diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/60426-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60426-0.txt | 18982 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 18982 deletions
diff --git a/old/60426-0.txt b/old/60426-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 4616a81..0000000 --- a/old/60426-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18982 +0,0 @@ -Project Gutenberg's History of Greece, Volume 04 (of 12), by George Grote - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: History of Greece, Volume 04 (of 12) - -Author: George Grote - -Release Date: October 5, 2019 [EBook #60426] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF GREECE, VOLUME 04 *** - - - - -Produced by Henry Flower, Adrian Mastronardi, Ramon Pajares -Box and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at -http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images -generously made available by The Internet Archive/American -Libraries.) - - - - - - -TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE - - * Italics are denoted by underscores as in _italics_. - * Small caps are represented in upper case as in SMALL CAPS. - * Letter spaced Greek text is enclosed in tildes as in ~καὶ τὰ - λοιπά~. - * Footnotes have been renumbered. Each footnote is placed at the - end of the paragraph that includes its anchor. - * Obvious printer errors have been silently corrected, after - comparison with a later edition of this work. Greek text has - also been corrected after checking with this later edition and - with Perseus, when the reference was found. - * Original spelling, hyphenation and punctuation have been kept, - but variant spellings were made consistent when a predominant - usage was found. - * Nevetherless, no attempt has been made at normalizing proper - names. The author established at the beginning of the first - volume of this work some rules of transcription for proper names, - but neither he nor his publisher follow them consistently. - - - - - HISTORY OF GREECE. - - BY - - GEORGE GROTE, ESQ. - - VOL. IV. - - REPRINTED FROM THE SECOND LONDON EDITION. - - NEW YORK: - HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS. - 329 AND 331 PEARL STREET. - 1880. - - - - -CONTENTS. - -VOL. IV. - - -PART II. - -CONTINUATION OF HISTORICAL GREECE. - - -CHAPTER XXV. - -ILLYRIANS, MACEDONIANS, PÆONIANS. - - Different tribes of Illyrians. — Conflicts and contrast of - Illyrians with Greeks. — Epidamnus and Apollonia in relation to - the Illyrians. — Early Macedonians. — Their original seats. — - General view of the country which they occupied — eastward of - Pindus and Skardus. — Distribution and tribes of the Macedonians. - — Macedonians round Edessa — the leading portion of the nation. — - Pierians and Bottiæans — originally placed on the Thermaic gulf, - between the Macedonians and the sea. — Pæonians. — Argeian Greeks - who established the dynasty of Edessa — Perdikkas. — Talents for - command manifested by Greek chieftains over barbaric tribes. — - Aggrandizement of the dynasty of Edessa — conquests as far as - the Thermaic gulf, as well as over the interior Macedonians. — - Friendship between king Amyntas and the Peisistratids. - _pages_ 1-19 - - -CHAPTER XXVI. - -THRACIANS AND GREEK COLONIES IN THRACE. - - Thracians — their numbers and abode. — Many distinct tribes, yet - little diversity of character. — Their cruelty, rapacity, and - military efficiency. — Thracian worship and character Asiatic. - — Early date of the Chalkidic colonies in Thrace. — Methônê the - earliest — about 720 B. C. — Several other small settlements - on the Chalkidic peninsula and its three projecting headlands. - — Chalkidic peninsula — Mount Athos. — Colonies in Pallênê, or - the westernmost of the three headlands. — In Sithonia, or the - middle headland. — In the headland of Athos — Akanthus, Stageira, - etc. — Greek settlements east of the Strymôn in Thrace. — Island - of Thasus. — Thracian Chersonesus. — Perinthus, Selymoria, and - Byzantium. — Grecian settlements on the Euxine, south of the - Danube. — Lemnos and Imbros. 20-28 - - -CHAPTER XXVII. - -KYRENE AND BARKA. — HESPERIDES. - - First voyages of the Greeks to Libya. — Foundation of Kyrênê. - — Founded by Battus from the island of Thêra. — Colony first - settled in the island of Platea — afterwards removed to Kyrênê. - — Situation of Kyrênê. — Fertility, produce, and prosperity. — - Libyan tribes near Kyrênê. — Extensive dominion of Kyrênê and - Barka over the Libyans. — Connection of the Greek colonies with - the Nomads of Libya. — Manners of the Libyan Nomads. — Mixture - of Greeks and Libyan inhabitants at Kyrênê. — Dynasty of Battus, - Arkesilaus, Battus the Second, at Kyrênê — fresh colonists from - Greece. — Disputes with the native Libyans. — Arkesilaus the - Second, prince of Kyrênê — misfortunes of the city — foundation - of Barka. — Battus the Third, a lame man — reform by Demônax, - who takes away the supreme power from the Battiads. — New - emigration — restoration of the Battiad Arkesilaus the Third. — - Oracle limiting the duration of the Battiad dynasty. — Violences - at Kyrênê under Arkesilaus the Third. — Arkesilaus sends his - submission to Kambysês, king of Persia. — Persian expedition from - Egypt against Barka — Pheretimê, mother of Arkesilaus. — Capture - of Barka by perfidy — cruelty of Pheretimê. — Battus the Fourth - and Arkesilaus the Fourth — final extinction of the dynasty about - 460-450 B. C. — Constitution of Demônax not durable. 29-49 - - -CHAPTER XXVIII. - -PAN-HELLENIC FESTIVALS — OLYMPIC, PYTHIAN, NEMEAN, AND ISTHMIAN. - - Want of grouping and unity in the early period of Grecian - history. — New causes, tending to favor union, begin after - 560 B. C. — no general war between 776 and 560 B. C. known to - Thucydidês. — Increasing disposition to religious, intellectual, - and social union. — Reciprocal admission of cities to the - religious festivals of each other. — Early splendor of the - Ionic festival at Delos — its decline. — Olympic games — their - celebrity and long continuance. — Their gradual increase — - new matches introduced. — Olympic festival — the first which - passes from a local to a Pan-Hellenic character. — Pythian - games, or festival. — Early state and site of Delphi. — Phocian - town of Krissa. — Kirrha, the seaport of Krissa. — Growth of - Delphi and Kirrha — decline of Krissa. — Insolence of the - Kirrhæans punished by the Amphiktyons. — First Sacred War, in - 595 B. C. — Destruction of Kirrha. — Pythian games founded by - the Amphiktyons. — Nemean and Isthmian games. — Pan-Hellenic - character acquired by all the four festivals — Olympic, Pythian, - Nemean, and Isthmian. — Increased frequentation of the other - festivals in most Greek cities. — All other Greek cities, except - Sparta, encouraged such visits. — Effect of these festivals upon - the Greek mind. 50-73 - - -CHAPTER XXIX. - -LYRIC POETRY. — THE SEVEN WISE MEN. - - Age and duration of the Greek lyric poetry. — Epical age - preceding the lyrical. — Wider range of subjects for poetry — new - metres — enlarged musical scale. — Improvement of the harp by - Terpander — of the flute by Olympus and others. — Archilochus, - Kallinus, Tyrtæus, and Alkman — 670-600 B. C. — New metres - superadded to the Hexameter — Elegiac, Iambic, Trochaic. — - Archilochus. — Simonidês of Amorgos, Kallinus, Tyrtæus. — Musical - and poetical tendencies at Sparta. — Choric training — Alkman, - Thalêtas. — Doric dialect employed in the choric compositions. - — Arion and Stêsichorus — substitution of the professional in - place of the popular chorus. — Distribution of the chorus by - Stêsichorus — Strophê — Antistrophê — Epôdus. — Alkæus and - Sappho. — Gnomic or moralizing poets. — Solon and Theognis. — - Subordination of musical and orchestrical accompaniment to the - words and meaning. — Seven Wise Men. — They were the first men - who acquired an Hellenic reputation, without poetical genius. - — Early manifestation of philosophy — in the form of maxims. — - Subsequent growth of dialectics and discussion. — Increase of the - habit of writing — commencement of prose compositions. — First - beginnings of Grecian art. — Restricted character of early art, - from religious associations. — Monumental ornaments in the cities - — begin in the sixth century B. C. — Importance of Grecian art as - a means of Hellenic union. 73-101 - - -CHAPTER XXX. - -GRECIAN AFFAIRS DURING THE GOVERNMENT OF PEISISTRATUS AND HIS SONS AT -ATHENS. - - Peisistratus and his sons at Athens — B. C. 500-510 — uncertain - chronology as to Peisistratus. — State of feeling in Attica at - the accession of Peisistratus. — Retirement of Peisistratus, and - stratagem whereby he is reinstated. — Quarrel of Peisistratus - with the Alkmæônids — his second retirement. — His second and - final restoration. — His strong government — mercenaries — - purification of Delos. — Mild despotism of Peisistratus. — His - sons Hippias and Hipparchus. — Harmodius and Aristogeitôn. — They - conspire and kill Hipparchus. B. C. 514. — Strong and lasting - sentiment, coupled with great historical mistake, in the Athenian - public. — Hippias despot alone — 514-510 B. C. — his cruelty and - conscious insecurity. — Connection of Athens with the Thracian - Chersonesus and the Asiatic coast of the Hellespont. — First - Miltiadês — œkist of the Chersonese. — Second Miltiadês — sent - out thither by the Peisistratids. — Proceedings of the exiled - Alkmæônids against Hippias. — Conflagration and rebuilding of - the Delphian temple. — The Alkmæônids rebuild the temple with - magnificence. — Gratitude of the Delphians towards them — they - procure from the oracle directions to Sparta, enjoining the - expulsion of Hippias. — Spartan expeditions into Attica. — - Expulsion of Hippias, and liberation of Athens. 102-126 - - -CHAPTER XXXI. - -GRECIAN AFFAIRS AFTER THE EXPULSION OF THE PEISISTRATIDS. — -REVOLUTION OF KLEISTHENES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMOCRACY AT ATHENS. - - State of Athens after the expulsion of Hippias. — Opposing - party-leaders — Kleisthenês — Isagoras. — Democratical revolution - headed by Kleisthenês. — Rearrangement and extension of the - political franchise. — Suppression of the four old tribes, and - formation of ten new tribes, including an increased number - of the population. — Imperfect description of this event in - Herodotus — its real bearing. — Grounds of opposition to it in - ancient Athenian feeling. — Names of the new tribes — their - relation to the demes. — Demes belonging to each tribe usually - not adjacent to each other. — Arrangements and functions of the - deme. — Solonian constitution preserved, with modifications. — - Change of military arrangement in the state. — The ten stratêgi, - or generals. — The judicial assembly of citizens, or Heliæa, - subsequently divided into fractions, each judging separately. — - The political assembly, or ekklesia. — Financial arrangements. - — Senate of Five Hundred. — Ekklesia, or political assembly. — - Kleisthenês the real author of the Athenian democracy. — Judicial - attributes of the people — their gradual enlargement. — Three - points in Athenian constitutional law, hanging together: — - Universal admissibility of citizens to magistracy — choice by lot - — reduced functions of the magistrates chosen by lot. — Universal - admissibility of citizens to the archonship — not introduced - until after the battle of Platæa. — Constitution of Kleisthenês - retained the Solonian law of exclusion as to individual office. — - Difference between that constitution and the political state of - Athens after Periklês. — Senate of Areopagus. — The ostracism. - — Weakness of the public force in the Grecian governments. — - Past violences of the Athenian nobles. — Necessity of creating a - constitutional morality. — Purpose and working of the ostracism. - — Securities against its abuse. — Ostracism necessary as a - protection to the early democracy — afterwards dispensed with. - — Ostracism analogous to the exclusion of a known pretender to - the throne in a monarchy. — Effect of the long ascendency of - Periklês, in strengthening constitutional morality. — Ostracism - in other Grecian cities. — Striking effect of the revolution - of Kleisthenês on the minds of the citizens. — Isagoras calls - in Kleomenês and the Lacedæmonians against it. — Kleomenês and - Isagoras are expelled from Athens. — Recall of Kleisthenês — - Athens solicits the alliance of the Persians. — First connection - between Athens and Platæa. — Disputes between Platæa and Thebes - — decision of Corinth as arbitrator. — Second march of Kleomenês - against Athens — desertion of his allies. — First appearance of - Sparta as acting head of Peloponnesian allies. — Signal successes - of Athens against Bœotians and Chalkidians. — Plantation of - Athenian settlers, or klêruchs, in the territory of Chalkis. — - Distress of the Thebans — they ask assistance from Ægina. — The - Æginetans make war on Athens. — Preparations at Sparta to attack - Athens anew — the Spartan allies are summoned, together with - Hippias. — First formal convocation at Sparta — advance of Greece - towards a political system. — Proceedings of the convocation - — animated protest of Corinth against any interference in - favor of Hippias — the Spartan allies refuse to interfere. — - Aversion to single-headed rule — now predominant in Greece. — - Striking development of Athenian energy after the revolution of - Kleisthenês — language of Herodotus. — Effect of the idea or - theory of democracy in exciting Athenian sentiment. — Patriotism - of an Athenian between 500-400 B. C. — combined with an eager - spirit of personal military exertion and sacrifice. — Diminution - of this active sentiment in the restored democracy after the - Thirty Tyrants. 126-181 - - -CHAPTER XXXII. - -RISE OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE. — CYRUS. - - State of Asia before the rise of the Persian monarchy. — Great - power and alliances of Crœsus. — Rise of Cyrus — uncertainty of - his early history. — Story of Astyagês. — Herodotus and Ktêsias. - — Condition of the native Persians at the first rise of Cyrus. - — Territory of Iran — between Tigris and Indus. — War between - Cyrus and Crœsus. — Crœsus tests the oracles — triumphant reply - from Delphi — munificence of Crœsus to the oracle. — Advice given - to him by the oracle. — He solicits the alliance of Sparta. — - He crosses the Halys and attacks the Persians. — Rapid march of - Cyrus to Sardis. — Siege and capture of Sardis. — Crœsus becomes - prisoner of Cyrus — how treated. — Remonstrance addressed by - Crœsus to the Delphian god. — Successful justification of the - oracle. — Fate of Crœsus impressive to the Greek mind. — The - Mœræ, or Fates. — State of the Asiatic Greeks after the conquest - of Lydia by Cyrus. — They apply in vain to Sparta for aid. — - Cyrus quits Sardis — revolt of the Lydians suppressed. — The - Persian general Mazarês attacks Ionia — the Lydian Paktyas. — - Harpagus succeeds Mazarês — conquest of Ionia by the Persians. - — Fate of Phôkæa. — Emigration of the Phôkæans vowed by all, - executed only by one half. — Phôkæan colony first at Alalia, then - at Elea. — Proposition of Bias for a Pan-Ionic emigration not - adopted. — Entire conquest of Asia Minor by the Persians. 182-208 - - -CHAPTER XXXIII. - -GROWTH OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE. - - Conquests of Cyrus in Asia. — His attack of Babylon. — Difficult - approach to Babylon — no resistance made to the invaders. — Cyrus - distributes the river Gyndês into many channels. — He takes - Babylon, by drawing off for a time the waters of the Euphrates. - — Babylon left in undiminished strength and population. — Cyrus - attacks the Massagetæ — is defeated and slain. — Extraordinary - stimulus to the Persians, from the conquests of Cyrus. — - Character of the Persians. — Thirst for foreign conquest among - the Persians, for three reigns after Cyrus. — Kambysês succeeds - his father Cyrus — his invasion of Egypt. — Death of Amasis, king - of Egypt, at the time when the Persian expedition was preparing - — his son Psammenitus succeeds. — Conquest of Egypt by Kambysês. - — Submission of Kyrênê and Barka to Kambysês — his projects for - conquering Libya and Ethiopia disappointed. — Insults of Kambysês - to the Egyptian religion. — Madness of Kambysês — he puts to - death his younger brother, Smerdis. — Conspiracy of the Magian - Patizeithês who sets up his brother as king under the name of - Smerdis. — Death of Kambysês. — Reign of the false Smerdis — - conspiracy of the seven Persian noblemen against him — he is - slain. — Darius succeeds to the throne. — Political bearing - of this conspiracy — Smerdis represents Median preponderance, - which is again put down by Darius. — Revolt of the Medes — - suppressed. — Discontents of the satraps. — Revolt of Babylon. - — Reconquered and dismantled by Darius. — Organization of the - Persian empire by Darius. — Twenty satrapies with a fixed tribute - apportioned to each. — Imposts upon the different satrapies. - — Organizing tendency of Darius — first imperial coinage — - imperial roads and posts. — Island of Samos — its condition at - the accession of Darius. — Polykratês. — Polykratês breaks with - Amasis, king of Egypt, and allies himself with Kambysês. — The - Samian exiles, expelled by Polykratês, apply to Sparta for aid. - — The Lacedæmonians attack Samos, but are repulsed. — Attack on - Siphnos by the Samian exiles. — Prosperity of Polykratês. — He is - slain by the Persian satrap Orœtês. — Mæandrius, lieutenant of - Polykratês in Samos — he desires to establish a free government - after the death of Polykratês — conduct of the Samians. — - Mæandrius becomes despot. — Contrast between the Athenians - and the Samians. — Sylosôn, brother of Polykratês, lands with - a Persian army in Samos — his history. — Mæandrius agrees to - evacuate the island. — Many Persian officers slain — slaughter - of the Samians. — Sylosôn despot at Samos. — Application of - Mæandrius to Sparta for aid — refused. 209-252 - - -CHAPTER XXXIV. - -DEMOKEDES. — DARIUS INVADES SCYTHIA. - - Conquering dispositions of Darius. — Influence of his wife, - Atossa. — Dêmokêdês, the Krotoniate surgeon — his adventures — he - is carried a slave to Susa. — He cures Darius, who rewards him - munificently. — He procures permission by artifice, and through - the influence of Atossa, to return to Greece. — Atossa suggests - to Darius an expedition against Greece. — Dêmokêdês, with some - Persians, is sent to procure information for him. — Voyage of - Dêmokêdês along the coast of Greece — he stays at Kroton — fate - of his Persian companions. — Consequences which might have been - expected to happen if Darius had then undertaken his expedition - against Greece. — Darius marches against Scythia. — His naval - force formed of Asiatic and insular Greeks. — He directs the - Greeks to throw a bridge over the Danube and crosses the river. - — He marches into Scythia — narrative of his march impossible - and unintelligible, considered as history. — The description - of his march is rather to be looked upon as a fancy-picture, - illustrative of Scythian warfare. — Poetical grouping of the - Scythians and their neighbors by Herodotus. — Strong impression - produced upon the imagination of Herodotus by the Scythians. — - Orders given by Darius to the Ionians at the bridge over the - Danube. — The Ionians are left in guard of the bridge; their - conduct when Darius’s return is delayed. — The Ionian despots - preserve the bridge and enable Darius to recross the river, as - a means of support to their own dominion at home. — Opportunity - lost of emancipation from the Persians — Conquest of Thrace by - the Persians as far as the river Strymon — Myrkinus near that - river given to Histiæus. — Macedonians and Pæonians are conquered - by Megabazus. — Insolence of the Persian envoys in Macedonia - — they are murdered. — Histiæus founds a prosperous colony at - Myrkinus — Darius sends for him into Asia. — Otanês Persian - general on the Hellespont — he conquers the Pelasgian population - of Lemnos, Imbros, etc. — Lemnos and Imbros captured by the - Athenians and Miltiadês. 252-280 - - -CHAPTER XXXV. - -IONIC REVOLT. - - Darius carries Histiæus to Susa. — Application of the banished - Hippias to Artaphernês, satrap of Sardis. — State of the island - of Naxos — Naxian exiles solicit aid from Aristagoras of Milêtus. - — Expedition against Naxos, undertaken by Aristagoras with the - assistance of Artaphernês the satrap. — Its failure, through - dispute between Aristagoras and the Persian general, Megabatês. - — Alarm of Aristagoras — he determines to revolt against Persia - — instigation to the same effect from Histiæus. — Revolt of - Aristagoras and the Milesians — the despots in the various cities - deposed and seized. — Extension of the revolt throughout Asiatic - Greece — Aristagoras goes to solicit aid from Sparta. — Refusal - of the Spartans to assist him. — Aristagoras applies to Athens — - obtains aid both from Athens and Eretria. — March of Aristagoras - up to Sardis with the Athenian and Eretrian allies — burning of - the town — retreat and defeat of these Greeks by the Persians. - — The Athenians abandon the alliance. — Extension of the revolt - to Cyprus and Byzantium. — Phenician fleet called forth by the - Persians — Persian and Phenician armament sent against Cyprus - — the Ionians send aid thither — victory of the Persians — - they reconquer the island. — Successes of the Persians against - the revolted coast of Asia Minor. — Aristagoras loses courage - and abandons the country. — Appearance of Histiæus, who had - obtained leave of departure from Susa. — Histiæus is suspected by - Artaphernês — flees to Chios. — He attempts in vain to procure - admission into Milêtus — puts himself at the head of a small - piratical squadron. — Large Persian force assembled, aided by the - Phenician fleet, for the siege of Milêtus. — The allied Grecian - fleet mustered at Ladê. — Attempts of the Persians to disunite - the allies, by means of the exiled despots. — Want of command - and discipline in the Grecian fleet. — Energy of the Phôkæan - Dionysius — he is allowed to assume the command. — Discontent - of the Grecian crews — they refuse to act under Dionysius. - — Contrast of this incapacity of the Ionic crews with the - subsequent severe discipline of the Athenian seamen. — Disorder - and mistrust grow up in the fleet — treachery of the Samian - captains. — Complete victory of the Persian fleet at Ladê — ruin - of the Ionic fleet — severe loss of the Chians. — Voluntary - exile and adventures of Dionysius. — Siege, capture, and ruin of - Milêtus by the Persians. — The Phenician fleet reconquers all - the coast-towns and islands. — Narrow escape of Miltiadês from - their pursuit. — Cruelties of the Persians after the reconquest. - — Movements and death of Histiæus. — Sympathy and terror of - the Athenians at the capture of Milêtus — the tragic writer - Phrynichus is fined. 280-310 - - -CHAPTER XXXVI. - -FROM THE IONIC REVOLT TO THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. - - Proceedings of the satrap Artaphernês after the reconquest of - Ionia — Mardonius comes with an army into Ionia — he puts down - the despots in the Greek cities. — He marches into Thrace and - Macedonia — his fleet destroyed by a terrible storm near Mount - Athos — he returns into Asia. — Island of Thasos — prepares to - revolt from the Persians — forced to submit. — Preparations of - Darius for invading Greece — he sends heralds round the Grecian - towns to demand earth and water — many of them submit. — Ægina - among those towns which submitted — state and relations of this - island. — Heralds from Darius are put to death, both at Athens - and Sparta. — Effects of this act in throwing Sparta into a state - of hostility against Persia. — The Athenians appeal to Sparta, - in consequence of the _medism_ (or submission to the Persians) - of Ægina. — Interference of Sparta — her distinct acquisition - and acceptance of the leadership of Greece. — One condition of - recognized Spartan leadership was the extreme weakness of Argos - at this moment. — Victorious war of Sparta against Argos. — - Destruction of the Argeians by Kleomenês, in the grove of the - hero Argus. — Kleomenês returns without having attacked the - city of Argos. — He is tried — his peculiar mode of defence - — acquitted. — Argos unable to interfere with Sparta in the - affair of Ægina and in her presidential power. — Kleomenês goes - to Ægina to seize the _medizing_ leaders — resistance made to - him, at the instigation of his colleague Demaratus. — Demaratus - is deposed, and Leotychidês chosen king, by the intrigues of - Kleomenês. — Demaratus leaves Sparta and goes to Darius. — - Kleomenês and Leotychidês go to Ægina, seize ten hostages, - and convey them as prisoners to Athens. — Important effect of - this proceeding upon the result of the first Persian invasion - of Greece. — Assemblage of the vast Persian armament under - Datis at Samos. — He crosses the Ægean — carries the island of - Naxos without resistance — respects Delos. — He reaches Eubœa - — siege and capture of Eretria. — Datis lands at Marathon. — - Existing condition and character of the Athenians. — Miltiadês - — his adventures — chosen one of the ten generals in the year - in which the Persians landed at Marathon. — Themistoklês and - Aristeidês. — Miltiadês, Aristeidês, and perhaps Themistoklês, - were now among the ten stratêgi, or generals, in 490 B. C. — - The Athenians ask aid from Sparta — delay of the Spartans. — - Difference of opinion among the ten Athenian generals — five of - them recommend an immediate battle, the other five are adverse - to it. — Urgent instances of Miltiadês in favor of an immediate - battle — casting-vote of the polemarch determines it. — March of - the Athenians to Marathon — the Platæans spontaneously join them - there. — Numbers of the armies. — Locality of Marathon. — Battle - of Marathon — rapid charge of Miltiadês — defeat of the Persians. - — Loss on both sides. — Ulterior plans of the Persians against - Athens — party in Attica favorable to them. — Rapid march of - Miltiadês back to Athens on the day of the battle. — The Persians - abandon the enterprise, and return home. — Athens rescued through - the speedy battle brought on by Miltiadês. — Change of Grecian - feeling as to the Persians — terror which the latter inspired - at the time of the battle of Marathon. — Immense effect of the - Marathonian victory on the feelings of the Greeks — especially - of the Athenians. — Who were the traitors that invited the - Persians to Athens after the battle — false imputation on the - Alkmæônids. — Supernatural belief connected with the battle — - commemorations of it. — Return of Datis to Asia — fate of the - Eretrian captives. — Glory of Miltiadês — his subsequent conduct - — unsuccessful expedition against Paros — bad hurt of Miltiadês. - — Disgrace of Miltiadês on his return. — He is fined — dies of - his wound — the fine is paid by his son Kimon. — Reflections on - the closing adventures of the life of Miltiadês. — Fickleness - and ingratitude imputed to the Athenians — how far they deserve - the charge. — Usual temper of the Athenian dikasts in estimating - previous services. — Tendency of eminent Greeks to be corrupted - by success. — In what sense it is apparently true that fickleness - was an attribute of the Athenian democracy. 311-378 - - -CHAPTER XXXVII. - -IONIC PHILOSOPHERS. — PYTHAGORAS. — KROTON AND SYBARIS. - - Phalaris despot of Agrigentum. — Thalês. — Ionic philosophers - — not a school or succession. — Step in philosophy commenced - by Thalês. — Vast problems with scanty means of solution. — - One cause of the vein of skepticism which runs through Grecian - philosophy. — Thalês — primeval element of water, or the fluid. - — Anaximander. — Problem of the One and the Many — the Permanent - and the Variable. — Xenophanês — his doctrine the opposite of - that of Anaximander. — The Eleatic school, Parmenidês and Zeno, - springing from Xenophanês — their dialectics — their great - influence on Grecian speculation. — Pherekydês. — History of - Pythagoras. — His character and doctrines. — Pythagoras more a - missionary and schoolmaster than a politician — his political - efficiency exaggerated by later witnesses. — His ethical training - — probably not applied to all the members of his order. — Decline - and subsequent renovation of the Pythagorean order. — Pythagoras - not merely a borrower, but an original and ascendent mind. — He - passes from Samos to Kroton. — State of Kroton — oligarchical - government — excellent gymnastic training and medical skill. - — Rapid and wonderful effects said to have been produced by - the exhortations of Pythagoras. — He forms a powerful club, or - society, consisting of three hundred men taken from the wealthy - classes at Kroton. — Political influence of Pythagoras — was an - indirect result of the constitution of the order. — Causes which - led to the subversion of the Pythagorean order. — Violences which - accompanied its subversion. — The Pythagorean order is reduced - to a religious and philosophical sect, in which character it - continues. — War between Sybaris and Kroton. — Defeat of the - Sybarites, and destruction of their city, partly through the - aid of the Spartan prince Dorieus. — Sensation excited in the - Hellenic world by the destruction of Sybaris. — Gradual decline - of the Greek power in Italy. — Contradictory statements and - arguments respecting the presence of Dorieus. — Herodotus does - not mention the Pythagoreans, when he alludes to the war between - Sybaris and Kroton. — Charondas, lawgiver of Katana, Naxos, - Zanklê, Rhegium, etc. 378-419 - - - - -HISTORY OF GREECE. - - - - -PART II. - -CONTINUATION OF HISTORICAL GREECE. - - - - -CHAPTER XXV. - -ILLYRIANS, MACEDONIANS, PÆONIANS. - - -Northward of the tribes called Epirotic lay those more numerous -and widely extended tribes who bore the general name of Illyrians; -bounded on the west by the Adriatic, on the east by the -mountain-range of Skardus, the northern continuation of Pindus,—and -thus covering what is now called Middle and Upper Albania, together -with the more northerly mountains of Montenegro, Herzegovina, and -Bosnia. Their limits to the north and north-east cannot be assigned, -but the Dardani and Autariatæ must have reached to the north-east of -Skardus and even east of the Servian plain of Kossovo; while along -the Adriatic coast, Skylax extends the race so far northward as to -include Dalmatia, treating the Liburnians and Istrians beyond them -as not Illyrian: yet Appian and others consider the Liburnians and -Istrians as Illyrian, and Herodotus even includes under that name -the Eneti, or Veneti, at the extremity of the Adriatic gulf.[1] The -Bulini, according to Skylax, were the northernmost Illyrian tribe: -the Amantini, immediately northward of the Epirotic Chaonians, -were the southernmost. Among the southern Illyrian tribes are to -be numbered the Taulantii,—originally the possessors, afterwards -the immediate neighbors, of the territory on which Epidamnus was -founded. The ancient geographer Hekatæus[2] (about 500 B. C.), -is sufficiently well acquainted with them to specify their town -Sesarêthus: he also named the Chelidonii as their northern, the -Encheleis as their southern neighbors; and the Abri also as a tribe -nearly adjoining. We hear of the Illyrian Parthini, nearly in the -same regions,—of the Dassaretii,[3] near Lake Lychnidus,—of the -Penestæ, with a fortified town Uscana, north of the Dassaretii,—of -the Ardiæans, the Autariatæ, and the Dardanians, throughout Upper -Albania eastward as far as Upper Mœsia, including the range of -Skardus itself; so that there were some Illyrian tribes conterminous -on the east with Macedonians, and on the south with Macedonians as -well as with Pæonians. Strabo even extends some of the Illyrian -tribes much farther northward, nearly to the Julian Alps.[4] - - [1] Herodot. i, 196; Skylax, c. 19-27; Appian. Illyric. c. 2, 4, - 8. - - The geography of the countries occupied in ancient times by - the Illyrians, Macedonians, Pæonians, Thracians, etc., and now - possessed by a great diversity of races, among whom the Turks - and Albanians retain the primitive barbarism without mitigation, - is still very imperfectly understood; though the researches of - Colonel Leake, of Boué, of Grisebach, and others (especially - the valuable travels of the latter), have of late thrown much - light upon it. How much our knowledge is extended in this - direction, may be seen by comparing the map prefixed to Mannert’s - Geographie, or to O. Müller’s Dissertation on the Macedonians, - with that in Boué’s Travels, but the extreme deficiency of the - maps, even as they now stand, is emphatically noticed by Boué - himself (see his Critique des Cartes de la Turquie in the fourth - volume of his Voyage),—by Paul Joseph Schaffarik, the learned - historian of the Sclavonic race, in the preface attached by him - to Dr. Joseph Müller’s Topographical Account of Albania,—and - by Grisebach, who in his surveys, taken from the summits of - the mountains Peristeri and Ljubatrin, found the map differing - at every step from the bearings which presented themselves to - his eye. It is only since Boué and Grisebach that the idea has - been completely dismissed, derived originally from Strabo, - of a straight line of mountains (εὐθεῖα γραμμὴ, Strabo, lib. - vii, Fragm. 