valckenaer gives the\n meaning of the passage very justly: \u201cOrb\u00e6 nuptias, necdum a patre\n desponsat\u00e6, si plures sibi vindicarent, fieretque \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\n ut Athenis loquebantur, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, Spart\u00e6 lis ista dirimebatur a\n regibus solis.\u201d\n\n Now the judicial function here described, is something very\n different from the language of Dr. Thirlwall, that \u201cthe kings\n had the disposal of the hand of orphan heiresses in cases where\n the father had not signified his will.\u201d Such disposal would\n approach somewhat to that omnipotence which Aristophan\u00eas (Vesp.\n 585) makes old Philokleon claim for the Athenian dikasts (an\n exaggeration well calculated to serve the poet\u2019s purpose of\n making the dikasts appear monsters of caprice and injustice), and\n would be analogous to the power which English kings enjoyed three\n centuries ago as feudal guardians over wards. But the language of\n Herodotus is inconsistent with the idea that the kings _chose_\n a husband for the orphan heiress. She was claimed, as of right,\n by persons in certain degrees of relationship to her. Whether\n the law about \u1f00\u03b3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, affinity carrying legal rights, was the\n same as at Athens, we cannot tell; but the question submitted\n for adjudication at Sparta, to the kings, and at Athens to the\n dikasteries, was certainly the same, agreeably to the above note\n of Valckenaer,\u2014namely, to whom, among the various claimants\n for the marriage, the best legal title really belonged. It\n is, indeed, probable enough, that the two royal descendants\n of H\u00earakl\u00eas might abuse their judicial function, as there are\n various instances known in which they take bribes; but they were\n not likely to abuse it in favor of an unprovided youth.\n\n Next, as to adoption: Herodotus tells us that the ceremony\n of adoption was performed before the kings: probably enough,\n there was some fee paid with it. But this affords no ground\n for presuming that they had any hand in determining _whom_ the\n childless father was to adopt. According to the Attic law about\n adoption, there were conditions to be fulfilled, consents to be\n obtained, the absence of disqualifying circumstances verified,\n etc; and some authority before which this was to be done was\n indispensable (see Meier und Sch\u00f6mann, Attisch. Prozess, b.\n iii. ch. ii. p. 436). At Sparta, such authority was vested by\n ancient custom in the king: but we are not told, nor is it\n probable, \u201cthat he could interpose, in opposition to the wishes\n of individuals, to relieve poverty,\u201d as Dr. Thirlwall supposes.\n\nTo conceive correctly, then, the Lykurgean system, as far as\nobscurity and want of evidence will permit, it seems to me that\nthere are two current misconceptions which it is essential to\ndiscard. One of these is, that the system included a repartition\nof landed property, upon principles of exact or approximative\nequality (distinct from that appropriation which belonged to the\nDorian conquest and settlement), and provisions for perpetuating the\nnumber of distinct and equal lots. The other is, that it was first\nbrought to bear when the Spartans were masters of all Laconia. The\nillusions created by the old legend,\u2014which depicts Laconia as all\none country, and all conquered at one stroke,\u2014yet survive after the\nlegend itself has been set aside as bad evidence: we cannot conceive\nSparta as subsisting by itself without dominion over Laconia; nor\nAmykl\u00e6, Pharis, and Geronthr\u00e6, as really and truly independent of\nSparta. Yet, if these towns were independent in the time of Lykurgus,\nmuch more confidently may the same independence be affirmed of the\nportions of Laconia which lie lower than Amykl\u00e6 down the valley\nof the Eurotas, as well as of the eastern coast, which Herodotus\nexpressly states to have been originally connected with Argos.\n\nDiscarding, then, these two suppositions, we have to consider the\nLykurgean system as brought to bear upon Sparta and its immediate\ncircumjacent district, apart from the rest of Laconia, and as not\nmeddling systematically with the partition of property, whatever\nthat may have been, which the Dorian conquerors established at their\noriginal settlement. Lykurgus does not try to make the poor rich,\nnor the rich poor; but he imposes upon both the same subjugating\ndrill,[714]\u2014the same habits of life, gentlemanlike idleness, and\nunlettered strength,\u2014the same fare, clothing, labors, privations,\nendurance, punishments, and subordination. It is a lesson instructive\nat least, however unsatisfactory, to political students,\u2014that, with\nall this equality of dealing, he ends in creating a community in\nwhom not merely the love of pre\u00ebminence, but even the love of money,\nstands powerfully and specially developed.[715]\n\n [714] \u03a3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Simonid\u00eas, apud Plutarch. Agesilaus,\n c. 1.\n\n [715] Aristotel. Polit. ii. 6, 9, 19, 23. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u2014\u03c4\u1f78\n \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nHow far the peculiar of the primitive Sparta extended we have no\nmeans of determining; but its limits down the valley of the Eurotas\nwere certainly narrow, inasmuch as it did not reach so far as\nAmykl\u00e6. Nor can we tell what principles the Dorian conquerors may\nhave followed in the original allotment of lands within the limits\nof that peculiar. Equal apportionment is not probable, because\nall the individuals of a conquering band are seldom regarded as\npossessing equal claims; but whatever the original apportionment may\nhave been, it remained without any general or avowed disturbance\nuntil the days of Agis the Third, and Kleomen\u00eas the Third. Here,\nthen, we have the primitive Sparta, including Dorian warriors with\ntheir Helot subjects, but no Peri\u0153ki. And it is upon these Spartans\nseparately, perhaps after the period of aggravated disorder and\nlawlessness noticed by Herodotus and Thucydid\u00eas, that the painful but\ninvigorating discipline, above sketched, must have been originally\nbrought to bear.\n\nThe gradual conquest of Laconia, with the acquisition of additional\nlands and new Helots, and the formation of the order of Peri\u0153ki, both\nof which were a consequence of it,\u2014is to be considered as posterior\nto the introduction of the Lykurgean system at Sparta, and as\nresulting partly from the increased force which that system imparted.\nThe career of conquest went on, beginning from T\u00ealeklus, for nearly\nthree centuries,\u2014with some interruptions, indeed, and in the case of\nthe Messenian war, with a desperate and even precarious struggle,\u2014so\nthat in the time of Thucydid\u00eas, and for some time previously, the\nSpartans possessed two-fifths of Peloponnesus. And this series of\nnew acquisitions and victories disguised the really weak point of\nthe Spartan system, by rendering it possible either to plant the\npoorer citizens as Peri\u0153ki in a conquered township, or to supply them\nwith lots of land, of which they could receive the produce without\nleaving the city,\u2014so that their numbers and their military strength\nwere prevented from declining. It is even affirmed by Aristotle,[716]\nthat during these early times they augmented the numbers of their\ncitizens by fresh admissions, which of course implies the acquisition\nof additional lots of land. But successful war, to use an expression\nsubstantially borrowed from the same philosopher, was necessary to\ntheir salvation: the establishment of their ascendency, and of their\nmaximum of territory, was followed, after no very long interval, by\nsymptoms of decline.[717] It will hereafter be seen that, at the\nperiod of the conspiracy of Kinad\u00f4n (395 B. C.), the full citizens\n(called Homoioi, or Peers) were considerably inferior in number to\nthe Hypomei\u014fnes, or Spartans, who could no longer furnish their\nqualification, and had become disfranchised. And the loss thus\nsustained was very imperfectly repaired by the admitted practice,\nsometimes resorted to by rich men, of associating with their own\nchildren the children of poorer citizens, and paying the contribution\nfor these latter to the public tables, so as to enable them to go\nthrough the prescribed course of education and discipline,\u2014whereby\nthey became (under the title or sobriquet of Moth\u0103kes[718]) citizens,\nwith a certain taint of inferiority, yet were sometimes appointed to\nhonorable commands.\n\n [716] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 12.\n\n [717] Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 22. \u03a4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u1ff4\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, etc. Compare also vii. 13, 15.\n\n [718] Plutarch, Kleomen. c. 8; Phylarch. ap. Athen\u00e6. vi. p. 271.\n\n The strangers called \u03a4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, and the illegitimate sons of\n Spartans, whom Xenophon mentions with eulogy, as \u201chaving partaken\n in the honorable training of the city,\u201d must probably have been\n introduced in this same way, by private support from the rich\n (Xenoph. Hellen. v. 3, 9). The xen\u00ealasy must have then become\n practically much relaxed, if not extinct.\n\nLaconia, the state and territory of the Laced\u00e6monians, was affirmed,\nat the time of its greatest extension, to have comprehended a hundred\ncities,[719]\u2014this after the conquest of Messenia; so that it would\ninclude all the southern portion of Peloponnesus, from Thyrea, on\nthe Argolic gulf, to the southern bank of the river Nedon, in its\ncourse into the Ionian sea. But Laconia, more strictly so called,\nwas distinguished from Messenia, and was understood to designate the\nportion of the above-mentioned territory which lay to the east of\nMount Taygetus. The conquest of Messenia by the Spartans we shall\npresently touch upon; but that of Laconia proper is very imperfectly\nnarrated to us. Down to the reign of T\u00ealeklus, as has been before\nremarked, Amykl\u00e6, Pharis, and Geronthr\u00e6, were still Ach\u00e6an: in the\nreign of that prince they were first conquered, and the Ach\u00e6ans\neither expelled or subjugated. It cannot be doubted that Amykl\u00e6\nhad been previously a place of consequence: in point of heroic\nantiquity and memorials, this city, as well as Therapn\u00e6, seems to\nhave surpassed Sparta. And the war of the Spartans against it is\nrepresented as a struggle of some moment,\u2014indeed, in those times, the\ncapture of any walled city was tedious and difficult. Timomachus, an\n\u00c6geid from Thebes,[720] at the head of a body of his countrymen,\nis said to have rendered essential service to the Spartans in the\nconquest of the Ach\u00e6ans of Amykl\u00e6; and the brave resistance of the\nlatter was commemorated by a monument erected to Zeus Trop\u00e6us, at\nSparta, which was still to be seen in the time of Pausanias.[721] The\nAch\u00e6ans of Pharis and Geronthr\u00e6, alarmed by the fate of Amykl\u00e6, are\nsaid to have surrendered their towns with little or no resistance:\nafter which the inhabitants of all the three cities, either wholly or\nin part, went into exile beyond sea, giving place to colonists from\nSparta.[722] From this time forward, according to Pausanias, Amykl\u00e6\ncontinued as a village.[723] But as the Amykl\u00e6an hoplites constituted\na valuable portion of the Spartan army, it must have been numbered\namong the cities of the Peri\u0153ki, as one of the hundred;[724] the\ndistinction between a dependent city and a village not being very\nstrictly drawn. The festival of the Hyacinthia, celebrated at the\ngreat temple of the Amykl\u00e6an Apollo, was among the most solemn and\nvenerated in the Spartan calendar.\n\n [719] Strabo, viii. p. 362; Steph. Byz. \u0391\u1f34\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n Construing the word \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 extensively, so as to include\n townships small as well as considerable, this estimate is\n probably inferior to the truth; since, even during the depressed\n times of modern Greece, a fraction of the ancient Laconia\n (including in that term Messenia) exhibited much more than one\n hundred _bourgs_.\n\n In reference merely to the territory called La Magne, between\n Calamata in the Messenian gulf and Capo di Magna, the lower part\n of the peninsula of T\u00e6narus, see a curious letter, addressed\n to the Duc de Nevers, in 1618, (on occasion of a projected\n movement to liberate the Morea from the Turks, and to insure\n to him the sovereignty of it, as descendant of the Pal\u00e6ologi,)\n by a confidential agent whom he despatched thither,\u2014M.\n Chateaurenaud,\u2014who sends to him \u201cune sorte de tableau statistique\n du Magne, ou sont \u00e9numer\u00e9s 125 bourgs ou villages renfermans\n 4,913 feux, et pouvans fournir 10,000 combattans, dont 4,000\n arm\u00e9s, et 6,000 sans armes (between Calamata and Capo di Magna).\u201d\n (M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions, tom. xv. 1842, p. 329.\n M\u00e9moire de M. Berger Xivrey.)\n\n This estimate is not far removed from that of Colonel Leake,\n towards the beginning of the present century, who considers that\n there were then in Mani (the same territory) one hundred and\n thirty towns and villages; and this too in a state of society\n exceedingly disturbed and insecure,\u2014where private feuds and\n private towers, or pyrghi, for defence, were universal, and in\n parts of which, Colonel Leake says, \u201cI see men preparing the\n ground for cotton, with a dagger and pistols at their girdles.\n This, it seems, is the ordinary armor of the cultivator when\n there is no particular suspicion of danger: the shepherd is\n almost always armed with a musket.\u201d ... \u201cThe Maniotes reckon\n their population at thirty thousand, and their muskets at ten\n thousand.\u201d (Leake, Travels in Morea, vol. i. ch. vii. pp. 243,\n 263-266.)\n\n Now, under the dominion of Sparta, all Laconia doubtless enjoyed\n complete internal security, so that the idea of the cultivator\n tilling his land in arms would be unheard of. Reasoning upon the\n basis of what has just been stated about the Maniote population\n and number of townships, one hundred \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, for all Laconia, is\n a very moderate computation.\n\n [720] Aristot. \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd. \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, ap. Schol. Pindar. Isthm. vii. 18.\n\n I agree with M. Boeckh, that Pindar himself identifies this march\n of the \u00c6geids to Amykl\u00e6 with the original Herakleid conquest of\n Peloponnesus. (Not\u00e6 Critic\u00e6 ad Pindar. Pyth. v. 74, p. 479.)\n\n [721] Pausan. iii. 2, 6; iii. 12, 7.\n\n [722] Pausan. iii. 22, 5.\n\n [723] Pausan. iii. 19, 5.\n\n [724] Xenoph. Hellen. iv. 5, 11.\n\nIt was in the time of Alkamen\u00eas, the son of T\u00ealeklus, that the\nSpartans conquered Helus, a maritime town on the left bank of\nthe Eurotas, and reduced its inhabitants to bondage,\u2014from whose\nname,[725] according to various authors, the general title _Helots_,\nbelonging to all the serfs of Laconia, was derived. But of the\nconquest of the other towns of Laconia,\u2014Gytheium, Akri\u00e6, Therapn\u00e6,\netc.,\u2014or of the eastern land on the coast of the Argolic gulf,\nincluding Brasi\u00e6 and Epidaurus Lim\u00eara, or the island of Kyth\u00eara, all\nwhich at one time belonged to the Argeian confederacy, we have no\naccounts.\n\n [725] Pausan. iii. 2, 7; iii. 20, 6. Strabo, viii. p. 363.\n\n If it be true, as Pausanias states, that the Argeians aided Helus\n to resist, their assistance must probably have been given by sea;\n perhaps from Epidaurus Lim\u00eara, or Prasi\u00e6, when they formed part\n of the Argeian federation.\n\nScanty as our information is, it just enables us to make out a\nprogressive increase of force and dominion on the part of the\nSpartans, resulting from the organization of Lykurgus. Of this\nprogress, a farther manifestation is found, besides the conquest\nof the Ach\u00e6ans in the south by T\u00ealeklus and Alkamen\u00eas, in their\nsuccessful opposition to the great power of Pheid\u00f4n the Argeian,\nrelated in a previous chapter. We now approach the long and arduous\nefforts by which they accomplished the subjugation of their brethren\nthe Messenian Dorians.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nFIRST AND SECOND MESSENIAN WARS.\n\n\nThat there were two long contests between the Laced\u00e6monians and\nMessenians, and that in both the former were completely victorious,\nis a fact sufficiently attested. And if we could trust the statements\nin Pausanias,\u2014our chief and almost only authority on the subject,\u2014we\nshould be in a situation to recount the history of both these wars\nin considerable detail. But unfortunately, the incidents narrated\nin that writer have been gathered from sources which are, even by\nhis own admission, undeserving of credit,\u2014from Rhianus, the poet of\nB\u00ean\u00ea in Krete, who had composed an epic poem on Aristomen\u00eas and the\nsecond Messenian war, about B. C. 220,\u2014and from Myr\u00f4n of Pri\u00ean\u00ea, a\nprose author whose date is not exactly known, but belonging to the\nAlexandrine age, and not earlier than the third century before the\nChristian era. From Rhianus, we have no right to expect trustworthy\ninformation, while the accuracy of Myr\u00f4n is much depreciated by\nPausanias himself,\u2014on some points even too much, as will presently be\nshown. But apart from the mental habits either of the prose writer\nor the poet, it does not seem that any good means of knowledge were\nopen to either of them, except the poems of Tyrt\u00e6us, which we are\nby no means sure that they ever consulted. The account of the two\nwars, extracted from these two authors by Pausanias, is a string of\n_tableaux_, several of them, indeed, highly poetical, but destitute\nof historical coherence or sufficiency: and O. M\u00fcller has justly\nobserved, that \u201cabsolutely no reason is given in them for the\nsubjection of Messenia.\u201d[726] They are accounts unworthy of being\ntranscribed in detail into the pages of genuine history, nor can we\npretend to do anything more than verify a few leading facts of the\nwar.\n\n [726] History of the Dorians, i. 7, 10 (note). It seems\n that Diodorus had given a history of the Messenian wars in\n considerable detail, if we may judge from a fragment of the\n last seventh book, containing the debate between Kleonnis and\n Aristomen\u00eas. Very probably it was taken from Ephorus,\u2014though this\n we do not know.\n\n For the statements of Pausanias respecting Myr\u00f4n and Rhianus,\n see iv. 6. Besides Myr\u00f4n and Rhianus, however, he seems to\n have received oral statements from contemporary Messenians and\n Laced\u00e6monians; at least on some occasions he states and contrasts\n the two contradictory stories (iv. 4, 4; iv. 5, 1).\n\nThe poet Tyrt\u00e6us was himself engaged on the side of the Spartans\nin the second war, and it is from him that we learn the few\nindisputable facts respecting both the first and the second. If\nthe Messenians had never been re\u00ebstablished in Peloponnesus, we\nshould probably never have heard any farther details respecting\nthese early contests. That re\u00ebstablishment, together with the first\nfoundation of the city called Mess\u00ean\u00ea on Mount Ithom\u00ea, was among the\ncapital wounds inflicted on Sparta by Epameinondas, in the year B.\nC. 369,\u2014between three hundred and two hundred and fifty years after\nthe conclusion of the second Messenian war. The descendants of the\nold Messenians, who had remained for so long a period without any\nfixed position in Greece, were incorporated in the new city, together\nwith various Helots and miscellaneous settlers who had no claim to\na similar genealogy. The gods and heroes of the Messenian race were\nreverentially invoked at this great ceremony, especially the great\nhero Aristomen\u00eas;[727] and the site of Mount Ithom\u00ea, the ardor of the\nnewly established citizens, the hatred and apprehension of Sparta,\noperating as a powerful stimulus to the creation and multiplication\nof what are called _traditions_, sufficed to expand the few facts\nknown respecting the struggles of the old Messenians into a variety\nof details. In almost all these stories we discover a coloring\nunfavorable to Sparta, contrasting forcibly with the account given\nby Isokrat\u00eas, in his Discourse called Archidamus, wherein we read\nthe view which a Spartan might take of the ancient conquests of his\nforefathers. But a clear proof that these Messenian stories had no\nreal basis of tradition, is shown in the contradictory statements\nrespecting the principal Hero Aristomen\u00eas; for some place him in the\nfirst, others in the second, of the two wars. Diod\u00f4rus and Myr\u00f4n both\nplaced him in the first; Rhianus, in the second. Though Pausanias\ngives it as his opinion that the account of the latter is preferable,\nand that Aristomen\u00eas really belongs to the second Messenian war, it\nappears to me that the one statement is as much worthy of belief as\nthe other, and that there is no sufficient evidence for deciding\nbetween them,\u2014a conclusion which is substantially the same with\nthat of Wesseling, who thinks that there were two persons named\nAristomen\u00eas, one in the first and one in the second war.[728] This\ninextricable confusion respecting the greatest name in Messenian\nantiquity, shows how little any genuine stream of tradition can here\nbe recognized.\n\n [727] Pausan. iv. 27, 2-3: Diodor. xv. 77.\n\n [728] See Diodor. Fragm. lib. viii. vol. iv. p. 30: in his brief\n summary of Messenian events (xv. 66), he represents it as a\n matter on which authors differed, whether Aristomenes belonged to\n the first or second war. Clemens Alexand. (Prot. p. 36) places\n him in the _first_, the same as Myr\u00f4n, by mentioning him as\n having killed Theopompus.\n\n Wesseling observes (ad Diod. _l. c._), \u201cDuo fuerunt Aristomenes,\n uterque in Messeniorum contra Spartanos bello illustrissimus,\n alter posteriore, priore alter bello.\u201d\n\n Unless this duplication of homonymous persons can be shown to\n be probable, by some collateral evidence, I consider it only as\n tantamount to a confession, that the difficulty is insoluble.\n\n Pausanias is reserved in his manner of giving judgment,\u2014\u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 ~\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u1fc3 \u03b3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bc\u1fc7~ \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n (iv. 6). M\u00fcller (Dorians, i. 7, 9) goes much too far when he\n affirms that the statement of Myr\u00f4n was \u201cin the teeth of all\n tradition.\u201d M\u00fcller states incorrectly the citation from Plutarch,\n Agis, c. 21 (see his Note _h_). Plutarch there says nothing\n about _Tyrt\u00e6us_: he says that the Messenians affirmed that their\n hero Aristomen\u00eas had _killed_ the Spartan king Theopompus,\n whereas the Laced\u00e6monians said, that he had only _wounded_ the\n king. According to _both_ accounts, then, it would appear that\n Aristomen\u00eas belonged to the _first_ Messenian war, _not to the\n second_.\n\nPausanias states the first Messenian war as beginning in B. C. 743\nand lasting till B. C. 724,\u2014the second, as beginning in B. C. 685\nand lasting till B. C. 668. Neither of these dates rest upon any\nassignable positive authority; but the time assigned to the first\nwar seems probable, while that of the second is apparently too\nearly. Tyrt\u00e6us authenticates both the duration of the first war,\ntwenty years, and the eminent services rendered in it by the Spartan\nking Theopompus.[729] He says, moreover, speaking during the second\nwar, \u201cthe fathers of our fathers conquered Mess\u00ean\u00ea;\u201d thus loosely\nindicating the relative dates of the two.\n\n [729] Tyrt\u00e6us, Fragm. 6, Gaisford. But Tyrt\u00e6us ought not to be\n understood to affirm distinctly (as Pausanias, Mr. Clinton, and\n M\u00fcller, all think) that Theopompus survived and put a close to\n the war: his language might consist with the supposition that\n Theopompus had been slain in the war,\u2014\u1f4b\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03b1 (Theopompus),\n \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n For we surely might be authorized in saying\u2014\u201cIt was through\n Epameinondas that the Spartans were conquered and humbled; or it\n was through Lord Nelson that the French fleet was destroyed in\n the last war,\u201d though both of them perished in the accomplishment.\n\n Tyrt\u00e6us, therefore, does not contradict the assertion, that\n Theopompus was slain by Aristomen\u00eas, nor can he be cited as a\n witness to prove that Aristomen\u00eas did not live during the _first_\n Messenian war; which is the purpose for which Pausanias quotes\n him (iv. 6).\n\nThe Spartans (as we learn from Isokrat\u00eas, whose words date from a\ntime when the city of Mess\u00ean\u00ea was only a recent foundation) professed\nto have seized the territory, partly in revenge for the impiety of\nthe Messenians in killing their own king, the Herakleid Kresphont\u00eas,\nwhose relative had appealed to Sparta for aid,\u2014partly by sentence\nof the Delphian oracle. Such were the causes which had induced\nthem first to invade the country, and they had conquered it after\na struggle of twenty years.[730] The Laced\u00e6monian explanations, as\ngiven in Pausanias, seem for the most part to be counter-statements\narranged after the time when the Messenian version, evidently the\ninteresting and popular account, had become circulated.\n\n [730] Isokrat\u00eas (Archidamus), Or. vi. pp. 121-122.\n\nIt has already been stated that the Laced\u00e6monians and Messenians\nhad a joint border temple and sacrifice in honor of Artemis\nLimnatis, dating from the earliest times of their establishment in\nPeloponnesus. The site of this temple, near the upper course of the\nriver Nedon, in the mountainous territory north-east of Kalamata,\nbut west of the highest ridge of Taygetus, has recently been exactly\nverified,\u2014and it seems in these early days to have belonged to\nSparta. That the quarrel began at one of these border sacrifices\nwas the statement of both parties, Laced\u00e6monians and Messenians.\nAccording to the latter, the Laced\u00e6monian king T\u00ealeklus laid a\nsnare for the Messenians, by dressing up some youthful Spartans as\nvirgins, and giving them daggers; whereupon a contest ensued, in\nwhich the Spartans were worsted and T\u00ealeklus slain. That T\u00ealeklus\nwas slain at the temple by the Messenians, was also the account of\nthe Spartans,\u2014but they affirmed that he was slain in attempting to\ndefend some young Laced\u00e6monian maidens, who were sacrificing at the\ntemple, against outrageous violence from the Messenian youth.[731]\nIn spite of the death of this king, however, the war did not\nactually break out until some little time after, when Alkamen\u00eas\nand Theopompus were kings at Sparta, and Antiochus and Androkl\u00eas,\nsons of Phintas, kings of Messenia. The immediate cause of it was a\nprivate altercation between the Messenian Polychar\u00eas (victor at the\nfourth Olympiad, B. C. 764) and the Spartan Eu\u00e6phnus. Polychar\u00eas,\nhaving been grossly injured by Eu\u00e6phnus, and his claim for redress\nhaving been rejected at Sparta, took revenge by aggressions upon\nother Laced\u00e6monians; the Messenians refused to give him up, though\none of the two kings, Androkl\u00eas, strongly insisted upon doing so, and\nmaintained his opinion so earnestly against the opposite sense of\nthe majority and of his brother Antiochus, that a tumult arose, and\nhe was slain. The Laced\u00e6monians, now resolving upon war, struck the\nfirst blow without any formal declaration, by surprising the border\ntown of Ampheia, and putting its defenders to the sword. They farther\noverran the Messenian territory, and attacked some other towns, but\nwithout success. Eupha\u00eas, who had now succeeded his father Antiochus\nas king of Messenia, summoned the forces of the country and carried\non the war against them with energy and boldness. For the first\nfour years of the war, the Laced\u00e6monians made no progress, and even\nincurred the ridicule of the old men of their nation as faint-hearted\nwarriors: in the fifth year, however, they undertook a more vigorous\ninvasion, under their two kings, Theopompus and Polyd\u00f4rus, who were\nmet by Eupha\u00eas with the full force of the Messenians. A desperate\nbattle ensued, in which it does not seem that either side gained\nmuch advantage: nevertheless, the Messenians found themselves so\nmuch enfeebled by it, that they were forced to take refuge on the\nfortified mountain of Ith\u00f4m\u00ea, abandoning the rest of the country.\nIn their distress, they sent to solicit counsel and protection from\nDelphi, but their messenger brought back the appalling answer that\na virgin, of the royal race of \u00c6pytus, must be sacrificed for their\nsalvation: in the tragic scene which ensues, Aristod\u00eamus puts to\ndeath his own daughter, yet without satisfying the exigencies of the\noracle. The war still continued, and in the thirteenth year of it\nanother hard-fought battle took place, in which the brave Eupha\u00eas\nwas slain, but the result was again indecisive. Aristod\u00eamus, being\nelected king in his place, prosecuted the war strenuously: the\nfifth year of his reign is signalized by a third general battle,\nwherein the Corinthians assist the Spartans, and the Arcadians and\nSikyonians are on the side of Messenia; the victory is here decisive\non the side of Aristod\u00eamus, and the Laced\u00e6monians are driven, back\ninto their own territory.[732] It was now their turn to send envoys\nand ask advice from the Delphian oracle; while the remaining events\nof the war exhibit a series, partly of stratagems to fulfil the\ninjunctions of the priestess,\u2014partly of prodigies in which the divine\nwrath is manifested against the Messenians. The king Aristod\u00eamus,\nagonized with the thought that he has slain his own daughter without\nsaving his country, puts an end to his own life.[733] In the\ntwentieth year of the war, the Messenians abandoned Ith\u00f4m\u00ea, which\nthe Laced\u00e6monians razed to the ground: the rest of the country being\nspeedily conquered, such of the inhabitants as did not flee either to\nArcadia or to Eleusis, were reduced to complete submission.\n\n [731] Strabo (vi. p. 257) gives a similar account of the\n sacrilege and murderous conduct of the Messenian youth at the\n temple of Artemis Limnatis. His version, substantially agreeing\n with that of the Laced\u00e6monians, seems to be borrowed from\n Antiochus, the contemporary of Thucydid\u00eas, and is therefore\n earlier than the foundation of Mess\u00ean\u00ea by Epameinondas, from\n which event the philo-Messenian statements take their rise.\n Antiochus, writing during the plenitude of Laced\u00e6monian power,\n would naturally look upon the Messenians as irretrievably\n prostrate, and the impiety here narrated would in his mind be the\n natural cause why the divine judgments overtook them. Ephorus\n gives a similar account (ap. Strabo. vi. p. 280).\n\n Compare Herakleid\u00eas Ponticus (ad calcem Cragii De Rep. Laced. p.\n 528) and Justin, iii. 4.\n\n The possession of this temple of Artemis Limnatis,\u2014and of the\n Ager Dentheliates, the district in which it was situated,\u2014was\n a subject of constant dispute between the Laced\u00e6monians and\n Messenians after the foundation of the city of Mess\u00ean\u00ea, even down\n to the time of the Roman emperor Tiberius (Tacit. Annal. iv. 43).\n See Stephan. Byz. v. \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9; Pausan. iii. 2, 6; iv. 4, 2; iv.\n 31, 3. Strabo, viii. p. 362.\n\n From the situation of the temple of Artemis Limnatis, and the\n description of the Ager Dentheliates, see Professor Ross, Reisen\n im Peloponnes, i. pp. 5-11. He discovered two boundary-stones\n with inscriptions, dating from the time of the early Roman\n emperors, marking the confines of Laced\u00e6mon and Mess\u00ean\u00ea; both\n on the line of the highest ridge of Taygetus, where the waters\n separate east and west, and considerably to the eastward of\n the temple of Artemis Limnatis, so that at that time the Ager\n Dentheliates was considered a part of Messenia.\n\n I now find that Colonel Leake (Peloponnesiaca, p. 181) regards\n these Inscriptions, discovered by Professor Ross, as not proving\n that the temple of Artemis Limnatis was situated near the spot\n where they were found. His authority weighs much with me on such\n a point, though the arguments which he here employs do not seem\n to me conclusive.\n\n [732] It is, perhaps, to this occasion that the story of\n the Epeunakti, in Theopompus, referred (ap. Athen\u00e6. vi. p.\n 271),\u2014Helots adopted into the sleeping-place of their masters,\n who had been slain in the war, and who were subsequently\n enfranchised.\n\n The story of the Partheni\u00e6, obscure and unintelligible as it is,\n belongs to the foundation of the colony of Taras, or Tarentum\n (Strabo, vi. p. 279).\n\n [733] See Plutarch, De Superstitione, p. 168.\n\nSuch is the abridgment of what Pausanias[734] gives as the narrative\nof the first Messenian war. Most of his details bear the evident\nstamp of mere late romance; and it will easily be seen that the\nsequence of events presents no plausible explanation of that which is\nreally indubitable,\u2014the result. The twenty years\u2019 war, and the final\nabandonment of Ith\u00f4m\u00ea, is attested by Tyrt\u00e6us beyond all doubt, as\nwell as the harsh treatment of the conquered. \u201cLike asses, worn down\nby heavy burdens,\u201d[735] says the Spartan poet, \u201cthey were compelled\nto make over to their masters an entire half of the produce of their\nfields, and to come in the garb of woe to Sparta, themselves and\ntheir wives, as mourners at the decease of the kings and principal\npersons.\u201d The revolt of their descendants, against a yoke so\noppressive, goes by the name of the second Messenian war.\n\n [734] See Pausan. iv. 6-14.\n\n An elaborate discussion is to be seen in Manso\u2019s Sparta, on the\n authorities whom Pausanias has followed in his History of the\n Messenian Wars, 18te Beilage, tom. ii. p. 264.\n\n \u201cIt would evidently be folly (he observes, p. 270), to suppose\n that in the history of the Messenian wars, as Pausanias lays them\n before us, we possess the _true_ history of these events.\u201d\n\n [735] Tyrt\u00e6us, Fragm. 5, 6 (Schneidewin).\n\n C. F. Hermann conceives the treatment of the Messenians after\n the first war, as mild, in comparison with what it became after\n the second (Lehrbuch der Griech. Staatsalterth\u00fcmer, sect.