3) running across from the Adriatic to the Euxine, - and sending forth other lateral chains in a direction nearly - southerly. The mountains of Turkey in Europe, when examined with - the stock of geological science which M. Viquesnel (the companion - of Boué) and Dr. Grisebach bring to the task, are found to belong - to systems very different, and to present evidences of conditions - of formation often quite independent of each other. - - The thirteenth chapter of Grisebach’s Travels presents the - best account which has yet been given of the chain of Skardus - and Pindus: he has been the first to prove clearly, that the - Ljubatrin, which immediately overhangs the plain of Kossovo at - the southern border of Servia and Bosnia, is the north-eastern - extremity of a chain of mountains reaching southward to the - frontiers of Ætolia, in a direction not very wide of N-S.,—with - the single interruption (first brought to view by Colonel - Leake) of the Klissoura of Devol,—a complete gap, where the - river Devol, rising on the eastern side, crosses the chain and - joins the Apsus, or Beratino, on the western,—(it is remarkable - that both in the map of Boué and in that annexed to Dr. Joseph - Müller’s Topographical Description of Albania, the river Devol - is made to join the Genussus, or Skoumi, considerably north of - the Apsus, though Colonel Leake’s map gives the correct course.) - In Grisebach’s nomenclature Skardus is made to reach from the - Ljubatrin as its north-eastern extremity, south-westward and - southward as far as the Klissoura of Devol: south of that point - Pindus commences, in a continuation, however, of the same axis. - - In reference to the seats of the ancient Illyrians and - Macedonians Grisebach has made another observation of great - importance (vol. ii, p. 121). Between the north-eastern - extremity, Mount Ljubatrin, and the Klissoura of Devol, there - are in the mighty and continuous chain of Skardus (above seven - thousand feet high) only two passes fit for an army to cross: one - near the northern extremity of the chain, over which Grisebach - himself crossed, from Kalkandele to Prisdren, a very high _col_, - not less than five thousand feet above the level of the sea; - the other, considerably to the southward, and lower as well as - easier, nearly in the latitude of Lychnidus, or Ochrida. It was - over this last pass that the Roman Via Egnatia travelled, and - that the modern road from Scutari and Durazzo to Bitolia now - travels. With the exception of these two partial depressions, - the long mountain-ridge maintains itself undiminished in height, - admitting, indeed, paths by which a small company either of - travellers or of Albanian robbers from the Dibren, may cross - (there is a path of this kind which connects Struga with - Ueskioub, mentioned by Dr. Joseph Müller, p. 70, and some others - by Boué, vol. iv, p. 546), but nowhere admitting the passage of - an army. - - To attack the Macedonians, therefore, an Illyrian army would have - to go through one or other of these passes, or else to go round - the north-eastern pass of Katschanik, beyond the extremity of - Ljubatrin. And we shall find that, in point of fact, the military - operations recorded between the two nations carry us usually in - one or other of these directions. The military proceedings of - Brasidas (Thucyd. iv, 124),—of Philip the son of Amyntas king of - Macedon (Diodor. xvi, 8),—of Alexander the Great in the first - year of his reign (Arrian, i, 5), all bring us to the pass near - Lychnidus (compare Livy, xxxii, 9; Plutarch, Flaminin. c. 4); - while the Illyrian Dardani and Autariatæ border upon Pæonia, - to the north of Pelagonia, and threaten Macedonia from the - north-east of the mountain-chain of Skardus. The Autariatæ are - not far removed from the Pæonian Agrianes, who dwelt near the - sources of the Strymon, and both Autariatæ and Dardani threatened - the return march of Alexander from the Danube into Macedonia, - after his successful campaign against the Getæ, low down in the - course of that great river (Arrian, i, 5). Without being able to - determine the precise line of Alexander’s march on this occasion, - we may see that these two Illyrian tribes must have come down - to attack him from Upper Mœsia, and on the eastern side of the - Axius. This, and the fact that the Dardani were the immediate - neighbors of the Pæonians, shows us that their seats could not - have been far removed from Upper Mœsia (Livy, xlv, 29): the - fauces Pelagoniæ (Livy, xxxi, 34) are the pass by which they - entered Macedonia from the north. Ptolemy even places the Dardani - at Skopiæ (Ueskioub) (iii, 9); his information about these - countries seems better than that of Strabo. - - [2] Hekatæi Fragm. ed. Klausen, Fr. 66-70; Thucyd. i, 26. - - Skylax places the Encheleis north of Epidamnus and of the - Taulantii. It may be remarked that Hekatæus seems to have - communicated much information respecting the Adriatic: he noticed - the city of Adria at the extremity of the Gulf, and the fertility - and abundance of the territory around it (Fr. 58: compare Skymnus - Chius, 384). - - [3] Livy, xliii, 9-18. Mannert (Geograph. der Griech. und Römer, - part vii, ch. 9, p. 386, _seq._) collects the points and shows - how little can be ascertained respecting the localities of these - Illyrian tribes. - - [4] Strabo, iv, p. 206. - -With the exception of some portions of what is now called Middle -Albania, the territory of these tribes consisted principally of -mountain pastures with a certain proportion of fertile valley, but -rarely expanding into a plain. The Autariatæ had the reputation of -being unwarlike, but the Illyrians generally were poor, rapacious, -fierce, and formidable in battle. They shared with the remote -Thracian tribes the custom of tattooing[5] their bodies and of -offering human sacrifices: moreover, they were always ready to -sell their military service for hire, like the modern Albanian -Schkipetars, in whom probably their blood yet flows, though with -considerable admixture from subsequent emigrations. Of the Illyrian -kingdom on the Adriatic coast, with Skodra (Scutari) for its capital -city, which became formidable by its reckless piracies in the third -century B. C., we hear nothing in the flourishing period of Grecian -history. The description of Skylax notices in his day, all along the -northern Adriatic, a considerable and standing traffic between the -coast and the interior, carried on by Liburnians, Istrians, and the -small Grecian insular settlements of Pharus and Issa. But he does not -name Skodra, and probably this strong post—together with the Greek -town Lissus, founded by Dionysius of Syracuse—was occupied after -his time by conquerors from the interior,[6] the predecessors of -Agrôn and Gentius,—just as the coast-land of the Thermaic gulf was -conquered by inland Macedonians. - - [5] Strabo, vii, p. 315; Arrian, i, 5, 4-11. So impracticable - is the territory, and so narrow the means of the inhabitants, - in the region called Upper Albania, that most of its resident - tribes even now are considered as free, and pay no tribute to - the Turkish government: the Pachas cannot extort it without - greater expense and difficulty than the sum gained would repay. - The same was the case in Epirus, or Lower Albania, previous to - the time of Ali Pacha: in Middle Albania, the country does not - present the like difficulties, and no such exemptions are allowed - (Boué, Voyage en Turquie, vol. iii, p. 192). These free Albanian - tribes are in the same condition with regard to the Sultan as the - Mysians and Pisidians in Asia Minor with regard to the king of - Persia in ancient times (Xenophon, Anab. iii, 2, 23). - - [6] Diodor. xv, 13: Polyb. ii, 4. - -Once during the Peloponnesian war, a detachment of hired Illyrians, -marching into Macedonia Lynkêstis (seemingly over the pass of Skardus -a little east of Lychnidus, or Ochrida), tried the valor of the -Spartan Brasidas; and on that occasion—as in the expedition above -alluded to of the Epirots against Akarnania—we shall notice the -marked superiority of the Grecian character, even in the case of an -armament chiefly composed of helots newly enfranchised, over both -Macedonians and Illyrians,—we shall see the contrast between brave -men acting in concert and obedience to a common authority, and an -assailing host of warriors, not less brave individually, but in which -every man is his own master,[7] and fights as he pleases. The rapid -and impetuous rush of the Illyrians, if the first shock failed of -its effect, was succeeded by an equally rapid retreat or flight. We -hear nothing afterwards respecting these barbarians until the time of -Philip of Macedon, whose vigor and military energy first repressed -their incursions, and afterwards partially conquered them. It seems -to have been about this period (400-350 B. C.) that the great -movement of the Gauls from west to east took place, which brought -the Gallic Skordiski and other tribes into the regions between the -Danube and the Adriatic sea, and which probably dislodged some of the -northern Illyrians so as to drive them upon new enterprises and fresh -abodes. - - [7] See the description in Thucydidês (iv, 124-128); - especially the exhortation which he puts into the mouth of - Brasidas,—αὐτοκράτωρ μάχῃ, contrasted with the orderly array of - Greeks. - - “Illyriorum velocitas ad excursiones et impetus subitos.” - - (Livy, xxxi, 35.) - -What is now called Middle Albania, the Illyrian territory immediately -north of Epirus, is much superior to the latter in productiveness.[8] -Though mountainous, it possesses more both of low hill and valley, -and ampler as well as more fertile cultivable spaces. Epidamnus and -Apollonia formed the seaports of this territory, and the commerce -with the southern Illyrians, less barbarous than the northern, was -one of the sources[9] of their great prosperity during the first -century of their existence,—a prosperity interrupted in the case -of the Epidamnians by internal dissensions, which impaired their -ascendency over their Illyrian neighbors, and ultimately placed -them at variance with their mother-city Korkyra. The commerce -between these Greek seaports and the interior tribes, when once -the former became strong enough to render violent attack from the -latter hopeless, was reciprocally beneficial to both of them. -Grecian oil and wine were introduced among these barbarians, whose -chiefs at the same time learned to appreciate the woven fabrics,[10] -the polished and carved metallic work, the tempered weapons, -and the pottery, which issued from Grecian artisans. Moreover, -the importation sometimes of salt-fish, and always that of salt -itself, was of the greatest importance to these inland residents, -especially for such localities as possessed lakes abounding in -fish, like that of Lychnidus. We hear of wars between the Autariatæ -and the Ardiæi, respecting salt-springs near their boundaries, and -also of other tribes whom the privation of salt reduced to the -necessity of submitting to the Romans.[11] On the other hand, -these tribes possessed two articles of exchange so precious in -the eyes of the Greeks, that Polybius reckons them as absolutely -indispensable,[12]—cattle and slaves; which latter were doubtless -procured from Illyria, often in exchange for salt, as they were from -Thrace and from the Euxine and from Aquileia in the Adriatic, through -the internal wars of one tribe with another. Silver-mines were worked -at Damastium in Illyria. Wax and honey were probably also articles of -export, and it is a proof that the natural products of Illyria were -carefully sought out, when we find a species of iris peculiar to the -country collected and sent to Corinth, where its root was employed to -give the special flavor to a celebrated kind of aromatic unguent.[13] - - [8] See Pouqueville, Voyage en Grèce, vol. i, chs. 23 and 24; - Grisebach, Reise durch Rumelien und nach Brussa, vol. ii, pp. - 138-139; Boué, La Turquie en Europe, Géographie Générale, vol. i, - pp. 60-65. - - [9] Skymnus Chius, v, 418-425. - - [10] Thucydidês mentions the ὑφαντὰ τε καὶ λεῖα, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη - κατασκευὴ, which the Greek settlements on the Thracian coast - sent up to king Seuthês (ii, 98): similar to the ὑφασμαθ᾽ ἱερὰ, - and to the χεριαρᾶν τεκτόνων δαίδαλα, offered as presents to the - Delphian god (Eurip. Ion. 1141; Pindar, Pyth. v, 46). - - [11] Strabo, vii, p. 317; Appian, Illyric. 17; Aristot. Mirab. - Ausc. c. 138. For the extreme importance of the trade in salt, - as a bond of connection, see the regulations of the Romans when - they divided Macedonia into four provinces, with the distinct - view of cutting off all connection between one and the other. All - _commercium_ and _connubium_ were forbidden between them: the - fourth region, whose capital was Pelagonia (and which included - all the primitive or Upper Macedonia, east of the range of - Pindus and Skardus), was altogether inland, and it was expressly - forbidden to draw its salt from the third region, or the country - between the Axius and the Peneius; while on the other hand the - Illyrian Dardani, situated northward of Upper Macedonia, received - express permission to draw _their_ salt from this third or - maritime region of Macedonia: the salt was to be conveyed from - the Thermaic gulf along the road of the Axius to Stobi in Pæonia, - and was there to be sold at a fixed price. - - The inner or fourth region of Macedonia, which included the - modern Bitoglia and Lake Castoria, could easily obtain its salt - from the Adriatic, by the communication afterwards so well - known as the Roman Egnatian way; but the communication of the - Dardani with the Adriatic led through a country of the greatest - possible difficulty, and it was probably a great convenience to - them to receive their supply from the gulf of Therma by the road - along the Vardar (Axius) (Livy, xlv, 29). Compare the route of - Grisebach from Salonichi to Scutari, in his Reise durch Rumelien, - vol. ii. - - [12] About the cattle in Illyria, Aristotle, De Mirab. Ausc. c. - 128. There is a remarkable passage in Polybius, wherein he treats - the importation of slaves as a matter of necessity to Greece (iv, - 37). The purchasing of the Thracian slaves in exchange for salt - is noticed by Menander.—Θρᾶξ εὐγενὴς εῖ, πρὸς ἄλας ἠγορασμένος: - see Proverb. Zenob. ii, 12, and Diogenian, i, 100. - - The same trade was carried on in antiquity with the nations on - and near Caucasus, from the seaport of Dioskurias at the eastern - extremity of the Euxine (Strabo, xi, p. 506). So little have - those tribes changed, that the Circassians now carry on much - the same trade. Dr. Clarke’s statement carries us back to the - ancient world: “The Circassians frequently sell their children - to strangers, particularly to the Persians and Turks, and their - princes supply the Turkish seraglios with the most beautiful - of the prisoners of both sexes whom they take in war. In their - commerce with the Tchernomorski Cossacks (north of the river - Kuban), the Circassians bring considerable quantities of wood, - and the delicious honey of the mountains, sewed up in goats’ - hides, with the hair on the outside. These articles they exchange - for salt, a commodity found in the neighboring lakes, of a - very excellent quality. Salt is more precious than any other - kind of wealth to the Circassians, and it constitutes the most - acceptable present which can be offered to them. They weave mats - of very great beauty, which find a ready market both in Turkey - and Russia. They are also ingenious in the art of working silver - and other metals, and in the fabrication of guns, pistols, and - sabres. Some, which they offered us for sale, we suspected had - been procured in Turkey in exchange for slaves. Their bows - and arrows are made with inimitable skill, and the arrows - being tipped with iron, and otherwise exquisitely wrought, are - considered by the Cossacks and Russians as inflicting incurable - wounds.” (Clarke’s Travels, vol. i, ch. xvi, p. 378.) - - [13] Theophrast. Hist. Plant. iv, 5, 2; ix, 7, 4: Pliny. H. N. - xiii, 2; xxi, 19: Strabo, vii, p. 326. Coins of Epidamnus and - Apollonia are found not only in Macedonia, but in Thrace and in - Italy: the trade of these two cities probably extended across - from sea to sea, even before the construction of the Egnatian - way; and the Inscription 2056 in the Corpus of Boeckh proclaims - the gratitude of Odêssus (Varna) in the Euxine sea towards a - citizen of Epidamnus (Barth, Corinthiorum Mercatur. Hist. p. 49; - Aristot. Mirab. Auscult. c. 104). - -Nor was the intercourse between the Hellenic ports and Illyrians -inland exclusively commercial. Grecian exiles also found their way -into Illyria, and Grecian mythes became localized there, as may be -seen by the tale of Kadmus and Harmonia, from whom the chiefs of the -Illyrian Encheleis professed to trace their descent.[14] - - [14] Herodot. v, 61; viii, 137: Strabo, vii, p. 326. Skylax - places the λίθοι of Kadmus and Harmonia among the Illyrian Manii, - north of the Encheleis (Diodor. xix, 53; Pausan. ix, 5, 3). - -The Macedonians of the fourth century B. C. acquired, from -the ability and enterprise of two successive kings, a great -perfection in Greek military organization without any of the -loftier Hellenic qualities. Their career in Greece is purely -destructive, extinguishing the free movement of the separate -cities, and disarming the citizen-soldier to make room for the -foreign mercenary, whose sword was unhallowed by any feelings of -patriotism,—yet totally incompetent to substitute any good system -of central or pacific administration. But the Macedonians of the -seventh and sixth centuries B. C. are an aggregate only of rude -inland tribes, subdivided into distinct petty principalities, and -separated from the Greeks by a wider ethnical difference even than -the Epirots; since Herodotus, who considers the Epirotic Molossians -and Thesprotians as children of Hellen, decidedly thinks the contrary -respecting the Macedonians.[15] In the main, however, they seem -at this early period analogous to the Epirots in character and -civilization. They had some few towns, but were chiefly village -residents, extremely brave and pugnacious. The customs of some of -their tribes enjoined that the man who had not yet slain an enemy -should be distinguished on some occasions by a badge of discredit.[16] - - [15] Herodot. v, 22. - - [16] Aristot. Polit. vii, 2, 6. That the Macedonians were chiefly - village residents, appears from Thucyd. ii, 100, iv, 124, though - this does not exclude _some_ towns. - -The original seats of the Macedonians were in the regions east of the -chain of Skardus (the northerly continuation of Pindus)—north of the -chain called the Cambunian mountains, which connects Olympus with -Pindus, and which forms the north-western boundary of Thessaly. But -they did not reach so far eastward as the Thermaic gulf; apparently -not farther eastward than Mount Bermius, or about the longitude of -Edessa and Berrhoia. They thus covered the upper portions of the -course of the rivers Haliakmôn and Erigôn, before the junction of -the latter with the Axius; while the upper course of the Axius, -higher than this point of junction, appears to have belonged to -Pæonia,—though the boundaries of Macedonia and Pæonia cannot be -distinctly marked out at any time. - -The large space of country included between the above-mentioned -boundaries is in great part mountainous, occupied by lateral ridges, -or elevations, which connect themselves with the main line of -Skardus. But it also comprises three wide alluvial basins, or plains, -which are of great extent and well-adapted to cultivation,—the -plain of Tettovo, or Kalkandele (northernmost of the three), which -contains the sources and early course of the Axius, or Vardar,—that -of Bitolia, coinciding to a great degree with the ancient Pelagonia, -wherein the Erigon flows towards the Axius,—and the larger and more -undulating basin of Greveno and Anaselitzas, containing the upper -Haliakmôn with its confluent streams. This latter region is separated -from the basin of Thessaly by a mountainous line of considerable -length, but presenting numerous easy passes.[17] Reckoning the basin -of Thessaly as a fourth, here are four distinct inclosed plains -on the east side of this long range of Skardus and Pindus,—each -generally bounded by mountains which rise precipitously to an -alpine height, and each leaving only one cleft for drainage by a -single river,—the Axius, the Erigôn, the Haliakmôn, and the Peneius -respectively. All four, moreover, though of high level above the sea, -are yet for the most part of distinguished fertility, especially -the plains of Tettovo, of Bitolia, and Thessaly. The fat, rich land -to the east of Pindus and Skardus is described as forming a marked -contrast with the light calcareous soil of the Albanian plains -and valleys on the western side. The basins of Bitolia and of the -Haliakmôn, with the mountains around and adjoining, were possessed by -the original Macedonians; that of Tettovo, on the north, by a portion -of the Pæonians. Among the four, Thessaly is the most spacious; yet -the two comprised in the primitive seats of the Macedonians, both -of them very considerable in magnitude, formed a territory better -calculated to nourish and to generate a considerable population, -than the less favored home, and smaller breadth of valley and plain, -occupied by Epirots or Illyrians. Abundance of corn easily raised, -of pasture for cattle, and of new fertile land open to cultivation, -would suffice to increase the numbers of hardy villagers, indifferent -to luxury as well as to accumulation, and exempt from that oppressive -extortion of rulers which now harasses the same fine regions.[18] - - [17] Boué, Voyage en Turquie, vol. i, p. 199: “Un bon nombre de - cols dirigés du nord au sud, comme pour inviter les habitans de - passer d’une de ces provinces dans l’autre.” - - [18] For the general physical character of the region, both - east and west of Skardus, continued by Pindus, see the valuable - charter of Grisebach’s Travels above referred to (Reisen, vol. - ii. ch. xiii, pp. 125-130; c. xiv, p. 175; c. xvi, pp. 214-216; - c. xvii, pp. 244-245). - - Respecting the plains comprised in the ancient Pelagonia, see - also the Journal of the younger Pouqueville, in his progress from - Travnik in Bosnia to Janina. He remarks, in the two days’ march - from Prelepe (Prilip) through Bitolia to Florina, “Dans cette - route on parcourt des plaines luxuriantes couvertes de moissons, - de vastes prairies remplies de trèfle, des plateaux abondans en - pâturages inépuisables, où paissent d’innombrables troupeaux de - bœufs, de chèvres, et de menu bétail.... Le blé, le maïs, et - les autres grains sont toujours à très bas prix, à cause de la - difficulté des débouchés, d’où l’on exporte une grande quantité - de laines, de cotons, de peaux d’agneaux, de buffles, et de - chevaux, qui passent par le moyen des caravanes en Hongrie.” - (Pouqueville, Voyage dans la Grèce, tom. ii, ch. 62, p. 495.) - - Again, M. Boué remarks upon this same plain, in his Critique des - Cartes de la Turquie, Voyage, vol. iv, p. 483, “La plaine immense - de Prilip, de Bitolia, et de Florina, n’est pas représentée (sur - les cartes) de manière à ce qu’on ait une idée de son étendue, - et surtout de sa largeur.... La plaine de Sarigoul est changée - en vallée,” etc. The basin of the Haliakmôn he remarks to be - represented equally imperfectly on the maps: compare also his - Voyage, i, pp. 211, 299, 300. - - I notice the more particularly the large proportion of fertile - plain and valley in the ancient Macedonia, because it is often - represented (and even by O. Müller, in his Dissertation on the - ancient Macedonians, attached to his History of the Dorians) as - a cold and rugged land, pursuant to the statement of Livy (xlv, - 29), who says, respecting the fourth region of Macedonia as - distributed by the Romans, “Frigida hæc omnis, duraque cultu, et - aspera plaga est: cultorum quoque ingenia terræ similia habet: - ferociores eos et accolæ barbari faciunt, nunc bello exercentes, - nunc in pace miscentes ritus suos.” - - This is probably true of the mountaineers included in the region, - but it is too much generalized. - -The inhabitants of this primitive Macedonia doubtless differed -much in ancient times, as they do now, according as they dwelt on -mountain or plain, and in soil and climate more or less kind; but all -acknowledged a common ethnical name and nationality, and the tribes -were in many cases distinguished from each other, not by having -substantive names of their own, but merely by local epithets of -Grecian origin. Thus we find Elymiotæ Macedonians, or Macedonians of -Elymeia,—Lynkestæ Macedonians, or Macedonians of Lynkus, etc. Orestæ -is doubtless an adjunct name of the same character. The inhabitants -of the more northerly tracts, called Pelagonia and Deuriopis, were -also portions of the Macedonian aggregate, though neighbors of the -Pæonians, to whom they bore much affinity: whether the Eordi and -Almopians were of Macedonian race, it is more difficult to say. The -Macedonian language was different from Illyrian,[19] from Thracian, -and seemingly also from Pæonian. It was also different from Greek, -yet apparently not more widely distinct than that of the Epirots,—so -that the acquisition of Greek was comparatively easy to the chiefs -and people, though there were always some Greek letters which they -were incapable of pronouncing. And when we follow their history, -we shall find in them more of the regular warrior, conquering in -order to maintain dominion and tribute, and less of the armed -plunderer,—than in the Illyrians, Thracians, or Epirots, by whom it -was their misfortune to be surrounded. They approach nearer to the -Thessalians,[20] and to the other ungifted members of the Hellenic -family. - - [19] Polyb. xxviii, 8, 9. This is the most distinct testimony - which we possess, and it appears to me to contradict the opinion - both of Mannert (Geogr. der Gr. und Röm. vol. vii, p. 492) and - of O. Müller (On the Macedonians, sects. 28-36), that the native - Macedonians were of Illyrian descent. - - [20] The Macedonian military array seems to have been very like - that of the Thessalians,—horsemen well-mounted and armed, and - maintaining good order (Thucyd. ii, 101): of their infantry, - before the time of Philip son of Amyntas, we do not hear much. - - “Macedoniam, quæ tantis barbarorum gentibus attingitur, ut - semper Macedonicis imperatoribus iidem fines imperii fuerint qui - gladiorum atque pilorum.” (Cicero, in Pison. c. xvi.) - -The large and comparatively productive region covered by the various -sections of Macedonians, helps to explain that increase of ascendency -which they successively acquired over all their neighbors. It was -not, however, until a late period that they became united under one -government. At first each section, how many we do not know, had its -own prince, or chief. The Elymiots, or inhabitants of Elymeia, the -southernmost portion of Macedonia, were thus originally distinct and -independent; also the Orestæ, in mountain-seats somewhat north-west -of the Elymiots,—the Lynkêstæ and Eordi, who occupied portions -of territory on the track of the subsequent Egnatian way, between -Lychnidus (Ochrida) and Edessa,—the Pelagonians,[21] with a town -of the same name, in the fertile plain of Bitolia,—and the more -northerly Deuriopians. And the early political union was usually -so loose, that each of these denominations probably includes many -petty independencies, small towns, and villages. That section of the -Macedonian name who afterwards swallowed up all the rest and became -known as _The Macedonians_, had their original centre at Ægæ, or -Edessa,—the lofty, commanding, and picturesque site of the modern -Vodhena. And though the residence of the kings was in later times -transferred to the marshy Pella, in the maritime plain beneath, -yet Edessa was always retained as the regal burial-place, and as -the hearth to which the religious continuity of the nation, so -much reverenced in ancient times, was attached. This ancient town, -which lay on the Roman Egnatian way from Lychnidus to Pella and -Thessalonika, formed the pass over the mountain-ridge called Bermius, -or that prolongation to the northward of Mount Olympus, through which -the Haliakmôn makes its way out into the maritime plain at Verria, by -a cleft more precipitous and impracticable than that of the Peneius -in the defile of Tempê. - - [21] Strabo, lib. vii, Fragm. 20, ed. Tafel. - -This mountain-chain called Bermius, extending from Olympus -considerably to the north of Edessa, formed the original eastern -boundary of the Macedonian tribes; who seem at first not to have -reached the valley of the Axius in any part of its course, and who -certainly did not reach at first to the Thermaic gulf. Between the -last-mentioned gulf and the eastern counterforts of Olympus and -Bermius there exists a narrow strip of plain land or low hill, -which reaches from the mouth of the Peneius to the head of the -Thermaic gulf. It there widens into the spacious and fertile plain -of Salonichi, comprising the mouths of the Haliakmôn, the Axius, -and the Echeidôrus: the river Ludias, which flows from Edessa into -the marshes surrounding Pella, and which in antiquity joined the -Haliakmôn near its mouth, has now altered its course so as to join -the Axius. This narrow strip, between the mouths of the Peneius -and the Haliakmôn, was the original abode of the Pierian Thracians, -who dwelt close to the foot of Olympus, and among whom the worship -of the Muses seems to have been a primitive characteristic; Grecian -poetry teems with local allusions and epithets which appear traceable -to this early fact, though we are unable to follow it in detail. -North of the Pierians, from the mouth of the Haliakmôn to that of -the Axius, dwelt the Bottiæans.[22] Beyond the river Axius, at the -lower part of its course, began the tribes of the great Thracian -race,—Mygdonians, Krestônians, Edônians, Bisaltæ, Sithonians: the -Mygdonians seem to have been originally the most powerful, since the -country still continued to be called by their name, Mygdonia, even -after the Macedonian conquest. These, and various other Thracian -tribes, originally occupied most part of the country between the -mouth of the Axius and that of the Strymon; together with that -memorable three-pronged peninsula which derived from the Grecian -colonies its name of Chalkidikê. It will thus appear, if we consider -the Bottiæans as well as the Pierians to be Thracians, that the -Thracian race extended originally southward as far as the mouth of -the Peneius: the Bottiæans professed, indeed, a Kretan origin, but -this pretension is not noticed by either Herodotus or Thucydidês. In -the time of Skylax,[23] seemingly during the early reign of Philip -the son of Amyntas, Macedonia and Thrace were separated by the -Strymon. - - [22] I have followed Herodotus in stating the original series - of occupants on the Thermaic gulf, anterior to the Macedonian - conquests. Thucydidês introduces the Pæonians between Bottiæans - and Mygdonians: he says that the Pæonians possessed “a narrow - strip of land on the side of the Axius, down to Pella and the - sea,” (ii, 96.) If this were true, it would leave hardly any room - for the Bottiæans, whom, nevertheless, Thucydidês recognizes on - the coast; for the whole space between the mouths of the two - rivers, Axius and Haliakmôn, is inconsiderable; moreover, I - cannot but suspect that Thucydidês has been led to believe, by - finding in the Iliad that the Pæonian allies of Troy came from - the Axius, that there _must have been_ old Pæonian settlements at - the mouth of that river, and that he has advanced the inference - as if it were a certified fact. The case is analogous to what he - says about the Bœotians in his preface (upon which O. Müller has - already commented); he stated the emigration of the Bœotians into - Bœotia as having taken place after the Trojan war, but saves the - historical credit of the Homeric catalogue by adding that there - had been a _fraction_ of them in Bœotia _before_, from whom the - contingent which went to Troy was furnished (ἀποδασμός, Thucyd. - i, 12). - - On this occasion, therefore, having to choose between Herodotus - and Thucydidês, I prefer the former. O. Müller (On the - Macedonians, sect. 11) would strike out just so much of the - assertion of Thucydidês as positively contradicts Herodotus, and - retain the rest; he thinks that the Pæonians came down _very - near_ to the mouth of the river, but _not quite_. I confess that - this does not satisfy me; the more so as the passage from Livy by - which he would support his view will appear, on examination, to - refer to Pæonia high up the Axius,—not to a supposed portion of - Pæonia near the mouth (Livy, xlv, 29). - - Again, I would remark that the original residence of the Pierians - between the Peneius and the Haliakmôn rests chiefly upon the - authority of Thucydidês: Herodotus knows the Pierians in their - seats between Mount Pangæus and the sea, but he gives no - intimation that they had before dwelt south of the Haliakmôn; the - tract between the Haliakmôn and the Peneius is by him conceived - as Lower Macedonia, or Macedonis, reaching to the borders of - Thessaly (vii, 127-173). I make this remark in reference to - sects. 7-17 of O. Müller’s Dissertation, wherein the conception - of Herodotus appears incorrectly apprehended, and some erroneous - inferences founded upon it. That this tract was the original - Pieria, there is sufficient reason for believing (compare Strabo, - vii, Frag. 22, with Tafel’s note, and ix, p. 410; Livy, xliv, 9); - but Herodotus notices it only as Macedonia. - - [23] Skylax, c. 67. The conquests of Philip extended the boundary - beyond the Strymon to the Nestus (Strabo, lib. vii, Fragm. 33, - ed. Tafel). - -We have yet to notice the Pæonians, a numerous and much-divided -race,—seemingly neither Thracian nor Macedonian nor Illyrian, but -professing to be descended from the Teukri of Troy,—who occupied -both banks of the Strymon, from the neighborhood of Mount Skomius, -in which that river rises, down to the lake near its mouth. Some of -their tribes possessed the fertile plain of Siris (now Seres),—the -land immediately north of Mount Pangæus,—and even a portion of the -space through which Xerxês marched on his route from Akanthus to -Therma. Besides this, it appears that the upper parts of the valley -of the Axius were also occupied by Pæonian tribes; how far down the -river they extended, we are unable to say. We are not to suppose -that the whole territory between Axius and Strymon was continuously -peopled by them. Continuous population is not the character of -the ancient world, and it seems, moreover, that while the land -immediately bordering on both rivers is in very many places of the -richest quality, the spaces between the two are either mountain or -barren low hill,—forming a marked contrast with the rich alluvial -basin of the Macedonian river Erigon.[24] The Pæonians, in their -north-western tribes, thus bordered upon the Macedonian Pelagonia,—in -their northern tribes, upon the Illyrian Dardani and Autariatæ,—in -their eastern, southern, and south-eastern tribes, upon the Thracians -and Pierians;[25] that is, upon the second seats occupied by the -expelled Pierians under Mount Pangæus. - - [24] See this contrast noticed in Grisebach, especially in - reference to the wide but barren region called the plain of - Mustapha, no great distance from the left bank of the Axius - (Grisebach, Reisen, v, ii, p. 225; Boué, Voyage, vol. i, p. 168). - - For the description of the banks of the Axius (Vardar) and the - Strymon, see Boué, Voyage en Turquie, vol. i, pp. 196-199. “La - plaine ovale de Seres est un des diamans de la couronne de - Byzance,” etc. He remarks how incorrectly the course of the - Strymon is depicted on the maps (vol. iv, p. 482). - - [25] The expression of Strabo or his Epitomator—τὴν Παιονίαν - μέχρι Πελαγονίας καὶ Πιερίας ἐκτετάσθαι,—seems quite exact, - though Tafel finds a difficulty in it. See his Note on the - Vatican Fragments of the seventh book of Strabo, Fr. 37. The - Fragment 40 is expressed much more loosely. Compare Herodot. v, - 13-16, vii, 124; Thucyd. ii, 96; Diodor. xx, 19. - -Such was, as far as we can make it out, the position of the -Macedonians and their immediate neighbors, in the seventh century B. -C. It was first altered by the enterprise and ability of a family of -exiled Greeks, who conducted a section of the Macedonian people to -those conquests which their descendants, Philip and Alexander the -Great, afterwards so marvellously multiplied. - -Respecting the primitive ancestry of these two princes, there were -different stories, but all concurred in tracing the origin of the -family to the Herakleid or Temenid race of Argos. According to one -story (which apparently cannot be traced higher than Theopompus), -Karanus, brother of the despot Pheidon, had migrated from Argos to -Macedonia, and established himself as conqueror at Edessa; according -to another tale, which we find in Herodotus, there were three exiles -of the Temenid race, Gauanês, Aëropus, and Perdikkas, who fled from -Argos to Illyria, from whence they passed into Upper Macedonia, in -such poverty as to be compelled to serve the petty king of the town -Lebæa in the capacity of shepherds. A remarkable prodigy happening to -Perdikkas foreshadows the future eminence of his family, and leads -to his dismissal by the king of Lebæa,—from whom he makes his escape -with difficulty, by the sudden rise of a river immediately after -he had crossed it, so as to become impassable by the horsemen who -pursued him. To this river, as to the saviour of the family, solemn -sacrifices were still offered by the kings of Macedonia in the time -of Herodotus. Perdikkas with his two brothers having thus escaped, -established himself near the spot called the Garden of Midas on Mount -Bermius, and from the loins of this hardy young shepherd sprang the -dynasty of Edessa.[26] This tale bears much more the marks of a -genuine local tradition than that of Theopompus. And the origin of -the Macedonian family, or Argeadæ, from Argos, appears to have been -universally recognized by Grecian inquirers,[27]—so that Alexander -the son of Amyntas, the contemporary of the Persian invasion, was -admitted by the Hellanodikæ to contend at the Olympic games as a -genuine Greek, though his competitors sought to exclude him as a -Macedonian. - - [26] Herodot. viii, 137-138. - - [27] Herodot. v, 22. Argeadæ, Strabo, lib. vii, Fragm. 20, ed. - Tafel, which may probably have been erroneously changed into - Ægeadæ (Justin, vii, 1). - -The talent for command was so much more the attribute of the Greek -mind than of any of the neighboring barbarians, that we easily -conceive a courageous Argeian adventurer acquiring to himself -great ascendency in the local disputes of the Macedonian tribes, -and transmitting the chieftainship of one of those tribes to his -offspring. The influence acquired by Miltiadês among the Thracians of -the Chersonese, and by Phormion among the Akarnanians (who specially -requested that, after his death, his son, or some one of his kindred, -might be sent from Athens to command them),[28] was very much of -this character: we may add the case of Sertorius among the native -Iberians. In like manner, the kings of the Macedonian Lynkêstæ -professed to be descended from the Bacchiadæ[29] of Corinth; and the -neighborhood of Epidamnus and Apollonia, in both of which doubtless -members of that great gens were domiciliated, renders this tale even -more plausible than that of an emigration from Argos. The kings of -the Epirotic Molossi pretended also to a descent from the heroic -Æakid race of Greece. In fact, our means of knowledge do not enable -us to discriminate the cases in which these reigning families were -originally Greeks, from those in which they were Hellenized natives -pretending to Grecian blood. - - [28] Thucyd. iii, 7; Herodot. vi, 34-37: compare the story of - Zalmoxis among the Thracians (iv, 94). - - [29] Strabo, vii, p. 326. - -After the foundation-legend of the Macedonian kingdom, we have -nothing but a long blank until the reign of king Amyntas (about -520-500 B. C.), and his son Alexander, (about 480 B. C.) Herodotus -gives us five successive kings between the founder Perdikkas and -Amyntas,—Perdikkas, Argæus, Philippus, Aëropus, Alketas, Amyntas, -and Alexander,—the contemporary and to a certain extent the ally -of Xerxês.[30] Though we have no means of establishing any dates -in this early series, either of names or of facts, yet we see -that the Temenid kings, beginning from a humble origin, extended -their dominions successively on all sides. They conquered the -Briges,[31]—originally their neighbors on Mount Bermius,—the Eordi, -bordering on Edessa to the westward, who were either destroyed or -expelled from the country, leaving a small remnant still existing -in the time of Thucydidês at Physka between Strymon and Axius,—the -Almopians, an inland tribe of unknown site,—and many of the interior -Macedonian tribes who had been at first autonomous. Besides these -inland conquests, they had made the still more important acquisition -of Pieria, the territory which lay between Mount Bermius and the sea, -from whence they expelled the original Pierians, who found new seats -on the eastern bank of the Strymon between Mount Pangæus and the -sea. Amyntas king of Macedon was thus master of a very considerable -territory, comprising the coast of the Thermaic gulf as far north as -the mouth of the Haliakmôn, and also some other territory on the same -gulf from which the Bottiæans had been expelled; but not comprising -the coast between the mouths of the Axius and the Haliakmôn, nor even -Pella, the subsequent capital, which were still in the hands of the -Bottiæans at the period when Xerxês passed through.[32] He possessed -also Anthemus, a town and territory in the peninsula of Chalkidikê, -and some parts of Mygdonia, the territory east of the mouth of the -Axius; but how much, we do not know. We shall find the Macedonians -hereafter extending their dominion still farther, during the period -between the Persian and Peloponnesian war. - - [30] Herodot. viii, 139. Thucydidês agrees in the number of - kings, but does not give the names (ii, 100). - - For the divergent lists of the early Macedonian kings, see Mr. - Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii, p. 221. - - [31] This may be gathered, I think, from Herodot. vii, 73 and - viii, 138. The alleged migration of the Briges into Asia, and the - change of their name to Phryges, is a statement which I do not - venture to repeat as credible. - - [32] Herodot. vii, 123. Herodotus recognizes both Bottiæans - between the Axius and the Haliakmôn,—and Bottiæans at Olynthus, - whom the Macedonians had expelled from the Thermaic gulf,—at - the time when Xerxês passed (viii, 127). These two statements - seem to me compatible, and both admissible: the former Bottiæans - were expelled by the Macedonians subsequently, anterior to the - Peloponnesian war. - - My view of these facts, therefore, differs somewhat from that of - O. Müller (Macedonians, sect. 16). - -We hear of king Amyntas in friendly connection with the Peisistratid -princes at Athens, whose dominion was in part sustained by -mercenaries from the Strymon, and this amicable sentiment -was continued between his son Alexander and the emancipated -Athenians.[33] It is only in the reigns of these two princes that -Macedonia begins to be implicated in Grecian affairs: the regal -dynasty had become so completely Macedonized, and had so far -renounced its Hellenic brotherhood, that the claim of Alexander to -run at the Olympic games was contested by his competitors, and he was -called upon to prove his lineage before the Hellanodikæ. - - [33] Herodot. i, 59, v, 94; viii, 136. - - - - -CHAPTER XXVI. - -THRACIANS AND GREEK COLONIES IN THRACE. - - -That vast space comprised between the rivers Strymon and Danube, and -bounded to the west by the easternmost Illyrian tribes, northward of -the Strymon, was occupied by the innumerable subdivisions of the race -called Thracians, or Threïcians. They were the most numerous and most -terrible race known to Herodotus: could they by possibility act in -unison or under one dominion (he says), they would be irresistible. A -conjunction thus formidable once seemed impending, during the first -years of the Peloponnesian war, under the reign of Sitalkês king of -the Odrysæ, who reigned from Abdêra at the mouth of the Nestus to -the Euxine, and compressed under his sceptre a large proportion of -these ferocious but warlike plunderers; so that the Greeks even down -to Thermopylæ trembled at his expected approach. But the abilities -of that prince were not found adequate to bring the whole force of -Thrace into effective coöperation and aggression against others. - -Numerous as the tribes of Thracians were, their customs and character -(according to Herodotus) were marked by great uniformity: of the -Getæ, the Trausi, and others, he tells us a few particularities. -And the large tract over which the race were spread, comprising as -it did the whole chain of Mount Hæmus and the still loftier chain -of Rhodopê, together with a portion of the mountains Orbêlus and -Skomius, was yet partly occupied by level and fertile surface,—such -as the great plain of Adrianople, and the land towards the lower -course of the rivers Nestus and Hebrus. The Thracians of the plain, -though not less warlike, were at least more home-keeping, and less -greedy of foreign plunder, than those of the mountains. But the -general character of the race presents an aggregate of repulsive -features unredeemed by the presence of even the commonest domestic -affections.[34] The Thracian chief deduced his pedigree from a god -called by the Greeks Hermês, to whom he offered up worship apart -from the rest of his tribe, sometimes with the acceptable present -of a human victim. He tattooed his body,[35] and that of the women -belonging to him, as a privilege of honorable descent: he bought -his wives from their parents, and sold his children for exportation -to the foreign merchant: he held it disgraceful to cultivate the -earth, and felt honored only by the acquisitions of war and robbery. -The Thracian tribes worshipped deities whom the Greeks assimilate -to Arês, Dionysus, and Artemis: the great sanctuary and oracle of -their god Dionysus was in one of the loftiest summits of Rhodopê, -amidst dense and foggy thickets,—the residence of the fierce and -unassailable Satræ. To illustrate the Thracian character, we may -turn to a deed perpetrated by the king of the Bisaltæ,—perhaps -one out of several chiefs of that extensive Thracian tribe,—whose -territory, between Strymon and Axius, lay in the direct march of -Xerxês into Greece, and who fled to the desolate heights of Rhodopê, -to escape the ignominy of being dragged along amidst the compulsory -auxiliaries of the Persian invasion, forbidding his six sons to take -any part in it. From recklessness, or curiosity, the sons disobeyed -his commands, and accompanied Xerxês into Greece; they returned -unhurt by the Greek spear; but the incensed father, when they again -came into his presence, caused the eyes of all of them to be put -out. Exultation of success manifested itself in the Thracians by -increased alacrity in shedding blood; but as warriors, the only -occupation which they esteemed, they were not less brave than patient -of hardship, and maintained a good front, under their own peculiar -array, against forces much superior in all military efficacy.[36] It -appears that the Thynians and Bithynians,[37] on the Asiatic side of -the Bosphorus, perhaps also the Mysians, were members of this great -Thracian race, which was more remotely connected, also, with the -Phrygians. And the whole race may be said to present a character more -Asiatic than European, especially in those ecstatic and maddening -religious rites, which prevailed not less among the Edonian Thracians -than in the mountains of Ida and Dindymon of Asia, though with some -important differences. The Thracians served to furnish the Greeks -with mercenary troops and slaves, and the number of Grecian colonies -planted on the coast had the effect of partially softening the tribes -in the immediate vicinity, between whose chiefs and the Greek leaders -intermarriages were not unfrequent. But the tribes in the interior -seem to have retained their savage habits with little mitigation, -so that the language in which Tacitus[38] describes them is an apt -continuation to that of Herodotus, though coming more than five -centuries after. - - [34] Mannert assimilates the civilization of the Thracians - to that of the Gauls when Julius Cæsar invaded them,—a great - injustice to the latter, in my judgment (Geograph. Gr. und Röm. - vol. vii, p. 23). - - [35] Cicero, De Officiis, ii, 7. “Barbarum compunctum notis - Threiciis.” Plutarch (De Serâ Numin. Vindict. c. 13, p. 558) - speaks as if the women only were tattooed, in Thrace: he puts a - singular interpretation upon it, as a continuous punishment on - the sex for having slain Orpheus. - - [36] For the Thracians generally, see Herodot. v, 3-9, vii, - 110, viii, 116, ix, 119; Thucyd. ii, 100, vii, 29-30; Xenophon, - Anabas. vii, 2, 38, and the seventh book of the Anabasis - generally, which describes the relations of Xenophon and the Ten - Thousand Greeks with Seuthês the Thracian prince. - - [37] Xenoph. Anab. vi, 2, 17; Herodot. vii, 75. - - [38] Tacit. Annal. ii, 66; iv, 46. - -To note the situation of each one among these many different tribes, -in the huge territory of Thrace, which is even now so imperfectly -known and badly mapped, would be unnecessary, and, indeed, -impracticable. I shall proceed to mention the principal Grecian -colonies which were formed in the country, noticing occasionally the -particular Thracian tribes with which they came in contact. - -The Grecian colonies established on the Thermaic gulf, as well as -in the peninsula of Chalkidikê, emanating principally from Chalkis -and Eretria, though we do not know their precise epoch, appear to -have been of early date, and probably preceded the time when the -Macedonians of Edessa extended their conquests to the sea. At that -early period, they would find the Pierians still between the Peneius -and Haliakmôn,—also a number of petty Thracian tribes throughout -the broad part of the Chalkidic peninsula; they would find Pydna a -Pierian town, and Therma, Anthemus, Chalastra, etc. Mygdonian. - -The most ancient Grecian colony in these regions seems to have been -Methônê, founded by the Eretrians in Pieria; nearly at the same time -(if we may trust a statement of rather suspicious character, though -the date itself is noway improbable) as Korkyra was settled by the -Corinthians (about 730-720 B. C.).[39] It was a little to the north -of the Pierian town of Pydna, and separated by about ten miles from -the Bottiæan town of Alôrus, which lay north of the Haliakmôn.[40] We -know very little about Methônê, except that it preserved its autonomy -and its Hellenism until the time of Philip of Macedon, who took -and destroyed it. But though, when once established, it was strong -enough to maintain itself in spite of conquests made all around by -the Macedonians of Edessa, we may fairly presume that it could not -have been originally planted on Macedonian territory. Nor in point of -fact was the situation peculiarly advantageous for Grecian colonists, -inasmuch as there were other maritime towns, not Grecian, in its -neighborhood,—Pydna, Alôrus, Therma, Chalastra; whereas the point of -advantage for a Grecian colony was, to become the exclusive seaport -for inland indigenous people. - - [39] Plutarch, Quæst. Græc. p. 293. - - [40] Skylax, c. 67. - -The colonies, founded by Chalkis and Eretria on all the three -projections of the Chalkidic peninsula, were numerous, though for a -long time inconsiderable. We do not know how far these projecting -headlands were occupied before the arrival of the settlers from -Eubœa,—an event which we may probably place at some period earlier -than 600 B. C.; for after that period Chalkis and Eretria seem rather -on the decline,—and it appears too, that the Chalkidian colonists -in Thrace aided their mother-city Chalkis in her war against -Eretria, which cannot be much later than 600 B. C., though it may be -considerably earlier. - -The range of mountains which crosses from the Thermaic to the -Strymonic gulf, and forms the northern limit of the Chalkidic -peninsula, slopes down towards the southern extremity, so as to leave -a considerable tract of fertile land between the Torônaic and the -Thermaic gulfs, including the fertile headland called Pallênê,—the -westernmost of those three prongs of Chalkidikê which run out into -the Ægean. Of the other two prongs, or projections, the easternmost -is terminated by the sublime Mount Athos, which rises out of the sea -as a precipitous rock six thousand four hundred feet in height, -connected with the mainland by a ridge not more than half the height -of the mountain itself, yet still high, rugged, and woody from sea -to sea, leaving only little occasional spaces fit to be occupied or -cultivated. The intermediate or Sithonian headland is also hilly -and woody, though in a less degree,—both less inviting and less -productive than Pallênê.[41] - - [41] For the description of Chalkidikê, see Grisebach’s Reisen, - vol. ii, ch. 10, pp. 6-16, and Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, - vol. iii, ch. 24, p. 152. - - If we read attentively the description of Chalkidikê as given - by Skylax (c. 67), we shall see that he did not conceive it - as three-pronged, but as terminating only in the peninsula of - Pallênê, with Potidæa at its isthmus. - -Æneia, near that cape which marks the entrance of the inner Thermaic -gulf,—and Potidæa, at the narrow isthmus of Pallênê,—were both -founded by Corinth. Between these two towns lay the fertile territory -called Krusis, or Krossæa, forming in after-times a part of the -domain of Olynthus, but in the sixth century B. C. occupied by petty -Thracian townships.[42] Within Pallênê were the towns of Mendê, a -colony from Eretria,—Skiônê, which, having no legitimate mother-city -traced its origin to Pellenian warriors returning from Troy,—Aphytis, -Neapolis, Ægê, Therambôs, and Sanê,[43] either wholly or partly -colonies from Eretria. In the Sithonian peninsula were Assa, Pilôrus, -Singus, Sartê, Torônê, Galêpsus, Sermylê, and Mekyberna; all or -most of these seem to have been of Chalkidic origin. But at the -head of the Torônaic gulf (which lies between Sithonia and Pallênê) -was placed Olynthus, surrounded by an extensive and fertile plain. -Originally a Bottiæan town, Olynthus will be seen at the time of -the Persian invasion to pass into the hands of the Chalkidian -Greeks,[44] and gradually to incorporate with itself several of the -petty neighboring establishments belonging to that race; whereby the -Chalkidians acquired that marked preponderance in the peninsula which -they retained, even against the efforts of Athens, until the days of -Philip of Macedon. - - [42] Herodot. vii, 123; Skymnus Chius, v, 627. - - [43] Strabo, x, p. 447; Thucyd. iv, 120-123; Pompon. Mela, ii, 2; - Herodot. vii, 123. - - [44] Herodot. vii, 122; viii, 127. Stephanus Byz. (v. Παλλήνη) - gives us some idea of the mythes of the lost Greek writers, - Hegesippus and Theagenês about Pallênê. - -On the scanty spaces, admitted by the mountainous promontory, or -ridge, ending in Athos, were planted some Thracian and some Pelasgic -settlements of the same inhabitants as those who occupied Lemnos -and Imbros; a few Chalkidic citizens being domiciliated with them, -and the people speaking both Pelasgic and Hellenic. But near the -narrow isthmus which joins this promontory to Thrace, and along -the north-western coast of the Strymonic gulf, were Grecian towns -of considerable importance,—Sanê, Akanthus, Stageira, and Argilus, -all colonies from Andros, which had itself been colonized from -Eretria.[45] Akanthus and Stageira are said to have been founded in -654 B. C. - - [45] Thucyd. iv, 84, 103, 109. See Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, - ad ann. 654 B. C. - -Following the southern coast of Thrace, from the mouth of the river -Strymôn towards the east, we may doubt whether, in the year 560 -B. C., any considerable independent colonies of Greeks had yet -been formed upon it. The Ionic colony of Abdêra, eastward of the -mouth of the river Nestus, formed from Teôs in Ionia, is of more -recent date, though the Klazomenians[46] had begun an unsuccessful -settlement there as early as the year 651 B. C.; while Dikæa—the -Chian settlement of Marôneia—and the Lesbian settlement of Ænus at -the mouth of the Hebrus, are of unknown date.[47] The important and -valuable territory near the mouth of the Strymôn, where, after many -ruinous failures,[48] the Athenian colony of Amphipolis afterwards -maintained itself, was at the date here mentioned possessed by -Edonian Thracians and Pierians: the various Thracian tribes,—Satræ, -Edonians, Dersæans, Sapæans, Bistones, Kikones, Pætians, etc.—were -in force on the principal part of the tract between Strymôn and -Hebrus, even to the sea-coast. It is to be remarked, however, that -the island of Thasus, and that of Samothrace, each possessed what -in Greek was called a Peræa,[49]—a strip of the adjoining mainland -cultivated and defended by means of fortified posts, or small towns: -probably, these occupations are of very ancient date, since they seem -almost indispensable as a means of support to the islands. For the -barren Thasus, especially, merits even at this day the uninviting -description applied to it by the poet Archilochus, in the seventh -century B. C.,—“an ass’s backbone, overspread with wild wood:”[50] -so wholly is it composed of mountain, naked or wooded, and so scanty -are the patches of cultivable soil left in it, nearly all close to -the sea-shore. This island was originally occupied by the Phenicians, -who worked the gold mines in its mountains with a degree of industry -which, even in its remains, excited the admiration of Herodotus. -How and when it was evacuated by them, we do not know; but the poet -Archilochus[51] formed one of a body of Parian colonists who planted -themselves on it in the seventh century B. C., and carried on war, -not always successful, against the Thracian tribe called Saians: on -one occasion, Archilochus found himself compelled to throw away his -shield. By their mines and their possessions on the mainland (which -contained even richer mines, at Skaptê Hylê, and elsewhere, than -those in the island), the Thasian Greeks rose to considerable power -and population. And as they seem to have been the only Greeks, until -the settlement of the Milesian Histiæus on the Strymôn about 510 B. -C., who actively concerned themselves in the mining districts of -Thrace opposite to their island, we cannot be surprised to hear that -their clear surplus revenue before the Persian conquest, about 493 -B. C., after defraying the charges of their government without any -taxation, amounted to the large sum of two hundred talents, sometimes -even to three hundred talents, in each year (from forty-six thousand -to sixty-six thousand pounds). - - [46] Solinus, x, 10. - - [47] Herodot. i, 168; vii, 58-59, 109; Skymnus Chius, v, 675. - - [48] Thucyd. i, 100, iv, 102; Herodot. v, 11. Large quantities - of corn are now exported from this territory to Constantinople - (Leake, North. Gr. vol. iii, ch. 25, p. 172). - - [49] Herodot. vii, 108-109; Thucyd. i, 101. - - [50] - - ... ἥδε δ᾽ ὥστ᾽ ὄνου ῥαχις - Ἕστηκεν, ὕλης ἀγρίας ἐπιστεφής. - - Archiloch. Fragm. 17-18, ed. Schneidewin. - - The striking propriety of this description, even after the lapse - of two thousand five hundred years, may be seen in the Travels - of Grisebach, vol. i. ch. 7, pp. 210-218, and in Prokesch, - Denkwürdigkeiten des Orients, Th. 3, p. 612. The view of Thasus - from the sea justifies the title Ἠερίη (Œnomaus ap. Euseb. - Præpar. Evang. vii, p. 256; Steph. Byz. Θάσσος). - - Thasus (now Tasso) contains at present a population of about - six thousand Greeks, dispersed in twelve small villages; it - exports some good ship-timber, principally fir, of which there is - abundance on the island, together with some olive oil and wax; - but it cannot grow corn enough even for this small population. No - mines either are now, or have been for a long time, in work. - - [51] Archiloch. Fragm. 5, ed. Schneidewin; Aristophan. Pac. 1298, - with the Scholia; Strabo, x, p. 487, xii, p. 549; Thucyd. iv, 104. - -On the long peninsula called the Thracian Chersonese there may -probably have been small Grecian settlements at an early date, though -we do not know at what time either the Milesian settlement of Kardia, -on the western side of the isthmus of that peninsula, near the Ægean -sea,—or the Æolic colony of Sestus on the Hellespont,—were founded; -while the Athenian ascendency in the peninsula begins only with the -migration of the first Miltiadês, during the reign of Peisistratus -at Athens. The Samian colony of Perinthus, on the northern coast of -the Propontis,[52] is spoken of as ancient in date, and the Megarian -colonies, Selymbria and Byzantium, belong to the seventh century B. -C.: the latter of these two is assigned to the 30th Olympiad (657 B. -C.), and its neighbor Chalkêdôn, on the opposite coast, was a few -years earlier. The site of Byzantium in the narrow strait of the -Bosphorus, with its abundant thunny-fishery,[53] which both employed -and nourished a large proportion of the poorer freemen, was alike -convenient either for maritime traffic, or for levying contributions -on the numerous corn ships which passed from the Euxine into the -Ægean; and we are even told that it held a considerable number of the -neighboring Bithynian Thracians as tributary Periœki. Such dominion, -though probably maintained during the more vigorous period of Grecian -city life, became in later times impracticable, and we even find the -Byzantines not always competent to the defence of their own small -surrounding territory. The place, however, will be found to possess -considerable importance during all the period of this history.[54] - - [52] Skymnus Chius, 699-715; Plutarch, Quæst. Græc. c. 57. See M. - Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques chs. xi-xiv, vol. - iii, pp. 273-298. - - [53] Aristot. Polit. iv, 4, l. - - [54] Polyb. iv, 39, Phylarch. Fragm. 10, ed. Didot. - -The Grecian settlements on the inhospitable south-western coast of -the Euxine, south of the Danube, appear never to have attained any -consideration: the principal traffic of Greek ships in that sea -tended to more northerly ports, on the banks of the Borysthenês and -in the Tauric Chersonese. Istria was founded by the Milesians near -the southern embouchure of the Danube,—Apollonia and Odêssus on the -same coast, more to the south,—all probably between 600-560 B. C. The -Megarian or Byzantine colony of Mesambria, seems to have been later -than the Ionic revolt; of Kallatis the age is not known. Tomi, north -of Kallatis and south of Istria, is renowned as the place of Ovid’s -banishment.[55] The picture which he gives of that uninviting spot, -which enjoyed but little truce from the neighborhood of the murderous -Getæ, explains to us sufficiently why these towns acquired little or -no importance. - - [55] Skymnus Chius, 720-740; Herodot. ii, 33, vi, 33; Strabo, - vii, p. 319; Skylax, c. 68; Mannert, Geograph. Gr. Röm. vol. vii, - ch. 8, pp. 126-140. - - An inscription in Boeckh’s Collection proves the existence of a - pentapolis, or union, of five Grecian cities on this coast. Tomi, - Kallatis, Mesambria, and Apollônia, are presumed by Blaramberg to - have belonged to this union. See Inscript. No. 2056 c. - - Syncellus, however (p. 213), places the foundation of Istria - considerably earlier, in 651 B. C. - -The islands of Lemnos and Imbros, in the Ægean, were at this early -period occupied by Tyrrhenian Pelasgi, were conquered by the Persians -about 508 B. C., and seem to have passed into the power of the -Athenians at the time when Ionia revolted from the Persians. If the -mythical or poetical stories respecting these Tyrrhenian Pelasgi -contain any basis of truth, they must have been a race of buccaneers -not less rapacious than cruel. At one time, these Pelasgi seem also -to have possessed Samothrace, but how or when they were supplanted by -Greeks, we find no trustworthy account; the population of Samothrace -at the time of the Persian war was Ionic.[56] - - [56] Herodot. viii, 90. - - - - -CHAPTER XXVII. - -KYRENE AND BARKA. — HESPERIDES. - - -It has been already mentioned, in a former chapter, that Psammetichus -king of Egypt, about the middle of the seventh century B. C., first -removed those prohibitions which had excluded Grecian commerce from -his country. In his reign, Grecian mercenaries were first established -in Egypt, and Grecian traders admitted, under certain regulations, -into the Nile. The opening of this new market emboldened them to -traverse the direct sea which separates Krête from Egypt,—a dangerous -voyage with vessels which rarely ventured to lose sight of land,—and -seems to have first made them acquainted with the neighboring coast -of Libya, between the Nile and the gulf called the Great Syrtis. -Hence arose the foundation of the important colony called Kyrênê. - -As in the case of most other Grecian colonies, so in that of Kyrênê, -both the foundation and the early history are very imperfectly -known. The date of the event, as far as can be made out amidst much -contradiction of statement, was about 630 B. C.:[57] Thêra was the -mother-city, herself a colony from Lacedæmon; and the settlements -formed in Libya became no inconsiderable ornaments to the Dorian name -in Hellas. - - [57] See the discussion of the era of Kyrênê in Thrige, Historia - Cyrênês, chs. 22, 23, 24, where the different statements are - noticed and compared. - -According to the account of a lost historian, Meneklês,[58]—political -dissension among the inhabitants of Thêra led to that emigration -which founded Kyrênê; and the more ample legendary details which -Herodotus collected, partly from Theræan, partly from Kyrenæan -informants, are not positively inconsistent with this statement, -though they indicate more particularly bad seasons, distress, and -over-population. Both of them dwell emphatically on the Delphian -oracle as the instigator as well as the director of the first -emigrants, whose apprehensions of a dangerous voyage and an unknown -country were very difficult to overcome. Both of them affirmed that -the original œkist Battus was selected and consecrated to the work -by the divine command: both called Battus the son of Polymnêstus, -of the mythical breed called Minyæ. But on other points there was -complete divergence between the two stories, and the Kyrenæans -themselves, whose town was partly peopled by emigrants from Krête, -described the mother of Battus as daughter of Etearchus, prince of -the Kretan town of Axus.[59] Battus had an impediment in his speech, -and it was on his intreating from the Delphian oracle a cure for this -infirmity that he received directions to go as “a cattle-breeding -œkist to Libya.” The suffering Theræans were directed to assist him, -but neither he nor they knew where Libya was, nor could they find -any resident in Krête who had ever visited it. Such was the limited -reach of Grecian navigation to the south of the Ægean sea, even a -century after the foundation of Syracuse. At length, by prolonged -inquiry, they discovered a man employed in catching the purple -shellfish, named Korôbius,—who said that he had been once forced by -stress of weather to the island of Platea, close to the shores of -Libya, and on the side not far removed from the western limit of -Egypt. Some Theræans being sent along with Korôbius to inspect this -island, left him there with a stock of provisions, and returned to -Thêra to conduct the emigrants. From the seven districts into which -Thêra was divided, emigrants were drafted for the colony, one brother -being singled out by lot from the different numerous families. But -so long was their return to Platea deferred, that the provisions -of Korôbius were exhausted, and he was only saved from starvation -by the accidental arrival of a Samian ship, driven by contrary -winds out of her course on the voyage to Egypt. Kôlæus, the master -of this ship (whose immense profits made by the first voyage to -Tartêssus have been noticed in a former chapter), supplied him with -provisions for a year,—an act of kindness, which is said to have laid -the first foundation of the alliance and good feeling afterwards -prevalent between Thêra, Kyrênê, and Samos. At length the expected -emigrants reached the island, having found the voyage so perilous -and difficult, that they once returned in despair to Thêra, where -they were only prevented by force from relanding. The band which -accompanied Battus was all conveyed in two pentekonters,—armed ships, -with fifty rowers each. Thus humble was the start of the mighty -Kyrênê, which, in the days of Herodotus, covered a city-area equal to -the entire island of Platea.[60] - - [58] Schol. ad Pindar. Pyth. iv. - - [59] Herodot. iv, 150-154. - - [60] Herodot. iv, 155. - -That island, however, though near to Libya, and supposed by the -colonists to be Libya, was not so in reality: the commands of the -oracle had not been literally fulfilled. Accordingly, the settlement -carried with it nothing but hardship for the space of two years, and -Battus returned with his companions to Delphi, to complain that the -promised land had proved a bitter disappointment. The god, through -his priestess, returned for answer, “If you, who have never visited -the cattle-breeding Libya, know it better than I, who _have_, I -greatly admire your cleverness.” Again the inexorable mandate forced -them to return; and this time they planted themselves on the actual -continent of Libya, nearly over against the island of Platea, in -a district called Aziris, surrounded on both sides by fine woods, -and with a running stream adjoining. After six years of residence -in this spot, they were persuaded by some of the indigenous Libyans -to abandon it, under the promise that they should be conducted to a -better situation: and their guides now brought them to the actual -site of Kyrênê, saying, “Here, men of Hellas, is the place for you to -dwell, for here the sky is perforated.”[61] The road through which -they passed had led through the tempting region of Irasa with its -fountain Thestê, and their guides took the precaution to carry them -through it by night, in order that they might remain ignorant of its -beauties. - - [61] Herodot. iv, 158. ἐνθαῦτα γὰρ ὁ οὐρανὸς τέτρηται. Compare - the jest ascribed to the Byzantian envoys, on occasion of the - vaunts of Lysimachus (Plutarch, De Fortunâ Alexandr. Magn. c. 3, - p. 338). - -Such were the preliminary steps, divine and human, which brought -Battus and his colonists to Kyrênê. In the time of Herodotus, Irasa -was an outlying portion of the eastern territory of this powerful -city. But we trace in the story just related an opinion prevalent -among his Kyrenæan informants, that Irasa with its fountain Thestê -was a more inviting position than Kyrênê with its fountain of -Apollo, and ought in prudence to have been originally chosen; out of -which opinion, according to the general habit of the Greek mind, an -anecdote is engendered and accredited, explaining how the supposed -mistake was committed. What may have been the recommendations of -Irasa, we are not permitted to know: but descriptions of modern -travellers, no less than the subsequent history of Kyrênê, go -far to justify the choice actually made. The city was placed at -the distance of about ten miles from the sea, having a sheltered -port called Apollonia, itself afterwards a considerable town,—it -was about twenty miles from the promontory Phykus, which forms -the northernmost projection of the African coast, nearly in the -longitude of the Peloponnesian Cape Tænarus (Matapan). Kyrênê -was situated about eighteen hundred feet above the level of the -Mediterranean, of which it commanded a fine view, and from which it -was conspicuously visible, on the edge of a range of hills which -slope by successive terraces down to the port. The soil immediately -around, partly calcareous, partly sandy, is described by Captain -Beechey to present a vigorous vegetation and remarkable fertility, -though the ancients considered it inferior in this respect both -to Barka[62] and Hesperides, and still more inferior to the more -westerly region near Kinyps. But the abundant periodical rains, -attracted by the lofty heights around, and justifying the expression -of the “perforated sky,” were even of greater importance, under an -African sun, than extraordinary richness of soil.