\n 31), a supposition which the emphatic words of Tyrt\u00e6us render\n inadmissible.\n\nHad we possessed the account of the first Messenian war as given\nby Myr\u00f4n and Diodorus, it would evidently have been very different\nfrom the above, because they included Aristomen\u00eas in it, and to him\nthe leading parts would be assigned. As the narrative now stands in\nPausanias, we are not introduced to that great Messenian hero,\u2014the\nAchilles of the epic of Rhianus,[736]\u2014until the second war, in which\nhis gigantic proportions stand prominently forward. He is the great\nchampion of his country in the three battles which are represented as\ntaking place during this war: the first, with indecisive result, at\nDer\u00e6; the second, a signal victory on the part of the Messenians, at\nthe Boar\u2019s Grave; the third, an equally signal defeat, in consequence\nof the traitorous flight of Aristokrat\u00eas, king of the Arcadian\nOrchomenus, who, ostensibly embracing the alliance of the Messenians,\nhad received bribes from Sparta. Thrice did Aristomen\u00eas sacrifice\nto Zeus Ithomat\u00eas the sacrifice called Hekatomphonia,[737] reserved\nfor those who had slain with their own hands a hundred enemies in\nbattle. At the head of a chosen band, he carried his incursions more\nthan once into the heart of the Laced\u00e6monian territory, surprised\nAmykl\u00e6 and Pharis, and even penetrated by night into the unfortified\nprecinct of Sparta itself, where he suspended his shield, as a token\nof defiance, in the temple of Ath\u00ean\u00ea Chalki\u0153kus. Thrice was he taken\nprisoner, but on two occasions marvellously escaped before he could\nbe conveyed to Sparta: the third occasion was more fatal, and he was\ncast by order of the Spartans into the Keadas, a deep, rocky cavity\nin Mount Taygetus, into which it was their habit to precipitate\ncriminals. But even in this emergency the divine aid[738] was\nnot withheld from him. While the fifty Messenians who shared his\npunishment, were all killed by the shock, he alone was both supported\nby the gods so as to reach the bottom unhurt, and enabled to find an\nunexpected means of escape. For when, abandoning all hope, he had\nwrapped himself up in his cloak to die, he perceived a fox creeping\nabout among the dead bodies: waiting until the animal approached him,\nhe grasped its tail, defending himself from its bites as well as\nhe could by means of his cloak; and being thus enabled to find the\naperture by which the fox had entered, enlarged it sufficiently for\ncrawling out himself. To the surprise both of friends and enemies,\nhe again appeared, alive and vigorous, at Eira. That fortified\nmountain on the banks of the river Nedon, and near the Ionian sea,\nhad been occupied by the Messenians, after the battle in which they\nhad been betrayed by Aristokrat\u00eas, the Arcadian; it was there that\nthey had concentrated their whole force, as in the former war at\nIth\u00f4m\u00ea, abandoning the rest of the country. Under the conduct of\nAristomen\u00eas, assisted by the prophet Theoklus, they maintained this\nstrong position for eleven years. At length, they were compelled to\nabandon it; but, as in the case of Ith\u00f4m\u00ea, the final determining\ncircumstances are represented to have been, not any superiority\nof bravery or organization on the part of the Laced\u00e6monians, but\ntreacherous betrayal and stratagem, seconding the fatal decree of the\ngods. Unable to maintain Eira longer, Aristomen\u00eas, with his sons, and\na body of his countrymen, forced his way through the assailants, and\nquitted the country,\u2014some of them retiring to Arcadia and Elis, and\nfinally migrating to Rhegium. He himself passed the remainder of his\ndays in Rhodes, where he dwelt along with his son-in-law, Damag\u00eatus,\nthe ancestor of the noble Rhodian family, called the Diagorids,\ncelebrated for its numerous Olympic victories.\n\n [736] This is the express comparison introduced by Pausanias, iv.\n 5, 2.\n\n [737] Plutarch, Sept. Sapient. Convivium, p. 159.\n\n [738] Pausan. iv. 18, 4. \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n Plutarch (De Herodot. Malignitat. p. 856) states that Herodotus\n had mentioned Aristomen\u00eas as having been made prisoner by the\n Laced\u00e6monians, but Plutarch must here have been deceived by his\n memory, for Herodotus does not mention Aristomen\u00eas.\n\nSuch are the main features of what Pausanias calls[739] the second\nMessenian war, or of what ought rather to be called the Aristomene\u00efs\nof the poet Rhianus. That after the foundation of Mess\u00ean\u00ea, and the\nrecall of the exiles by Epameinondas. favor and credence was found\nfor many tales respecting the prowess of the ancient hero whom they\ninvoked[740] in their libations,\u2014tales well calculated to interest\nthe fancy, to vivify the patriotism, and to inflame the anti-Spartan\nantipathies, of the new inhabitants,\u2014there can be little doubt. And\nthe Messenian maidens of that day may well have sung, in their public\nprocessional sacrifices,[741] how \u201cAristomen\u00eas pursued the flying\nLaced\u00e6monians down to the mid-plain of Stenykl\u00earus, and up to the\nvery summit of the mountain.\u201d From such stories, _traditions_ they\nought not to be denominated, Rhianus may doubtless have borrowed;\nbut if proof were wanting to show how completely he looked at his\nmaterials from the point of view of the poet, and not from that of\nthe historian, we should find it in the remarkable fact noticed by\nPausanias. Rhianus represented Leotychides as having been king of\nSparta during the second Messenian war; now Leotychides, as Pausanias\nobserves, did not reign until near a century and a half afterwards,\nduring the Persian invasion.[742]\n\n [739] The narrative in Pausanias, iv. 15-24.\n\n According to an incidental notice in Herodotus, the Samians\n affirmed that they had aided Laced\u00e6mon in war against Mess\u00ean\u00ea,\u2014at\n what period we do not know (Herodot. iii. 56).\n\n [740] \u03a4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 (Pausan. ii. 14, 5). The practice still\n continued in his time.\n\n Compare, also, Pausan. iv. 27, 3; iv. 32, 3-4.\n\n [741] Pausanias heard the song himself (iv. 16, 4)\u2014\u1f18\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f86\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f80\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd:\u2014\n\n \u1f1c\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03a3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n \u0395\u1f35\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n According to one story, the Laced\u00e6monians were said to have got\n possession of the person of Aristomen\u00eas, and killed him: they\n found in him a hairy heart (Steph. Byz. v. \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1).\n\n [742] Pausan. iv. 15, 1.\n\n Perhaps Leotychides was king during the last revolt of the\n Helots, or Messenians, in 464 B. C., which is called the\n third Messenian war. He seems to have been then in exile, in\n consequence of his venality during the Thessalian expedition,\u2014but\n not yet dead (Herodot. vi. 72). Of the reality of what Mr.\n Clinton calls the _third_ Messenian war, in 490 B. C., I see no\n adequate proof (see Fast. Hell. vol. i. p. 257).\n\n The poem of Rhianus was entitled \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac. He also composed\n \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70, \u1f28\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70, \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03ac. See the Fragments,\u2014they are very\n few,\u2014in D\u00fcntzer\u2019s Collection, pp. 67-77.\n\n He seems to have mentioned Nikoteleia, the mother of Aristomen\u00eas\n (Fr. ii. p. 73): compare Pausan. iv. 14, 5.\n\n I may remark, that Pausanias, throughout his account of the\n second Messenian war, names king Anaxander as leading the\n Laced\u00e6monian troops; but he has no authority for so doing, as we\n see by iv. 15, 1. It is a pure calculation of his own, from the\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 of Tyrt\u00e6us.\n\nTo the great champion of Messenia, during this war, we may oppose,\non the side of Sparta, another remarkable person, less striking\nas a character of romance, but more interesting, in many ways, to\nthe historian,\u2014I mean, the poet Tyrt\u00e6us, a native of Aphidn\u00e6 in\nAttica, an inestimable ally of the Laced\u00e6monians during most part\nof this second struggle. According to a story,\u2014which, however, has\nthe air partly of a boast of the later Attic orators,\u2014the Spartans,\ndisheartened at the first successes of the Messenians, consulted\nthe Delphian oracle, and were directed to ask for a leader from\nAthens. The Athenians complied by sending Tyrt\u00e6us, whom Pausanias and\nJustin represent as a lame man and a schoolmaster, despatched with\na view of nominally obeying the oracle, and yet rendering no real\nassistance.[743] This seems to be a coloring put upon the story by\nlater writers, but the intervention of the Athenians in the matter,\nin any way, deserves little credit.[744] It seems more probable that\nthe legendary connection of the Dioskuri with Aphidn\u00e6, celebrated\nat or near that time by the poet Alkman, brought about, through\nthe Delphian oracle, the presence of the Aphidn\u00e6an poet at Sparta.\nRespecting the lameness of Tyrt\u00e6us, we can say nothing: but that he\nwas a schoolmaster (if we are constrained to employ an unsuitable\nterm) is highly probable,\u2014for in that day, minstrels, who composed\nand sung poems, were the only persons from whom the youth received\nany mental training. Moreover, his sway over the youthful mind is\nparticularly noted in the compliment paid to him, in after-days,\nby king Leonidas: \u201cTyrt\u00e6us was an adept in tickling the souls of\nyouth.\u201d[745] We see enough to satisfy us that he was by birth a\nstranger, though he became a Spartan by the subsequent recompense of\ncitizenship conferred upon him,\u2014that he was sent through the Delphian\noracle,\u2014that he was an impressive and efficacious minstrel, and that\nhe had, moreover, sagacity enough to employ his talents for present\npurposes and diverse needs; being able, not merely to reanimate the\nlanguishing courage of the baffled warrior, but also to soothe the\ndiscontents of the mutinous. That his strains, which long maintained\nundiminished popularity among the Spartans,[746] contributed much\nto determine the ultimate issue of this war, there is no reason to\ndoubt; nor is his name the only one to attest the susceptibility of\nthe Spartan mind in that day towards music and poetry. The first\nestablishment of the Karneian festival, with its musical competition,\nat Sparta, falls during the period assigned by Pausanias to the\nsecond Messenian war: the Lesbian harper, Terpander, who gained the\nfirst recorded prize at this solemnity, is affirmed to have been sent\nfor by the Spartans pursuant to a mandate from the Delphian oracle,\nand to have been the means of appeasing a sedition. In like manner,\nthe Kretan Thal\u00eatas was invited thither during a pestilence, which\nhis art, as it is pretended, contributed to heal (about 620 B. C.);\nand Alkman, Xenokritus, Polymnastus, and Sakadas, all foreigners by\nbirth, found favorable reception, and acquired popularity, by their\nmusic and poetry. With the exception of Sakadas, who is a little\nlater, all these names fall in the same century as Tyrt\u00e6us, between\n660 B. C.-610 B. C. The fashion which the Spartan music continued\nfor a long time to maintain, is ascribed chiefly to the genius of\nTerpander.[747]\n\n [743] Pausan. iv. 15, 3; Justin. iii, 5, 4. Compare Plato, Legg.\n ii. p. 630, Diodor. xv. 66; Lycurg. cont. Leokrat. p. 162.\n Philochorus and Kallisthen\u00eas also represented him as a native of\n Aphidn\u00e6 in Attica, which Strabo controverts upon slender grounds\n (viii. p. 362); Philochor. Fr. 56 (Didot).\n\n [744] Plutarch, Theseus, c. 33; Pausan. i. 41, 5; Welcker,\n Alkman. Fragm. p. 20.\n\n [745] Plutarch, Kleomen. c. 2. \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n [746] Philochorus, Frag. 56, ed. Didot; Lycurgus cont. Leokrat.\n p. 163.\n\n [747] See Plutarch, De Music\u00e2, pp. 1134, 1142, 1146.\n\nThe training in which a Spartan passed his life consisted of\nexercises warlike, social, and religious, blended together. While\nthe individual, strengthened by gymnastics, went through his\npainful lessons of fatigue, endurance, and aggression,\u2014the citizens\ncollectively were kept in the constant habit of simultaneous and\nregulated movement in the warlike march, in the religious dance, and\nin the social procession. Music and song, being constantly employed\nto direct the measure and keep alive the spirit[748] of these\nmultitudinous movements, became associated with the most powerful\nfeelings which the habitual self-suppression of a Spartan permitted\nto arise, and especially with those sympathies which are communicated\nat once to an assembled crowd; indeed, the musician and the minstrel\nwere the only persons who ever addressed themselves to the feelings\nof a Laced\u00e6monian assembly. Moreover, the simple music of that early\nday, though destitute of artistical merit, and superseded afterwards\nby more complicated combinations, had, nevertheless, a pronounced\nethical character; it wrought much more powerfully on the impulses\nand resolutions of the hearers, though it tickled the ear less\ngratefully, than the scientific compositions of after-days. Farther,\neach particular style of music had its own appropriate mental\neffect,\u2014the Phrygian mode imparted a wild and maddening stimulus; the\nDorian mode created a settled and deliberate resolution, exempt alike\nfrom the desponding and from the impetuous sentiments.[749] What is\ncalled the Dorian mode, seems to be in reality the old native Greek\nmode, as contradistinguished from the Phrygian and Lydian,\u2014these\nbeing the three primitive modes, subdivided and combined only\nin later times, with which the first Grecian musicians became\nconversant. It probably acquired its title of Dorian from the musical\ncelebrity of Sparta and Argos, during the seventh and sixth centuries\nbefore the Christian era; but it belonged as much to the Arcadians\nand Ach\u00e6ans as to the Spartans and Argeians. And the marked ethical\neffects, produced both by the Dorian and the Phrygian modes in\nancient times, are facts perfectly well-attested, however difficult\nthey may be to explain upon any general theory of music.\n\n [748] Thucyd. v. 69; Xenoph. Rep. Laced. c. 13.\n\n [749] See the treatise of Plutarch, De Music\u00e2, passim, especially\n c. 17, p. 1136, etc.; 33, p. 1143. Plato, Republ. iii. p. 399;\n Aristot. Polit. viii. 6, 5-8.\n\n The excellent treatise De Metris Pindari, prefixed by M. Boeckh\n to his edition of Pindar, is full of instruction upon this as\n well as upon all other points connected with the Grecian music\n (see lib. iii. c. 8, p. 238).\n\nThat the impression produced by Tyrt\u00e6us at Sparta, therefore, with\nhis martial music, and emphatic exhortations to bravery in the\nfield, as well as union at home, should have been very considerable,\nis perfectly consistent with the character both of the age and\nof the people; especially, as he is represented to have appeared\npursuant to the injunction of the Delphian oracle. From the scanty\nfragments remaining to us of his elegies and anap\u00e6sts, however, we\ncan satisfy ourselves only of two facts: first, that the war was\nlong, obstinately contested, and dangerous to Sparta as well as\nto the Messenians; next, that other parties in Peloponnesus took\npart on both sides, especially on the side of the Messenians. So\nfrequent and harassing were the aggressions of the latter upon the\nSpartan territory, that a large portion of the border land was left\nuncultivated: scarcity ensued, and the proprietors of the deserted\nfarms, driven to despair, pressed for a redivision of the landed\nproperty in the state. It was in appeasing these discontents that the\npoem of Tyrt\u00e6us, called Eunomia, \u201cLegal order,\u201d was found signally\nbeneficial.[750] It seems certain that a considerable portion of\nthe Arcadians, together with the Pisat\u00e6 and the Triphylians, took\npart with the Messenians; there are also some statements numbering\nthe Eleians among their allies, but this appears not probable. The\nstate of the case rather seems to have been, that the old quarrel\nbetween the Eleians and the Pisat\u00e6, respecting the right to preside\nat the Olympic games, which had already burst forth during the\npreceding century, in the reign of the Argeian Pheid\u00f4n, still\ncontinued. Unwilling dependents of Elis, the Pisat\u00e6 and Triphylians\ntook part with the subject Messenians, while the masters at Elis\nand Sparta made common cause, as they had before done against\nPheid\u00f4n.[751] Pantale\u00f4n, king of Pisa, revolting from Elis, acted\nas commander of his countrymen in co\u00f6peration with the Messenians;\nand he is farther noted for having, at the period of the 34th\nOlympiad (644 B. C.), marched a body of troops to Olympia, and thus\ndispossessed the Eleians, on that occasion, of the presidency: that\nparticular festival,\u2014as well as the 8th Olympiad, in which Pheid\u00f4n\ninterfered,\u2014and the 104th Olympiad, in which the Arcadians marched\nin,\u2014were always marked on the Eleian register as non-Olympiads, or\ninformal celebrations. We may reasonably connect this temporary\ntriumph of the Pisatans with the Messenian war, inasmuch as they\nwere no match for the Eleians single-handed, while the fraternity\nof Sparta with Elis is in perfect harmony with the scheme of\nPeloponnesian politics which we have observed as prevalent even\nbefore and during the days of Pheid\u00f4n.