[63] The maritime -regions near Kyrênê and Barka, and Hesperides, produced oil and -wine as well as corn, while the extensive district between these -towns, composed of alternate mountain, wood, and plain, was eminently -suited for pasture and cattle-breeding; and the ports were secure, -presenting conveniences for the intercourse of the Greek trader -with Northern Africa, such as were not to be found along all the -coasts of the Great Syrtis westward of Hesperides. Abundance of -applicable land,—great diversity both of climate and of productive -season, between the sea-side, the low hill, and the upper mountain, -within a small space, so that harvest was continually going on, -and fresh produce coming in from the earth, during eight months of -the year,—together with the monopoly of the valuable plant called -the Silphium, which grew nowhere except in the Kyrenaic region, -and the juice of which was extensively demanded throughout Greece -and Italy,—led to the rapid growth of Kyrênê, in spite of serious -and renewed political troubles. And even now, the immense remains -which still mark its desolate site, the evidences of past labor and -solicitude at the Fountain of Apollo, and elsewhere, together with -the profusion of excavated and ornamented tombs,—attest sufficiently -what the grandeur of the place must have been in the days of -Herodotus and Pindar. So much did the Kyrenæans pride themselves -on the Silphium, found wild in their back country, from the island -of Platea on the east to the inner recess of the Great Syrtis -westward,—the leaves of which were highly salubrious for cattle, and -the stalk for man, while the root furnished the peculiar juice for -export,—that they maintained it to have first appeared seven years -prior to the arrival of the first Grecian colonists in their city.[64] - - [62] Herodot. iv, 198. - - [63] See, about the productive powers of Kyrênê and its - surrounding region, Herodot. iv, 199; Kallimachus (himself a - Kyrenæan), Hymn. ad Apoll. 65, with the note of Spanheim; Pindar, - Pyth. iv, with the Scholia _passim_; Diodor. iii, 49; Arrian, - Indica, xliii, 13. Strabo (xvii, p. 837) saw Kyrênê from the sea - in sailing by, and was struck with the view: he does not appear - to have landed. - - The results of modern observation in that country are given in - the Viaggio of Della Cella and in the exploring expedition of - Captain Beechey; see an interesting summary in the History of - the Barbary States, by Dr. Russell (Edinburgh, 1835), ch. v, pp. - 160-171. The chapter on this subject (c. 6) in Thrige’s Historia - Cyrênês is defective, as the author seems never to have seen - the careful and valuable observations of Captain Beechey, and - proceeds chiefly on the statements of Della Cella. - - I refer briefly to a few among the many interesting notices - of Captain Beechey. For the site of the ancient Hesperides - (Bengazi), and the “beautiful fertile plain near it, extending - to the foot of a long chain of mountains about fourteen miles - distant to the south-eastward,”—see Beechey, Expedition, ch. xi, - pp. 287-315; “a great many datepalm-trees in the neighborhood,” - (ch. xii, pp. 340-345.) - - The distance between Bengazi (Hesperides) and Ptolemeta - (Ptolemais, the port of Barka) is fifty-seven geographical - miles, along a fertile and beautiful plain, stretching from the - mountains to the sea. Between these two was situated the ancient - Teucheira (_ib._ ch. xii, p. 347), about thirty-eight miles from - Hesperides (p. 349), in a country highly productive wherever it - is cultivated (pp. 350-355). Exuberant vegetation exists near - the deserted Ptolemeta, or Ptolemais, after the winter rains (p. - 364). The circuit of Ptolemais, as measured by the ruins of its - walls, was about three and a half English miles (p. 380). - - The road from Barka to Kyrênê presents continued marks of ancient - chariot-wheels (ch. xiv, p. 406); after passing the plain of - Mergê, it becomes hilly and woody, “but on approaching Grenna - (Kyrênê) it becomes more clear of wood; the valleys produce fine - crops of barley, and the hills excellent pasturage for cattle,” - (p. 409.) Luxuriant vegetation after the winter rains in the - vicinity of Kyrênê (ch. xv, p. 465). - - [64] Theophrast. Hist. Pl. vi, 3, 3; ix, 1, 7; Skylax, c. 107. - -But it was not only the properties of the soil which promoted the -prosperity of Kyrênê. Isokratês[65] praises the well-chosen site -of that colony because it was planted in the midst of indigenous -natives apt for subjection, and far distant from any formidable -enemies. That the native Libyan tribes were made conducive in an -eminent degree to the growth of the Greco-Libyan cities, admits of -no doubt; and in reviewing the history of these cities, we must bear -in mind that their population was not pure Greek, but more or less -mixed, like that of the colonies in Italy, Sicily, or Ionia. Though -our information is very imperfect, we see enough to prove that the -small force brought over by Battus the Stammerer was enabled first -to fraternize with the indigenous Libyans,—next, reinforced by -additional colonists and availing themselves of the power of native -chiefs, to overawe and subjugate them. Kyrênê—combined with Barka -and Hesperides, both of them sprung from her root[66]—exercised over -the Libyan tribes between the borders of Egypt and the inner recess -of the Great Syrtis, for a space of three degrees of longitude, -an ascendency similar to that which Carthage possessed over the -more westerly Libyans near the Lesser Syrtis. Within these Kyrenæan -limits, and further westward along the shores of the Great Syrtis, -the Libyan tribes were of pastoral habits; westward, beyond the Lake -Tritônis and the Lesser Syrtis,[67] they began to be agricultural. -Immediately westward of Egypt were the Adyrmachidæ, bordering upon -Apis and Marea, the Egyptian frontier towns;[68] they were subject -to the Egyptians, and had adopted some of the minute ritual and -religious observances which characterized the region of the Nile. -Proceeding westward from the Adyrmachidæ were found the Giligammæ, -the Asbystæ, the Auschisæ, the Kabales, and the Nasamônes,—the latter -of whom occupied the south-eastern corner of the Great Syrtis;—next, -the Makæ, Gindânes, Lotophagi, Machlyes, as far as a certain river -and lake called Tritôn and Tritônis, which seems to have been near -the Lesser Syrtis. These last-mentioned tribes were not dependent -either on Kyrênê or on Carthage, at the time of Herodotus, nor -probably during the proper period of free Grecian history, (600-300 -B. C.) In the third century B. C., the Ptolemaic governors of Kyrênê -extended their dominion westward, while Carthage pushed her colonies -and castles eastward, so that the two powers embraced between them -the whole line of coast between the Greater and Lesser Syrtis, -meeting at the spot called the Altars of the Brothers Philæni,—so -celebrated for its commemorative legend.[69] But even in the sixth -century B. C., Carthage was jealous of the extension of Grecian -colonies along this coast, and aided the Libyan Makæ (about 510 B. -C.) to expel the Spartan prince Dorieus from his settlement near the -river Kinyps. Near that spot was afterwards planted, by Phenician or -Carthaginian exiles, the town of Leptis Magna[70] (now Lebida), which -does not seem to have existed in the time of Herodotus. Nor does the -latter historian notice the Marmaridæ, who appear as the principal -Libyan tribe near the west of Egypt, between the age of Skylax and -the third century of the Christian era. Some migration or revolution -subsequent to the time of Herodotus must have brought this name into -predominance.[71] - - [65] Isokratês, Or. v, ad Philipp. p. 84, (p. 107, ed. Bek.) - Thêra being a colony of Lacedæmon, and Kyrênê of Thêra, Isokratês - speaks of Kyrênê as a colony of Lacedæmon. - - [66] Pindar, Pyth. iv, 26. Κυρήνην—ἀστέων ῥίζαν. In the time of - Herodotus these three cities may possibly have been spoken of - as a Tripolis; but no one before Alexander the Great would have - understood the expression Pentapolis, used under the Romans to - denote Kyrênê, Apollonia, Ptolemais, Teucheira, and Berenikê, or - Hesperides. - - Ptolemais, originally the port of Barka, had become autonomous, - and of greater importance than the latter. - - [67] The accounts respecting the lake called in ancient times - Tritônis are, however, very uncertain: see Dr. Shaw’s Travels in - Barbary, p. 127. Strabo mentions a lake so called near Hesperides - (xvii, p. 836); Pherekydês talks of it as near Irasa (Pherekyd. - Fragm. 33 _d._ ed. Didot). - - [68] Eratosthenês, born at Kyrênê and resident at Alexandria, - estimated the land-journey between the two at five hundred and - twenty-five Roman miles (Pliny, H. N. v, 6). - - [69] Sallust, Bell. Jugurth. c. 75; Valerius Maximus, v, 6. - Thrige (Histor. Cyr. c. 49) places this division of the Syrtis - between Kyrênê and Carthage at some period between 400-330 B. C., - anterior to the loss of the independence of Kyrênê; but I cannot - think that it was earlier than the Ptolemies: compare Strabo, - xvii, p. 836. - - [70] The Carthaginian establishment Neapolis is mentioned by - Skylax (c. 109), and Strabo states that Leptis was another name - for the same place (xvii, p. 835). - - [71] Skylax, c. 107; Vopiscus, Vit. Prob. c. 9; Strabo, xvii, - p. 838; Pliny, H. N. v, 5. From the Libyan tribe Marmaridæ was - derived the name Marmarika, applied to that region. - -The interior country, stretching westward from Egypt along the -thirtieth and thirty-first parallel of latitude, to the Great -Syrtis, and then along the southern shore of that gulf, is to a -great degree low and sandy, and quite destitute of trees; yet -affording in many parts water, herbage, and a fertile soil.[72] But -the maritime region north of this, constituting the projecting -bosom of the African coast from the island of Platea (Gulf of -Bomba) on the east to Hesperides (Bengazi) on the west, is of a -totally different character; covered with mountains of considerable -elevation, which reach their highest point near Kyrênê, interspersed -with productive plain and valley, broken by frequent ravines which -carry off the winter torrents into the sea, and never at any time -of the year destitute of water. It is this latter advantage that -causes them to be now visited every summer by the Bedouin Arabs, -who flock to the inexhaustible Fountain of Apollo and to other -parts of the mountainous region from Kyrênê to Hesperides, when -their supply of water and herbage fails in the interior:[73] and -the same circumstance must have operated in ancient times to hold -the nomadic Libyans in a sort of dependence on Kyrênê and Barka. -Kyrênê appropriated the maritime portion of the territory of the -Libyan Asbystæ;[74] the Auschisæ occupied the region south of Barka, -touching the sea near Hesperides,—the Kabales near Teucheira in the -territory of Barka. Over the interior spaces these Libyan Nomads, -with their cattle and twisted tents, wandered unrestrained, amply fed -upon meat and milk,[75] clothed in goatskins, and enjoying better -health than any people known to Herodotus. Their breed of horses -was excellent, and their chariots or wagons with four horses could -perform feats admired even by Greeks: it was to these horses that the -princes[76] and magnates of Kyrênê and Barka often owed the success -of their chariots in the games of Greece. The Libyan Nasamônes, -leaving their cattle near the sea, were in the habit of making an -annual journey up the country to the Oasis of Augila, for the purpose -of gathering the date-harvest,[77] or of purchasing dates,—a journey -which the Bedouin Arabs from Bengazi still make annually, carrying -up their wheat and barley, for the same purpose. Each of the Libyan -tribes was distinguished by a distinct mode of cutting the hair, and -by some peculiarities of religious worship, though generally all -worshipped the Sun and the Moon.[78] But in the neighborhood of the -Lake Tritônis (seemingly the western extremity of Grecian coasting -trade in the time of Herodotus, who knows little beyond, and begins -to appeal to Carthaginian authorities), the Grecian deities Poseidôn -and Athênê, together with the legend of Jason and the Argonauts, had -been localized. There were, moreover, current prophecies announcing -that one hundred Hellenic cities were destined one day to be founded -round the lake,—and that one city in the island Phla, surrounded -by the lake, was to be planted by the Lacedæmonians.[79] These, -indeed, were among the many unfulfilled prophecies which from every -side cheated the Grecian ear,—proceeding in this case probably from -Kyrenæan or Theræan traders, who thought the spot advantageous for -settlement, and circulated their own hopes under the form of divine -assurances. It was about the year 510 B. C.[80] that some of these -Theræans conducted the Spartan prince Dorieus to found a colony in -the fertile region of Kinyps, belonging to the Libyan Makæ. But -Carthage, interested in preventing the extension of Greek settlements -westward, aided the Libyans in driving him out. - - [72] ταπεινή τε καὶ ψαμμώδης (Herodot. iv, 191); Sallust, Bell. - Jugurthin. c. 17. - - Captain Beechey points out the mistaken conceptions which have - been entertained of this region:— - - “It is not only in the works of early writers that we find the - nature of the Syrtis misunderstood; for the whole of the space - between Mesurata (_i. e._ the cape which forms the western - extremity of the Great Syrtis) and Alexandria is described - by Leo Africanus, under the title of Barka, as a wild and - desert country, where there is neither water nor land capable - of cultivation. He tells us that the most powerful among the - Mohammedan invaders possessed themselves of the fertile parts of - the coast, leaving the others only the desert for their abode, - exposed to all the miseries and privations attendant upon it; for - this desert (he continues) is far removed from any habitations, - and nothing is produced there whatever. So that if these poor - people would have a supply of grain, or of any other articles - necessary to their existence, they are obliged to pledge their - children to the Sicilians who visit the coast; who, on providing - them with these things, carry off the children they have - received.... - - “It appears to be chiefly from Leo Africanus that modern - historians have derived their idea of what they term the - district and desert of Barka. Yet the whole of the Cyrenaica is - comprehended within the limits which they assign to it; and the - authority of Herodotus, without citing any other, would be amply - sufficient to prove that this tract of country not only was no - desert, but was at all times remarkable for its fertility.... - The impression left upon our minds, after reading the account of - Herodotus, would be much more consistent with the appearance and - peculiarities of both, in their actual state, than that which - would result from the description of any succeeding writer.... - The district of Barka, including all the country between Mesurata - and Alexandria, neither is, nor ever was, so destitute and barren - as has been represented: the part of it which constitutes the - Cyrenaica is capable of the highest degree of cultivation, and - many parts of the Syrtis afford excellent pasturage, while some - of it is not only adapted to cultivation, but does actually - produce good crops of barley and dhurra.” (Captain Beechey, - Expedition to Northern Coast of Africa, ch. x, pp. 263, 265, 267, - 269: comp. ch. xi, p. 321.) - - [73] Justin, xiii, 7. “Amœnitatem loci et fontium ubertatem.” - Captain Beechey notices this annual migration of the Bedouin - Arabs:— - - “Teucheira (on the coast between Hesperides and Barka) abounds - in wells of excellent water, which are reserved by the Arabs for - their summer consumption, and only resorted to when the more - inland supplies are exhausted: at other times it is uninhabited. - Many of the excavated tombs are occupied as dwelling-houses by - the Arabs during their summer visits to that part of the coast.” - (Beechey, Exp. to North. Afric. ch. xii, p. 354.) - - And about the wide mountain plain, or table-land of Mergê, - the site of the ancient Barka, “The water from the mountains - inclosing the plain settles in pools and lakes in different parts - of this spacious valley; and affords a constant supply during the - summer months, to the Arabs who frequent it.” (ch. xiii, p. 390.) - The red earth which Captain Beechey observed in this plain is - noticed by Herodotus in regard to Libya (ii, 12). Stephan. Byz. - notices also the bricks used in building (v. Βάρκη). Derna, too, - to the eastward of Cyrene on the sea-coast, is amply provided - with water (ch. xvi, p. 471). - - About Kyrênê itself, Captain Beechey states: “During the time, - about a fortnight, of our absence from Kyrene, the changes - which had taken place in the appearance of the country about it - were remarkable. We found the hills on our return covered with - Arabs, their camels, flocks, and herds; the scarcity of water - in the interior at this time having driven the Bedouins to the - mountains, and particularly to Kyrene, where the springs afford - at all times an abundant supply. The corn was all cut, and the - high grass and luxuriant vegetation, which we had found it so - difficult to wade through on former occasions, had been eaten - down to the roots by the cattle.” (ch. xviii, pp. 517-520.) - - The winter rains are also abundant, between January and March, at - Bengazi (the ancient Hesperides): sweet springs of water near the - town (ch. xi, pp. 282, 315, 327). About Ptolemeta, or Ptolemais, - the port of the ancient Barka, _ib._ ch. xii, p. 363. - - [74] Herodot. iv, 170-171. παραλία σφόδρα εὐδαίμων. Strabo, ii, - p. 131. πολυμήλου καὶ πολυκαρποτάτας χθονὸς, Pindar. Pyth. ix, 7. - - [75] Herodot. iv, 186, 187, 189, 190. Νομάδες κρεοφάγοι καὶ - γαλακτοπόται. Pindar, Pyth. ix, 127, ἱππευταὶ Νομάδες. Pompon. - Mela, i, 8. - - [76] See the fourth, fifth, and ninth Pythian Odes of Pindar. In - the description given by Sophoklês (Electra, 695) of the Pythian - contests, in which pretence is made that Orestês has perished, - ten contending chariots are supposed, of which two are Libyan, - from Barka: of the remaining eight, one only comes from each - place named. - - [77] Herodot. iv, 172-182. Compare Hornemann’s Travels in Africa, - p. 48, and Heeren, Verkehr und Handel der Alten Welt, Th. ii, - Abth. 1, Abschnitt vi, p. 226. - - [78] Herodot. iv, 175-188. - - [79] Herodot. iv, 178, 179, 195, 196. - - [80] Herodot. iv, 42. - -The Libyans in the immediate neighborhood of Kyrênê were materially -changed by the establishment of that town, and constituted a large -part—at first, probably, far the largest part—of its constituent -population. Not possessing that fierce tenacity of habits which the -Mohammedan religion has impressed upon the Arabs of the present -day, they were open to the mingled influence of constraint and -seduction applied by Grecian settlers; so that in the time of -Herodotus, the Kabales and the Asbystæ of the interior had come -to copy Kyrenæan tastes and customs.[81] The Theræan colonists, -having obtained not merely the consent but even the guidance of the -natives to their occupation of Kyrênê, constituted themselves like -privileged Spartan citizens in the midst of Libyan Periœki.[82] They -seem to have married Libyan wives, whence Herodotus describes the -women of Kyrênê and Barka as following, even in his time, religious -observances indigenous and not Hellenic.[83] Even the descendants -of the primitive œkist Battus were semi-Libyan. For Herodotus gives -us the curious information that Battus was the Libyan word for a -king, deducing from it the just inference, that the name Battus was -not originally personal to the œkist, but acquired in Libya first -as a title,[84]—and that it afterwards passed to his descendants -as a proper name. For eight generations the reigning princes were -called Battus and Arkesilaus, the Libyan denomination alternating -with the Greek, until the family was finally deprived of its power. -Moreover, we find the chief of Barka, kinsman of Arkesilaus of Kyrênê -bearing the name of Alazir; a name certainly not Hellenic, and -probably Libyan.[85] We are, therefore, to conceive the first Theræan -colonists as established in their lofty fortified post Kyrênê, in the -centre of Libyan Periœki, till then strangers to walls, to arts, and -perhaps even to cultivated land. Probably these Periœki were always -subject and tributary, in a greater or less degree, though they -continued for half a century to retain their own king. - - [81] Herodot. iv, 170. νόμους δὲ τοὺς πλείστους μιμέεσθαι - ἐπιτηδεύουσι τοὺς Κυρηναίων. - - [82] Herodot. iv, 161. Θηραίων καὶ τῶν περιοίκων, etc. - - [83] Herodot. iv, 186-189. Compare, also, the story in Pindar. - Pyth. ix, 109-126, about Alexidamus, the ancestor of Telesikratês - the Kyrenæan; how the former won, by his swiftness in running, - a Libyan maiden, daughter of Antæus of Irasa,—and Kallimachus, - Hymn. Apoll. 86. - - [84] Herodot. iv, 155. - - [85] Herodot. iv, 164. - -To these rude men the Theræans communicated the elements of Hellenism -and civilization, not without receiving themselves much that was -non-Hellenic in return; and perhaps the reactionary influence of -the Libyan element against the Hellenic might have proved the -stronger of the two, had they not been reinforced by new-comers -from Greece. After forty years of Battus the œkist (about 630-590 -B. C.), and sixteen years of his son Arkesilaus (about 590-574 B. -C.), a second Battus[86] succeeded, called Battus the Prosperous, -to mark the extraordinary increase of Kyrênê during his presidency. -The Kyrenæans under him took pains to invite new settlers from all -parts of Greece without distinction,—a circumstance deserving notice -in Grecian colonization, which usually manifested a preference for -certain races, if it did not positively exclude the rest. To every -new-comer was promised a lot of land, and the Delphian priestess -strenuously seconded the wishes of the Kyrenæans, proclaiming that -“whosoever should reach the place too late for the land-division, -would have reason to repent it.” Such promise of new land, as well -as the sanction of the oracle, were doubtless made public at all the -games and meetings of Greeks, and a large number of new colonists -embarked for Kyrênê. The exact number is not mentioned, but we must -conceive it to have been very great, when we are told that during the -succeeding generation, not less than seven thousand Grecian hoplites -of Kyrênê perished by the hands of the revolted Libyans,—yet leaving -both the city itself and its neighbor Barka still powerful. The loss -of so great a number as seven thousand Grecian hoplites has very -few parallels throughout the whole history of Greece. In fact, this -second migration, during the government of Battus the Prosperous, -which must have taken place between 574-554 B. C., ought to be looked -upon as the moment of real and effective colonization for Kyrênê. It -was on this occasion, probably, that the port of Apollonia, which -afterwards came to equal the city itself in importance, was first -occupied and fortified,—for this second swarm of emigrants came by -sea direct, while the original colonists had reached Kyrênê by land -from the island of Platea through Irasa. The fresh emigrants came -from Peloponnesus, Krete, and some other islands of the Ægean. - - [86] Respecting the chronology of the Battiad princes, see - Boeckh, ad Pindar. Pyth. iv, p. 265, and Thirge, Histor. Cyrenes, - p. 127, _seq._ - -To furnish so many new lots of land, it was either necessary, or it -was deemed expedient, to dispossess many of the Libyan Periœki, who -found their situation in other respects also greatly changed for the -worse. The Libyan king Adikran, himself among the sufferers, implored -aid from Apriês king of Egypt, then in the height of his power; -sending to declare himself and his people Egyptian subjects, like -their neighbors the Adyrmachidæ. The Egyptian prince, accepting the -offer, despatched a large military force of the native soldier-caste, -who were constantly in station at the western frontier-town Marea, -by the route along shore to attack Kyrênê. They were met at Irasa by -the Greeks of Kyrênê, and, being totally ignorant of Grecian arms and -tactics, experienced a defeat so complete that few of them reached -home.[87] The consequences of this disaster in Egypt, where it caused -the transfer of the throne from Apriês to Amasis, have been noticed -in a former chapter. - - [87] Herodot. iv, 159. - -Of course the Libyan Periœki were put down, and the redivision of -lands near Kyrênê among the Greek settlers accomplished, to the -great increase of the power of the city. And the reign of Battus -the Prosperous marks a flourishing era in the town, and a large -acquisition of land-dominion, antecedent to years of dissension and -distress. The Kyrenæans came into intimate alliance with Amasis king -of Egypt, who encouraged Grecian connection in every way, and who -even took to wife Ladikê, a woman of the Battiad family at Kyrênê, so -that the Libyan Periœki lost all chance of Egyptian aid against the -Greeks.[88] - - [88] Herodot. ii, 180-181. - -New prospects, however, were opened to them during the reign of -Arkesilaus the Second, son of Battus the Prosperous, (about 554-544 -B. C.). The behavior of this prince incensed and alienated his own -brothers, who raised a revolt against him, seceded with a portion -of the citizens, and induced a number of the Libyan Periœki to take -part with them. They founded the Greco-Libyan city of Barka, in the -territory of the Libyan Auschisæ, about twelve miles from the coast, -distant from Kyrênê by sea about seventy miles to the westward. The -space between the two, and even beyond Barka, as far as the more -westerly Grecian colony called Hesperides, was in the days of Skylax -provided with commodious ports for refuge or landing:[89] at what -time Hesperides was founded we do not know, but it existed about -510 B. C.[90] Whether Arkesilaus obstructed the foundation of Barka -is not certain; but he marched the Kyrenæan forces against those -revolted Libyans who had joined it. Unable to resist, the latter -fled for refuge to their more easterly brethren near the borders of -Egypt, and Arkesilaus pursued them. At length, in a district called -Leukôn, the fugitives found an opportunity of attacking him at such -prodigious advantage, that they almost destroyed the Kyrenæan army, -seven thousand hoplites (as has been before intimated) being left -dead on the field. Arkesilaus did not long survive this disaster. He -was strangled during sickness by his brother Learchus, who aspired to -the throne; but Eryxô, widow of the deceased prince,[91] avenged the -crime, by causing Learchus to be assassinated. - - [89] Herodot. iv, 160; Skylax, c. 107; Hekatæus, Fragm. 300, ed. - Klausen. - - [90] Herodot. iv, 204. - - [91] Herodot. iv, 160. Plutarch (De Virtutibus Mulier. p. 261) - and Polyænus (viii, 41) give various details of this stratagem - on the part of Eryxô; Learchus being in love with her. Plutarch - also states that Learchus maintained himself as despot for some - time by the aid of Egyptian troops from Amasis, and committed - great cruelties. His story has too much the air of a romance to - be transcribed into the text, nor do I know from what authority - it is taken. - -That the credit of the Battiad princes was impaired by such a series -of disasters and enormities, we can readily believe. But it received -a still greater shock from the circumstance, that Battus the Third, -son and successor of Arkesilaus, was lame and deformed in his feet. -To be governed by a man thus personally disabled, was in the minds -of the Kyrenæans an indignity not to be borne, as well as an excuse -for preëxisting discontents; and the resolution was taken to send to -the Delphian oracle for advice. They were directed by the priestess -to invite from Mantineia, a moderator, empowered to close discussions -and provide a scheme of government,—the Mantineans selecting Demônax, -one of the wisest of their citizens, to solve the same problem which -had been committed to Solon at Athens. By his arrangement, the regal -prerogative of the Battiad line was terminated, and a republican -government established seemingly about 543 B. C.; the dispossessed -prince retaining both the landed domains[92] and the various -sacerdotal functions which had belonged to his predecessors. - - [92] Herodot. iv, 161. Τῷ βασιλέϊ Βάττῳ τεμένεα ἐξελὼν καὶ - ἱρωσύνας, τὰ ἄλλα πάντα τὰ πρότερον εἶχον οἱ βασιλεῖς ἐς μέσον τῷ - δήμῳ ἔθηκε. - - I construe the word τεμένεα as meaning all the domains, doubtless - large, which had belonged to the Battiad princes; contrary - to Thrige (Historia Cyrênês, ch. 38, p. 150), who restricts - the expression to revenues derived from sacred property. The - reference of Wesseling to Hesych.—Βάττου σίλφιον—is of no avail - for illustrating this passage. - - The supposition of O. Müller, that the preceding king had made - himself despotic by means of Egyptian soldiers, appears to me - neither probable in itself, nor admissible upon the simple - authority of Plutarch’s romantic story, when we take into - consideration the silence of Herodotus. Nor is Müller correct in - affirming that Demônax “restored the supremacy of the community:” - that legislator superseded the old kingly political privileges, - and framed a new constitution (see O. Müller, History of Dorians, - b. iii, ch. 9. s. 13.) - -Respecting the government, as newly framed, however, Herodotus -unfortunately gives us hardly any particulars. Demônax classified -the inhabitants of Kyrênê into three tribes; composed of: 1. -Theræans with their Libyan Periœki; 2. Greeks who had come from -Peloponnesus and Krete; 3. Such Greeks as had come from all other -islands in the Ægean. It appears, too, that a senate was constituted, -taken doubtless from these three tribes, and we may presume, in -equal proportion. It seems probable that there had been before no -constitutional classification, nor political privilege, except what -was vested in the Theræans,—that these latter, the descendants of -the original colonists were the only persons hitherto _known to the -constitution_,—and that the remaining Greeks, though free landed -proprietors and hoplites, were not permitted to act as an integral -part of the body politic, nor distributed in tribes at all.[93] The -whole powers of government,—up to this time vested in the Battiad -princes, subject only to such check, how effective we know not, which -the citizens of Theræan origin might be able to interpose,—were -now transferred from the prince to the people; that is, to certain -individuals or assemblies chosen somehow from among all the citizens. -There existed at Kyrênê, as at Thêra and Sparta, a board of Ephors, -and a band of three hundred armed police,[94] analogous to those -who were called the Hippeis, or Horsemen, at Sparta: whether these -were instituted by Demônax, we do not know, nor does the identity of -titular office, in different states, afford safe ground for inferring -identity of power. This is particularly to be remarked with regard -to the Periœki at Kyrênê, who were perhaps more analogous to the -Helots than to the Periœki of Sparta. The fact that the Periœki were -considered in the new constitution as belonging specially to the -Theræan branch of citizens, shows that these latter still continued a -privileged order, like the Patricians with their Clients at Rome in -relation to the Plebs. - - [93] Both O. Müller (Dor. b. iii, 4, 5), and Thrige (Hist. Cyren. - c. 38, p. 148), speak of Demônax as having abolished the old - tribes and created new ones. I do not conceive the change in this - manner. Demônax did not _abolish_ any tribes, but distributed - for the first time the inhabitants into tribes. It is possible - indeed that, before his time, the Theræans of Kyrênê may have - been divided among themselves into distinct tribes; but the other - inhabitants, having emigrated from a great number of different - places, had never before been thrown into tribes at all. Some - formal enactment or regulation was necessary for this purpose, - to define and sanction that religious, social, and political - communion, which went to make up the idea of the Tribe. It is not - to be assumed, as a matter of course, that there must necessarily - have been tribes anterior to Demônax, among a population so - miscellaneous in its origin. - - [94] Hesychius, Τριακάτιοι; Eustath. ad Hom. Odyss. p. 303; - Herakleidês Pontic. De Polit. c. 4. - -That the rearrangement introduced by Demônax was wise, consonant to -the general current of Greek feeling, and calculated to work well, -there is good reason to believe: and no discontent within would have -subverted it without the aid of extraneous force. Battus the Lame -acquiesced in it peaceably during his life; but his widow and his -son, Pheretimê and Arkesilaus, raised a revolt after his death, and -tried to regain by force the kingly privileges of the family. They -were worsted and obliged to flee,—the mother to Cyprus, the son to -Samos,—where both employed themselves in procuring foreign arms to -invade and conquer Kyrênê. Though Pheretimê could obtain no effective -aid from Euelthôn prince of Salamis in Cyprus, her son was more -successful in Samos, by inviting new Greek settlers to Kyrênê, under -promise of a redistribution of the land. A large body of emigrants -joined him on this promise; the period seemingly being favorable to -it, since the Ionian cities had not long before become subject to -Persia, and were discontented with the yoke. But before he conducted -this numerous band against his native city, he thought proper to -ask the advice of the Delphian oracle. Success in the undertaking -was promised to him, but moderation and mercy after success was -emphatically enjoined, on pain of losing his life; and the Battiad -race was declared by the god to be destined to rule at Kyrênê for -eight generations, but no longer,—as far as four princes named Battus -and four named Arkesilaus.[95] “More than such eight generations -(said the Pythia), Apollo forbids the Battiads even to aim at.” This -oracle was doubtless told to Herodotus by Kyrenæan informants when he -visited their city after the final deposition of the Battiad princes, -which took place in the person of the fourth Arkesilaus, between -460-450 B. C.; the invasion of Kyrênê by Arkesilaus the Third, sixth -prince of the Battiad race, to which the oracle professed to refer, -having occurred about 530 B. C. The words placed in the mouth of -the priestess doubtless date from the later of these two periods, -and afford a specimen of the way in which pretended prophecies are -not only made up by antedating after-knowledge, but are also so -contrived as to serve a present purpose. For the distinct prohibition -of the god, “not even to aim at a longer lineage than eight Battiad -princes,” seems plainly intended to deter the partisans of the -dethroned family from endeavoring to reinstate them. - - [95] Herodot. iv, 163. Ἐπὶ μὲν τέσσερας Βάττους, καὶ Ἀρκεσιλέως - τέσσερας, διδοῖ ὑμῖν Λοξίης βασιλεύειν Κυρήνης· πλέον μέντοι - τούτου οὐδὲ πειρᾶσθαι παραινέει. - -Arkesilaus the Third, to whom this prophecy purports to have been -addressed, returned with his mother Pheretimê and his army of new -colonists to Kyrênê. He was strong enough to carry all before him,—to -expel some of his chief opponents and seize upon others, whom he -sent to Cyprus to be destroyed; though the vessels were driven out -of their course by storms to the peninsula of Knidus, where the -inhabitants rescued the prisoners and sent them to Thêra. Other -Kyrenæans, opposed to the Battiads, took refuge in a lofty private -tower, the property of Aglômachus, wherein Arkesilaus caused them -all to be burned, heaping wood around and setting it on fire. But -after this career of triumph and revenge, he became conscious that -he had departed from the mildness enjoined to him by the oracle, and -sought to avoid the punishment which it had threatened by retiring -from Kyrênê. At any rate, he departed from Kyrênê to Barka, to the -residence of the Barkæan prince, his kinsman Alazir, whose daughter -he had married. But he found in Barka some of the unfortunate men -who had fled from Kyrênê to escape him: these exiles, aided by a -few Barkæans, watched for a suitable moment to assail him in the -market-place, and slew him, together with his kinsman the prince -Alazir.[96] - - [96] Herodot. iv, 163-164. - -The victory of Arkesilaus at Kyrênê, and his assassination at Barka, -are doubtless real facts; but they seem to have been compressed -together and incorrectly colored, in order to give to the death of -the Kyrenæan prince the appearance of a divine judgment. For the -reign of Arkesilaus cannot have been very short, since events of the -utmost importance occurred within it. The Persians under Kambysês -conquered Egypt, and both the Kyrenæan and the Barkæan prince sent to -Memphis to make their submission to the conqueror,—offering presents -and imposing upon themselves an annual tribute. The presents of the -Kyrenæans, five hundred minæ of silver, were considered by Kambysês -so contemptibly small, that he took hold of them at once and threw -them among his soldiers. And at the moment when Arkesilaus died, -Aryandes, the Persian satrap after the death of Kambysês, is found -established in Egypt.[97] - - [97] Herodot. iii, 13; iv, 165-166. - -During the absence of Arkesilaus at Barka, his mother Pheretimê had -acted as regent, taking her place at the discussions in the senate; -but when his death took place, and the feeling against the Battiads -manifested itself strongly at Barka, she did not feel powerful enough -to put it down, and went to Egypt to solicit aid from Aryandes. The -satrap, being made to believe that Arkesilaus had met his death in -consequence of steady devotion to the Persians, sent a herald to -Barka to demand the men who had slain him. The Barkæans assumed the -collective responsibility of the act, saying that he had done them -injuries both numerous and severe,—a farther proof that his reign -cannot have been very short. On receiving this reply, the satrap -immediately despatched a powerful Persian armament, land-force as -well as sea-force, in fulfilment of the designs of Pheretimê against -Barka. They besieged the town for nine months, trying to storm, to -batter, and to undermine the walls;[98] but their efforts were vain, -and it was taken at last only by an act of the grossest perfidy. -Pretending to relinquish the attempt in despair, the Persian general -concluded a treaty with the Barkæans, wherein it was stipulated that -the latter should continue to pay tribute to the Great King, but that -the army should retire without farther hostilities: “I swear it (said -the Persian general), and my oath shall hold good, as long as this -earth shall keep its place.” But the spot on which the oaths were -exchanged had been fraudulently prepared: a ditch had been excavated -and covered with hurdles, upon which again a surface of earth had -been laid. The Barkæans, confiding in the oath, and overjoyed at -their liberation, immediately opened their gates and relaxed their -guard; while the Persians, breaking down the hurdles and letting fall -the superimposed earth, so that they might comply with the letter of -their oath, assaulted the city and took it without difficulty. - - [98] Polyænus (Strateg. vii, 28) gives a narrative in many - respects different from this of Herodotus. - -Miserable was the fate which Pheretimê had in reserve for these -entrapped prisoners. She crucified the chief opponents of herself and -her late son around the walls, on which were also affixed the breasts -of their wives: then, with the exception of such of the inhabitants -as were Battiads, and noway concerned in the death of Arkesilaus, -she consigned the rest to slavery in Persia. They were carried away -captive into the Persian empire, where Darius assigned to them a -village in Baktria as their place of abode, which still bore the name -of Barka, even in the days of Herodotus. - -During the course of this expedition, it appears, the Persian army -advanced as far as Hesperides, and reduced many of the Libyan tribes -to subjection: these, together with Kyrênê and Barka, figure among -the tributaries and auxiliaries of Xerxês in his expedition against -Greece. And when the army returned to Egypt, by order of Aryandês, -they were half inclined to seize Kyrênê itself in their way, though -the opportunity was missed and the purpose left unaccomplished.[99] - - [99] Herodot. iv, 203-204. - -Pheretimê accompanied the retreating army to Egypt, where she died -shortly of a loathsome disease, consumed by worms; thus showing, says -Herodotus,[100] that “excessive cruelty in revenge brings down upon -men the displeasure of the gods.” It will be recollected that in the -veins of this savage woman the Libyan blood was intermixed with the -Grecian. Political enmity in Greece proper kills, but seldom if ever -mutilates or sheds the blood, of women. - - [100] Herodot. iv, 205. - -We thus leave Kyrênê and Barka again subject to Battiad princes, at -the same time that they are tributaries of Persia. Another Battus -and another Arkesilaus have to intervene before the glass of this -worthless dynasty is run out, between 460-450 B. C. I shall not at -present carry the reader’s attention to this last Arkesilaus, who -stands honored by two chariot victories in Greece, and two fine odes -of Pindar. - -The victory of the third Arkesilaus, and the restoration of the -Battiads, broke up the equitable constitution established by -Demônax. His triple classification into tribes must have been -completely remodelled, though we do not know how. For the number -of new colonists whom Arkesilaus introduced must have necessitated -a fresh distribution of land, and it is extremely doubtful whether -the relation of the Theræan class of citizens with their Periœki, as -established by Demônax, still continued to subsist. It is necessary -to notice this fact, because the arrangements of Demônax are spoken -of by some authors as if they formed the permanent constitution of -Kyrênê; whereas they cannot have outlived the restoration of the -Battiads, nor can they even have been revived after that dynasty was -finally expelled, since the number of new citizens and the large -change of property, introduced by Arkesilaus the Third, would render -them inapplicable to the subsequent city. - - - - -CHAPTER XXVIII. - -PAN-HELLENIC FESTIVALS — OLYMPIC, PYTHIAN, NEMEAN, AND ISTHMIAN. - - -In the preceding chapters I have been under the necessity of -presenting to the reader a picture altogether incoherent and -destitute of central effect,—to specify briefly each of the two or -three hundred towns which agreed in bearing the Hellenic name, and to -recount its birth and early life, as far as our evidence goes,—but -without being able to point out any action and reaction, exploits -or sufferings, prosperity or misfortune, glory or disgrace, common -to all. To a great degree, this is a characteristic inseparable -from the history of Greece from its beginning to its end, for the -only political unity which it ever receives is the melancholy unity -of subjection under all-conquering Rome. Nothing short of force -will efface in the mind of a free Greek the idea of his city as an -autonomous and separate organization; the village is a fraction, -but the city is an unit,—and the highest of all political units, -not admitting of being consolidated with others into a ten or a -hundred, to the sacrifice of its own separate and individual mark. -Such is the character of the race, both in their primitive country -and in their colonial settlements,—in their early as well as in -their late history,—splitting by natural fracture into a multitude -of self-administering, indivisible cities. But that which marks the -early historical period before Peisistratus, and which impresses upon -it an incoherence at once so fatiguing and so irremediable, is, that -as yet no causes have arisen to counteract this political isolation. -Each city, whether progressive or stationary, prudent or adventurous, -turbulent or tranquil, follows out its own thread of existence, -having no partnership or common purposes with the rest, and not yet -constrained into any active partnership with them by extraneous -forces. In like manner, the races which on every side surround the -Hellenic world appear distinct and unconnected, not yet taken up into -any coöperating mass or system. - -Contemporaneously with the accession of Peisistratus, this state of -things becomes altered both in and out of Hellas,—the former as a -consequence of the latter: for at that time begins the formation of -the great Persian empire, which absorbs into itself not only Upper -Asia and Asia Minor, but also Phenicia, Egypt, Thrace, Macedonia, -and a considerable number of the Grecian cities themselves; and -the common danger, threatening the greater states of Greece proper -from this vast aggregate, drives them, in spite of great reluctance -and jealousy, into active union. Hence arises a new impulse, -counterworking the natural tendency to political isolation in the -Hellenic cities, and centralizing their proceedings to a certain -extent for the two centuries succeeding 560 B. C.; Athens and Sparta -both availing themselves of the centralizing tendencies which had -grown out of the Persian war. But during the interval between 776-560 -B. C., no such tendency can be traced even in commencement, nor any -constraining force calculated to bring it about. Even Thucydidês, -as we may see by his excellent preface, knew of nothing during -these two centuries except separate city-politics and occasional -wars between neighbors: the only event, according to him, in which -any considerable number of Grecian cities were jointly concerned, -was the war between Chalkis and Eretria, the date of which we do -not know. In this war, several cities took part as allies; Samos, -among others, with Eretria,—Milêtus with Chalkis:[101] how far the -alliances of either may have extended, we have no evidence to inform -us, but the presumption is that no great number of Grecian cities -was comprehended in them. Such as it was, however, this war between -Chalkis and Eretria was the nearest approach, and the only approach, -to a Pan-Hellenic proceeding which Thucydidês indicates between the -Trojan and the Persian wars. Both he and Herodotus present this -early period only by way of preface and contrast to that which -follows,—when the Pan-Hellenic spirit and tendencies, though never at -any time predominant, yet counted for a powerful element in history, -and sensibly modified the universal instinct of city-isolation. -They tell us little about it, either because they could find no -trustworthy informants, or because there was nothing in it to -captivate the imagination in the same manner as the Persian or the -Peloponnesian wars. From whatever cause their silence arises, it is -deeply to be regretted, since the phenomena of the two centuries -from 776-560 B. C., though not susceptible of any central grouping, -must have presented the most instructive matter for study, had they -been preserved. In no period of history have there ever been formed -a greater number of new political communities, under such variety -of circumstances, personal as well as local. And a few chronicles, -however destitute of philosophy, reporting the exact march of some of -these colonies from their commencement,—amidst all the difficulties -attendant on amalgamation with strange natives, as well as on a fresh -distribution of land,—would have added greatly to our knowledge both -of Greek character and Greek social existence. - - [101] Thucyd. i, 15. - -Taking the two centuries now under review, then, it will appear -that there is not only no growing political unity among the Grecian -states, but a tendency even to the contrary,—to dissemination and -mutual estrangement. Not so, however, in regard to the other feelings -of unity capable of subsisting between men who acknowledge no -common political authority,—sympathies founded on common religion, -language, belief of race, legends, tastes and customs, intellectual -appetencies, sense of proportion and artistic excellence, recreative -enjoyments, etc. On all these points the manifestations of Hellenic -unity become more and more pronounced and comprehensive, in spite of -increased political dissemination, throughout the same period. The -breadth of common sentiment and sympathy between Greek and Greek, -together with the conception of multitudinous periodical meetings as -an indispensable portion of existence, appears decidedly greater in -560 B. C. than it had been a century before. It was fostered by the -increased conviction of the superiority of Greeks as compared with -foreigners,—a conviction gradually more and more justified as Grecian -art and intellect improved, and as the survey of foreign countries -became extended,—as well as by the many new efforts of men of genius -in the field of music, poetry, statuary, and architecture, each of -whom touched chords of feeling belonging to other Greeks hardly -less than to his own peculiar city. At the same time, the life of -each peculiar city continues distinct, and even gathers to itself a -greater abundance of facts and internal interests. So that during the -two centuries now under review there was in the mind of every Greek -an increase both of the city-feeling and of the Pan-Hellenic feeling, -but on the other hand a decline of the old sentiment of separate -race,—Doric, Ionic, Æolic. - -I have already, in my former volume, touched upon the many-sided -character of the Grecian religion, entering as it did into all the -enjoyments and sufferings, the hopes and fears, the affections and -antipathies, of the people,—not simply imposing restraints and -obligations, but protecting, multiplying, and diversifying all the -social pleasures and all the decorations of existence. Each city and -even each village had its peculiar religious festivals, wherein the -sacrifices to the gods were usually followed by public recreations of -one kind or other,—by feasting on the victims, processional marches, -singing and dancing, or competition in strong and active exercises. -The festival was originally local, but friendship or communion of -race was shown by inviting others, non-residents, to partake in its -attractions. In the case of a colony and its metropolis, it was a -frequent practice that citizens of the metropolis were honored with -a privileged seat at the festivals of the colony, or that one of -their number was presented with the first taste of the sacrificial -victim.[102] Reciprocal frequentation of religious festivals was thus -the standing evidence of friendship and fraternity among cities not -politically united. That it must have existed to a certain degree -from the earliest days, there can be no reasonable doubt; though in -Homer and Hesiod we find only the celebration of funeral games, by a -chief at his own private expense, in honor of his deceased father or -friend,—with all the accompanying recreations, however, of a public -festival, and with strangers not only present, but also contending -for valuable prizes.[103] Passing to historical Greece during the -seventh century B. C., we find evidence of two festivals, even then -very considerable, and frequented by Greeks from many different -cities and districts,—the festival at Delos, in honor of Apollo, the -great place of meeting for Ionians throughout the Ægean,—and the -Olympic games. The Homeric Hymn to the Delian Apollo, which must be -placed earlier than 600 B. C., dwells with emphasis on the splendor -of the Delian festival,—unrivalled throughout Greece, as it would -appear, during all the first period of this history, for wealth, -finery of attire, and variety of exhibitions as well in poetical -genius as in bodily activity,[104]—equalling probably at that time, -if not surpassing, the Olympic games. The complete and undiminished -grandeur of this Delian Pan-Ionic festival is one of our chief marks -of the first period of Grecian history, before the comparative -prostration of the Ionic Greeks through the rise of Persia: it was -celebrated periodically in every fourth year, to the honor of Apollo -and Artemis. It was distinguished from the Olympic games by two -circumstances both deserving of notice,—first, by including solemn -matches not only of gymnastic, but also of musical and poetical -excellence, whereas the latter had no place at Olympia; secondly, -by the admission of men, women, and children indiscriminately as -spectators, whereas women were formally excluded from the Olympic -ceremony.[105] Such exclusion may have depended in part on the inland -situation of Olympia, less easily approachable by females than the -island of Delos; but even making allowance for this circumstance, -both the one distinction and the other mark the rougher character -of the Ætolo-Dorians in Peloponnesus. The Delian festival, which -greatly dwindled away during the subjection of the Asiatic and -insular Greeks to Persia, was revived afterwards by Athens during the -period of her empire, when she was seeking in every way to strengthen -her central ascendency in the Ægean. But though it continued to be -ostentatiously celebrated under her management, it never regained -that commanding sanctity and crowded frequentation which we find -attested in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo for its earlier period. - - [102] Thucyd. i, 26. See the tale in Pausanias (v, 25, 1) - of the ancient chorus sent annually from Messênê in Sicily - across the strait to Rhegium, to a local festival of the - Rhegians,—thirty-five boys with a chorus-master and a - flute-player: on one unfortunate occasion, all of them perished - in crossing. For the Theôry (or solemn religious deputation) - periodically sent by the Athenians to Delos, see Plutarch, - Nicias, c. 3; Plato, Phædon, c. 1, p. 58. Compare also Strabo, - ix, p. 419, on the general subject. - - [103] Homer, Iliad, xi, 879, xxiii, 679; Hesiod, Opp. Di. 651. - - [104] Homer, Hymn. Apoll. 150; Thucyd. iii, 104. - - [105] Pausan. v, 6, 5; Ælian, N. H. x, 1; Thucyd. iii, 104. When - Ephesus, and the festival called Ephesia, had become the great - place of Ionic meeting, the presence of women was still continued - (Dionys. Hal. A. R. iv, 25). - -Very different was the fate of the Olympic festival,—on the banks -of the Alpheius[106] in Peloponnesus, near the old oracular temple -of the Olympian Zeus,—which not only grew up uninterruptedly from -small beginnings to the maximum of Pan-Hellenic importance, but -even preserved its crowds of visitors and its celebrity for many -centuries after the extinction of Greek freedom, and only received -its final abolition, after more than eleven hundred years of -continuance, from the decree of the Christian emperor Theodosius in -394 A. D. I have already recounted, in the preceding volume of this -history, the attempt made by Pheidon, despot of Argos, to restore -to the Pisatans, or to acquire for himself, the administration of -this festival,—an event which proves the importance of the festival -in Peloponnesus, even so early as 740 B. C. At that time, and for -some years afterwards, it seems to have been frequented chiefly, -if not exclusively, by the neighboring inhabitants of central and -western Peloponnesus,—Spartans, Messenians, Arkadians, Triphylians, -Pisatans, Eleians, and Achæans,[107]—and it forms an important link -connecting the Etolo-Eleians, and their privileges as Agonothets -to solemnize and preside over it, with Sparta. From the year 720 -B. C., we trace positive evidences of the gradual presence of more -distant Greeks,—Corinthians, Megarians, Bœotians, Athenians, and even -Smyrnæans from Asia. - - [106] Strabo, viii, p. 353; Pindar, Olymp. viii, 2; Xenophon, - Hellen. iv, 7, 2; iii, 2, 22. - - [107] See K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griechischen - Staats-Alterthümer, sect. 10. - -We observe also another proof of growing importance, in the increased -number and variety of matches exhibited to the spectators, and in the -substitution of the simple crown of olive, an honorary reward, in -place of the more substantial present which the Olympic festival and -all other Grecian festivals began by conferring upon the victor. The -humble constitution of the Olympic games presented originally nothing -more than a match of runners in the measured course called the -Stadium: a continuous series of the victorious runners was formally -inscribed and preserved by the Eleians, beginning with Korœbus in -776 B. C., and was made to serve by chronological inquirers from -the third century B. C. downwards, as a means of measuring the -chronological sequence of Grecian events. It was on the occasion of -the 7th Olympiad after Korœbus, that Daiklês the Messenian first -received for his victory in the stadium no farther recompense than -a wreath from the sacred olive-tree near Olympia:[108] the honor of -being proclaimed victor was found sufficient, without any pecuniary -addition. But until the 14th Olympiad, there was no other match -for the spectators to witness beside that of simple runners in the -stadium. On that occasion a second race was first introduced, of -runners in the double stadium, or up and down the course; in the -next, or 15th Olympiad (720 B. C.), a third match, the long course -for runners, or several times up and down the stadium. There were -thus three races,—the simple stadium, the double stadium, or diaulos, -and the long course, or dolichos, all for runners,—which continued -without addition until the 18th Olympiad, when the wrestling-match -and the complicated pentathlon—including jumping, running, the quoit, -the javelin, and wrestling—were both added. A farther novelty appears -in the 23rd Olympiad (688 B. C.), the boxing-match; and another, -still more important, in the 25th (680 B. C.), the chariot with -four full-grown horses. This last-mentioned addition is deserving -of special notice, not merely as it diversified the scene by the -introduction of horses, but also as it brought in a totally new -class of competitors,—rich men and women, who possessed the finest -horses and could hire the most skilful drivers, without any personal -superiority, or power of bodily display, in themselves.[109] The -prodigious exhibition of wealth in which the chariot proprietors -indulged, is not only an evidence of growing importance in the -Olympic games, but also served materially to increase that -importance, and to heighten the interest of spectators. Two farther -matches were added in the 33rd Olympiad (648 B. C.),—the pankration, -or boxing and wrestling conjoined,[110] with the hand unarmed or -divested of that hard leather cestus[111] worn by the pugilist, which -rendered the blow of the latter more terrible, but at the same time -prevented him from grasping or keeping hold of his adversary,—and the -single race-horse. Many other novelties were introduced one after -the other, which it is unnecessary fully to enumerate,—the race -between men clothed in full panoply, and bearing each his shield,—the -different matches between boys, analogous to those between full-grown -men, and between colts, of the same nature as between full-grown -horses. At the maximum of its attraction the Olympic solemnity -occupied five days, but until the 77th Olympiad, all the various -matches had been compressed into one,—beginning at daybreak and -not always closing before dark.[112] The 77th Olympiad follows -immediately after the successful expulsion of the Persian invaders -from Greece, when the Pan-Hellenic feeling had been keenly stimulated -by resistance to a common enemy; and we may easily conceive that this -was a suitable moment for imparting additional dignity to the chief -national festival. - - [108] Dionys. Halikarn. Ant. Rom. i, 71; Phlegon. De Olympiad. p. - 140. For an illustration of the stress laid by the Greeks on the - purely honorary rewards of Olympia, and on the credit which they - took to themselves as competitors, not for money, but for glory, - see Herodot. viii, 26. Compare the Scholia on Pindar, Nem. and - Isthm. Argument, pp. 425-514, ed. Boeckh. - - [109] See the sentiment of Agesilaus, somewhat contemptuous, - respecting the chariot-race, as described by Xenophon (Agesilaus, - ix, 6); the general feeling of Greece, however, is more in - conformity with what Thucydidês (vi, 16) puts into the mouth of - Alkibiadês, and Xenophon into that of Simonidês (Xenophon, Hiero, - xi, 5). The great respect attached to a family which had gained - chariot victories is amply attested: see Herodot. vi, 35, 36, - 103, 126,—οἰκίη τεθριπποτρόφος,—and vi, 70, about Demaratus king - of Sparta. - - [110] Antholog. Palatin. ix, 588; vol. ii. p. 299, Jacobs. - - [111] The original Greek word for this covering (which surrounded - the middle hand and upper portion of the fingers, leaving both - the ends of the fingers and the thumb exposed) was ἱμὰς, the word - for a thong, strap, or whip, of leather: the special word μύρμηξ - seems to have been afterwards introduced (Hesychius, v. Ἱμάς): - see Homer, Iliad, xxiii, 686. Cestus, or Cæstus, is the Latin - word (Virg. Æn. v, 404), the Greek word κεστός is an adjective - annexed to ἱμὰς—κεστὸν ἱμάντα—πολύκεστος ἱμὰς (Iliad, xiv, 214; - iii, 371). See Pausan. viii, 40, 3, for the description of the - incident which caused an alteration in this hand-covering at the - Nemean games: ultimately, it was still farther hardened by the - addition of iron. - - [112] Ἀέθλων πεμπαμέρους ἁμίλλαις,—Pindar, Olymp. v, 6: compare - Schol. ad Pindar. Olymp. iii, 33. - - See the facts respecting the Olympic Agôn collected by Corsini - (Dissertationes Agonisticæ, Dissert. i, sects. 8, 9, 10), and - still more amply set forth with a valuable commentary, by Krause - (Olympia, oder Darstellung der grossen Olympischen Spiele, Wien, - 1838, sects. 8-11 especially). - -We are thus enabled partially to trace the steps by which, during the -two centuries succeeding 776 B. C., the festival of the Olympic Zeus -in the Pisatid gradually passed from a local to a national character, -and acquired an attractive force capable of bringing together into -temporary union the dispersed fragments of Hellas, from Marseilles to -Trebizond. In this important function it did not long stand alone. -During the sixth century B. C., three other festivals, at first -local, became successively nationalized,—the Pythia near Delphi, the -Isthmia, near Corinth, the Nemea near Kleônæ, between Sikyôn and -Argos. - -In regard to the Pythian festival, we find a short notice of the -particular incidents and individuals by whom its reconstitution -and enlargement were brought about,—a notice the more interesting, -inasmuch as these very incidents are themselves a manifestation -of something like Pan-Hellenic patriotism, standing almost alone -in an age which presents little else in operation except distinct -city-interests. At the time when the Homeric Hymn to the Delphinian -Apollo was composed (probably in the seventh century B. C.), the -Pythian festival had as yet acquired little eminence. The rich and -holy temple of Apollo was then purely oracular, established for the -purpose of communicating to pious inquirers “the counsels of the -immortals.” Multitudes of visitors came to consult it, as well as -to sacrifice victims and to deposit costly offerings; but while the -god delighted in the sound of the harp as an accompaniment to the -singing of pæans, he was by no means anxious to encourage horse-races -and chariot-races in the neighborhood,—nay, this psalmist considers -that the noise of horses would be “a nuisance,” the drinking of -mules a desecration to the sacred fountains, and the ostentation of -fine-built chariots objectionable,[113] as tending to divert the -attention of spectators away from the great temple and its wealth. - - [113] Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 262. - - Πημανέει σ᾽ αἰεὶ κτυπὸς ἵππων ὠκειάων, - Ἀρδόμενοί τ᾽ οὐρῆες ἐμῶν ἱερῶν ἀπὸ πηγέων· - Ἔνθα τις ἀνθρώπων βουλήσεται εἰσοράασθαι - Ἅρματά τ᾽ εὐποίητα καὶ ὠκυπόδων κτυπὸν ἵππων, - Ἢ νηόν τε μέγαν καὶ κτήματα πόλλ᾽ ἐνεόντα. - - Also v. 288-394. γυάλων ὑπὸ Παρνήσοιο—484. ὑπὸ πτυχὶ - Παρνήσοιο—Pindar, Pyth. viii, 90. Πυθῶνος ἐν γυάλοις—Strabo, ix, - p. 418. πετρωδὲς χώριον καὶ θεατροειδὲς—Heliodorus, Æthiop. ii, - 26: compare Will. Götte, Das Delphische Orakel (Leipzig, 1839), - pp. 39-42. - -From such inconveniences the god was protected by placing his -sanctuary “in the rocky Pytho,”—a rugged and uneven recess, of -no great dimensions, embosomed in the southern declivity of -Parnassus, and about two thousand feet above the level of the sea, -while the topmost Parnassian summits reach a height of near eight -thousand feet. The situation was extremely imposing, but unsuited -by nature for the congregation of any considerable number of -spectators,—altogether impracticable for chariot-races,—and only -rendered practicable by later art and outlay for the theatre as well -as for the stadium; the original stadium, when first established, -was placed in the plain beneath. It furnished little means of -subsistence, but the sacrifices and presents of visitors enabled -the ministers of the temple to live in abundance,[114] and gathered -together by degrees a village around it. Near the sanctuary of Pytho, -and about the same altitude, was situated the ancient Phocian town -of Krissa, on a projecting spur of Parnassus,—overhung above by the -line of rocky precipice called the Phædriades, and itself overhanging -below the deep ravine through which flows the river Pleistus. On the -other side of this river rises the steep mountain Kirphis, which -projects southward into the Corinthian gulf,—the river reaching that -gulf through the broad Krissæan or Kirrhæan plain, which stretches -westward nearly to the Lokrian town of Amphissa; a plain for the -most part fertile and productive, though least so in its eastern -part immediately under the Kirphis, where the seaport Kirrha was -placed.[115] The temple, the oracle, and the wealth of Pytho, belong -to the very earliest periods of Grecian antiquity; but the octennial -solemnity in honor of the god included at first no other competition -except that of bards, who sang each a pæan with the harp. It has been -already mentioned, in my preceding volume, that the Amphiktyonic -assembly held one of its half-yearly meetings near the temple of -Pytho, the other at Thermopylæ. - - [114] Βωμοί μ᾽ ἔφερβον, οὕπιών τ᾽ ἀεὶ ξένος, says Ion (in - Euripidês, Ion. 334) the slave of Apollo, and the verger of - his Delphian temple, who waters it from the Kastalian spring, - sweeps it with laurel boughs, and keeps off with his bow and - arrows the obtrusive birds (Ion, 105, 143, 154). Whoever reads - the description of Professor Ulrichs (Reisen und Forschungen in - Griechenland, ch. 7, p. 110) will see that the birds—eagles, - vultures, and crows—are quite numerous enough to have been - exceedingly troublesome. The whole play of Ion conveys a lively - idea of the Delphian temple and its scenery, with which Euripidês - was doubtless familiar. - - [115] There is considerable perplexity respecting Krissa and - Kirrha, and it still remains a question among scholars whether - the two names denote the same place or different places; the - former is the opinion of O. Müller (Orchomenos, p. 495). Strabo - distinguishes the two. Pausanias identifies them, conceiving - no other town to have ever existed except the seaport (x, 37, - 4). Mannert (Geogr. Gr. Röm. viii, p. 148) follows Strabo, and - represents them as different. - - I consider the latter to be the correct opinion, upon the - grounds, and partly, also, on the careful topographical - examination of Professor Ulrichs, which affords an excellent - account of the whole scenery of Delphi (Reisen und Forschungen - in Griechenland, Bremen, 1840, chapters 1, 2, 3). The ruins - described by him on the high ground near Kastri, called the - Forty Saints, may fairly be considered as the ruins of Krissa; - the ruins of Kirrha are on the sea-shore near the mouth of the - Pleistus. The plain beneath might without impropriety be called - either the Krissæan or the Kirrhæan plain (Herodot. viii, 32; - Strabo, ix, p. 419). Though Strabo was right in distinguishing - Krissa from Kirrha, and right also in the position of the latter - under Kirphis, he conceived incorrectly the situation of Krissa; - and his representation that there were two wars,—in the first - of which, Kirrha was destroyed by the Krissæans, while in the - second, Krissa itself was conquered by the Amphiktyons,—is not - confirmed by any other authority. - - The mere circumstance that Pindar gives us in three separate - passages, Κρίσᾳ, Κρισαῖον, Κρισαίοις (Isth. ii, 26; Pyth. v, 49, - vi, 18), and in five other passages, Κίῤῥᾳ, Κίῤῥας, Κίῤῥαθεν - (Pyth. iii, 33, vii, 14, viii, 26, x, 24, xi, 20), renders it - almost certain that the two names belong to different places, and - are not merely two different names for the same place; the poet - could not in this case have any metrical reason for varying the - denomination, as the metre of the two words is similar. - -In those early times when the Homeric Hymn to Apollo was composed, -the town of Krissa appears to have been great and powerful, -possessing all the broad plain between Parnassus, Kirphis, and -the gulf, to which latter it gave its name,—and possessing also, -what was a property not less valuable, the adjoining sanctuary of -Pytho itself, which the Hymn identifies with Krissa, not indicating -Delphi as a separate place. The Krissæans, doubtless, derived great -profits from the number of visitors who came to visit Delphi, both -by land and by sea, and Kirrha was originally only the name for -their seaport. Gradually, however, the port appears to have grown -in importance at the expense of the town, just as Apollonia and -Ptolemais came to equal Kyrênê and Barka, and as Plymouth Dock has -swelled into Devonport; while at the same time, the sanctuary of -Pytho with its administrators expanded into the town of Delphi, and -came to claim an independent existence of its own. The original -relations between Krissa, Kirrha, and Delphi, were in this manner -at length subverted, the first declining and the two latter rising. -The Krissæans found themselves dispossessed of the management of the -temple, which passed to the Delphians, as well as of the profits -arising from the visitors, whose disbursements went to enrich the -inhabitants of Kirrha. Krissa was a primitive city of the Phocian -name, and could boast of a place as such in the Homeric Catalogue, -so that her loss of importance was not likely to be quietly endured. -Moreover, in addition to the above facts, already sufficient in -themselves as seeds of quarrel, we are told that the Kirrhæans abused -their position as masters of the avenue to the temple by sea, and -levied exorbitant tolls on the visitors who landed there,—a number -constantly increasing from the multiplication of the transmarine -colonies, and from the prosperity of those in Italy and Sicily. -Besides such offence against the general Grecian public, they had -also incurred the enmity of their Phocian neighbors by outrages -upon women, Phocian as well as Argeian, who were returning from the -temple.