[752] The second Messenian war\nwill thus stand as beginning somewhere about the 33d Olympiad, or 648\nB. C., between seventy and eighty years after the close of the first,\nand lasting, according to Pausanias, seventeen years; according to\nPlutarch, more than twenty years.[753]\n\n [750] Aristot. Polit. v. 7, 1; Pausan. iv. 18, 2.\n\n [751] Pausan. vi. 12, 2; Strabo viii. p. 355, where the \u039d\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 mean the Pylians of Tryphylia.\n\n [752] Respecting the position of the Eleians and Pisat\u00e6 during\n the second Messenian war, there is confusion in the different\n statements: as they cannot all be reconciled, we are compelled to\n make a choice.\n\n That the Eleians were allies of Sparta, and the Pisatans of\n Messenia, and that the contests of Sparta and Messenia were\n mixed up with those of Elis and Pisa about the agonothesia of\n the Olympic games, is conformable to one distinct statement of\n Strabo (viii. pp. 355, 358), and to the passage in Phavorinus v.\n \u0391\u1f50\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and is, moreover, indirectly sustained by the view given\n in Pausanias respecting the relations between Elis and Pisa (vi.\n 22, 2), whereby it clearly appears that the agonothesia was a\n matter of standing dispute between the two, until the Pisatans\n were finally crushed by the Eleians in the time of Pyrrhus, son\n of Pantale\u00f4n. Farther, this same view is really conformable to\n another passage in Strabo, which, as now printed, appears to\n contradict it, but which is recognized by M\u00fcller and others as\n needing correction, though the correction which they propose\n seems to me not the best. The passage (viii. p. 362) stands thus:\n \u03a0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (Messenians and Laced\u00e6monians) \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. \u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 \u03a4\u03c5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f23\u03bd \u1f11\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 ~\u1f28\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2~\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f48\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd, \u03a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f48\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f21\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, etc. Here it is obvious that, in the\n enumeration of allies, the Arcadians ought to have been included;\n accordingly, both O. M\u00fcller and Mr. Clinton (ad annum 672 B. C.)\n agree in altering the passage thus: they insert the words ~\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f0c\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2~ after the word ~\u1f28\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2~, so that _both Eleians and\n Pisatans_ appear as allies of Messenia at once. I submit that\n this is improbable in itself, and inconsistent with the passage\n of Strabo previously noticed: the proper way of altering the\n passage is, in my judgment, to substitute the word ~\u1f0c\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2~\n in _place_ of the word ~\u1f28\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2~, which makes the two passages\n of Strabo consistent with each other, and hardly does greater\n violence to the text.\n\n As opposed to the view here adopted, there is, undoubtedly, the\n passage of Pausanias (iv. 15, 4) which numbers the Eleians among\n the allies of Messenia, and takes no notice of the Pisat\u00e6. The\n affirmation of Julius Africanus (ap. Eusebium Chronic. i. p.\n 145, that the Pisat\u00e6 revolted from Elis in the 30th Olympiad,\n and celebrated the Olympic games themselves until Ol. 52, for\n twenty-two successive ceremonies) is in contradiction,\u2014first,\n with Pausanias (vi. 22, 2), which appears to me a clear and\n valuable statement, from its particular reference to the _three_\n non-Olympiads,\u2014secondly, with Pausanias (v. 9, 4), when the\n Eleians in the 50th Olympiad determine the number of Hellanodik\u00e6.\n I agree with Corsini (Fasti Attici, t. iii. p. 47) in setting\n aside the passage of Julius Africanus: Mr. Clinton (F. H. p.\n 253) is displeased with Corsini for this suspicion, but he\n himself virtually does the same thing; for, in order to reconcile\n Jul. Africanus with Pansanias, he introduces a supposition\n quite different from what is asserted by either of them; _i.\n e._ a joint agonothesia by Eleians and Pisatans together.\n This hypothesis of Mr. Clinton appears to me gratuitous and\n inadmissible: Africanus himself meant to state something quite\n different, and I imagine him to have been misled by an erroneous\n authority. See Mr. Clinton, F. H. ad. ann. 660 B. C. to 580 B. C.\n\n [753] Plutarch, De Ser\u00e2 Num. Vind. p. 548; Pausan. iv. 15, 1; iv.\n 17, 3; iv. 23, 2.\n\n The date of the second Messenian war, and the interval between\n the second and the first, are points respecting which also there\n is irreconcilable discrepancy of statement; we can only choose\n the most probable: see the passages collected and canvassed in O.\n M\u00fcller (Dorians, i. 7, 11, and in Mr. Clinton, Fast. Hellen. vol.\n i. Appendix 2, p. 257).\n\n According to Pausanias, the second war lasted from B. C. 685-668,\n and there was an interval between the first and the second war of\n thirty-nine years. Justin (iii. 5) reckons an interval of eighty\n years; Eusebius, an interval of ninety years. The main evidence\n is the passage of Tyrt\u00e6us, wherein that poet, speaking during the\n second war, says, \u201cThe fathers of our fathers conquered Mess\u00ean\u00ea.\u201d\n\n Mr. Clinton adheres very nearly to the view of Pausanias; he\n supposes that the real date is only six years lower (679-662).\n But I agree with Clavier (Histoire des Premiers Temps de la\n Gr\u00e8ce, t. ii. p. 233) and O. M\u00fcller (_l. c._) in thinking that an\n interval of thirty-nine years is too short to suit the phrase of\n _fathers\u2019 fathers_. Speaking in the present year (1846), it would\n not be held proper to say, \u201cThe fathers of our fathers carried on\n the war between 1793 and the peace of Amiens:\u201d we should rather\n say, \u201cThe fathers of our fathers carried on the American war and\n the Seven Years\u2019 war.\u201d An age is _marked_ by its mature and even\n elderly members,\u2014by those between thirty-five and fifty-five\n years of age.\n\n Agreeing as I do here with O. M\u00fcller, against Mr. Clinton, I also\n agree with him in thinking that the best mark which we possess of\n the date of the second Messenian war is the statement respecting\n Pantale\u00f4n: the 34th Olympiad, which Pantale\u00f4n celebrated,\n probably fell within the time of the war; which would thus be\n brought down much later than the time assigned by Pausanias, yet\n not so far down as that named by Eusebius and Justin: the exact\n year of its commencement, however, we have no means of fixing.\n\n Krebs, in his discussions on the Fragments of the lost Books of\n Diodorus, thinks that that historian placed the beginning of the\n second Messenian war in the 35th Olympiad (B. C. 640) (Krebs,\n Lectiones Diodore\u00e6, pp. 254-260).\n\nMany of the Messenians who abandoned their country after this\nsecond conquest are said to have found shelter and sympathy among\nthe Arcadians, who admitted them to a new home and gave them their\ndaughters in marriage; and who, moreover, punished severely the\ntreason of Aristokrat\u00eas, king of Orchomenus, in abandoning the\nMessenians at the battle of the Trench. That perfidious leader was\nput to death, and his race dethroned, while the crime as well as the\npunishment was farther commemorated by an inscription, which was to\nbe seen near the altar of Zeus Lyk\u00e6us, in Arcadia. The inscription\ndoubtless existed in the days of Kallisthen\u00eas, in the generation\nafter the restoration of Mess\u00ean\u00ea. But whether it had any existence\nprior to that event, or what degree of truth there may be in the\nstory of Aristokrat\u00eas, we are unable to determine:[754] the son of\nAristokrat\u00eas, named Aristod\u00eamus, is alleged in another authority\nto have reigned afterwards at Orchomenus.[755] That which stands\nstrongly marked is, the sympathy of Arcadians and Messenians against\nSparta,\u2014a sentiment which was in its full vigor at the time of the\nrestoration of Mess\u00ean\u00ea.\n\n [754] Diodor. xv. 66; Polyb. iv. 33, who quotes Kallisthen\u00eas;\n Paus. viii. 5, 8. Neither the Inscription, as cited by Polybius,\n nor the allusion in Plutarch (De Ser\u00e2 Numin. Vindict\u00e2, p. 548),\n appear to fit the narrative of Pausanias, for both of them imply\n secret and long-concealed treason, tardily brought to light by\n the interposition of the gods; whereas, Pausanias describes the\n treason of Aristokrat\u00eas, at the battle of the Trench, as palpable\n and flagrant.\n\n [755] Herakleid. Pontic. ap. Diog. La\u00ebrt. i. 94.\n\nThe second Messenian war was thus terminated by the complete\nsubjugation of the Messenians. Such of them as remained in the\ncountry were reduced to a servitude probably not less hard than that\nwhich Tyrt\u00e6us described them as having endured between the first war\nand the second. In aftertimes, the whole territory which figures\non the map as Messenia,\u2014south of the river Nedon, and westward of\nthe summit of Taygetus,\u2014appears as subject to Sparta, and as forming\nthe western portion of Laconia; distributed, in what proportion we\nknow not, between Peri\u0153kic towns and Helot villages. By what steps,\nor after what degree of farther resistance, the Spartans conquered\nthis country, we have no information; but we are told that they made\nover Asin\u00ea to the expelled Dryopes from the Argolic peninsula and\nMoth\u00f4n\u00ea to the fugitives from Nauplia.[756] Nor do we hear of any\nserious revolt from Sparta in this territory until one hundred and\nfifty years afterwards,[757] subsequent to the Persian invasion,\u2014a\nrevolt which Sparta, after serious efforts, succeeded in crushing.\nSo that the territory remained in her power until her defeat at\nLeuktra, which led to the foundation of Mess\u00ean\u00ea by Epameinondas.\nThe fertility of the plains,\u2014especially of the central portion near\nthe river Pamisus, so much extolled by observers, modern as well as\nancient,\u2014rendered it an acquisition highly valuable. At some time or\nother, it must of course have been formally partitioned among the\nSpartans, but it is probable that different and successive allotments\nwere made, according as the various portions of territory, both to\nthe east and to the west of Taygetus, were conquered. Of all this we\nhave no information.[758]\n\n [756] Pausan. iv. 24, 2; iv. 34, 6; iv. 35, 2.\n\n [757] Thucyd. i. 101.\n\n [758] Pausanias says, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, etc. (iv. 24, 2.)\n\n In an apophthegm ascribed to king Polydorus, leader of the\n Spartans during the first Messenian war, he is asked, whether\n he is really taking arms against his brethren, to which he\n replies, \u201cNo; I am only marching to the unallotted portion of\n the territory.\u201d (Plutarch, Apophthegm. Lakonic. p. 231.)\u2014\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nImperfectly as these two Messenian wars are known to us, we may\nsee enough to warrant us in making two remarks. Both were tedious,\nprotracted, and painful, showing how slowly the results of war were\nthen gathered, and adding one additional illustration to prove how\nmuch the rapid and instantaneous conquest of Laconia and Messenia by\nthe Dorians, which the Herakleid legend sets forth, is contradicted\nby historical analogy. Both were characterized by a similar defensive\nproceeding on the part of the Messenians,\u2014the occupation of a\nmountain difficult of access, and the fortification of it for the\nspecial purpose and resistance,\u2014Ith\u00f4m\u00ea (which is said to have had\nalready a small town upon it) in the first war, Eira in the second.\nIt is reasonable to infer from hence, that neither their principal\ntown Stenykl\u00earus, nor any other town in their country, was strongly\nfortified, so as to be calculated to stand a siege; that there were\nno walled towns among them analogous to Myken\u00e6 and Tiryns on the\neastern portion of Peloponnesus; and that, perhaps, what were called\ntowns were, like Sparta itself, clusters of unfortified villages.\nThe subsequent state of Helotism into which they were reduced is in\nconsistency with this dispersed village residence during their period\nof freedom.\n\nThe relations of Pisa and Elis form a suitable counterpart and sequel\nto those of Messenia and Sparta. Unwilling subjects themselves,\nthe Pisatans had lent their aid to the Messenians,\u2014and their king,\nPantale\u00f4n, one of the leaders of this combined force, had gained\nso great a temporary success, as to dispossess the Eleians of the\nagonothesia or administration of the games for one Olympic ceremony,\nin the 34th Olympiad. Though again reduced to their condition of\nsubjects, they manifested dispositions to renew their revolt at the\n48th Olympiad, under Damoph\u00f4n, the son of Pantale\u00f4n, and the Eleians\nmarched into their country to put them down, but were persuaded to\nretire by protestations of submission. At length, shortly afterwards,\nunder Pyrrhus, the brother of Damoph\u00f4n, a serious revolt broke\nout. The inhabitants of Dyspentium, and the other villages in the\nPisatid, assisted by those of Makistus, Skillus, and the other towns\nin Triphylia, took up arms to throw off the yoke of Elis; but their\nstrength was inadequate to the undertaking. They were completely\nconquered; Dyspontium was dismantled, and the inhabitants of it\nobliged to flee the country, from whence most of them emigrated to\nthe colonies of Epidamnus and Apollonia, in Epirus. The inhabitants\nof Makistus and Skillus were also chased from their abodes, while\nthe territory became more thoroughly subject to Elis than it had\nbeen before. These incidents seem to have occurred about the 50th\nOlympiad, or B. C. 580; and the dominion of Elis over her Peri\u0153kic\nterritory was thus as well assured as that of Sparta.[759] The\nseparate denominations both of Pisa and Triphylia became more and\nmore merged in the sovereign name of Elis: the town of Lepreum alone,\nin Triphylia, seems to have maintained a separate name and a sort of\nhalf-autonomy down to the time of the Peloponnesian war, not without\nperpetual struggles against the Eleians.[760] But towards the period\nof the Peloponnesian war, the political interests of Laced\u00e6mon had\nbecome considerably changed, and it was to her advantage to maintain\nthe independence of the subordinate states against the superior:\naccordingly, we find her at that time upholding the autonomy of\nLepreum. From what cause the devastation of the Triphylian towns by\nElis, which Herodotus mentions as having happened in his time, arose,\nwe do not know; the fact seems to indicate a continual yearning for\ntheir original independence, which was still commemorated, down\nto a much later period, by the ancient Amphiktyony, at Samikum,\nin Triphylia, in honor of Poseid\u00f4n,\u2014a common religious festival\nfrequented by all the Triphylian towns and celebrated by the\ninhabitants of Makistus, who sent round proclamation of a formal\ntruce for the holy period.[761] The Laced\u00e6monians, after the close\nof the Peloponnesian war, had left them undisputed heads of Greece,\nformally upheld the independence of the Triphylian towns against\nElis, and seem to have countenanced their endeavors to attach\nthemselves to the Arcadian aggregate, which, however, was never fully\naccomplished. Their dependence on Elis became loose and uncertain,\nbut was never wholly shaken off.[762]\n\n [759] Pausan. vi. 22, 2; v. 6, 3; v. 10, 2; Strabo, viii. pp.\n 355-357.\n\n The temple in honor of Zeus at Olympia, was first erected by the\n Eleians, out of the spoils of this expedition (Pausan. v. 10, 2).\n\n [760] Thucyd. v. 31. Even Lepreum is characterized as Eleian,\n however (Aristoph. Aves, 149): compare also Steph. Byz. v.\n \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, \u1f21 \u1f2e\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n Even in the 6th Olympiad, an inhabitant of Dyspontium is\n proclaimed as victor at the stadium, under the denomination\n of \u201c_an Eleian from Dyspontium_;\u201d proclaimed by the Eleians\n of course,\u2014the like in the 27th Olympiad: see Stephan. Byz.\n v. \u0394\u03c5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd which shows that the inhabitants of the Pisatid\n cannot have rendered themselves independent of Elis in the 26th\n Olympiad, as Strabo alleges (viii. p. 355).\n\n [761] Herodot. iv. 149; Strabo, viii. p. 343.\n\n [762] Diodor. xiv. 17; xv. 77; Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 2, 23, 26.\n\n It was about this period, probably, that the idea of the local\n eponymous, Triphylus, son of Arkas, was first introduced (Polyb.\n iv. 77).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nCONQUESTS OF SPARTA TOWARDS ARCADIA AND ARGOLIS.