[116] - - [116] Athenæus, xiii, p. 560; Æschinês cont. Ktesiphont. c. 36, - p. 406; Strabo, ix, p. 418. Of the Akragallidæ, or Kraugallidæ, - whom Æschinês mentions along with the Kirrhæans as another - impious race who dwelt in the neighborhood of the god,—and who - were overthrown along with the Kirrhæans,—we have no farther - information. O. Müller’s conjecture would identify them with - the Dryopes (Dorians, i, 2, 5, and his Orchomenos, p. 496); - Harpokration, v. Κραυγαλλίδαι. - -Thus stood the case, apparently, about 595 B. C., when the -Amphiktyonic meeting interfered—either prompted by the Phocians, -or perhaps on their own spontaneous impulse, out of regard to the -temple—to punish the Kirrhæans. After a war of ten years, the first -Sacred War in Greece, this object was completely accomplished, by -a joint force of Thessalians under Eurylochus, Sikyonians under -Kleisthenês, and Athenians under Alkmæon; the Athenian Solon being -the person who originated and enforced, in the Amphiktyonic council, -the proposition of interference. Kirrha appears to have made a -strenuous resistance until its supplies from the sea were intercepted -by the naval force of the Sikyonian Kleisthenês; and even after the -town was taken, its inhabitants defended themselves for some time on -the heights of Kirphis.[117] At length, however, they were thoroughly -subdued. Their town was destroyed, or left to subsist merely as -a landing-place; and the whole adjoining plain was consecrated -to the Delphian god, whose domains thus touched the sea. Under -this sentence, pronounced by the religious feeling of Greece, and -sanctified by a solemn oath publicly sworn and inscribed at Delphi, -the land was condemned to remain untilled and unplanted, without any -species of human care, and serving only for the pasturage of cattle. -The latter circumstance was convenient to the temple, inasmuch as it -furnished abundance of victims for the pilgrims who landed and came -to sacrifice,—for without preliminary sacrifice no man could consult -the oracle;[118] while the entire prohibition of tillage was the only -means of obviating the growth of another troublesome neighbor on the -sea-board. The fate of Kirrha in this war is ascertained: that of -Krissa is not so clear, nor do we know whether it was destroyed, or -left subsisting in a position of inferiority with regard to Delphi. -From this time forward, however, the Delphian community appears -as substantive and autonomous, exercising in their own right the -management of the temple; though we shall find, on more than one -occasion, that the Phocians contest this right, and lay claim to -the management of it for themselves,[119]—a remnant of that early -period when the oracle stood in the domain of the Phocian Krissa. -There seems, moreover, to have been a standing antipathy between the -Delphians and the Phocians. - - [117] Schol. ad Pindar, Pyth. Introduct.: Schol. ad Pindar, - Nem. ix, 2; Plutarch, Solon, c. 11; Pausan. ii, 9, 6. Pausanias - (x, 37, 4) and Polyænus (Strateg. iii, 6) relate a stratagem of - Solon, or of Eurylochus, to poison the water of the Kirrhæans - with hellebore. - - [118] Eurip. Ion, 230. - - [119] Thucyd. i, 112. - -The Sacred War just mentioned, emanating from a solemn Amphiktyonic -decree, carried on jointly by troops of different states whom we do -not know to have ever before coöperated, and directed exclusively -towards an object of common interest, is in itself a fact of high -importance as manifesting a decided growth of Pan-Hellenic feeling. -Sparta is not named as interfering,—a circumstance which seems -remarkable when we consider both her power, even as it then stood, -and her intimate connection with the Delphian oracle,—while the -Athenians appear as the prime movers, through the greatest and best -of their citizens: the credit of a large-minded patriotism rests -prominently upon them. - -But if this Sacred War itself is a proof that the Pan-Hellenic -spirit was growing stronger, the positive result in which it ended -reinforced that spirit still farther. The spoils of Kirrha were -employed by the victorious allies in founding the Pythian games. -The octennial festival hitherto celebrated at Delphi in honor of -the god, including no other competition except in the harp and the -pæan, was expanded into comprehensive games on the model of the -Olympic, with matches not only of music, but also of gymnastics and -chariots,—celebrated, not at Delphi itself, but on the maritime -plain near the ruined Kirrha,—and under the direct superintendence -of the Amphiktyons themselves. I have already mentioned that Solon -provided large rewards for such Athenians as gained victories in -the Olympic and Isthmian games, thereby indicating his sense of the -great value of the national games as a means of promoting Hellenic -intercommunion. It was the same feeling which instigated the -foundation of the new games on the Kirrhæan plain, in commemoration -of the vindicated honor of Apollo, and in the territory newly made -over to him. They were celebrated in the latter half of summer, or -first half of every third Olympic year,—the Amphiktyons being the -ostensible agonothets, or administrators, and appointing persons -to discharge the duty in their names.[120] At the first Pythian -ceremony (in 586 B. C.), valuable rewards were given to the different -victors; at the second (582 B. C.), nothing was conferred but wreaths -of laurel,—the rapidly attained celebrity of the games being such -as to render any farther reward superfluous. The Sikyonian despot -Kleisthenês himself, one of the leaders in the conquest of Kirrha, -gained the prize at the chariot-race of the second Pythia. We find -other great personages in Greece frequently mentioned as competitors, -and the games long maintained a dignity second only to the Olympic, -over which, indeed, they had some advantages; first, that they -were not abused for the purpose of promoting petty jealousies and -antipathies of any administering state, as the Olympic games were -perverted by the Eleians, on more than one occasion; next, that -they comprised music and poetry as well as bodily display. From -the circumstances attending their foundation, the Pythian games -deserved, even more than the Olympic, the title bestowed on them by -Demosthenês,—“The common Agôn of the Greeks.”[121] - - [120] Mr. Clinton thinks that the Pythian games were celebrated - in the autumn: M. Boeckh refers the celebration to the spring: - Krause agrees with Boeckh. (Clinton, Fast. Hell. vol. ii, p. 200, - Appendix; Boeckh, ad Corp. Inscr. No. 1688, p. 813; Krause, Die - Pythien, Nemeen und Isthmien, vol. ii, pp. 29-35.) - - Mr. Clinton’s opinion appears to me nearly the truth; the real - time, as I conceive it, being about the beginning of August, or - end of July. Boeckh admits that, with the exception of Thucydidês - (v, 1-19), the other authorities go to sustain it; but he relies - on Thucydidês to outweigh them. Now the passage of Thucydidês, - properly understood, seems to me as much against Boeckh’s view as - the rest. - - I may remark, as a certain additional reason in the case, that - the Isthmia appear to have been celebrated in the third year - of each Olympiad, and in the spring (Krause, p. 187). It seems - improbable that these two great festivals should have come - one immediately after the other, which, nevertheless, must be - supposed, if we adopt the opinion of Boeckh and Krause. - - The Pythian games would be sometimes a little earlier, sometimes - a little later, in consequence of the time of full moon: notice - being always sent round by the administrators beforehand of the - commencement of the sacred month. See the references in K. F. - Hermann, Lehrbuch der gottesdienstl. Alterth. der Griechen, ch. - 49, not. 12.—This note has been somewhat modified since my first - edition,—see the note vol. vi, ch. liv. - - [121] Demosthen. Philipp. iii, p. 119. - -The Olympic and Pythian games continued always to be the most -venerated solemnities in Greece: yet the Nemea and Isthmia acquired -a celebrity not much inferior; the Olympic prize counting for -the highest of all.[122] Both the Nemea and the Isthmia were -distinguished from the other two festivals by occurring, not once -in four years, but once in two years; the former in the second and -fourth years of each Olympiad, the latter in the first and third -years. To both is assigned, according to Greek custom, an origin -connected with the interesting persons and circumstances of Grecian -antiquity: but our historical knowledge of both begins with the sixth -century B. C. The first historical Nemead is presented as belonging -to Olympiad 52 or 53 (572-568 B. C.), a few years subsequent to the -Sacred War above mentioned and to the origin of the Pythia. The -festival was celebrated in honor of the Nemean Zeus, in the valley -of Nemea, between Phlius and Kleônæ,—and originally by the Kleônæans -themselves, until, at some period after 460 B. C., the Argeians -deprived them of that honor and assumed the honors of administration -to themselves.[123] The Nemean games had their Hellanodikæ[124] to -superintend, to keep order, and to distribute the prizes, as well as -the Olympic. Respecting the Isthmian festival, our first historical -information is a little earlier, for it has already been stated that -Solon conferred a premium upon every Athenian citizen who gained a -prize at that festival as well as at the Olympian,—in or after 594 -B. C. It was celebrated by the Corinthians at their isthmus, in -honor of Poseidôn; and if we may draw any inference from the legends -respecting its foundation, which is ascribed sometimes to Theseus, -the Athenians appear to have identified it with the antiquities of -their own state.[125] - - [122] Pindar, Nem. x, 28-33. - - [123] Strabo, viii, p. 377; Plutarch, Arat. c. 28; Mannert. - Geogr. Gr. Röm. pt. viii, p. 650. Compare the second chapter in - Krause, Die Pythien, Nemeen und Isthmien, vol. ii. p. 108, _seq._ - - That the Kleônæans continued without interruption to administer - the Nemean festival down to Olympiad 80 (460 B. C.), or - thereabouts, is the rational inference from Pindar, Nem. x, 42: - compare Nem. iv, 17. Eusebius, indeed, states that the Argeians - seized the administration for themselves in Olympiad 53, and - in order to reconcile this statement with the above passage in - Pindar, critics have concluded that the Argeians lost it again, - and that the Kleônæans resumed it a little before Olympiad 80. I - take a different view, and am disposed to reject the statement of - Eusebius altogether; the more so as Pindar’s tenth Nemean ode is - addressed to an Argeian citizen named Theiæus. If there had been - at that time a standing dispute between Argos and Kleônæ on the - subject of the administration of the Nemea, the poet would hardly - have introduced the mention of the Nemean prizes gained by the - ancestors of Theiæus, under the untoward designation of “prizes - received from Kleônæan men.” - - [124] See Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 1126. - - [125] K. F. Hermann, in his Lehrbuch der Griechischen - Staatsalterthümer (ch. 32, not. 7. and ch. 65, not. 3), and - again in his more recent work (Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen - Alterthümer der Griechen, part iii, ch. 49, also not. 6), both - highly valuable publications, maintains,—1. That the exaltation - of the Isthmian and Nemean games into Pan-Hellenic importance - arose directly after and out of the fall of the despots of - Corinth and Sikyon. 2. That it was brought about by the paramount - influence of the Dorians, especially by Sparta. 3. That the - Spartans put down the despots of both these two cities. - - The last of these three propositions appears to me untrue in - respect to Sikyon,—improbable in respect to Corinth: my reasons - for thinking so have been given in a former chapter. And if this - be so, the reason for presuming Spartan intervention as to the - Isthmian and Nemean games falls to the ground; for there is no - other proof of it, nor does Sparta appear to have interested - herself in any of the four national festivals except the Olympic, - with which she was from an early period peculiarly connected. - - Nor can I think that the first of Hermann’s three propositions - is at all tenable. No connection whatever can be shown between - Sikyon and the Nemean games; and it is the more improbable in - this case that the Sikyonians should have been active, inasmuch - as they had under Kleisthenês a little before contributed to - nationalize the Pythian games: a second interference for a - similar purpose ought not to be presumed without some evidence. - To prove his point about the Isthmia, Hermann cites only a - passage of Solinus (vii, 14), “Hoc spectaculum, per Cypselum - tyrannum intermissum, Corinthii Olymp. 49 solemnitati pristinæ - reddiderunt.” To render this passage at all credible, we must - read _Cypselidas_ instead of _Cypselum_, which deducts from - the value of a witness whose testimony can never under any - circumstances be rated high. But granting the alteration, there - are two reasons against the assertion of Solinus. One, a positive - reason, that Solon offered a large reward to Athenian victors at - the Isthmian games: his legislation falls in 594 B. C., ten years - before the time when the Isthmia are said by Solinus to have been - renewed after a long intermission. The other reason (negative, - though to my mind also powerful) is the silence of Herodotus in - that long invective which he puts into the mouth of Sosiklês - against the Kypselids (v, 92). If Kypselus had really been - guilty of so great an insult to the feelings of the people as to - suppress their most solemn festival, the fact would hardly have - been omitted in the indictment which Sosiklês is made to urge - against him. Aristotle, indeed, representing Kypselus as a mild - and popular despot, introduces a contrary view of his character, - which, if we admitted it, would of itself suffice to negative the - supposition that he had suppressed the Isthmia. - -We thus perceive that the interval between 600-560 B. C. exhibits the -first historical manifestation of the Pythia, Isthmia, and Nemea,—the -first expansion of all the three from local into Pan-Hellenic -festivals. To the Olympic games, for some time the only great centre -of union among all the widely dispersed Greeks, are now added three -other sacred agônes of the like public, open, national character; -constituting visible marks, as well as tutelary bonds, of collective -Hellenism, and insuring to every Greek who went to compete in the -matches, a safe and inviolate transit even through hostile Hellenic -states.[126] These four, all in or near Peloponnesus, and one of -which occurred in each year, formed the period, or cycle, of sacred -games, and those who had gained prizes at all the four received the -enviable designation of periodonikes:[127] the honors paid to Olympic -victors on their return to their native city were prodigious, even in -the sixth century B. C., and became even more extravagant afterwards. -We may remark that in the Olympic games alone, the oldest as well -as the most illustrious of the four, the musical and intellectual -element was wanting: all the three more recent agônes included crowns -for exercises of music and poetry, along with gymnastics, chariots, -and horses. - - [126] Plutarch, Arat. c. 28. καὶ συνεχύθη τότε πρῶτον (by order - of Aratus) ἡ δεδομένη τοῖς ἀγωνισταῖς ἀσυλία καὶ ἀσφάλεια, a - deadly stain on the character of Aratus. - - [127] Festus, v, Perihodos, p. 217, ed. Müller. See the animated - protest of the philosopher Xenophanês against the great rewards - given to Olympic victors (540-520 B. C.), Xenophan. Fragment. 2, - p 357, ed. Bergk. - -Nor was it only in the distinguishing national stamp set upon -these four great festivals that the gradual increase of Hellenic -family-feeling exhibited itself, during the course of this earliest -period of our history. Pursuant to the same tendencies, religious -festivals in all the considerable towns gradually became more -and more open and accessible, and attracted guests as well as -competitors from beyond the border; the dignity of the state, as -well as the honor rendered to the presiding god, being measured by -numbers, admiration, and envy, in the frequenting visitors.[128] -There is no positive evidence, indeed, of such expansion in the Attic -festivals earlier than the reign of Peisistratus, who first added the -quadrennial or greater Panathenæa to the ancient annual or lesser -Panathenæa; nor can we trace the steps of progress in regard to -Thebes, Orchomenus, Thespiæ, Megara, Sikyôn, Pellênê, Ægina, Argos, -etc., but we find full reason for believing that such was the general -reality. Of the Olympic or Isthmian victors whom Pindar and Simonidês -celebrated, many derived a portion of their renown from previous -victories acquired at several of these local contests,[129]—victories -sometimes so numerous, as to prove how wide-spread the habit of -mutual frequentation had become;[130] though we find, even in the -third century B. C., treaties of alliance between different cities, -in which it is thought necessary to confer this mutual right by -express stipulation. Temptation was offered, to the distinguished -gymnastic or musical competitors, by prizes of great value; and -Timæus even asserted, as a proof of the overweening pride of Kroton -and Sybaris, that these cities tried to supplant the preëminence -of the Olympic games, by instituting games of their own with the -richest prizes, to be celebrated at the same time,[131]—a statement -in itself not worthy of credit, but nevertheless illustrating the -animated rivalry known to prevail among the Grecian cities in -procuring for themselves splendid and crowded games. At the time -when the Homeric Hymn to Dêmêtêr was composed, the worship of that -goddess seems to have been purely local at Eleusis; but before the -Persian war, the festival celebrated by the Athenians every year, in -honor of the Eleusinian Dêmêtêr, admitted Greeks of all cities to be -initiated, and was attended by vast crowds of them.[132] - - [128] Thucyd. vi, 16. Alkibiadês says, καὶ ὅσα αὖ ἐν τῇ πόλει - χορηγίαις ἢ ἄλλῳ τῳ λαμπρύνομαι, τοῖς μὲν ἀστοῖς φθονεῖται φύσει, - πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ξένους καὶ αὐτὴ ἰσχὺς φαίνεται. - - The greater Panathenæa are ascribed to Peisistratus by the - Scholiast on Aristeidês, vol. iii, p. 323, ed. Dindorf: judging - by what immediately precedes, the statement seems to come from - Aristotle. - - [129] Simonidês, Fragm. 154-158, ed. Bergk; Pindar, Nem. x, 45; - Olymp. xiii, 107. - - The distinguished athlete Theagenês is affirmed to have gained - twelve hundred prizes in these various agônes: according to some, - fourteen hundred prizes (Pausan. vi, 11, 2; Plutarch, Præcept. - Reip. Ger. c. 15, p. 811). - - An athlete named Apollonius arrived too late for the Olympic - games, having stayed away too long, from his anxiety to get money - at various agônes in Ionia (Pausan. v, 21, 5). - - [130] See, particularly, the treaty between the inhabitants of - Latus and those of Olûs in Krête, in Boeckh’s Corp. Inscr. No. - 2554, wherein this reciprocity is expressly stipulated. Boeckh - places this Inscription in the third century B. C. - - [131] Timæus, Fragm. 82, ed. Didot. The Krotoniates furnished a - great number of victors both to the Olympic and to the Pythian - games (Herodot. viii, 47; Pausan. x, 5, 5–x, 7, 3; Krause, - Gymnastik und Agonistik der Hellenen, vol. ii, sect. 29, p. 752). - - [132] Herodot. viii, 65. καὶ αὐτῶν ὁ βουλόμενος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων - Ἑλλήνων μυεῖται. - - The exclusion of all competitors, natives of Lampsakus, from - the games celebrated in the Chersonesus to the honor of the - œkist Miltiadês, is mentioned by Herodotus as something special - (Herodot. vi, 38). - -It was thus that the simplicity and strict local application of -the primitive religious festival, among the greater states in -Greece, gradually expanded, on certain great occasions periodically -recurring, into an elaborate and regulated series of exhibitions,—not -merely admitting, but soliciting the fraternal presence of all -Hellenic spectators. In this respect Sparta seems to have formed -an exception to the remaining states: her festivals were for -herself alone, and her general rudeness towards other Greeks was -not materially softened even at the Karneia,[133] or Hyakinthia, or -Gymnopædiæ. On the other hand, the Attic Dionysia were gradually -exalted, from their original rude spontaneous outburst of village -feeling in thankfulness to the god, followed by song, dance, and -revelry of various kinds,—into costly and diversified performances, -first, by a trained chorus, next, by actors superadded to it;[134] -and the dramatic compositions thus produced, as they embodied the -perfection of Grecian art, so they were eminently calculated to -invite a Pan-Hellenic audience and to encourage the sentiment of -Hellenic unity. The dramatic literature of Athens, however, belongs -properly to a later period; previous to the year 560 B. C., we see -only those commencements of innovation which drew upon Thespis[135] -the rebuke of Solon, who himself contributed to impart to the -Panathenaic festival a more solemn and attractive character, by -checking the license of the rhapsodes, and insuring to those present -a full, orderly recital of the Iliad. - - [133] See the remarks, upon the Lacedæmonian discouragement of - stranger-visitors at their public festivals, put by Thucydidês - into the mouth of Periklês (Thucyd. ii, 39). - - Lichas the Spartan gained great renown by treating hospitably - the strangers who came to the Gymnopædiæ at Sparta (Xenophon, - Memorab. i, 2, 61; Plutarch, Kimon, c. 10),—a story which proves - that _some_ strangers came to the Spartan festivals, but which - also proves that they were not many in number, and that to show - them hospitality was a striking distinction from the general - character of Spartans. - - [134] Aristot. Poetic, c. 3 and 4; Maximus Tyrius. Diss. xxi. p. - 215; Plutarch. De Cupidine Divitiarum. c. 8. p. 527: compare the - treatise, “Quod non potest suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum.” c. - 16. p. 1098. The old oracles quoted by Demosthenês, cont. Meidiam - (c. 15. p. 531. and cont. Makartat. p. 1072: see also Buttmann’s - note on the former passage), convey the idea of the ancient - simple Athenian festival. - - [135] Plutarch. Solon, c. 29: see above, chap. xi. vol. iii. p. - 195. - -The sacred games and festivals, here alluded to as a class, took -hold of the Greek mind by so great a variety of feelings,[136] as -to counterbalance in a high degree the political disseverance, -and to keep alive among their wide-spread cities, in the midst of -constant jealousy and frequent quarrel, a feeling of brotherhood -and congenial sentiment such as must otherwise have died away. The -Theôrs, or sacred envoys, who came to Olympia or Delphi from so many -different points, all sacrificed to the same god and at the same -altar, witnessed the same sports, and contributed by their donatives -to enrich or adorn one respected scene. Nor must we forget that the -festival afforded opportunity for a sort of fair, including much -traffic amid so large a mass of spectators,[137] and besides the -exhibitions of the games themselves, there were recitations and -lectures in a spacious council-room for those who chose to listen -to them, by poets, rhapsodes, philosophers, and historians,—among -which last, the history of Herodotus is said to have been publicly -read by its author.[138] Of the wealthy and great men in the various -cities, many contended simply for the chariot victories and horse -victories. But there were others whose ambition was of a character -more strictly personal, and who stripped naked as runners, wrestlers, -boxers, or pankratiasts, having gone through the extreme fatigue of -a complete previous training. Kylon, whose unfortunate attempt to -usurp the sceptre at Athens has been recounted, had gained the prize -in the Olympic stadium: Alexander son of Amyntas, the prince of -Macedon, had run for it.[139] The great family of the Diagoridæ at -Rhodes, who furnished magistrates and generals to their native city, -supplied a still greater number of successful boxers and pankratiasts -at Olympia, while other instances also occur of generals named by -various cities from the lists of successful Olympic gymnasts; and the -odes of Pindar, always dearly purchased, attest how many of the great -and wealthy were found in that list.[140] The perfect popularity -and equality of persons at these great games, is a feature not less -remarkable than the exact adherence to predetermined rule, and the -self-imposed submission of the immense crowd to a handful of servants -armed with sticks,[141] who executed the orders of the Eleian -Hellanodikæ. The ground upon which the ceremony took place, and even -the territory of the administering state, was protected by a “Truce -of God,” during the month of the festival, the commencement of which -was formally announced by heralds sent round to the different states. -Treaties of peace between different cities were often formally -commemorated by pillars there erected, and the general impression -of the scene suggested nothing but ideas of peace and brotherhood -among Greeks.[142] And I may remark that the impression of the games -as belonging to all Greeks, and to none but Greeks, was stronger -and clearer during the interval between 600-300 B. C., than it came -to be afterwards. For the Macedonian conquests had the effect of -diluting and corrupting Hellenism, by spreading an exterior varnish -of Hellenic tastes and manners over a wide area of incongruous -foreigners, who were incapable of the real elevation of the Hellenic -character; so that although in later times the games continued -undiminished, both in attraction and in number of visitors, the -spirit of Pan-Hellenic communion, which had once animated the scene, -was gone forever. - - [136] The orator Lysias, in a fragment of his lost Panegyrical - Oration preserved by Dionysius of Halikarnassus (vol. v. p. 520 - R.), describes the influence of the games with great force and - simplicity. Hêraklês, the founder of them, ἀγῶνα μὲν σωμάτων - ἐποίησε, φιλοτιμίαν δὲ πλούτῳ, γνώμης δ᾽ ἐπίδειξιν ἐν τῷ καλλίστῳ - τῆς Ἑλλάδος· ἵνα τούτων ἁπάντων ἕνεκα ἐς τὸ αὐτὸ ἔλθωμεν, τὰ μὲν - ὀψόμενοι, τὰ δὲ ἀκουσόμενοι. Ἡγήσατο γὰρ τὸν ἐνθάδε σύλλογον - ~ἀρχὴν γενέσθαι τοῖς Ἕλλησι τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους φιλίας~. - - [137] Cicero, Tusc. Quæst. v, 3. “_Mercatum_ eum, qui haberetur - maximo ludorum apparatu totius Græciæ celebritate: nam ut illic - alii corporibus exercitatis gloriam et nobilitatem coronæ - peterent, alii emendi aut vendendi quæstu et lucro ducerentur,” - etc. - - Both Velleius Paterculus also (i, 8) and Justin (xiii, 5), call - the Olympic festival by the name _mercatus_. - - There were booths all round the Altis, or sacred precinct of Zeus - (Schol. Pindar. Olymp. xi, 55), during the time of the games. - - Strabo observes with justice, respecting the multitudinous - festivals generally—Ἡ πανήγυρις, ἐμπορικόν τι πρᾶγμα (x, p. 486), - especially in reference to Delos: see Cicero pro Lege Maniliâ, c. - 18: compare Pausanias, x, 32, 9, about the Panegyris and fair at - Tithorea in Phokis, and Becker, Chariklês, vol. i, p. 283. - - At the Attic festival of the Herakleia, celebrated by the - communion called Mesogei, or a certain number of the demes - constituting Mesogæa, a regular market-due, or ἀγοραστικὸν, was - levied upon those who brought goods to sell (Inscriptiones Atticæ - nuper repertæ 12, by E. Curtius, pp. 3-7). - - [138] Pausan. vi, 23, 5; Diodor. xiv, 109, xv, 7; Lucian, Quomodo - Historia sit conscribenda, c. 42. See Krause, Olympia, sect. 29. - pp. 183-186. - - [139] Thucyd. i, 120; Herodot. v, 22-71. Eurybatês of Argos - (Herodot. vi, 92); Philippus and Phayllus of Kroton (v, 47; viii, - 47); Eualkidês of Eretria (v, 102); Hermolykus of Athens (ix, - 105). - - Pindar (Nem. iv and vi) gives the numerous victories of the - Bassidæ and Theandridræ at Ægina: also Melissus the pankratiast - and his ancestors the Kleonymidæ of Thebes—τιμάεντες ἀρχᾶθεν - πρόξενοί τ᾽ ἐπιχωρίων (Isthm. iii, 25). - - Respecting the extreme celebrity of Diagoras and his sons, of - the Rhodian gens Eratidæ, Damagêtus, Akusilaus, and Dorieus, see - Pindar, Olymp. vii, 16-145, with the Scholia; Thucyd. iii, 11; - Pausan. vi, 7, 1-2; Xenophon, Hellenic. i, 5, 19: compare Strabo. - xiv, p. 655. - - [140] The Latin writers remark it as a peculiarity of Grecian - feeling, as distinguished from Roman, that men of great station - accounted it an honor to contend in the games: see, as a - specimen, Tacitus, Dialogus de Orator. c. 9. “Ac si in Græciâ - natus esses, ubi ludicras quoque artes exercere honestum est, ac - tibi Nicostrati robur Dii dedissent, non paterer immanes illos - et ad pugnam natos lacertos levitate jaculi vanescere.” Again, - Cicero, pro Flacco, c. 13, in his sarcastic style: “Quid si etiam - occisus est a piratis Adramyttenus, homo nobilis, cujus est fere - nobis omnibus nomen auditum, Atinas pugil, Olympionices? hoc est - apud Græcos (quoniam de corum _gravitate_ dicimus) prope majus et - gloriosius, quam Romæ triumphasse.” - - [141] Lichas, one of the chief men of Sparta, and moreover a - chariot-victor, received actual chastisement on the ground, from - these staff-bearers, for an infringement of the regulations - (Thucyd. v, 50). - - [142] Thucyd. v, 18-47. and the curious ancient Inscription in - Boeckh’s Corpus Inscr. No. 11. p. 28. recording the convention - between the Eleians and the inhabitants of the Arcadian town of - Heræa. - - The comparison of various passages referring to the Olympia, - Isthmia, and Nemea (Thucydidês iii, 11; viii, 9-10; v, 49-51; - and Xenophon, Hellenic. iv, 7, 2; v, 1, 29) shows that various - political business was often discussed at these Games,—that - diplomatists made use of the intercourse for the purpose of - detecting the secret designs of states whom they suspected, and - that the administering state often practised manœuvres in respect - to the obligations of truce for the Hieromenia, or Holy Month. - - - - -CHAPTER XXIX. - -LYRIC POETRY. — THE SEVEN WISE MEN. - - -The interval between 776-560 B. C. presents to us a remarkable -expansion of Grecian genius in the creation of their elegiac, iambic, -lyric, choric, and gnomic poetry, which was diversified in a great -many ways and improved by many separate masters. The creators of -all these different styles—from Kallinus and Archilochus down to -Stesichorus—fall within the two centuries here included; though -Pindar and Simonidês, “the proud and high-crested bards,”[143] -who carried lyric and choric poetry to the maximum of elaboration -consistent with full poetical effect, lived in the succeeding -century, and were contemporary with the tragedian Æschylus. The -Grecian drama, comic as well as tragic, of the fifth century B. -C., combined the lyric and choric song with the living action of -iambic dialogue,—thus constituting the last ascending movement in the -poetical genius of the race. Reserving this for a future time, and -for the history of Athens, to which it more particularly belongs, I -now propose to speak only of the poetical movement of the two earlier -centuries, wherein Athens had little or no part. So scanty are the -remnants, unfortunately, of these earlier poets, that we can offer -little except criticisms borrowed at second-hand, and a few general -considerations on their workings and tendency.[144] - - [143] Himerius, Orat. iii, p. 426, Wernsdorf—ἀγέρωχοι καὶ - ὑψαυχένες. - - [144] For the whole subject of this chapter, the eleventh, - twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth chapters of O. Müller’s - History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, wherein the lyric - poets are handled with greater length than consists with the - limits of this work, will be found highly valuable,—chapters - abounding in erudition and ingenuity, but not always within the - limits of the evidence. - - The learned work of Ulrici (Geschichte der Griechischen - Poesie—_Lyrik_) is still more open to the same remark. - -Archilochus and Kallinus both appear to fall about the middle of -the seventh century B. C., and it is with them that the innovations -in Grecian poetry commence. Before them, we are told, there existed -nothing but the epos, or daktylic hexameter poetry, of which much -has been said in my former volume,—being legendary stories or -adventures narrated, together with addresses or hymns to the gods. -We must recollect, too, that this was not only the whole poetry, but -the whole literature of the age: prose composition was altogether -unknown, and writing, if beginning to be employed as an aid to a few -superior men, was at any rate generally unused, and found no reading -public. The voice was the only communicant, and the ear the only -recipient, of all those ideas and feelings which productive minds in -the community found themselves impelled to pour out; both voice and -ear being accustomed to a musical recitation, or chant, apparently -something between song and speech, with simple rhythm and a still -simpler occasional accompaniment from the primitive four-stringed -harp. Such habits and requirements of the voice and ear were, at -that time, inseparably associated with the success and popularity -of the poet, and contributed doubtless to restrict the range of -subjects with which he could deal. The type was to a certain extent -consecrated, like the primitive statues of the gods, from which -men only ventured to deviate by gradual and almost unconscious -innovations. Moreover, in the first half of the seventh century B. -C., that genius which had once created an Iliad and an Odyssey was no -longer to be found, and the work of hexameter narrative had come to -be prosecuted by less gifted persons,—by those Cyclic poets of whom I -have spoken in the preceding volumes. - -Such, as far as we can make it out amidst very uncertain evidence, -was the state of the Greek mind immediately before elegiac and lyric -poets appeared; while at the same time its experience was enlarging -by the formation of new colonies, and the communion among its various -states tended to increase by the freer reciprocity of religious games -and festivals. There arose a demand for turning the literature of the -age—I use this word as synonymous with the poetry—to new feelings and -purposes, and for applying the rich, plastic, and musical language of -the old epic, to present passion and circumstance, social as well as -individual. Such a tendency had become obvious in Hesiod, even within -the range of hexameter verse; but the same causes which led to an -enlargement of the subjects of poetry inclined men also to vary the -metre. - -In regard to this latter point, there is reason to believe that the -expansion of Greek music was the immediate determining cause; for -it has been already stated that the musical scale and instruments -of the Greeks, originally very narrow, were materially enlarged -by borrowing from Phrygia and Lydia, and these acquisitions seem -to have been first realized about the beginning of the seventh -century B. C., through the Lesbian harper Terpander,—the Phrygian -(or Greco-Phrygian) flute-player Olympus,—and the Arkadian or -Bœotian flute-player Klonas. Terpander made the important advance of -exchanging the original four-stringed harp for one of seven strings, -embracing the compass of one octave or two Greek tetrachords, and -Olympus as well as Klonas taught many new nomes, or tunes, on the -flute, to which the Greeks had before been strangers,—probably also -the use of a flute of more varied musical compass. Terpander is -said to have gained the prize at the first recorded celebration of -the Lacedæmonian festival of the Karneia, in 676 B. C.: this is -one of the best-ascertained points among the obscure chronology of -the seventh century; and there seem grounds for assigning Olympus -and Klonas to nearly the same period, a little before Archilochus -and Kallinus.[145] To Terpander, Olympus, and Klonas, are ascribed -the formation of the earliest musical nomes known to the inquiring -Greeks of later times: to the first, nomes on the harp; to the two -latter, on the flute,—every nome being the general scheme, or basis, -of which the airs actually performed constituted so many variations, -within certain defined limits.[146] Terpander employed his enlarged -instrumental power as a new accompaniment to the Homeric poems, as -well as to certain epic proœmia or hymns to the gods of his own -composition. But he does not seem to have departed from the hexameter -verse and the daktylic rhythm, to which the new accompaniment -was probably not quite suitable; and the idea may thus have been -suggested of combining the words also according to new rhythmical and -metrical laws. - - [145] These early innovators in Grecian music, rhythm, metre, - and poetry, belonging to the seventh century B. C., were very - imperfectly known, even to those contemporaries of Plato and - Aristotle who tried to get together facts for a consecutive - history of music. The treatise of Plutarch, De Musicâ, shows - what very contradictory statements he found. He quotes from - four different authors,—Herakleidês, Glaukus, Alexander, and - Aristoxenus, who by no means agreed in their series of names - and facts. The first three of them blend together mythe and - history; while even the Anagraphê or inscription at Sikyon, which - professed to give a continuous list of such poets and musicians - as had contended at the Sikyonian games, began with a large stock - of mythical names,—Amphion, Linus, Pierius, etc. (Plutarch, - Music. p. 1132.) Some authors, according to Plutarch (p. 1133), - made the great chronological mistake of placing Terpander as - contemporary with Hippônax; a proof how little of chronological - evidence was then accessible. - - That Terpander was victor at the Spartan festival of the Karneia, - in 676 B. C., may well have been derived by Hellanikus from the - Spartan registers: the name of the Lesbian harper Perikleitas, as - having gained the same prize at some subsequent period (Plutarch, - De Mus. p. 1133), probably rests on the same authority. That - Archilochus was rather later than Terpander, and Thalêtas rather - later than Archilochus, was the statement of Glaukus (Plutarch, - De Mus. p. 1134). Klonas and Polymnêstus are placed later than - Terpander; Archilochus later than Klonas: Alkman is said to have - mentioned Polymnêstus in one of his songs (pp. 1133-1135). It - can hardly be true that Terpander gained _four_ Pythian prizes, - if the festival was octennial prior to its reconstitution by - the Amphiktyons (p. 1132). Sakadas gained three Pythian prizes - _after_ that period, when the festival was quadrennial (p. 1134). - - Compare the confused indications in Pollux, iv, 65-66, 78-79. The - abstract given by Photius of certain parts of the Chrestomathia - of Proclus (published in Gaisford’s edition of Hephæstion, pp. - 375-389), is also extremely valuable, in spite of its brevity and - obscurity, about the lyric and choric poetry of Greece. - - [146] The difference between Νόμος and Μέλος appears in Plutarch, - De Musicâ, p. 1132—Καὶ τὸν Τέρπανδρον, κιθαρῳδικῶν ποιητὴν ὄντα - νόμων, κατὰ νόμον ἕκαστον τοῖς ἔπεσι τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τοῖς Ὁμήρου - μέλη περιτιθέντα, ᾅδειν ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι· ἀποφῆναι δὲ τοῦτον λέγει - ὀνόματα πρῶτον τοῖς κιθαρῳδικοῖς νόμοις. - - The nomes were not many in number; they went by special names; - and there was a disagreement of opinion as to the persons who had - composed them (Plutarch, Music. p. 1133). They were monodic, not - choric,—intended to be sung by one person (Aristot. Problem. xix, - 15). Herodot. i, 23, about Arion and the Nomus Orthius. - -It is certain, at least, that the age (670-600) immediately -succeeding Terpander,—comprising Archilochus, Kallinus, Tyrtæus, and -Alkman, whose relations of time one to another we have no certain -means of determining,[147] though Alkman seems to have been the -latest,—presents a remarkable variety both of new metres and of new -rhythms, superinduced upon the previous daktylic hexameter. The -first departure from this latter is found in the elegiac verse, -employed seemingly more or less by all the four above-mentioned -poets, but chiefly by the first two, and even ascribed by some to -the invention of Kallinus. Tyrtæus in his military march-songs -employed the anapæstic metre, but in Archilochus as well as in Alkman -we find traces of a much larger range of metrical variety,—iambic, -trochaic, anapæstic, ionic, etc.,—sometimes even asynartetic or -compound metres, anapæstic or daktylic, blended with trochaic or -iambic. What we have remaining from Mimnermus, who comes about the -close of the preceding four, is elegiac; his contemporaries Alkæus -and Sappho, besides employing most of those metres which they found -existing, invented each a peculiar stanza of their own, which is -familiarly known under a name derived from each. In Solon, the -younger contemporary of Mimnermus, we have the elegiac, iambic, and -trochaic: in Theognis, yet later, the elegiac only. But both Arion -and Stesichorus appear to have been innovators in this department, -the former by his improvement in the dithyrambic chorus or circular -song and dance in honor of Dionysus,—the latter by his more elaborate -choric compositions, containing not only a strophê and antistrophê, -but also a third division or epode succeeding them, pronounced by the -chorus standing still. Both Anakreon and Ibykus likewise added to the -stock of existing metrical varieties. And we thus see that, within -the century and a half succeeding Terpander, Greek poetry (or Greek -literature, which was then the same thing) became greatly enriched in -matter as well as diversified in form. - - [147] Mr. Clinton (Fasti Hellen. ad ann. 671, 665, 644) appears - to me noway satisfactory in his chronological arrangements of - the poets of this century. I agree with O. Müller (Hist. of - Literat. of Ancient Greece, ch. xii, 9) in thinking that he makes - Terpander too recent, and Thalêtas too ancient; I also believe - both Kallinus and Alkman to have been more recent than the place - which Mr. Clinton assigns to them; the epoch of Tyrtæus will - depend upon the date which we assign to the second Messenian war. - - How very imperfectly the chronology of the poetical names even - of the sixth century B. C.—Sappho, Anakreon, Hippônax—was known - even to writers of the beginning of the Ptolemaic age (or - shortly after 300 B. C.), we may see by the mistakes noted in - Athenæus, xiii, p. 599. Hermesianax of Kolophon, the elegiac - poet, represented Anakreon as the lover of Sappho; this might - perhaps be not absolutely impossible, if we supposed in Sappho an - old age like that of Ninon de l’Enclos; but others (even earlier - than Hermesianax, since they are quoted by Chamæleon) represented - Anakreon, when in old age, as addressing verses to Sappho, - still young. Again, the comic writer Diphilus introduced both - Archilochus and Hippônax as the lovers of Sappho. - -To a certain extent there seems to have been a real connection -between the two: new forms were essential for the expression of -new wants and feelings,—though the assertion that elegiac metre is -especially adapted for one set of feelings,[148] trochaic for a -second, and iambic for a third, if true at all, can only be admitted -with great latitude of exception, when we find so many of them -employed by the poets for very different subjects,—gay or melancholy, -bitter or complaining, earnest or sprightly,—seemingly with little -discrimination. - - [148] The Latin poets and the Alexandrine critics seem to have - both insisted on the natural mournfulness of the elegiac metre - (Ovid, Heroid. xv, 7; Horat. Art. Poet. 75): see also the - fanciful explanation given by Didymus in the Etymologicon Magnum, - v. Ἔλεγος. - - We learn from Hephæstion (c. viii, p. 45, Gaisf.) that the - anapæstic march-metre of Tyrtæus was employed by the comic - writers also, for a totally different vein of feeling. See the - Dissertation of Franck, Callinus, pp. 37-48 (Leips. 1816). - - Of the remarks made by O. Müller respecting the metres of these - early poets (History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, ch. - xi, s. 8-12, etc.; ch. xii, s. 1-2, etc.), many appear to be - uncertified and disputable. - - For some good remarks on the fallibility of men’s impressions - respecting the natural and inherent ἦθος of particular metres, - see Adam Smith (Theory of Moral Sentiment, part v, ch. i, p. - 329), in the edition of his works by Dugald Stewart. - -But the adoption of some new metre, different from the perpetual -series of hexameters, was required when the poet desired to do -something more than recount a long story or fragment of heroic -legend,—when he sought to bring himself, his friends, his enemies, -his city, his hopes and fears with regard to matters recent or -impending, all before the notice of the hearer, and that, too, at -once with brevity and animation. The Greek hexameter, like our blank -verse, has all its limiting conditions bearing upon each separate -line, and presents to the hearer no predetermined resting-place or -natural pause beyond.[149] In reference to any long composition, -either epic or dramatic, such unrestrained license is found -convenient, and the case was similar for Greek epos and drama,—the -single-lined iambic trimeter being generally used for the dialogue -of tragedy and comedy, just as the daktylic hexameter had been -used for the epic. The metrical changes introduced by Archilochus -and his contemporaries may be compared to a change from our blank -verse to the rhymed couplet and quatrain: the verse was thrown into -little systems of two, three, or four lines, with a pause at the -end of each; and the halt thus assured to, as well as expected and -relished by, the ear, was generally coincident with a close, entire -or partial, in the sense, which thus came to be distributed with -greater point and effect. The elegiac verse, or common hexameter and -pentameter (this second line being an hexameter with the third and -sixth thesis,[150] or the last half of the third and sixth foot, -suppressed, and a pause left in place of it), as well as the epode -(or iambic trimeter followed by an iambic dimeter) and some other -binary combinations of verse which we trace among the fragments of -Archilochus, are conceived with a view to such increase of effect -both on the ear and the mind, not less than to the direct pleasures -of novelty and variety. - - [149] See the observations in Aristotle (Rhetor. iii, 9) on - the λέξις εἰρομένη as compared with λέξις κατεστραμμένη·—λέξις - εἰρομένη, ἣ οὐδὲν ἔχει τέλος αὐτὴ καθ᾽ αὑτὴν, ἂν μὴ τὸ πρᾶγμα τὸ - λεγόμενον τελειώθη·—κατεστραμμένη δὲ, ἡ ἐν περιόδοις· λέγω δὲ - περίοδον, λέξιν ἔχουσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ τελευτὴν αὐτὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν καὶ - μέγεθος εὐσύνοπτον. - - [150] I employ, however unwillingly, the word _thesis_ here - (arsis and thesis) in the sense in which it is used by G. Hermann - (“Illud tempus, in quo ictus est, _arsin_; ea tempora, quæ carent - ictu, _thesin_ vocamus,” Element. Doctr. Metr. sect. 15), and - followed by Boeckh, in his Dissertation on the Metres of Pindar - (i, 4), though I agree with Dr. Barham (in the valuable Preface - to his edition of Hephæstion, Cambridge, 1843, pp. 5-8) that the - opposite sense of the words would be the preferable one, just as - it was the original sense in which they were used by the best - Greek musical writers: Dr. Barham’s Preface is very instructive - on the difficult subject of ancient rhythm generally. - -The iambic metre, built upon the primitive iambus, or coarse and -licentious jesting,[151] which formed a part of some Grecian -festivals (especially of the festivals of Dêmêtêr as well in -Attica as in Paros, the native country of the poet), is only one -amongst many new paths struck out by his inventive genius; whose -exuberance astonishes us, when we consider that he takes his start -from little more than the simple hexameter,[152] in which, too, he -was a distinguished composer,—for even of the elegiac verse he is -as likely to have been the inventor as Kallinus, just as he was -the earliest popular and successful composer of table-songs, or -Skolia, though Terpander may have originated some such before him. -The entire loss of his poems, excepting some few fragments, enables -us to recognize little more than one characteristic,—the intense -personality which pervaded them, as well as that coarse, direct, -and out-spoken license, which afterwards lent such terrible effect -to the old comedy at Athens. His lampoons are said to have driven -Lykambês, the father of Neobulê, to hang himself: the latter had been -promised to Archilochus in marriage, but that promise was broken, -and the poet assailed both father and daughter with every species of -calumny.[153] In addition to this disappointment, he was poor, the -son of a slave-mother, and an exile from his country, Paros, to the -unpromising colony of Thasos. The desultory notices respecting him -betray a state of suffering combined with loose conduct which vented -itself sometimes in complaint, sometimes in libellous assault; and -he was at last slain by some whom his muse had thus exasperated. -His extraordinary poetical genius finds but one voice of encomium -throughout antiquity. His triumphal song to Hêraklês was still -popularly sung by the victors at Olympia, near two centuries after -his death, in the days of Pindar; but that majestic and complimentary -poet at once denounces the malignity, and attests the retributive -suffering, of the great Parian iambist.[154] - - [151] Homer, Hymn. ad Cererem. 202; Hesychius, v. Γεφυρὶς; - Herodot. v, 83; Diodor. v, 4. There were various gods at whose - festivals scurrility (τωθασμὸς) was a consecrated practice, - seemingly different festivals in different places (Aristot. - Politic. vii, 15, 8). - - The reader will understand better what this consecrated - scurrility means by comparing the description of a modern - traveller in the kingdom of Naples (Tour through the Southern - Provinces of the Kingdom of Naples, by Mr. Keppel Craven, London, - 1821, ch. xv, p. 287):— - - “I returned to Gerace (the site of the ancient Epizephyrian - Lokri) by one of those moonlights which are known only in these - latitudes, and which no pen or pencil can portray. My path lay - along some cornfields, in which the natives were employed in the - last labors of the harvest, and I was not a little surprised to - find myself saluted with a volley of opprobrious epithets and - abusive language, uttered in the most threatening voice, and - accompanied with the most insulting gestures. This extraordinary - custom is of the most remote antiquity, and is observed towards - all strangers during the harvest and vintage seasons; those - who are apprized of it will keep their temper as well as their - presence of mind, as the loss of either would only serve as a - signal for still louder invectives, and prolong a contest in - which success would be as hopeless as undesirable.” - - [152] The chief evidence for the rhythmical and metrical changes - introduced by Archilochus is to be found in the 28th chapter of - Plutarch, De Musicâ, pp. 1140-1141, in words very difficult to - understand completely. See Ulrici, Geschichte der Hellenisch. - Poesie, vol. ii, p. 381. - - The epigram ascribed to Theokritus (No. 18 in Gaisford’s - Poetæ Minores) shows that the poet had before him hexameter - compositions of Archilochus, as well as lyric:— - - ὡς ἐμμελὴς τ᾽ ἔγεντο κἀπιδέξιος - ἐπεά τε ποιεῖν, πρὸς λύραν τ᾽ ἀείδειν - - See the article on Archilochus in Welcker’s Kleine Schriften, - pp. 71-82, which has the merit of showing that iambic bitterness - is far from being the only marked feature in his character and - genius. - - [153] See Meleager, Epigram. cxix, 3; Horat. Epist. 19, 23, and - Epod. vi, 13 with the Scholiast; Ælian. V. H. x, 13. - - [154] Pindar, Pyth. ii, 55; Olymp. ix, 1, with the Scholia; - Euripid. Hercul. Furens, 583-683. The eighteenth epigram of - Theokritus (above alluded to) conveys a striking tribute of - admiration to Archilochus: compare Quintilian, x, 1, and Liebel. - ad Archilochi Fragmenta, sects. 5, 6, 7. - -Amidst the multifarious veins in which Archilochus displayed his -genius, moralizing or gnomic poetry is not wanting, while his -contemporary Simonides, of Amorgos, devotes the iambic metre -especially to this destination, afterwards followed out by Solon and -Theognis. But Kallinus, the earliest celebrated elegiac poet, so far -as we can judge from his few fragments, employed the elegiac metre -for exhortations of warlike patriotism; and the more ample remains -which we possess of Tyrtæus are sermons in the same strain, preaching -to the Spartans bravery against the foe, and unanimity as well as -obedience to the law at home. They are patriotic effusions, called -forth by the circumstances of the time, and sung by single voice, -with accompaniment of the flute,[155] to those in whose bosoms the -flame of courage was to be kindled. For though what we peruse is in -verse, we are still in the tide of real and present life, and we -must suppose ourselves rather listening to an orator addressing the -citizens when danger or dissension is actually impending. It is only -in the hands of Mimnermus that elegiac verse comes to be devoted -to soft and amatory subjects. His few fragments present a vein of -passive and tender sentiment, illustrated by appropriate matter of -legend, such as would be cast into poetry in all ages, and quite -different from the rhetoric of Kallinus and Tyrtæus. - - [155] Athenæus, xiv, p. 630. - -The poetical career of Alkman is again distinct from that of any -of his above-mentioned contemporaries. Their compositions, besides -hymns to the gods, were principally expressions of feeling intended -to be sung by individuals, though sometimes also suited for the -kômus, or band of festive volunteers, assembled on some occasion of -common interest: those of Alkman were principally choric, intended -for the song and accompanying dance of the chorus. He was a native -of Sardis in Lydia, or at least his family were so; and he appears -to have come in early life to Sparta, though his genius and mastery -of the Greek language discountenance the story that he was brought -over to Sparta as a slave. The most ancient arrangement of music at -Sparta, generally ascribed to Terpander,[156] underwent considerable -alteration, not only through the elegiac and anapæstic measures of -Tyrtæus, but also through the Kretan Thalêtas and the Lydian Alkman. -The harp, the instrument of Terpander, was rivalled and in part -superseded by the flute or pipe, which had been recently rendered -more effective in the hands of Olympus, Klonas, and Polymnêstus, and -which gradually became, for compositions intended to raise strong -emotion, the favorite instrument of the two,—being employed as -accompaniment both to the elegies of Tyrtæus, and to the hyporchemata -(songs, or hymns, combined with dancing) of Thalêtas; also, as the -stimulus and regulator to the Spartan military march.[157] - - [156] Plutarch, De Musicâ, pp. 1134, 1135; Aristotle, De - Lacedæmon. Republicâ, Fragm. xi, p. 132, ed. Neumann; Plutarch, - De Serâ Numin. Vindict. c. 13, p. 558. - - [157] Thucyd. v, 69-70, with the Scholia,—μετὰ τῶν πολεμικῶν - νόμων ... Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ βραδέως καὶ ὑπὸ αὐλητῶν πολλῶν νόμῳ - ἐγκαθεστώτων, οὐ τοῦ θείου χάριν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ὁμαλῶς μετὰ ῥυθμοῦ - βαίνοιεν, καὶ μὴ διασπασθείη αὐτοῖς ἡ τάξις. - - Cicero, Tuscul. Qu. ii, 16. “Spartiatarum quorum procedit Mora ad - tibiam, neque adhibetur ulla sine anapæstis pedibus hortatio.” - - The flute was also the instrument appropriated to Kômus, or the - excited movement of half-intoxicated revellers (Hesiod. Scut. - Hercul. 280; Athenæ. xiv, pp. 617-618). - -These elegies (as has been just remarked) were sung by one person, -in the midst of an assembly of listeners, and there were doubtless -other compositions intended for the individual voice. But in general -such was not the character of music and poetry at Sparta; everything -done there, both serious and recreative, was public and collective, -so that the chorus and its performances received extraordinary -development. It has been already stated, that the chorus usually, -with song and dance combined, constituted an important part of -divine service throughout all Greece, and was originally a public -manifestation of the citizens generally,—a large proportion of -them being actively engaged in it,[158] and receiving some training -for the purpose as an ordinary branch of education. Neither the -song nor the dance, under such conditions, could be otherwise than -extremely simple. But in process of time, the performance at the -chief festivals tended to become more elaborate, and to fall into -the hands of persons expressly and professionally trained,—the mass -of the citizens gradually ceasing to take active part, and being -present merely as spectators. Such was the practice which grew up in -most parts of Greece, and especially at Athens, where the dramatic -chorus acquired its highest perfection. But the drama never found -admission at Sparta, and the peculiarity of Spartan life tended much -to keep up the popular chorus on its ancient footing. It formed, in -fact, one element in that never-ceasing drill to which the Spartans -were subject from their boyhood, and it served a purpose analogous -to their military training, in accustoming them to simultaneous and -regulated movement,—insomuch that the comparison between the chorus, -especially in its Pyrrhic, or war-dances, and the military enomoty, -seems to have been often dwelt upon.[159] In the singing of the -solemn pæan in honor of Apollo, at the festival of the Hyakinthia, -king Agesilaus was under the orders of the chorus-master, and sang -in the place allotted to him;[160] while the whole body of Spartans -without exception,—the old, the middle-aged, and the youth, the -matrons, and the virgins,—were distributed in various choric -companies,[161] and trained to harmony both of voice and motion, -which was publicly exhibited at the solemnities of the Gymnopædiæ. -The word _dancing_ must be understood in a larger sense than that -in which it is now employed, and as comprising every variety of -rhythmical, accentuated, conspiring movements, or gesticulations, -or postures of the body, from the slowest to the quickest;[162] -cheironomy, or the decorous and expressive movement of the hands, -being especially practised. - - [158] Plato, Legg. vii, p. 803. θύοντα καὶ ᾅδοντα καὶ ὀρχούμενον, - ὥστε τοὺς μὲν θεοὺς ἱλέως αὑτῷ παρασκευάζειν δυνατὸν εἶναι, - etc.: compare p. 799; Maximus Tyr. Diss. xxxvii, 4: Aristophan. - Ran. 950-975; Athenæus, xiv, p. 626; Polyb. iv, 30; Lucian, De - Saltatione, c. 10, 11, 16, 31. - - Compare Aristotle (Problem xix, 15) about the primitive character - and subsequent change of the chorus; and the last chapter of the - eighth book of his Politica: also, a striking passage in Plutarch - (De Cupidine Divitiarum, c. 8, p. 527) about the transformation - of the Dionysiac festival at Chæroneia from simplicity to - costliness. - - [159] Athenæus, xiv, p. 628; Suidas, vol. iii, p. 715, ed. - Kuster; Plutarch, Instituta Laconica, c. 32,—κωμῳδίας καὶ - τραγῳδίας οὐκ ἠκρόωντο, ὅπως μήτε ἐν σπουδῇ, μήτε ἐν παιδίᾳ, - ἀκούωσι τῶν ἀντιλεγόντων τοῖς νόμοις,—which exactly corresponds - with the ethical view implied in the alleged conversation between - Solon and Thespis (Plutarch, Solon, c. 29: see above, ch. xi, - vol. ii, p. 195), and with Plato, Legg. vii, p. 817. - - [160] Xenophon, Agesilaus ii, 17. οἴκαδε ἀπελθὼν εἰς τὰ Ὑακίνθια, - ὅπου ἐτάχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ χοροποιοῦ, τὸν παιᾶνα τῷ θεῷ συνεπετέλει. - - [161] Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 14, 16, 21: Athenæus, xiv, pp. - 631-632, xv, p. 678; Xenophon, Hellen. vi, 4, 15; De Republic. - Lacedæm. ix, 5; Pindar, Hyporchemata, Fragm. 78, ed. Bergk. - - Λάκαινα μὲν παρθένων ἀγέλα. - - Also, Alkman, Fragm. 13, ed. Bergk; Antigon. Caryst. Hist. Mirab. - c. 27. - - [162] How extensively pantomimic the ancient orchêsis was, may be - seen by the example in Xenophon, Symposion, vii, 5, ix, 3-6, and - Plutarch, Symposion, ix, 15, 2: see K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der - gottesdienstlichen Alterthümer der Griechen, ch. 29. - - “Sane ut in religionibus saltaretur, hæc ratio est: quod nullam - majores nostri partem corporis esse voluerunt, quæ non sentiret - religionem: nam cantus ad animum, saltatio ad mobilitatem - corporis pertinet.” (Servius ad Virgil. Eclog. v, 73.) - -We see thus that both at Sparta and in Krête (which approached in -respect to publicity of individual life most nearly to Sparta), -the choric aptitudes and manifestations occupied a larger space -than in any other Grecian city. And as a certain degree of musical -and rhythmical variety was essential to meet this want,[163] while -music was never taught to Spartan citizens individually,—we farther -understand how strangers like Terpander, Polymnêstus, Thalêtas, -Tyrtæus, Alkman, etc., were not only received, but acquired great -influence at Sparta, in spite of the preponderant spirit of jealous -seclusion in the Spartan character. All these masters appear to -have been effective in their own special vocation,—the training of -the chorus,—to which they imparted new rhythmical action, and for -which they composed new music. But Alkman did this, and something -more; he possessed the genius of a poet, and his compositions were -read afterwards with pleasure by those who could not hear them -sung or see them danced. In the little of his poems which remains, -we recognize that variety of rhythm and metre for which he was -celebrated. In this respect he (together with the Kretan Thalêtas, -who is said to have introduced a more vehement style both of music -and dance, with the Kretic and Pæonic rhythm, into Sparta[164]) -surpassed Archilochus, and prepared the way for the complicated -choric movements of Stesichorus and Pindar: some of the fragments, -too, manifest that fresh outpouring of individual sentiment and -emotion which constitutes so much of the charm of popular poetry. -Besides his touching address in old age to the Spartan virgins, over -whose song and dance he had been accustomed to preside.—he is not -afraid to speak of his hearty appetite, satisfied with simple food -and relishing a bowl of warm broth at the winter tropic.[165] And -he has attached to the spring an epithet, which comes home to the -real feelings of a poor country more than those captivating pictures -which abound in verse, ancient as well as modern: he calls it “the -season of short fare,”—the crop of the previous year being then -nearly consumed, the husbandman is compelled to pinch himself until -his new harvest comes in.[166] Those who recollect that in earlier -periods of our history, and in all countries where there is little -accumulated stock, an exorbitant difference is often experienced in -the price of corn before and after the harvest, will feel the justice -of Alkman’s description. - - [163] Aristot. Politic. viii, 4, 6. Οἱ Λάκωνες—~οὐ μανθάνοντες - ὅμως~ δύνανται κρίνειν ὀρθῶς, ὥς φασι, τὰ χρηστὰ καὶ τὰ μὴ τῶν - μέλων. - - [164] Homer. Hymn. Apoll. 340. Οἷοί τε Κρητῶν παιήονες, etc.: see - Boeckh. De Metris Pindari, ii, 7, p. 143; Ephorus ap. Strabo, x, - p. 480: Plutarch, De Musicâ, p. 1142. - - Respecting Thalêtas, and the gradual alterations in the character - of music at Sparta. Hoeckh has given much instructive matter - (Kreta. vol. iii, pp. 340-377). Respecting Nymphæus of Kydonia, - whom Ælian (V. II. xii, 50) puts in juxtaposition with Thalêtas - and Terpander, nothing is known. - - After what is called the second fashion of music (κατάστασις) - had thus been introduced by Thalêtas and his contemporaries.—the - first fashion being that of Terpander,—no farther innovations - were allowed. The ephors employed violent means to prohibit the - intended innovations of Phrynis and Timotheus, after the Persian - war: see Plutarch Agis, c. 10. - - [165] Alkman. Fragm. 13-17. ed. Bergk, ὁ πάμφαγος Ἀλκμάν: - compare Fr. 63. Aristides calls him ὁ τῶν παρθένων ἐπαινέτης καὶ - σύμβουλος (Or. xlv, vol. ii, p. 40. Dindorf). - - Of the Partneneia of Alkman (songs, hymns, and dances, composed - for a chorus of maidens) there were at least two books (Stephanus - Byzant. v. Ἐρυσίχη). He was the earliest poet who acquired renown - in this species of composition, afterwards much pursued by - Pindar, Bacchylidês, and Simonidês of Keôs: see Welcker, Alkman. - Fragment. p. 10. - - [166] Alkman, Frag. 64, ed. Bergk. - - Ὥρας δ᾽ ἐσῆκε τρεῖς, θέρος - Καὶ χεῖμα κ᾽ ὠπώραν τρίταν· - Καὶ τέτρατον τὸ ἦρ, ὅκα - Σάλλει μὲν, ἐσθίειν δ᾽ ἄδαν - Οὐκ ἐστί. - -Judging from these and from a few other fragments of this poet, -Alkman appears to have combined the life and exciting vigor of -Archilochus in the song properly so called, sung by himself -individually,—with a larger knowledge of musical and rhythmical -effect in regard to the choric performance. He composed in the -Laconian dialect,—a variety of the Doric with some intermixture of -Æolisms. And it was from him, jointly with those other composers who -figured at Sparta during the century after Terpander, as well as -from the simultaneous development of the choric muse[167] in Argos, -Sikyôn, Arcadia, and other parts of Peloponnesus, that the Doric -dialect acquired permanent footing in Greece, as the only proper -dialect for choric compositions. Continued by Stesichorus and Pindar, -this habit passed even to the Attic dramatists, whose choric songs -are thus in a great measure Doric, while their dialogue is Attic. At -Sparta, as well as in other parts of Peloponnesus,[168] the musical -and rhythmical style appears to have been fixed by Alkman and his -contemporaries, and to have been tenaciously maintained, for two or -three centuries, with little or no innovation; the more so, as the -flute-players at Sparta formed an hereditary profession, who followed -the routine of their fathers.[169] - - [167] Plutarch, De Musicâ, c. 9, p. 1134. About the dialect of - Alkman, see Ahrens, De Dialecto Æolicâ, sects. 2, 4; about his - different metres, Welcker, Alkman. Fragm. pp. 10-12. - - [168] Plutarch, De Musicâ, c. 32, p. 1142, c. 37, p. 1144; - Athenæus, xiv, p. 632. In Krête, also, the popularity of the - primitive musical composers was maintained, though along with the - innovator Timotheus: see Inscription No. 3053, ap. Boeckh, Corp. - Ins. - - [169] Herodot. vi, 60. They were probably a γένος with an heroic - progenitor, like the heralds, to whom the historian compares - them. - -Alkman was the last poet who addressed himself to the popular chorus. -Both Arion and Stesichorus composed for a body of trained men, with -a degree of variety and involution such as could not be attained -by a mere fraction of the people. The primitive dithyrambus was a -round choric dance and song in honor of Dionysus,[170] common to -Naxos, Thebes, and seemingly to many other places, at the Dionysiac -festival,—a spontaneous effusion of drunken men in the hour of -revelry, wherein the poet Archilochus, “with the thunder of wine full -upon his mind,” had often taken the chief part.[171] Its exciting -character approached to the worship of the Great Mother in Asia, -and stood in contrast with the solemn and stately pæan addressed to -Apollo. Arion introduced into it an alteration such as Archilochus -had himself brought about in the scurrilous iambus. He converted it -into an elaborate composition in honor of the god, sung and danced -by a chorus of fifty persons, not only sober, but trained with great -strictness; though its rhythm and movements, and its equipment in -the character of satyrs, presented more or less an imitation of -the primitive license. Born at Methymna in Lesbos, Arion appears -as a harper, singer, and composer, much favored by Periander at -Corinth, in which city he first “composed, denominated, and taught -the dithyramb,” earlier than any one known to Herodotus.