\n\n\nI have described in the last two chapters, as far as our imperfect\nevidence permits, how Sparta came into possession both of the\nsouthern portion of Laconia along the coast of the Eurotas down to\nits mouth, and of the Messenian territory westward. Her progress\ntowards Arcadia and Argolis is now to be sketched, so as to conduct\nher to that position which she occupied during the reign of\nPeisistratus at Athens, or about 560-540 B. C.,\u2014a time when she had\nreached the maximum of her territorial possessions, and when she was\nconfessedly the commanding state in Hellas.\n\nThe central region of Peloponnesus, called Arcadia, had never\nreceived any emigrants from without. Its indigenous inhabitants,\u2014a\nstrong and hardy race of mountaineers, the most numerous Hellenic\ntribe in the peninsula, and the constant hive for mercenary\ntroops,[763]\u2014were among the rudest and poorest of Greeks, retaining\nfor the longest period their original subdivision into a number of\npetty hill-villages, each independent of the other; while the union\nof all who bore the Arcadian name,\u2014though they had some common\nsacrifices, such as the festival of the Lyk\u00e6an Zeus, of Despoina,\ndaughter of Poseid\u00f4n and D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear, and of Artemis Hymnia,[764]\u2014was\nmore loose and ineffective than that of Greeks generally, either\nin or out of Peloponnesus. The Arcadian villagers were usually\ndenominated by the names of regions, coincident with certain\nethnical subdivisions,\u2014the Az\u0101nes, the Parrhasii, the M\u00e6nalii\n(adjoining Mount M\u00e6nalus), the Eutr\u00easii, the \u00c6gyt\u00e6, the Skirit\u00e6,\netc.[765] Some considerable towns, however, there were,\u2014aggregations\nof villages or demes which had been once autonomous. Of these,\nthe principal were Tegea and Mantineia, bordering on Laconia and\nArgolis,\u2014Orchomenus, Pheneus, and Stymphalus, towards the north-east,\nbordering on Achaia and Phlius,\u2014Kleit\u00f4r and Her\u00e6a, westward, where\nthe country is divided from Elis and Triphylia by the woody mountains\nof Pholo\u00ea and Erymanthus,\u2014and Phigaleia, on the south-western\nborder near to Messenia. The most powerful of all were Tegea and\nMantineia,[766]\u2014conterminous towns, nearly equal in force, dividing\nbetween them the cold and high plain of Tripolitza, and separated\nby one of those capricious torrents which only escapes through\nkatabothra. To regulate the efflux of this water was a difficult\ntask, requiring friendly co\u00f6peration of both the towns: and when\ntheir frequent jealousies brought on a quarrel, the more aggressive\nof the two inundated the territory of its neighbor as one means\nof annoyance. The power of Tegea, which had grown up out of nine\nconstituent townships, originally separate,[767] appears to have\nbeen more ancient than that of its rival; as we may judge from its\nsplendid heroic pretensions connected with the name of Echemus,\nand from the post conceded to its hoplites in joint Peloponnesian\narmaments, which was second in distinction only to that of the\nLaced\u00e6monians.[768] If it be correct, as Strabo asserts,[769] that\nthe incorporation of the town of Mantineia, out of its five separate\ndemes, was brought about by the Argeians, we may conjecture that\nthe latter adopted this proceeding as a means of providing some\ncheck upon their powerful neighbors of Tegea. The plain common to\nTegea and Mantineia was bounded to the west by the wintry heights\nof M\u00e6nalus,[770] beyond which, as far as the boundaries of Laconia,\nMessenia, and Triphylia, there was nothing in Arcadia but small\nand unimportant townships, or villages,\u2014without any considerable\ntown, before the important step taken by Epameinondas in founding\nMegalopolis, a short time after the battle of Leuktra. The\nmountaineers of these regions, who joined Epameinondas before the\nbattle of Mantineia, at a time when Mantineia and most of the towns\nof Arcadia were opposed to him, were so inferior to the other Greeks\nin equipment, that they still carried as their chief weapon, in place\nof the spear, nothing better than the ancient club.[771]\n\n [763] Hermippus ap. Athen\u00e6. i. p. 27. \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u03b1\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Also, Xenoph. Hellen. vii. 1, 23.\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7, etc.\n\n [764] Pausan. viii. 6, 7; viii. 37, 6; viii. 38, 2. Xenias, one\n of the generals of Greek mercenaries in the service of Cyrus\n the younger, a native of the Parrhasian district in Arcadia,\n celebrates with great solemnity, during the march upward, the\n festival and games of the Lyk\u00e6a (Xenoph. Anabas. i. 2 10; compare\n Pindar, Olymp. ix. 142).\n\n Many of the forests in Arcadia contained not only wild boars, but\n bears, in the days of Pausanias (viii. 23, 4).\n\n [765] Pausan. viii. 26, 5; Strabo, viii. p. 388.\n\n Some geographers distributed the Arcadians into three\n subdivisions, Azanes, Parrhasii, and Trapezuntii. Azan passed for\n the son of Arcas, and his lot in the division of the paternal\n inheritance was said to have contained seventeen towns (\u1f03\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd\n \u1f08\u03b6\u03ae\u03bd). Stephan. Byz. v. \u1f08\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u2014\u03a0\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. Kleit\u00f4r seems the chief\n place in Azania, as far as we can infer from genealogy (Pausan.\n viii. 4, 2, 3). P\u00e6us, or P\u00e4os, from whence the Azanian suitor\n of the daughter of Kleisthen\u00eas presented himself, was between\n Kleit\u00f4r and Ps\u00f4phis (Herod. vi. 127; Paus. viii. 23, 6). A\n Delphian oracle, however, reckons the inhabitants of Phigaleia,\n in the south-western corner of Arcadia, among the Azanes (Paus.\n viii. 42, 3).\n\n The burial-place of Areas was supposed to be on Mount M\u00e6nalus\n (Paus. viii. 9, 2).\n\n [766] Thucyd. v. 65. Compare the description of the ground in\n Professor Ross (Reisen im Peloponnes. iv. 7).\n\n [767] Strabo. viii. p. 337.\n\n [768] Herodot. ix. 27.\n\n [769] Strabo, 1. c. Mantineia is reckoned among the oldest cities\n of Arcadia (Polyb. ii. 54). Both Mantineia and Orchomenus had\n originally occupied very lofty hill-sites, and had been rebuilt\n on a larger scale, lower down, nearer to the plain (Pausan. viii.\n 8, 3; 12, 4; 13, 2).\n\n In regard to the relations, during the early historical period,\n between Sparta, Argos, and Arcadia, there is a new fragment of\n Diodorus (among those recently published by Didot out of the\n Excerpta in the Escurial library, Fragment. Historic. Gr\u00e6cor.\n vol. ii. p. viii.). The Argeians had espoused the cause of the\n Arcadians against Sparta; and at the expense of considerable loss\n and suffering, had regained such portions of Arcadia as she had\n conquered. The king of Argos restored this recovered territory to\n the Arcadians: but the Argeians generally were angry that he did\n not retain it and distribute it among them as a reward for their\n losses in the contest. They rose in insurrection against the\n king, who was forced to flee, and take refuge at Tegea.\n\n We have nothing to illustrate this fragment, nor do we know to\n what king, date, or events, it relates.\n\n [770] \u039c\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b7 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (Delphian Oracle, ap. Paus. viii. 9,\n 2).\n\n [771] Xenophon, in describing the ardor with which Epameinondas\n inspired his soldiers before this final battle, says (vii. 5,\n 20), \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 ~\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf~ \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41\u03c0\u03bb\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, ~\u1fe5\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\n \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2~, \u1f61\u03c2 ~\u0398\u03b7\u03b2\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2~\u00b7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n It is hardly conceivable that these Arcadian clubmen should\n have possessed a shield and a full panoply. The language of\n Xenophon in calling them hoplites, and the term \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf,\n properly referring to the inscription on the shield, appear to\n be conceived in a spirit of contemptuous sneering, proceeding\n from Xenophon\u2019s miso-Theban tendencies: \u201cThe Arcadian hoplites,\n with their clubs, put themselves forward to be as good as the\n Thebans.\u201d That these tendencies of Xenophon show themselves in\n expressions very unbecoming to the dignity of history (though\n curious as evidences of the time), may be seen by vii. 5, 12,\n where he says of the Thebans,\u2014\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f74 ~\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2~, \u03bf\u1f31\n \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, etc.\n\nBoth Tegea and Mantineia held several of these smaller Arcadian\ntownships near them in a sort of dependence, and were anxious to\nextend this empire over others: during the Peloponnesian war, we\nfind the Mantineians establishing and garrisoning a fortress at\nKypsela among the Parrhasii, near the site in which Megalopolis\nwas afterwards built.[772] But at this period, Sparta, as the\npolitical chief of Hellas,\u2014having a strong interest in keeping all\nthe Grecian towns, small and great, as much isolated from each other\nas possible, and in checking all schemes for the formation of local\nconfederacies,\u2014stood forward as the protectress of the autonomy of\nthese smaller Arcadians, and drove back the Mantineians within their\nown limits.[773] At a somewhat later period, during the acm\u00e9 of her\npower, a few years before the battle of Leuktra, she even proceeded\nto the extreme length of breaking up the unity of Mantineia itself,\ncausing the walls to be razed, and the inhabitants to be again\nparcelled into their five original demes,\u2014a violent arrangement,\nwhich the turn of political events very soon reversed.[774] It was\nnot until after the battle of Leuktra and the depression of Sparta\nthat any measures were taken for the formation of an Arcadian\npolitical confederacy;[775] and even then, the jealousies of the\nseparate cites rendered it incomplete and short-lived. The great\npermanent change, the establishment of Megalopolis, was accomplished\nby the ascendency of Epameinondas. Forty petty Arcadian townships,\namong those situated to the west of Mount M\u00e6nalus, were aggregated\ninto the new city: the jealousies of Tegea, Mantineia, and Kleit\u00f4r,\nwere for a while suspended; and \u0153kists came from all of them,\nas well as from the districts of the M\u00e6nalii and Parrhasii, in\norder to impart to the new establishment a genuine Pan-Arcadian\ncharacter.[776] It was thus there arose for the first time a powerful\ncity on the borders of Laconia and Messenia, rescuing the Arcadian\ntownships from their dependence on Sparta, and imparting to them\npolitical interests of their own, which rendered them, both a check\nupon their former chief and a support to the re\u00ebstablished Messenians.\n\n [772] Thucyd. v. 33, 47, 81.\n\n [773] Thucyd. 1. c. Compare the instructive speech of Kleigen\u00eas,\n the envoy from Akanthus, addressed to the Laced\u00e6monians, B. C.\n 382 (Xen. Hellen. v. 2, 15-16).\n\n [774] Xenoph. Hellen. v. 2, 1-6; Diodor. xv. 19.\n\n [775] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 5, 10-11; vii. 1, 23-25.\n\n [776] Pausan. viii. 27, 5. No \u0153kist is mentioned from Orchomenus,\n though three of the petty townships _contributing_ (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1)\n to Orchomenus were embodied in the new city. The feud between the\n neighboring cities of Orchomenus and Mantineia was bitter (Xen.\n Hellen. vi. 5, 11-22). Orchomenus and H\u00ear\u00e6a both opposed the\n political confederation of Arcadia.\n\n The oration of Demosthen\u00eas, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, strongly attests\n the importance of this city, especially c. 10,\u2014\u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 ~\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03cd\u03c2~ \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n etc.\n\nIt has been necessary thus to bring the attention of the reader for\none moment to events long posterior in the order of time (Megalopolis\nwas founded in 370 B. C.), in order that he may understand, by\ncontrast, the general course of those incidents of the earlier\ntime, where direct accounts are wanting. The northern boundary of\nthe Spartan territory was formed by some of the many small Arcadian\ntownships or districts, several of which were successively conquered\nby the Spartans and incorporated with their dominion, though at\nwhat precise time we are unable to say. We are told that Charilaus,\nthe reputed nephew and ward of Lykurgus, took \u00c6gys, and that he\nalso invaded the territory of Tegea, but with singular ill-success,\nfor he was defeated and taken prisoner:[777] we also hear that the\nSpartans took Phigaleia by surprise in the 30th Olympiad, but were\ndriven out again by the neighboring Arcadian Oresthasians.[778]\nDuring the second Messenian war, the Arcadians are represented as\ncordially seconding the Messenians: and it may seem perhaps singular\nthat, while neither Mantineia nor Tegea are mentioned in this war,\nthe more distant town of Orchomenus, with its king Aristokrat\u00eas,\ntakes the lead. But the facts of the contest come before us with so\npoetical a coloring, that we cannot venture to draw any positive\ninference as to the times to which they are referred.\n\n [777] Pausan. iii. 2, 6; iii. 7, 3; viii. 48, 3.\n\n [778] Pausan. viii. 39, 2.\n\n\u0152nus[779] and Karystus seem to have belonged to the Spartans in the\ndays of Alkman: moreover, the district called Skir\u012btis bordering\non the territory of Tegea,\u2014as well as Belemina and Maleatis to\nthe westward, and Kary\u00e6 to the eastward and south-eastward, of\nSkir\u012btis,\u2014forming altogether the entire northern frontier of Sparta,\nand all occupied by Arcadian inhabitants,\u2014had been conquered and\nmade part of the Spartan territory[780] before 600 B. C. And\nHerodotus tells us, that at this period the Spartan kings Leon and\nHegesikl\u00eas contemplated nothing less than the conquest of entire\nArcadia, and sent to ask from the Delphian oracle a blessing on\ntheir enterprise.[781] The priestess dismissed their wishes as\nextravagant, in reference to the whole of Arcadia, but encouraged\nthem, though with the usual equivocations of language, to try their\nfortune against Tegea. Flushed with their course of previous success,\nnot less than by the favorable construction which they put upon the\nwords of the oracle, the Laced\u00e6monians marched against Tegea with\nsuch entire confidence of success, as to carry with them chains for\nthe purpose of binding their expected prisoners. But the result was\ndisappointment and defeat. They were repulsed with loss, and the\nprisoners whom they left behind, bound in the very chains which their\nown army had brought, were constrained to servile labor on the plain\nof Tegea,\u2014the words of the oracle being thus literally fulfilled,\nthough in a sense different from that in which the Laced\u00e6monians had\nfirst understood them.[782]\n\n [779] Alkman, Fr. 15, Welcker; Strabo, x. p. 446.\n\n [780] That the Skirit\u00e6 were Arcadians is well known (Thuc. v. 47;\n Steph. Byz. v. \u03a3\u03ba\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2); the possession of Belemina was disputed\n with Sparta, in the days of her comparative humiliation, by the\n Arcadians: see Plutarch, Kleomen\u00eas, 4; Pausan. viii. 35, 4.\n\n Respecting Kary\u00e6 (the border town of Sparta, where the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\n were sacrificed, Thuc. v. 55), see _Photius_ ~\u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1~\u2014\u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n The readiness with which Kary\u00e6 and the Maleates revolted\n against Sparta after the battle of Leuktra, even before the\n invasion of Laconia by the Thebans, exhibits them apparently as\n conquered foreign dependencies of Sparta, without any kindred\n of race (Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 5, 24-26; vii. 1, 28). Leuktron,\n in the Maleatis, seems to have formed a part of the territory\n of Megalopolis in the days of Kleomen\u00eas the Third (Plutarch,\n Kleomen\u00eas, 6); in the Peloponnesian war it was the frontier town\n of Sparta towards Mount Lyk\u00e6um (Thuc. v. 53).\n\n [781] Herod. i. 66. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u0394\u03ad\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 ~\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1fc7~.\n\n [782] Herod. i. 67; Pausan. iii. 3, 5; vii. 45, 2.\n\n Herodotus saw the identical chains suspended in the temple of\n Ath\u00ean\u00ea Alea at Tegea.\n\nFor one whole generation, we are told, they were constantly\nunsuccessful in their campaigns against the Tegeans, and this\nstrenuous resistance probably prevented them from extending their\nconquests farther among the petty states of Arcadia.\n\nAt length, in the reign of Anaxandrid\u00eas and Arist\u00f4, the successors of\nLeon and Hegesikl\u00eas (about 560 B. C.), the Delphian oracle, in reply\nto a question from the Spartans,\u2014which of the gods they ought to\npropitiate in order to become victorious,\u2014enjoined them to find and\ncarry to Sparta the bones of Orest\u00eas, son of Agamemn\u00f4n. After a vain\nsearch, since they did not know where the body of Orest\u00eas was to be\nfound, they applied to the oracle for more specific directions, and\nwere told that the son of Agamemn\u00f4n was buried at Tegea itself, in a\nplace \u201cwhere two blasts were blowing under powerful constraint,\u2014where\nthere was stroke and counter-stroke, and destruction upon\ndestruction.\u201d These mysterious words were elucidated by a lucky\naccident. During a truce with Tegea, Lichas, one of the chiefs of the\nthree hundred Spartan chosen youth, who acted as the movable police\nof the country under the ephors, visited the place, and entered\nthe forge of a blacksmith,\u2014who mentioned to him, in the course of\nconversation, that, in sinking a well in his outer court, he had\nrecently discovered a coffin containing a body seven cubits long;\nastounded at the sight, he had left it there undisturbed. It struck\nLichas that the gigantic relic of aforetime could be nothing else but\nthe corpse of Orest\u00eas, and he felt assured of this, when he reflected\nhow accurately the indications of the oracle were verified; for there\nwere the \u201ctwo blasts blowing by constraint,\u201d in the two bellows of\nthe blacksmith: there was the \u201cstroke and counter-stroke,\u201d in his\nhammer and anvil, as well as the \u201cdestruction upon destruction,\u201d in\nthe murderous weapons which he was forging. Lichas said nothing,\nbut returned to Sparta with his discovery, which he communicated to\nthe authorities, who, by a concerted scheme, banished him under a\npretended criminal accusation. He then returned again to Tegea, under\nthe guise of an exile, prevailed upon the blacksmith to let to him\nthe premises, and when he found himself in possession, dug up and\ncarried off to Sparta the bones of the venerated hero.[783]\n\n [783] Herod. i. 69-70.\n\nFrom and after this fortunate acquisition, the character of the\ncontest was changed; the Spartans found themselves constantly\nvictorious over the Tegeans. But it does not seem that these\nvictories led to any positive result, though they might perhaps\nserve to enforce the practical conviction of Spartan superiority;\nfor the territory of Tegea remained unimpaired, and its autonomy\nnoway restrained. During the Persian invasion, Tegea appears as the\nwilling ally of Laced\u00e6mon, and as the second military power in the\nPeloponnesus;[784] and we may fairly presume that it was chiefly the\nstrenuous resistance of the Tegeans which prevented the Laced\u00e6monians\nfrom extending their empire over the larger portion of the Arcadian\ncommunities. These latter always maintained their independence,\nthough acknowledging Sparta as the presiding power in Peloponnesus,\nand obeying her orders implicitly as to the disposal of their\nmilitary force. And the influence which Sparta thus possessed over\nall Arcadia was one main item in her power, never seriously shaken\nuntil the battle of Leuktra; which took away her previous means of\ninsuring success and plunder to her minor followers.[785]\n\n [784] Herod. ix. 26.\n\n [785] Xenoph. Hellen. v. 2, 19. \u1f6d\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f34\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03ce\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, etc.\n\n This was said to the Laced\u00e6monians about ten years before the\n battle of Leuktra.\n\nHaving thus related the extension of the power of Sparta on her\nnorthern or Arcadian frontier, it remains to mention her acquisitions\non the eastern and north-eastern side, towards Argos. Originally, as\nhas been before stated, not merely the province of Kynuria and the\nThyre\u0101tis but also the whole coast down to the promontory of Malea,\nhad either been part of the territory of Argos or belonged to the\nArgeian confederacy. We learn from Herodotus,[786] that before the\ntime when the embassy from Cr\u0153sus, king of Lydia, came to solicit aid\nin Greece (about 547 B. C.), the whole of this territory had fallen\ninto the power of Sparta; but how long before, or at what precise\nepoch, we have no information. A considerable victory is said to have\nbeen gained by the Argeians over the Spartans in the 27th Olympiad\nor 669 B. C., at Hysi\u00e6, on the road between Argos and Tegea.[787] At\nthat time it does not seem probable that Kynuria could have been in\nthe possession of the Spartans,\u2014so that we must refer the acquisition\nto some period in the following century; though Pausanias places\nit much earlier, during the reign of Theopompus,[788]\u2014and Eusebius\nconnects it with the first establishment of the festival called\nGymnop\u00e6dia at Sparta, in 678 B. C.\n\n [786] Herod. i. 82.\n\n [787] Pausan. ii. 25, 1.\n\n [788] Pausan. iii. 7, 5.\n\nAbout the year 547 B. C., the Argeians made an effort to reconquer\nThyrea from Sparta, which led to a combat long memorable in the\nannals of Grecian heroism. It was agreed between the two powers\nthat the possession of this territory should be determined by a\ncombat of three hundred select champions on each side; the armies\nof both retiring, in order to leave the field clear. So undaunted\nand so equal was the valor of these two chosen companies, that the\nbattle terminated by leaving only three of them alive,\u2014Alk\u00ean\u00f4r and\nChromius among the Argeians, Othryad\u00eas among the Spartans. The two\nArgeian warriors hastened home to report their victory, but Othryad\u00eas\nremained on the field, carried off the arms of the enemy\u2019s dead\ninto the Spartan camp, and kept his position until he was joined by\nhis countrymen the next morning. Both Argos and Sparta claimed the\nvictory for their respective champions, and the dispute after all\nwas decided by a general conflict, in which the Spartans were the\nconquerors, though not without much slaughter on both sides. The\nbrave Othryad\u00eas, ashamed to return home as the single survivor of the\nthree hundred, fell upon his own sword on the field of battle.[789]\n\n [789] Herod. i. 82; Strabo, viii. p. 376.\n\nThis defeat decided the possession of Thyrea, which did not again\npass, until a very late period of Grecian history, under the\npower of Argos. The preliminary duel of three hundred, with its\nuncertain issue, though well established as to the general fact,\nwas represented by the Argeians in a manner totally different\nfrom the above story, which seems to have been current among the\nLaced\u00e6monians.[790] But the most remarkable circumstance is,\nthat more than a century afterwards,\u2014when the two powers were\nnegotiating for a renewal of the then expiring truce, the Argeians,\nstill hankering after this their ancient territory, desired the\nLaced\u00e6monians to submit the question to arbitration; which being\nrefused, they next stipulated for the privilege of trying the point\nin dispute by a duel similar to the former, at any time except during\nthe prevalence of war or of epidemic disease. The historian tells\nus that the Laced\u00e6monians acquiesced in this proposition, though\nthey thought it absurd,[791] in consequence of their anxiety to keep\ntheir relations with Argos at that time smooth and pacific. But\nthere is no reason to imagine that the real duel, in which Othryad\u00eas\ncontended, was considered as absurd at the time when it took place,\nor during the age immediately succeeding. It fell in with a sort of\nchivalrous pugnacity which is noticed among the attributes of the\nearly Greeks,[792] and also with various legendary exploits, such as\nthe single combat of Echemus and Hyllus, of Melanthus and Xanthus,\nof Menelaus and Paris, etc. Moreover, the heroism of Othryad\u00eas\nand his countrymen was a popular theme for poets, not only at the\nSpartan gymnop\u00e6dia,[793] but also elsewhere, and appears to have been\nfrequently celebrated. The absurdity attached to this proposition,\nthen, during the Peloponnesian war,\u2014in the minds even of the\nSpartans, the most old-fashioned and unchanging people in Greece,\u2014is\nto be ascribed to a change in the Grecian political mind, at and\nafter the Persian war. The habit of political calculation had made\nsuch decided progress among them, that the leading states especially\nhad become familiarized with something like a statesmanlike view of\ntheir resources, their dangers, and their obligations. How lamentably\ndeficient this sort of sagacity was during the Persian invasion,\nwill appear when we come to describe that imminent crisis of Grecian\nindependence: but the events of those days were well calculated\nto sharpen it for the future, and the Greeks of the Peloponnesian\nwar had become far more refined political schemers than their\nforefathers. And thus it happened that the proposition to settle a\nterritorial dispute by a duel of chosen champions, admissible and\neven becoming a century before, came afterwards to be derided as\nchildish.\n\n [790] The Argeians showed at Argos a statue of Perilaus, son of\n Alk\u00ean\u00f4r, killing Othryad\u00eas (Pausan. ii. 20, 6; ii. 38, 5: compare\n x. 9, 6, and the references in Larcher ad Herodot. i. 82). The\n narrative of Chrysermus, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd (as given in\n Plutarch, Parallel. Hellenic. p. 306), is different in many\n respects.\n\n Pausanias found the Thyreatis in possession of the Argeians (ii.\n 38, 5). They told him that they had recovered it by adjudication;\n when or by whom we do not know: it seems to have passed back to\n Argos before the close of the reign of Kleomen\u00eas the Third, at\n Sparta (220 B. C.), Polyb. iv. 36.\n\n Strabo even reckons Prasi\u00e6 as Argeian, to the south of Kynuria\n (viii. p. 368), though in his other passage (p. 374) seemingly\n cited from Ephorus, it is treated as Laced\u00e6monian. Compare Manso,\n Sparta, vol. ii. Beilage i. p. 48.\n\n Eusebius, placing this duel at a much earlier period (Ol. 27, 3,\n 678 B. C.), ascribes the first foundation of the Gymnop\u00e6dia at\n Sparta to the desire of commemorating the event. Pausanias (iii.\n 7, 3) places it still farther back in the reign of Theopompus.\n\n [791] Thucyd. v. 41. \u03a4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f20\u03be\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n [792] Herodot. vii. 9. Compare the challenge which Herodotus\n alleges to have been proclaimed to the Spartans by Mardonius,\n through a herald, just before the battle of Plat\u00e6a (ix. 48).\n\n [793] Athen\u00e6. xv. p. 678.\n\nThe inhabitants of Kynuria are stated by Herodotus to have been\nIonians, but completely Dorized through their long subjection to\nArgos, by whom they were governed as Peri\u0153ki. Pausanias gives a\ndifferent account of their race, which he traces to the eponymous\nhero Kyn\u016brus, son of Perseus: but he does not connect them with the\nKynurians whom he mentions in another place as a portion of the\ninhabitants of Arcadia.[794] It is evident that, even in the time of\nHerodotus, the traces of their primitive descent were nearly effaced.\nHe says they were \u201cOrneates and Peri\u0153ki\u201d to Argos; and it appears\nthat the inhabitants of Orne\u00e6 also, whom Argos had reduced to the\nsame dependent condition, traced their eponymous hero to an Ionic\nstock,\u2014Orneus was the son of the Attic Erechtheus.[795] Strabo seems\nto have conceived the Kynurians as occupying originally, not only the\nfrontier district of Argolis and Laconia, wherein Thyrea is situated,\nbut also the north-western portion of Argolis, under the ridge called\nLyrkeium, which separates the latter from the Arcadian territory of\nStimphalus.[796] This ridge was near the town of Orne\u00e6, which lay on\nthe border of Argolis near the confines of Phlius; so that Strabo\nthus helps to confirm the statement of Herodotus, that the Orneates\nwere a portion of Kynurians, held by Argos along with the other\nKynurians in the condition of dependent allies and Peri\u0153ki, and very\nprobably also of Ionian origin.\n\n [794] Herod. viii. 73; Pausan. iii. 2, 2; viii. 27, 3.\n\n [795] Pausan. ii. 25, 5. Mannert (Geographie der Griechen und\n R\u00f6mer Griechenland, book ii. ch. xix. p. 618) connects the\n Kynurians of Arcadia and Argolis, though Herodotus tells us that\n the latter were Ionians: he gives to this name much greater\n importance and extension than the evidence bears out.\n\n [796] Strabo, viii. p. 370\u2014\u1f41 \u1f3c\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03c5\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039a\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Coray and Grosskurd gain\n nothing here by the conjectural reading of \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 in place of\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, for the ridge of Lyrkeium ran between the two, and\n might, therefore be connected with either without impropriety.\n\nThe conquest of Thyrea (a district valuable to the Laced\u00e6monians,\nas we may presume from the large booty which the Argeians got from\nit during the Peloponnesian war)[797] was the last territorial\nacquisition made by Sparta. She was now possessed of a continuous\ndominion, comprising the whole southern portion of the Peloponnesus,\nfrom the southern bank of the river Nedon on the western coast, to\nthe northern boundary of Thyreatis on the eastern coast. The area\nof her territory, including as it did both Laconia and Messenia,\nwas equal to two-fifths of the entire peninsula, all governed from\nthe single city, and for the exclusive purpose and benefit of the\ncitizens of Sparta. Within all this wide area there was not a single\ncommunity pretending to independent agency. The townships of the\nPeri\u0153ki, and the villages of the Helots, were each individually\nunimportant; nor do we hear of any one of them presuming to treat\nwith a foreign state: both consider themselves as nothing else but\nsubjects of the Spartan ephors and their subordinate officers. They\nare indeed discontented subjects, hating as well as fearing their\nmasters, and not to be trusted if a favorable opportunity for secure\nrevolt presents itself. But no individual township or district is\nstrong enough to stand up for itself, while combinations among\nthem are prevented by the habitual watchfulness and unscrupulous\nprecautions of the ephors, especially by that jealous secret police\ncalled the Krypteia, to which allusion has already been made.\n\n [797] Thucyd. vi. 95.\n\nNot only, therefore, was the Spartan territory larger and its\npopulation more numerous than that of any other state in Hellas, but\nits government was also more completely centralized and more strictly\nobeyed. Its source of weakness was the discontent of its Peri\u0153ki\nand Helots, the latter of whom were not\u2014like the slaves of other\nstates\u2014imported barbarians from different countries, and speaking\na broken Greek, but genuine Hellens,\u2014of one dialect and lineage,\nsympathizing with each other, and as much entitled to the protection\nof Zeus Hellanius as their masters,\u2014from whom, indeed, they stood\ndistinguished by no other line except the perfect training,\nindividual and collective, which was peculiar to the Spartans. During\nthe period on which we are at present dwelling, it does not seem that\nthis discontent comes sensibly into operation; but we shall observe\nits manifestations very unequivocally after the Persian and during\nthe Peloponnesian war.\n\nTo such auxiliary causes of Spartan predominance we must add\nanother,\u2014the excellent military position of Sparta, and the\nunassailable character of Laconia generally. On three sides that\nterritory is washed by the sea,[798] with a coast remarkably\ndangerous and destitute of harbors; hence Sparta had nothing\nto apprehend from this quarter until the Persian invasion and\nits consequences,\u2014one of the most remarkable of which was, the\nastonishing development of the Athenian naval force. The city of\nSparta, far removed from the sea, was admirably defended by an almost\nimpassable northern frontier, composed of those districts which we\nhave observed above to have been conquered from Arcadia,\u2014Kary\u0101tis,\nSkir\u012btis, Male\u0101tis, and Belemin\u0101tis. The difficulty as well as\ndanger of marching into Laconia by these mountain passes, noticed by\nEuripides, was keenly felt by every enemy of the Laced\u00e6monians, and\nhas been powerfully stated by a first-rate modern observer, Colonel\nLeake.[799] No site could be better chosen for holding the key of\nall the penetrable passes than that of Sparta. This well-protected\nfrontier was a substitute more than sufficient for fortifications\nto Sparta itself, which always maintained, down to the times of\nthe despot Nabis, its primitive aspect of a group of adjacent\nhill-villages rather than a regular city.\n\n [798] Xenophon, Hellen. iv. 8, 7: \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n [799] Xenoph. Hellen. v. 5. 10; Eurip. ap. Strabo, viii. p. 366;\n Leake, Travels in Morea, vol. iii. c. xxii. p. 25.\n\n \u201cIt is to the strength of the frontiers, and the comparatively\n large extent of country inclosed within them, that we must trace\n the primary cause of the Laced\u00e6monian power. These enabled the\n people, when strengthened by a rigid military discipline, and put\n in motion by an ambitious spirit, first to triumph over their\n weaker neighbors of Messenia, by this additional strength to\n overawe the disunited republics of Arcadia, and at length for\n centuries to hold an acknowledged military superiority over every\n other state in Greece.\n\n \u201cIt is remarkable that all the principal passes into Laconia\n lead to one point: this point is Sparta; a fact which shows\n at once how well the position of that city was chosen for the\n defence of the province, and how well it was adapted, especially\n as long as it continued to be unwalled, to maintain a perpetual\n vigilance and readiness for defence, which are the surest means\n of offensive success.\n\n \u201cThe natural openings into the plain of Sparta are only two;\n one by the upper Eurotas, as the course of that river above\n Sparta may be termed; the other by its only large branch \u0152nus,\n now the Kelefina, which, as I have already stated, joins the\n Eurotas opposite to the north-eastern extremity of Sparta. All\n the natural approaches to Sparta from the northward lead to one\n or the other of these two valleys. On the side of Messenia, the\n northerly prolongation of Mount Taygetum, which joins Mount\n Lyceum at the pass of Andania, now the pass of Makrypl\u00e1i,\n furnishes a continued barrier of the loftiest kind, admitting\n only of routes easily defensible; and which,\u2014whether from the\n Cromitis of Arcadia to the south-westward of the modern Lond\u00e1ri,\n from the Stenykleric plain, from the plain of the Pamisus, or\n from Pher\u00e6, now Kalam\u00e1ta,\u2014all descend into the valley of the\n upper Eurotas, and conduct to Sparta by Pellana. There was,\n indeed, a branch of the last-mentioned route, which descended\n into the Spartan plain at the modern Mistra, and which must\n have been a very frequent communication between Sparta and the\n lower part of Messenia; but, like the other direct passes over\n Taygetum, it was much more difficult and defensible than those\n which I have called the natural entrances of the province.\u201d\n\nWhen, along with such territorial advantages, we contemplate\nthe personal training peculiar to the Spartan citizens, as yet\nundiminished in their numbers,\u2014combined with the effect of that\ntraining upon Grecian sentiment, in inspiring awe and admiration,\u2014we\nshall not be surprised to find that, during the half-century which\nelapsed between the year 600 B. C. and the final conquest of\nThyre\u0101tis from Argos, Sparta had acquired and begun to exercise a\nrecognized ascendency over all the Grecian states. Her military force\nwas at that time superior to that of any of the rest, in a degree\nmuch greater than it afterwards came to be; for other states had not\nyet attained their maximum, and Athens in particular was far short\nof the height which she afterwards reached. In respect to discipline\nas well as number, the Spartan military force had even at this\nearly period reached a point which it did not subsequently surpass;\nwhile in Athens, Thebes, Argos, Arcadia, and even Elis (as will\nbe hereafter shown), the military training in later days received\ngreater attention, and improved considerably. The Spartans (observes\nAristotle)[800] brought to perfection their gymnastic training and\ntheir military discipline, at a time when other Greeks neglected\nboth the one and the other: their early superiority was that of the\ntrained men over the untrained, and ceased in after-days, when other\nstates came to subject their citizens to systematic exercises of\nanalogous character or tendency. This fact,\u2014the early period at which\nSparta attained her maximum of discipline, power, and territory,\u2014is\nimportant to bear in mind, when we are explaining the general\nacquiescence which her ascendency met with in Greece, and which her\nsubsequent acts would certainly not have enabled her to earn. That\nacquiescence first began, and became a habit of the Grecian mind,\nat a time when Sparta had no rival to come near her,\u2014when she had\ncompletely shot ahead of Argos,\u2014and when the vigor of the Lykurgean\ndiscipline had been manifested in a long series of conquests, made\nduring the stationary period of other states, and ending only, to use\nthe somewhat exaggerated phrase of Herodotus, when she had subdued\nthe greater part of Peloponnesus.[801]\n\n [800] Aristot. Polit. viii. 3, 4. \u1f1c\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f34\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9,\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd....\n \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n [801] Herodot. i. 68. \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f26\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7.\n\nOur accounts of the memorable military organization of Sparta are\nscanty, and insufficient to place the details of it clearly before\nus. The arms of the Spartans, as to all material points, were\nnot different from those of other Greek hoplites. But one grand\npeculiarity is observable from the beginning, as an item in the\nLykurgean institutions. That lawgiver established military divisions\nquite distinct from the civil divisions, whereas in the other states\nof Greece, until a period much later than that which we have now\nreached, the two were confounded,\u2014the hoplites or horsemen of the\nsame tribe or ward being marshalled together on the field of battle.\nEvery Laced\u00e6monian was bound to military service from the age of\ntwenty to sixty, and the ephors, when they sent forth an expedition,\ncalled to arms all the men within some given limit of age. Herodotus\ntells us that Lykurgus established both the syssitia, or public\nmess, and the en\u00f4moties and tri\u0101kads, or the military subdivisions\npeculiar to Sparta.[802] The tri\u0101kads are not mentioned elsewhere,\nnor can we distinctly make out what they were; but the en\u00f4moty was\nthe special characteristic of the system, and the pivot upon which\nall its arrangements turned. It was a small company of men, the\nnumber of whom was variable, being given differently at twenty-five,\nthirty-two, or thirty-six men,\u2014drilled and practised together in\nmilitary evolutions, and bound to each other by a common oath.[803]\nEach en\u00f4moty had a separate captain, or enomotarch, the strongest and\nablest soldier of the company, who always occupied the front rank,\nand led the en\u00f4moty when it marched in single file, giving the order\nof march, as well as setting the example. If the en\u00f4moty was drawn up\nin three, or four, or six files, the enomotarch usually occupied the\nfront post on the left, and care was taken that both the front-rank\nmen and the rear-rank men, of each file, should be soldiers of\nparticular merit.[804]\n\n [802] Herodot. i. 67; compare Larcher\u2019s note.\n\n Concerning the obscure and difficult subject of the military\n arrangements of Sparta, see Cragius, Repub. Laced. iv. 4; Manso,\n Sparta, ii. Beilage 18, p. 224; O. M\u00fcller, Hist. Dorians, iii.\n 12; Dr. Arnold\u2019s note on Thucydid\u00eas, v. 68; and Dr. Thirlwall,\n History of Greece, vol. i. Appendix 3, p. 520.\n\n [803] Pollux, i. 10, 129. \u1f38\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1: compare Suidas and Hesych. v. \u1f18\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b1;\n Xenoph. Rep. Lacon. c. 11; Thucyd. v. 67-68; Xenoph. Hellen. vi.\n 4, 12.\n\n Suidas states the en\u00f4moty at twenty-five men: in the Laced\u00e6monian\n army which fought at the first battle of Mantineia (418 B. C.),\n it seems to have consisted of about thirty-two men (Thuc. _l.\n c._): at the battle of Leuktra of thirty-six men (Xen. Hellen.\n _l. c._). But the language of Xenophon and Thucydid\u00eas does not\n imply that the number of each en\u00f4moty was equal.\n\n [804] O. M\u00fcller states that the enomotarch, after a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74,\n or deployment into phalanx, stood on the _right_ hand, which is\n contrary to Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 11, 9.\u2014\u1f4d\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd ~\u03b5\u1f50\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2~\n \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd,\u2014the \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd was the first enomotarch of the lochus,\n the \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (as appears from 11, 5), when the en\u00f4moty\n marched in single file. To put the \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd on the right flank,\n was done _occasionally_ for special reason,\u2014\u1f22\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 ~\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2~ \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u1fc7 \u03be\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 ~\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd~ \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, etc. I\n understand Xenophon\u2019s description of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74, or deployment,\n differently from M\u00fcller,\u2014it rather seems that the en\u00f4moties\n which stood first made a side-movement to the left, so that the\n first enomotarch still maintained his place on the left, at the\n same time that the opportunity was created for the en\u00f4moties\n in the rear to come up and form equal front, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc3\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\u2014the words ~\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd\n \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1~ have reference, as I imagine, to the proceeding of the\n first enomotarch, who set the example of side-movement to the\n left-hand, as it is shown by the words which follow,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 ~\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2~ \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f02\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03be \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc7. The phalanx was\n constituted when all the _lochi_ formed an equal and continuous\n front, whether the sixteen en\u00f4moties, of which each lochus was\n composed, might be each in one file, in three files, or in six\n files.\n\nIt was upon these small companies that the constant and severe\nLaced\u00e6monian drilling was brought to act. They were taught to\nmarch in concert, to change rapidly from line to file, to wheel\nright or left in such manner as that the enomotarch and the other\nprotostates, or front-rank men, should always be the persons\nimmediately opposed to the enemy.[805] Their step was regulated by\nthe fife, which played in martial measures peculiar to Sparta, and\nwas employed in actual battle as well as in military practice; and\nso perfectly were they habituated to the movements of the en\u00f4moty,\nthat, if their order was deranged by any adverse accident, scattered\nsoldiers could spontaneously form themselves into the same order,\neach man knowing perfectly the duties belonging to the place into\nwhich chance had thrown him.[806] Above the en\u00f4moty were several\nlarger divisions,\u2014the pentekostys, the lochus, and the mora,[807]\nof which latter there seem to have been _six_ in all. Respecting\nthe number of each division, and the proportion of the larger to\nthe smaller, we find statements altogether different, yet each\nresting upon good authority,\u2014so that we are driven to suppose that\nthere was no peremptory standard, and that the en\u00f4moty comprised\ntwenty-five, thirty-two, or thirty-six men; the pentekostys, two or\nfour en\u00f4moties; the lochus, two or four pentekosties, and the mora,\nfour hundred, five hundred, six hundred, or nine hundred men,\u2014at\ndifferent times, or according to the limits of age which the ephors\nmight prescribe for the men whom they called into the field.[808]\n\n [805] See Xenoph. Anab. iv. 8, 10, upon the advantage of\n attacking the enemy with \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, in which case the\n strongest and best soldiers all came first into conflict. It is\n to be recollected, however, that the practice of the Cyreian\n troops cannot be safely quoted as authority for the practice\n at Sparta. Xenophon and his colleagues established lochi,\n pentekosties, and en\u00f4moties in the Cyreian army: the lochus\n consisted of one hundred men, but the numbers of the other two\n divisions are not stated (Anab. iii. 4, 21; iv. 3, 26: compare\n Arrian, Tactic. cap. 6).\n\n [806] The words of Thucydides indicate the peculiar marshalling\n of the Laced\u00e6monians, as distinguished both from their enemies\n and from their allies at the battle of Mantineia,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c2 ~\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd~, \u1f0c\u03b3\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2\n \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd: again, c. 68.\n\n About the music of the flute or fife, Thucyd. v. 69; Xen. Rep.\n Lac. 13, 9; Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 22.\n\n [807] Meursius, Dr. Arnold, and Rachetti (Della Milizia dei\n Grechi Antichi, Milan, 1807, p. 166) all think that lochus and\n mora were different names for the same division; but if this is\n to be reconciled with the statement of Xenophon in Repub. Lac. c.\n 11, we must suppose an actual change of nomenclature after the\n Peloponnesian war, which appears to be Dr. Arnold\u2019s opinion,\u2014yet\n it is not easy to account for.\n\n There is one point in Dr. Thirlwall\u2019s Appendix which is of some\n importance, and in which I cannot but dissent from his opinion.\n He says, after stating the nomenclature and classification of the\n Spartan military force as given by Xenophon, \u201cXenophon speaks\n only of Spartans, as appears by the epithet \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd,\u201d p. 521:\n the words of Xenophon are, \u1f19\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1, etc. (Rep. Lac. 11.)\n\n It appears to me that Xenophon is here speaking of the aggregate\n Laced\u00e6monian heavy-armed force, including both Spartans and\n Peri\u0153ki,\u2014not of Spartans alone. The word \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd does not mean\n Spartans as distinguished from Peri\u0153ki, but Laced\u00e6monians as\n distinguished from allies. Thus, when Agesilaus returns home from\n the blockade of Phlius, Xenophon tells us that \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 (Hellen. v.\n 3, 25).\n\n O. M\u00fcller, also, thinks that the whole number of five thousand\n seven hundred and forty men, who fought at the first battle of\n Mantineia, in the thirteenth year of the Peloponnesian war,\n were furnished by the city of Sparta itself (Hist. of Dorians,\n iii. 12, 2): and to prove this, he refers to the very passage\n just cited from the Hellenica of Xenophon, which, as far as it\n proves anything, proves the contrary of his position. He gives\n no other evidence to support it, and I think it in the highest\n degree improbable. I have already remarked that he understands\n the expression \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 (in Polybius, vi. 45) to mean the\n district of Sparta itself as contradistinguished from Laconia,\u2014a\n construction which seems to me not warranted by the passage in\n Polybius.\n\n [808] Aristotle, \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, Fragm. 5-6, ed. Neumann:\n Photius v. \u039b\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2. Harpokration, \u039c\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1. Etymologic. Mag. \u039c\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1.\n The statement of Aristotle is transmitted so imperfectly that\n we cannot make out clearly what it was. Xenophon says that\n there were six mor\u00e6 in all, comprehending all the citizens of\n military age (Rep. Lac. 11, 3). But Ephorus stated the mora at\n five hundred men, Kallisthenes at seven hundred, and Polybius at\n nine hundred (Plutarch, Pelopid. 17; Diodor. xv. 32). If all the\n citizens competent to bear arms were comprised in six mor\u00e6, the\n numbers of each mora must of course have varied. At the battle\n of Mantineia, there were seven Laced\u00e6monian lochi, each lochus\n containing four pentekosties, and each pentekosty containing four\n en\u00f4moties: Thucydid\u00eas seems, as I before remarked, to make each\n en\u00f4moty thirty-two men. But Xenophon tells us that each mora had\n four lochi, each lochus two pentekosties, and each pentekosty\n two en\u00f4moties (Rep. Lac. 11, 4). The names of these divisions\n remained the same, but the numbers varied.\n\nWhat remains fixed in the system is, first, the small number, though\nvarying within certain limits, of the elementary company called\nen\u00f4moty, trained to act together, and composed of men nearly of\nthe same age,[809] in which every man knew his place; secondly,\nthe scale of divisions and the hierarchy of officers, each rising\nabove the other,\u2014the en\u00f4motarch, the pentekont\u00ear, the lochage, and\nthe polemarch, or commander of the mora,\u2014each having the charge of\ntheir respective divisions. Orders were transmitted from the king,\nas commander-in-chief, through the polemarchs to the lochages,\u2014from\nthe lochages to the pentekonters, and then from the latter to the\nen\u00f4motarchs, each of whom caused them to be executed by his en\u00f4moty.\nAs all these men had been previously trained to the duties of their\nrespective stations, the Spartan infantry possessed the arrangements\nand aptitudes of a standing army. Originally, they seem to have had\nno cavalry at all,[810] and when cavalry was at length introduced\ninto their system, it was of a very inferior character, no provision\nhaving been made for it in the Lykurgean training. But the military\nforce of the other cities of Greece, even down to the close of the\nPeloponnesian war, enjoyed little or no special training, having\nneither any small company like the en\u00f4moty, consisting of particular\nmen drilled to act together,\u2014no fixed and disciplined officers,\u2014nor\ntriple scale of subordination and subdivision. Gymnastics, and\nthe use of arms, made a part of education everywhere, and it is\nto be presumed that no Grecian hoplite was entirely without some\npractice of marching in line and military evolutions, inasmuch as\nthe obligation to serve was universal and often enforced. But such\npractice was casual and unequal, nor had any individual of Argos or\nAthens a fixed military place and duty. The citizen took arms among\nhis tribe, under a taxiarch, chosen from it for the occasion, and was\nplaced in a rank or line wherein neither his place nor his immediate\nneighbors were predetermined. The tribe appears to have been the only\nmilitary classification known to Athens,[811] and the taxiarch the\nonly tribe officer for infantry, as the phylarch was for cavalry,\nunder the general-in-chief. Moreover, orders from the general were\nproclaimed to the line collectively by a herald of loud voice, not\ncommunicated to the taxiarch so as to make him responsible for the\nproper execution of them by his division. With an arrangement thus\nperfunctory and unsystematized, we shall be surprised to find how\nwell the military duties were often performed: but every Greek who\ncontrasted it with the symmetrical structure of the Laced\u00e6monian\narmed force, and with the laborious preparation of every Spartan for\nhis appropriate duty, felt an internal sentiment of inferiority,\nwhich made him willingly accept the headship of \u201cthese professional\nartists in the business of war,\u201d[812] as they are often denominated.\n\n [809] This is implied in the fact, that the men under thirty or\n under thirty-five years of age, were often detached in a battle\n to pursue the light troops of the enemy (Xen. Hellen. iv. 5,\n 15-16).\n\n [810] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 4, 12.\n\n [811] Herodot. vi. 111; Thucyd. vi. 98; Xenoph. Hellen. iv. 2, 19.\n\n The same marshalling of hoplites, according to the civil tribes\n to which they belonged, is seen in the inhabitants of Mess\u00ean\u00ea in\n Sicily as well as of Syrakuse (Thucyd. iii. 90; vi. 100).\n\n At Argos, there was a body of one thousand hoplites, who, during\n the Peloponnesian war, received training in military man\u0153uvres\n at the cost of the city (Thucyd. v. 67), but there is reason to\n believe that this arrangement was not introduced until about the\n period of the peace of Nikias in the tenth or eleventh year of\n the Peloponnesian war, when the truce between Argos and Sparta\n was just expiring, and when the former began to entertain schemes\n of ambition. The Epariti in Arcadia began at a much later time,\n after the battle of Leuktra (Xenoph. Hellen. vii. 4, 33).\n\n About the Athenian taxiarchs, one to each tribe, see \u00c6schines de\n Fals. Leg. c. 53, p. 300 R.; Lysias, pro Mantitheo, Or. xvi. p.\n 147; Demosth. adv. B\u0153otum pro nomine, p. 999 R. Philippic, i. p.\n 47.\n\n See the advice given by Xenophon (in his Treatise De Officio\n Magistri Equitum) for the remodelling of the Athenian cavalry,\n and for the introduction of small divisions, each with its\n special commander. The division into tribes is all that he finds\n recognized (Off. M. E. C. ii. 2-iv. 9); he strongly recommends\n giving orders,\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, and not \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n [812] Plutarch, Pelopid. c. 23. \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, etc. (Xenoph. Rep.\n Lac. c. 14) \u1f21\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf \u1f02\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd.... \u1f6d\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd\n \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nIt was through the concurrence of these various circumstances\nthat the willing acknowledgment of Sparta as the leading state of\nHellas became a part of Grecian habitual sentiment, during the\ninterval between about 600 B. C. and 547 B. C. During this period\ntoo, chiefly, Greece and her colonies were ripening into a sort of\nrecognized and active partnership. The common religious assemblies,\nwhich bound the parts together, not only acquired greater formality\nand more extended development, but also became more numerous and\nfrequent,\u2014while the Pythian, Isthmian, and Nemean games were exalted\ninto a national importance, approaching to that of the Olympic. The\nrecognized superiority of Sparta thus formed part and parcel of the\nfirst historical aggregation of the Grecian states. It was about\nthe year 547 B. C., that Cr\u0153sus of Lydia, when pressed by Cyrus and\nthe Persians, solicited aid from Greece, addressing himself to the\nSpartans as confessed presidents of the whole Hellenic body.[813] And\nthe tendencies then at work, towards a certain degree of increased\nintercourse and co\u00f6peration among the dispersed members of the\nHellenic name, were doubtless assisted by the existence of a state\nrecognized by all as the first,\u2014a state whose superiority was the\nmore readily acquiesced in, because it was earned by a painful and\nlaborious discipline, which all admired, but none chose to copy.[814]\n\n [813] \u1f59\u03bc\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 (Herodot. i.\n 69): compare i. 152; v. 49; vi, 84, about Spartan hegemony.\n\n [814] Xenoph. Repub. Lac. 10, 8. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n The magnificent funeral discourse, pronounced by Perikl\u00eas in the\n early part of the Peloponnesian war over the deceased Athenian\n warriors, includes a remarkable contrast of the unconstrained\n patriotism and bravery of the Athenians, with the austere,\n repulsive, and ostentatious drilling to which the Spartans were\n subject from their earliest youth; at the same time, it attests\n the powerful effect which that drilling produced upon the mind of\n Greece (Thucyd. ii. 37-39). \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u1ff3\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd (the Spartans) \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, etc.\n\n The impression of the light troops, when they first began to\n attack the Laced\u00e6monian hoplites in the island of Sphakteria,\n is strongly expressed by Thucydid\u00eas (iv. 34),\u2014\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u1fc3\n ~\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9~ \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, etc.\n\nWhether it be true, as O. M\u00fcller and other learned men conceive, that\nthe Homeric mode of fighting was the general practice in Peloponnesus\nand the rest of Greece anterior to the invasion of the Dorians, and\nthat the latter first introduced the habit of fighting with close\nranks and protended spears, is a point which cannot be determined.\nThroughout all our historical knowledge of Greece, a close rank among\nthe hoplites, charging with spears always in hand, is the prevailing\npractice; though there are cases of exception, in which the spear is\nhurled, when troops seem afraid of coming to close quarters.[815]\nNor is it by any means certain, that the Homeric manner of fighting\never really prevailed in Peloponnesus, which is a country eminently\ninconvenient for the use of war-chariots. The descriptions of the\nbard may perhaps have been founded chiefly upon what he and his\nauditors witnessed on the coast of Asia Minor, where chariots were\nmore employed, and where the country was much more favorable to\nthem.[816] We have no historical knowledge of any military practice\nin Peloponnesus anterior to the hoplites with close ranks and\nprotended spears.\n\n [815] Xenoph. Hellen. v. 4, 52: compare iii. 5, 20.\n\n [816] Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 4, 19.\n\nOne Peloponnesian state there was, and one alone, which disdained to\nacknowledge the superiority or headship of Laced\u00e6mon. Argos never\nforgot that she had once been the chief power in the peninsula, and\nher feeling towards Sparta was that of a jealous, but impotent,\ncompetitor. By what steps the decline of her power had taken place,\nwe are unable to make out, nor can we trace the succession of her\nkings subsequent to Pheid\u00f4n. It has been already stated that, about\n669 B. C., the Argeians gained a victory over the Spartans at Hysi\u00e6,\nand that they expelled from the port of Nauplia its pre\u00ebxisting\ninhabitants, who found shelter, by favor of the Laced\u00e6monians,\nat the port of Moth\u00f4n\u00ea, in Messenia:[817] Damokratidas was then\nking of Argos. Pausanias tells us that Meltas, the son of Lakid\u00eas,\nwas the last descendant of Temenus who succeeded to this dignity;\nhe being condemned and deposed by the people. Plutarch, however,\nstates that the family of the Herakleids died out, and that another\nking, named \u00c6g\u00f4n, was chosen by the people at the indication of\nthe Delphian oracle.[818] Of this story, Pausanias appears to have\nknown nothing. His language implies that the kingly dignity ceased\nwith Meltas,\u2014wherein he is undoubtedly mistaken, since the title\nexisted, though probably with very limited functions, at the time\nof the Persian war. Moreover, there is some ground for presuming\nthat the king of Argos was even at that time a Herakleid,\u2014since the\nSpartans offered to him a third part of the command of the Hellenic\nforce, conjointly with their own two kings.[819] The conquest\nof Thyre\u0101tis by the Spartans deprived the Argeians of a valuable\nportion of their Peri\u0153kis, or dependent territory; but Orne\u00e6, and the\nremaining portion of Kynuria,[820] still continued to belong to them;\nthe plain round their city was very productive; and except Sparta,\nthere was no other power in Peloponnesus superior to them. Myken\u00e6\nand Tiryns, nevertheless, seem both to have been independent states\nat the time of the Persian war, since both sent contingents to the\nbattle of Plat\u00e6a, at a time when Argos held aloof and rather favored\nthe Persians. At what time Kle\u00f4n\u00e6 became the ally, or dependent, of\nArgos, we cannot distinctly make out. During the Peloponnesian war,\nit is numbered in that character along with Orne\u00e6;[821] but it seems\nnot to have lost its autonomy about the year 470 B. C., at which\nperiod Pindar represents the Kleon\u00e6ans as presiding and distributing\nprizes at the Nemean games.[822] The grove of Nemea was less than two\nmiles from their town, and they were the original presidents of this\ngreat festival,\u2014a function of which they were subsequently robbed by\nthe Argeians, in the same manner as the Pisatans had been treated\nby the Eleians with reference to the Olympic Ag\u00f4n. The extinction\nof the autonomy of Kle\u00f4n\u00e6 and the acquisition of the presidency of\nthe Nemean festival by Argos, were doubtless simultaneous, but we\nare unable to mark the exact time; for the statement of Eusebius,\nthat the Argeians celebrated the Nemean festival as early as the 53d\nOlympiad, or 568 B. C., is contradicted by the more valuable evidence\nof Pindar.[823]\n\n [817] Pausan. iv. 24, 2; iv. 35, 2.\n\n [818] Pausan. ii. 19, 2; Plutarch (Cur Pythia nunc non reddat\n oracula, etc. c. 5, p. 396; De Fortun\u00e2 Alexandri, c. 8, p. 340).\n Lakid\u00eas, king of Argos, is also named by Plutarch as luxurious\n and effeminate (De capiend\u00e2 ab hostibus utilitate, c. 6, p. 89).\n\n O. M\u00fcller (Hist. of Dorians, iii. 6, 10) identifies Lakid\u00eas, son\n of Meltas, named by Pausanias, with Le\u00f4k\u00ead\u00eas son of Pheid\u00f4n,\n named by Herodotus as one of the suitors for the daughter of\n Kleisthen\u00eas the Sikyonian (vi. 127); and he thus infers that\n Meltas must have been deposed and succeeded by \u00c6gon, about 560 B.\n C. This conjecture seems to me not much to be trusted.\n\n [819] Herodot. vii. 149.\n\n [820] Herodot. viii. 73.\n\n Strabo distinguishes two places called Orne\u00e6; one a village in\n the Argeian territory, the other a town between Corinth and\n Siky\u00f4n: but I doubt whether there ever were two places so called:\n the town or village dependent on Argos seems the only place\n (Strabo. viii. p. 376).\n\n [821] Thucyd. v. 67-vi. 95.\n\n The Kle\u00f4n\u00e6ans are also said to have aided the Argeians in the\n destruction of Myken\u00e6, conjointly with the Tegeatans: from hence,\n however, we cannot infer anything as to their dependence at that\n time (Strabo, viii. p. 377).\n\n [822] Pindar, Nem. x. 42. \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 (compare\n Nem. iv. 17). \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, etc.\n\n [823] See Corsini Dissertation. Agonistic\u00e6, iii. 2.\n\n The tenth Nemean Ode of Pindar is on this point peculiarly good\n evidence, inasmuch as it is composed for, and supposed to be\n sung by Thei\u00e6us, a native of Argos. Had there been any jealousy\n then subsisting between Argos and Kle\u00f4n\u00e6 on the subject of the\n presidency of this festival, Pindar would never, on such an\n occasion, have mentioned expressly the Kle\u00f4n\u00e6ans as presidents.\n\n The statements of the Scholia on Pindar, that the Corinthians at\n one time celebrated the Nemean games, or that they were of old\n celebrated at Siky\u00f4n, seem unfounded (Schol. Pind. Arg. Nem., and\n Nem. x. 49).\n\nOf Corinth and Siky\u00f4n it will be more convenient to speak when we\nsurvey what is called the Age of the Tyrants, or Despots; and of\nthe inhabitants of Achaia (who occupied the southern coast of the\nCorinthian gulf, westward of Siky\u00f4n, as far as Cape Araxus, the\nnorth-western point of Peloponnesus), a few words exhaust our whole\nknowledge, down to the time at which we are arrived. These Ach\u00e6ans\nare given to us as representing the ante-Dorian inhabitants of\nLaconia, whom the legend affirms to have retired under Tisamenus\nto the northern parts of Peloponnesus, from whence they expelled\nthe pre\u00ebxisting Ionians and occupied the country. The race of their\nkings is said to have lasted from Tisamenus down to Ogygus,[824]\u2014how\nlong, we do not know. After the death of the latter, the Ach\u00e6an\ntowns formed each a separate republic, but with periodical festivals\nand sacrifice at the temple of Zeus Homarius, affording opportunity\nof settling differences and arranging their common concerns. Of\nthese towns, twelve are known from Herodotus and Strabo,\u2014Pell\u00ean\u00ea,\n\u00c6gira, \u00c6g\u00e6, Bura, Helik\u00ea, \u00c6gium, Rhypes, Patr\u00e6, Phar\u00e6, Olenus,\nDym\u00ea, Trit\u00e6a.[825] But there must originally have been some other\nautonomous towns besides these twelve; for in the 23d Olympiad,\nIkarus of Hyper\u00easia was proclaimed as victor, and there seems\ngood reason to believe that Hyper\u00easia, an old town of the Homeric\nCatalogue, was in Achaia.[826] It is affirmed that, before the Ach\u00e6an\noccupation of the country, the Ionians had dwelt in independent\nvillages, several of which were subsequently aggregated into towns:\nthus Patr\u00e6 was formed by a coalescence of seven villages, Dym\u00ea from\neight (one of which was named Teuthea), and \u00c6gium also from seven or\neight. But all these towns were small, and some of them underwent a\nfarther junction one with the other; thus \u00c6g\u00e6 was joined with \u00c6geira,\nand Olenus with Dym\u00ea.[827] All the authors seem disposed to recognize\ntwelve cities, and no more, in Achaia; for Polybius, still adhering\nto that number, substitutes Leontium and Keryneia in place of \u00c6g\u00e6 and\nRhypes; Pausanias gives Keryneia in place of Patr\u00e6.[828] We hear of\nno facts respecting these Ach\u00e6an towns until a short time before the\nPeloponnesian war, and even then their part was inconsiderable.\n\n [824] Polyb. ii. 41.\n\n [825] Herodot. i. 145; Strabo, viii. p. 385.\n\n [826] Pausan. iv. 15, 1; Strabo, viii. p. 383; Homer, Iliad, ii.\n 573. Pausanias seems to have forgotten this statement, when he\n tells us that the name of Hyper\u00easia was exchanged for that of\n \u00c6geira, during the time of the Ionian occupation of the country\n (vii. 26, 1; Steph. Byz. copies him, v. \u0391\u1f34\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1). It is doubtful\n whether the two names designate the same place, nor does Strabo\n conceive that they did.\n\n [827] Strabo, viii. pp. 337, 342, 386.\n\n [828] Polyb. ii. 41.\n\nThe greater portion of the territory comprised under the name of\nAchaia was mountain, forming the northern descent of those high\nranges, passable only through very difficult gorges, which separate\nthe country from Arcadia to the south, and which throw out various\nspurs approaching closely to the gulf of Corinth. A strip of flat\nland, with white clayey soil, often very fertile, between these\nmountains and the sea, formed _the plain_ of each of the Ach\u00e6an\ntowns, which were situated for the most part upon steep outlying\neminences overhanging it. From the mountains between Achaia and\nArcadia, numerous streams flow into the Corinthian gulf, but few of\nthem are perennial, and the whole length of coast is represented as\nharborless.[829]\n\n [829] See Leake\u2019s Travels in Morea, c. xxvii. and xxxi.","title":"History of Greece, Volume 02 (of 12)","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":194304}