[172] He did -not, however, remain permanently there, but travelled from city to -city, exhibiting at the festivals for money,—especially to Sicilian -and Italian Greece, where he acquired large gains. We may here again -remark how the poets as well as the festivals served to promote a -sentiment of unity among the dispersed Greeks. Such transfer of the -dithyramb, from the field of spontaneous nature into the garden of -art,[173] constitutes the first stage in the refinement of Dionysiac -worship; which will hereafter be found still farther exalted in the -form of the Attic drama. - - [170] Pindar, Fragm. 44, ed. Bergk: Schol. ad Pindar. Olymp. - xiii, 25; Proclus, Chrestomathia, c. 12-14. ad calc. Hephæst. - Gaisf. p. 382: compare W. M. Schmidt, In Dithyrambum Poetarumque - Dithyrambicorum Reliquias, pp. 171-183 (Berlin, 1845). - - [171] Archiloch. Fragm. 72, ed. Bergk. - - Ὡς Διωνύσου ἄνακτος καλὸν ἐξάρξαι μέλος - Οἶδα διθύραμβον, οἴνῳ ξυγκεραυνωθεὶς φρένας. - - The old oracle quoted in Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, about the - Dionysia at Athens, enjoins—Διονύσῳ δημοτελῆ ἱερὰ τελεῖν, ~καὶ - κρατῆρα κεράσαι~, καὶ χοροὺς ἱστάναι. - - [172] Herodot. i, 23; Suidas, v. Ἀρίων; Pindar, Olymp. xiii, 25. - - [173] Aristot. Poetic. c. 6, ἐγέννησαν τὴν ποίησιν ἐκ τῶν - αὐτοσχεδιασμάτων; again, to the same effect, _ibid._ c. 9. - -The date of Arion seems about 600 B. C., shortly after Alkman: -that of Stesichorus is a few years later. To the latter the Greek -chorus owed a high degree of improvement, and in particular the -last finished distribution of its performance into the strophê, the -antistrophê, and the epôdus: the turn, the return, and the rest,—the -rhythm and metre of the song during each strophê corresponded with -that during the antistrophê, but was varied during the epôdus, -and again varied during the following strophês. Until this time -the song had been monostrophic, consisting of nothing more than -one uniform stanza, repeated from the beginning to the end of the -composition;[174] so that we may easily see how vast was the new -complication and difficulty introduced by Stesichorus,—not less -for the performers than for the composer, himself at that time -the teacher and trainer of performers. Both this poet and his -contemporary the flute-player Sakadas of Argos,—who gained the prize -at the first three Pythian games founded after the Sacred War,—seem -to have surpassed their predecessors in the breadth of subject which -they embraced, borrowing from the inexhaustible province of ancient -legend, and expanding the choric song into a well-sustained epical -narrative.[175] Indeed, these Pythian games opened a new career to -musical composers just at the time when Sparta began to be closed -against musical novelties. - - [174] Alkman slightly departed from this rule: in one of his - compositions of fourteen strophês, the last seven were in a - different metre from the first seven (Hephæstion, c. xv, p. 134, - Gaisf.; Hermann, Elementa Doctrin. Metricæ, c. xvii, sect. 595). - Ἀλκμανικὴ καινοτομία καὶ Στησιχόρειος (Plutarch, De Musicâ, p. - 1135). - - [175] Pausanias, vi, 14, 4; x, 7, 3. Sakadas, as well as - Stesichorus, composed an Ἰλίου πέρσις (Athenæus, xiii, p. 609). - - “Stesichorum (observes Quintilian, x, 1) quam sit ingenio - validus, materiæ quoque ostendunt, maxima bella et clarissimos - canentem duces, et epici carminis onera lyrâ sustinentem. Reddit - enim personis in agendo simul loquendoque debitam dignitatem: ac - si tenuisset modum, videtur æmulari proximus Homerum potuisse: - sed redundat, atque effunditur: quod, ut est reprehendendum, ita - copiæ vitium est.” - - Simonidês of Keôs (Frag. 19. ed. Bergk) puts Homer and - Stesichorus together: see the epigram of Antipater in the - Anthologia, t. i, p. 328, ed. Jacobs, and Dio Chrysostom. Or. 55, - vol. ii, p. 284, Reisk. Compare Kleine, Stesichori Fragment. pp. - 30-34 (Berlin 1828), and O. Müller, History of the Literature of - Ancient Greece, ch. xiv, sect. 5. - - The musical composers of Argos are affirmed by Herodotus to have - been the most renowned in Greece, half a century after Sakadas - (Her. iii, 131). - -Alkæus and Sappho, both natives of Lesbos, appear about -contemporaries with Arion, B. C. 610-580. Of their once celebrated -lyric compositions, scarcely anything remains. But the criticisms -which are preserved on both of them place them in strong contrast -with Alkman, who lived and composed under the more restrictive -atmosphere of Sparta,—and in considerable analogy with the turbulent -vehemence of Archilochus,[176] though without his intense private -malignity. Both composed for their own local audience, and in their -own Lesbian Æolic dialect; not because there was any peculiar fitness -in that dialect to express their vein of sentiment, but because -it was more familiar to their hearers. Sappho herself boasts of -the preëminence of the Lesbian bards;[177] and the celebrity of -Terpander, Perikleitas, and Arion, permits us to suppose that there -may have been before her many popular bards in the island who did -not attain to Hellenic celebrity. Alkæus included in his songs the -fiercest bursts of political feeling, the stirring alternations of -war and exile, and all the ardent relish of a susceptible man for -wine and love.[178] The love-song seems to have formed the principal -theme of Sappho, who, however, also composed odes or songs[179] on -a great variety of other subjects, serious as well as satirical, -and is said farther to have first employed the Mixolydian mode -in music. It displays the tendency of the age to metrical and -rhythmical novelty, that Alkæus and Sappho are said to have each -invented the peculiar stanza, well-known under their respective -names,—combinations of the dactyl, trochee, and iambus, analogous -to the asynartetic verses of Archilochus; they by no means confined -themselves, however, to Alkaic and Sapphic metre. Both the one -and the other composed hymns to the gods; indeed, this is a theme -common to all the lyric and choric poets, whatever may be their -peculiarities in other ways. Most of their compositions were songs -for the single voice, not for the chorus. The poetry of Alkæus is the -more worthy of note, as it is the earliest instance of the employment -of the Muse in actual political warfare, and shows the increased hold -which that motive was acquiring on the Grecian mind. - - [176] Horat. Epistol. i, 19, 23. - - [177] Sappho, Fragm. 93, ed. Bergk. See also Plehn, Lesbiaca, - pp. 145-165. Respecting the poetesses, two or three of whom were - noted, contemporary with Sappho, see Ulrici, Gesch. der Hellen. - Poesie, vol. ii, p. 370. - - [178] Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. v, 82; Horat. Od. i, 32, ii, 13; - Cicero, De Nat. Deor. i, 28; the striking passage in Plutarch, - Symposion iii, 1, 3, ap. Bergk. Fragm. 42. In the view of - Dionysius, the Æolic dialect of Alkæus and Sappho diminished the - value of their compositions: the Æolic accent, analogous to the - Latin, and acknowledging scarcely any oxyton words, must have - rendered them much less agreeable in recitation or song. - - [179] See Plutarch, De Music. p. 1136; Dionys. Hal. de Comp. - Verb. c. 23, p. 173, Reisk, and some striking passages of - Himerius, in respect to Sappho (i, 4, 16, 19; Maximus Tyrius, - Dissert. xxiv, 7-9), and the encomium of the critical Dionysius - (De Compos. Verborum, c. 23, p. 173). - - The author of the Parian marble adopts, as one of his - chronological epochs (Epoch 37), the flight of Sappho, or exile, - from Mitylênê to Sicily somewhere between 604-596 B. C. There - probably was something remarkable which induced him to single out - this event; but we do not know what, nor can we trust the hints - suggested by Ovid (Heroid. xv, 51). - - Nine books of Sappho’s songs were collected by the later literary - Greeks, arranged chiefly according to the metres (C. F. Neue, - Sapphonis Fragm. p. 11, Berlin 1827). There were ten books of the - songs of Alkæus (Athenæus, xi, p. 481), and both Aristophanês - (Grammaticus) and Aristarchus published editions of them. - (Hephæstion, c. xv, p. 134, Gaisf.) Dikæarchus wrote a commentary - upon his songs (Athenæus, xi, p. 461). - -The gnomic poets, or moralists in verse, approach by the tone of -their sentiments more to the nature of prose. They begin with -Simonidês of Amorgos or of Samos, the contemporary of Archilochus: -indeed, the latter himself devoted some compositions to the -illustrative fable, which had not been unknown even to Hesiod. In -the remains of Simonidês of Amorgos we trace nothing relative to the -man personally, though he too, like Archilochus, is said to have had -an individual enemy, Orodœkidês, whose character was aspersed by his -muse.[180] His only considerable poem extant is devoted to a survey -of the characters of women, in iambic verse, and by way of comparison -with various animals,—the mare, the ass, the bee, etc. It follows -out the Hesiodic vein respecting the social and economical mischief -usually caused by women, with some few honorable exceptions; but the -poet shows a much larger range of observation and illustration, if we -compare him with his predecessor Hesiod; moreover, his illustrations -come fresh from life and reality. We find in this early iambist the -same sympathy with industry and its due rewards which are observable -in Hesiod, together with a still more melancholy sense of the -uncertainty of human events. - - [180] Welcker, Simonidis Amorgini Iambi qui supersunt, p. 9. - -Of Solon and Theognis I have spoken in former chapters. They -reproduce in part the moralizing vein of Simonidês, though with -a strong admixture of personal feeling and a direct application -to passing events. The mixture of political with social morality, -which we find in both, marks their more advanced age: Solon bears -in this respect the same relation to Simonidês, as his contemporary -Alkæus bears to Archilochus. His poems, as far as we can judge -by the fragments remaining, appear to have been short occasional -effusions,—with the exception of the epic poem respecting the -submerged island of Atlantis; which he began towards the close of -his life, but never finished. They are elegiac, trimeter iambic, and -trochaic tetrameter: in his hands certainly neither of these metres -can be said to have any special or separate character. If the poems -of Solon are short, those of Theognis are much shorter, and are -indeed so much broken (as they stand in our present collection), as -to read like separate epigrams or bursts of feeling, which the poet -had not taken the trouble to incorporate in any definite scheme or -series. They form a singular mixture of maxim and passion,—of general -precept with personal affection towards the youth Kyrnus,—which -surprises us if tried by the standard of literary composition, but -which seems a very genuine manifestation of an impoverished exile’s -complaints and restlessness. What remains to us of Phokylidês, -another of the gnomic poets nearly contemporary with Solon, is -nothing more than a few maxims in verse,—couplets, with the name of -the author in several cases embodied in them. - -Amidst all the variety of rhythmical and metrical innovations which -have been enumerated, the ancient epic continued to be recited by the -rhapsodes as before, and some new epical compositions were added to -the existing stock: Eugammon of Kyrênê, about the 50th Olympiad, (580 -B. C.) appears to be the last of the series. At Athens, especially, -both Solon and Peisistratus manifested great solicitude as well -for the recitation as for the correct preservation of the Iliad. -Perhaps its popularity may have been diminished by the competition -of so much lyric and choric poetry, more showy and striking in -its accompaniments, as well as more changeful in its rhythmical -character. Whatever secondary effect, however, this newer species -of poetry may have derived from such helps, its primary effect -was produced by real intellectual or poetical excellence,—by the -thoughts, sentiment, and expression, not by the accompaniment. For -a long time the musical composer and the poet continued generally -to be one and the same person; and besides those who have acquired -sufficient distinction to reach posterity, we cannot doubt that there -were many known only to their own contemporaries. But with all of -them the instrument and the melody constituted only the inferior part -of that which was known by the name of music,—altogether subordinate -to the “thoughts that breathe and words that burn.”[181] Exactness -and variety of rhythmical pronunciation gave to the latter their -full effect upon a delicate ear; but such pleasure of the ear was -ancillary to the emotion of mind arising out of the sense conveyed. -Complaints are made by the poets, even so early as 500 B. C., that -the accompaniment was becoming too prominent. But it was not until -the age of the comic poet Aristophanês, towards the end of the fifth -century B. C., that the primitive relation between the instrumental -accompaniment and the words was really reversed,—and loud were the -complaints to which it gave rise;[182] the performance of the flute -or harp then became more elaborate, showy, and overpowering, while -the words were so put together as to show off the player’s execution. -I notice briefly this subsequent revolution for the purpose of -setting forth, by contrast, the truly intellectual character of the -original lyric and choric poetry of Greece; and of showing how much -the vague sentiment arising from mere musical sound was lost in the -more definite emotion, and in the more lasting and reproductive -combinations, generated by poetical meaning. - - [181] Aristophan. Nubes, 536. - - Ἀλλ᾽ αὑτῇ καὶ τοῖς ἔπεσιν πιστεύουσ᾽ ἐλήλυθεν. - - [182] See Pratinas ap. Athenæum, xiv, p. 617, also p. 636, and - the striking fragment of the lost comic poet Pherekratês, in - Plutarch, De Musicâ, p. 1141, containing the bitter remonstrance - of _Music_ (Μουσικὴ) against the wrong which she had suffered - from the dithyrambist Melanippidês: compare also Aristophanês, - Nubes, 951-972; Athenæus, xiv, p. 617; Horat. Art. Poetic. 205; - and W. M. Schmidt, Diatribê in Dithyrambum, ch. viii, pp. 250-265. - - Τὸ σοβαρὸν καὶ περιττὸν—the character of the newer music - (Plutarch, Agis, c. 10)—as contrasted with τὸ σεμνὸν καὶ - ἀπερίεργον of the old music (Plutarch, De Musicâ, _ut sup._): - ostentation and affected display, against seriousness and - simplicity. It is by no means certain that these reproaches - against the more recent music of the Greeks were well founded; - we may well be rendered mistrustful of their accuracy when we - hear similar remarks and contrasts advanced with regard to the - music of our last three centuries. The character of Greek poetry - certainly tended to degenerate after Euripidês. - -The name and poetry of Solon, and the short maxims, or sayings, -of Phokylidês, conduct us to the mention of the Seven Wise Men of -Greece. Solon was himself one of the seven, and most if not all -of them were poets, or composers in verse.[183] To most of them -is ascribed also an abundance of pithy repartees, together with -one short saying, or maxim, peculiar to each, serving as a sort of -distinctive motto;[184] indeed, the test of an accomplished man -about this time was his talent for singing or reciting poetry, and -for making smart and ready answers. Respecting this constellation -of wise men,—who in the next century of Grecian history, when -philosophy came to be a matter of discussion and argumentation, -were spoken of with great eulogy,—all the statements are confused, -in part even contradictory. Neither the number, nor the names, are -given by all authors alike. Dikæarchus numbered ten, Hermippus -seventeen: the names of Solon the Athenian, Thalês the Milesian, -Pittakus the Mitylenean, and Bias the Prienean, were comprised in -all the lists,—and the remaining names as given by Plato[185] were, -Kleobulus of Lindus in Rhodes, Myson of Chênæ, and Cheilon of Sparta. -By others, however, the names are differently stated: nor can we -certainly distribute among them the sayings, or mottoes, upon which -in later days the Amphiktyons conferred the honor of inscription -in the Delphian temple: Know thyself,—Nothing too much,—Know thy -opportunity,—Suretyship is the precursor of ruin. Bias is praised -as an excellent judge, and Myson was declared by the Delphian -oracle to be the most discreet man among the Greeks, according to -the testimony of the satirical poet Hippônax. This is the oldest -testimony (540 B. C.) which can be produced in favor of any of the -seven; but Kleobulus of Lindus, far from being universally extolled, -is pronounced by the poet Simonidês to be a fool.[186] Dikæarchus, -however, justly observed, that these seven or ten persons were not -wise men, or philosophers, in the sense which those words bore in his -day, but persons of practical discernment in reference to man and -society,[187]—of the same turn of mind as their contemporary the -fabulist Æsop, though not employing the same mode of illustration. -Their appearance forms an epoch in Grecian history, inasmuch as -they are the first persons who ever acquired an Hellenic reputation -grounded on mental competency apart from poetical genius or effect,—a -proof that political and social prudence was beginning to be -appreciated and admired on its own account. Solon, Pittakus, Bias, -and Thalês, were all men of influence—the first two even men of -ascendency,[188]—in their respective cities. Kleobulus was despot -of Lindus, and Periander (by some numbered among the seven) of -Corinth. Thalês stands distinguished as the earliest name in physical -philosophy, with which the other contemporary wise men are not said -to have meddled; their celebrity rests upon moral, social, and -political wisdom exclusively, which came into greater honor as the -ethical feeling of the Greeks improved and as their experience became -enlarged. - - [183] Bias of Priênê composed a poem of two thousand verses, - on the condition of Ionia (Diogen. Laërt. i, 85), from which, - perhaps, Herodotus may have derived, either directly or - indirectly, the judicious advice which he ascribes to that - philosopher on the occasion of the first Persian conquest of - Ionia (Herod. i, 170). - - Not merely Xenophanês the philosopher (Diogen. Laërt. viii, 36, - ix, 20), but long after him Parmenidês and Empedoklês, composed - in verse. - - [184] See the account given by Herodotus (vi, 128-129) of the - way in which Kleisthenês of Sikyon tested the comparative - education (παίδευσις) of the various suitors who came to woo - his daughter,—οἱ δὲ μνήστηρες ἔριν εἶχον ἀμφί τε μουσικῇ καὶ τῷ - λεγομένῳ ἐς τὸ μέσον. - - [185] Plato, Protagoras, c. 28, p. 343. - - [186] Hippônax, Fragm. 77, 34, ed. Bergk—καὶ δικάσσασθαι Βίαντος - τοῦ Πριηνέος κρείττων. - - ... Καὶ Μύσων, ὃν ὡς πολλὼν - Ἀνεῖπεν ἀνδρῶν σωφρονέστατον πάντων. - - Simonidês. Fr. 6, ed. Bergk—μωροῦ φωτὸς ἅδε βουλά. Diogen. Laërt. - i, 6, 2. - - Simonidês treats Pittakus with more respect, though questioning - an opinion delivered by him (Fragm. 8, ed. Bergk; Plato, - Protagoras, c. 26, p. 339). - - [187] Dikæarchus ap. Diogen. Laërt. i. 40. συνετοὺς καὶ - νομοθετικοὺς δεινότητα πολιτικὴν καὶ δραστήριον σύνεσιν. - Plutarch, Themistoklês, c. 2. - - About the story of the tripod, which is said to have gone the - round of these Seven Wise Men, see Menage ad Diogen. Laërt. i, - 28, p. 17. - - [188] Cicero, De Republ. i, 7; Plutarch, in Delph. p. 385; - Bernhardy, Grundriss der Griechischen Litteratur, vol. i, sect. - 66, not. 3. - -In these celebrated names we have social philosophy in its early -and infantine state,—in the shape of homely sayings or admonitions, -either supposed to be self-evident, or to rest upon some great -authority divine or human, but neither accompanied by reasons nor -recognizing any appeal to inquiry and discussion as the proper -test of their rectitude. From such unsuspecting acquiescence, -the sentiment to which these admonitions owe their force, we are -partially liberated even in the poet Simonidês of Keôs, who (as -before alluded to) severely criticizes the song of Kleobulus as well -as its author. The half-century which followed the age of Simonidês -(the interval between about 480-430 B. C.) broke down that sentiment -more and more, by familiarizing the public with argumentative -controversy in the public assembly, the popular judicature, and even -on the dramatic stage. And the increased self-working of the Grecian -mind, thus created, manifested itself in Sokratês, who laid open all -ethical and social doctrines to the scrutiny of reason, and who first -awakened among his countrymen that love of dialectics which never -left them,—an analytical interest in the mental process of inquiring -out, verifying, proving, and expounding truth. To this capital item -of human progress, secured through the Greeks—and through them -only—to mankind generally, our attention will be called at a later -period of the history; at present, it is only mentioned in contrast -with the naked, dogmatical laconism of the Seven Wise Men, and with -the simple enforcement of the early poets: a state in which morality -has a certain place in the feelings,—but no root, even among the -superior minds, in the conscious exercise of reason. - -The interval between Archilochus and Solon (660-580 B. C.) seems, -as has been remarked in my former volume, to be the period in which -writing first came to be applied to Greek poems,—to the Homeric poems -among the number; and shortly after the end of that period, commences -the era of compositions without metre or prose. The philosopher -Pherekydês of Syros, about 550 B. C., is called by some the earliest -prose-writer; but no prose-writer for a considerable time afterwards -acquired any celebrity,—seemingly none earlier than Hekatæus of -Milêtus,[189] about 510-490 B. C.,—prose being a subordinate and -ineffective species of composition, not always even perspicuous, -but requiring no small practice before the power was acquired of -rendering it interesting.[190] Down to the generation preceding -Sokratês, the poets continued to be the grand leaders of the Greek -mind: until then, nothing was taught to youth except to read, to -remember, to recite musically and rhythmically, and to comprehend -poetical composition. The comments of preceptors, addressed to their -pupils, may probably have become fuller and more instructive, but the -text still continued to be epic or lyric poetry. We must recollect -also that these poets, so enunciated, were the best masters for -acquiring a full command of the complicated accent and rhythm of -the Greek language,—essential to an educated man in ancient times, -and sure to be detected if not properly acquired. Not to mention -the Choliambist Hippônax, who seems to have been possessed with the -devil of Archilochus, and in part also with his genius,—Anakreon, -Ibykus, Pindar, Bacchylidês, Simonidês, and the dramatists of Athens, -continue the line of eminent poets without intermission. After the -Persian war, the requirements of public speaking created a class of -rhetorical teachers, while the gradual spread of physical philosophy -widened the range of instruction: so that prose composition, for -speech or for writing, occupied a larger and larger share of the -attention of men, and was gradually wrought up to high perfection, -such as we see for the first time in Herodotus. But before it became -thus improved, and acquired that style which was the condition of -wide-spread popularity, we may be sure that it had been silently -used as a means of recording information; and that neither the large -mass of geographical matter contained in the Periegêsis of Hekatæus, -nor the map first prepared by his contemporary, Anaximander, could -have been presented to the world, without the previous labors of -unpretending prose writers, who set down the mere results of their -own experience. The acquisition of prose-writing, commencing as it -does about the age of Peisistratus, is not less remarkable as an -evidence of past, than as a means of future, progress. - - [189] Pliny, H. N. vii, 57. Suidas v. Ἑκαταῖος. - - [190] H. Ritter (Geschichte der Philosophie, ch. vi, p. 243) has - some good remarks on the difficulty and obscurity of the early - Greek prose-writers, in reference to the darkness of expression - and meaning universally charged upon the philosopher Herakleitus. - -Of that splendid genius in sculpture and architecture, which shone -forth in Greece after the Persian invasion, the first lineaments -only are discoverable between 600-560 B. C., in Corinth, Ægina, -Samos, Chios, Ephesus, etc.,—enough, however, to give evidence -of improvement and progress. Glaukus of Chios is said to have -discovered the art of welding iron, and Rhœkus, or his son Theodôrus -of Samos, the art of casting copper or brass in a mould: both these -discoveries, as far as can be made out, appear to date a little -before 600 B. C.[191] The primitive memorial, erected in honor of -a god, did not even pretend to be an image, but was often nothing -more than a pillar, a board, a shapeless stone, a post, etc., fixed -so as to mark and consecrate the locality, and receiving from the -neighborhood respectful care and decoration, as well as worship. -Sometimes there was a real statue, though of the rudest character, -carved in wood; and the families of carvers,—who, from father to -son, exercised this profession, represented in Attica by the name of -Dædalus, and in the Ægina by the name of Smilis,—adhered long, with -strict exactness, to the consecrated type of each particular god. -Gradually, the wish grew up to change the material, as well as to -correct the rudeness, of such primitive idols; sometimes the original -wood was retained as the material, but covered in part with ivory -or gold,—in other cases, marble or metal was substituted. Dipœnos -and Skyllis of Krête acquired renown as workers in marble, about -the 50th Olympiad (580 B. C.), and from them downwards a series of -names may be traced, more or less distinguished; moreover, it seems -about the same period that the earliest temple-offerings, in works -of art, properly so called, commence,—the golden statue of Zeus, and -the large carved chest, dedicated by the Kypselids of Corinth at -Olympia.[192] The pious associations, however, connected with the -old type were so strong, that the hand of the artist was greatly -restrained in dealing with statues of the gods. It was in statues of -men, especially in those of the victors at Olympia and other sacred -games, that genuine ideas of beauty were first aimed at and in part -attained, from whence they passed afterwards to the statues of the -gods. Such statues of the athletes seem to commence somewhere between -Olympiad 53-58, (568-548 B. C.). - - [191] See O. Müller, Archäologie der Kunst, sect. 61; Sillig. - Catalogus Artificium,—under Theodôrus and Teleklês. - - Thiersch (Epochen der Bildenden Kunst, pp. 182-190, 2nd edit.) - places Rhœkus near the beginning of the recorded Olympiads; - and supposes two artists named Theodôrus, one the grandson of - the other; but this seems to me not sustained by any adequate - authority (for the loose chronology of Pliny about the Samian - school of artists is not more trustworthy than about the - Chian school,—compare xxxv, 12, and xxxvi, 3), and, moreover, - intrinsically improbable. Herodotus (i, 51) speaks of “_the_ - Samian Theodôrus,” and seems to have known only one person so - called: Diodôrus (i, 98) and Pausanias (x, 38, 3) give different - accounts of Theodôrus, but the positive evidence does not enable - us to verify the genealogies either of Thiersch or O. Müller. - Herodotus (iv, 152) mentions the Ἡραῖον at Samos in connection - with events near Olymp. 37; but this does not prove that the - great temple which he himself saw, a century and a half later, - had been begun before Olymp. 37, as Thiersch would infer. The - statement of O. Müller, that this temple was begun in Olymp. 35, - is not authenticated (Arch. der Kunst. sect. 53). - - [192] Pausanias tells us distinctly that this chest was dedicated - at Olympia by the Kypselids, descendants of Kypselus; and this - seems credible enough. But he also tells us that this was the - identical chest in which the infant Kypselus had been concealed, - believing the story as told in Herodotus (v, 92). In this latter - belief I cannot go along with him, nor do I think that there is - any evidence for believing the chest to have been of more ancient - date than the persons who dedicated it,—in spite of the opinions - of O. Müller and Thiersch to the contrary (O. Müller, Archäol. - der Kunst, sect. 57; Thiersch, Epochen der Griechischen Kunst, p. - 169, 2nd edit.: Pausan. v, 17, 2). - -Nor is it until the same interval of time (between 600-550 B. -C.) that we find any traces of these architectural monuments, by -which the more important cities in Greece afterwards attracted -to themselves so much renown. The two greatest temples in Greece -known to Herodotus were, the Artemision at Ephesus, and the Heræon -at Samos: the former of these seems to have been commenced, by -the Samian Theodorus, about 600 B. C.,—the latter, begun by the -Samian Rhœkus, can hardly be traced to any higher antiquity. The -first attempts to decorate Athens by such additions proceeded from -Peisistratus and his sons, near the same time. As far as we can -judge, too, in the absence of all direct evidence, the temples of -Pæstum in Italy and Selinus in Sicily seem to fall in this same -century. Of painting, during these early centuries, nothing can -be affirmed; it never at any time reached the same perfection as -sculpture, and we may presume that its years of infancy were at least -equally rude. - -The immense development of Grecian art subsequently, and the great -perfection of Grecian artists, are facts of great importance in the -history of the human race. And in regard to the Greeks themselves, -they not only acted powerfully on the taste of the people, but were -also valuable indirectly as the common boast of Hellenism, and -as supplying one bond of fraternal sympathy as well as of mutual -pride, among its widely-dispersed sections. It is the paucity and -weakness of these bonds which renders the history of Greece, prior -to 560 B. C., little better than a series of parallel, but isolated -threads, each attached to a separate city; and that increased range -of joint Hellenic feeling and action, upon which we shall presently -enter, though arising doubtless in great measure from new and common -dangers threatening many cities at once,—also springs in part from -those other causes which have been enumerated in this chapter as -acting on the Grecian mind. It proceeds from the stimulus applied to -all the common feelings in religion, art, and recreation,—from the -gradual formation of national festivals, appealing in various ways -to tastes and sentiments which animated every Hellenic bosom,—from -the inspirations of men of genius, poets, musicians, sculptors, -architects, who supplied more or less in every Grecian city, -education for the youth, training for the chorus, and ornament for -the locality,—from the gradual expansion of science, philosophy, and -rhetoric, during the coming period of this history, which rendered -one city the intellectual capital of Greece, and brought to Isokratês -and Plato pupils from the most distant parts of the Grecian world. -It was this fund of common tastes, tendencies, and aptitudes, which -caused the social atoms of Hellas to gravitate towards each other, -and which enabled the Greeks to become something better and greater -than an aggregate of petty disunited communities like the Thracians -or Phrygians. And the creation of such common, extra-political -Hellenism, is the most interesting phenomenon which the historian has -to point out in the early period now under our notice. He is called -upon to dwell upon it the more forcibly, because the modern reader -has generally no idea of national union without political union,—an -association foreign to the Greek mind. Strange as it may seem to find -a song-writer put forward as an active instrument of union among -his fellow-Hellens, it is not the less true, that those poets, whom -we have briefly passed in review, by enriching the common language, -and by circulating from town to town either in person or in their -compositions, contributed to fan the flame of Pan-Hellenic patriotism -at a time when there were few circumstances to coöperate with them, -and when the causes tending to perpetuate isolation seemed in the -ascendant. - - - - -CHAPTER XXX. - -GRECIAN AFFAIRS DURING THE GOVERNMENT OF PEISISTRATUS AND HIS SONS AT -ATHENS. - - -We now arrive at what may be called the second period of Grecian -history, beginning with the rule of Peisistratus at Athens and of -Crœsus in Lydia. - -It has been already stated that Peisistratus made himself despot -of Athens in 560 B. C.: he died in 527 B. C., and was succeeded by -his son Hippias, who was deposed and expelled in 510 B. C., thus -making an entire space of fifty years between the first exaltation of -the father and the final expulsion of the son. These chronological -points are settled on good evidence: but the thirty-three years -covered by the reign of Peisistratus are interrupted by two periods -of exile,—one of them lasting not less than ten years,—the other, -five years. And the exact place of the years of exile, being nowhere -laid down upon authority, has been differently determined by the -conjectures of chronologers.[193] Partly from this half-known -chronology, partly from a very scanty collection of facts, the -history of the half-century now before us can only be given very -imperfectly: nor can we wonder at our ignorance, when we find that -even among the Athenians themselves, only a century afterwards, -statements the most incorrect and contradictory respecting the -Peisistratids were in circulation, as Thucydidês distinctly, and -somewhat reproachfully, acquaints us. - - [193] Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fast. Hellen. vol. ii, Appendix, c. 2, - p. 201) has stated and discussed the different opinions on the - chronology of Peisistratus and his sons. - -More than thirty years had now elapsed since the promulgation of the -Solonian constitution, whereby the annual senate of Four Hundred had -been created, and the public assembly (preceded in its action as -well as aided and regulated by this senate) invested with a power of -exacting responsibility from the magistrates after their year of -office. The seeds of the subsequent democracy had thus been sown, -and no doubt the administration of the archons had been practically -softened by it; but nothing in the nature of a democratical sentiment -had yet been created. A hundred years hence, we shall find that -sentiment unanimous and potent among the enterprising masses of -Athens and Peiræeus, and shall be called upon to listen to loud -complaints of the difficulty of dealing with “that angry, waspish, -intractable little old man, Dêmus of Pnyx,”—so Aristophanes[194] -calls the Athenian people to their faces, with a freedom which shows -that _he_ at least counted on their good temper. But between 560-510 -B. C. the people are as passive in respect to political rights and -securities as the most strenuous enemy of democracy could desire, -and the government is transferred from hand to hand by bargains -and cross-changes between two or three powerful men,[195] at the -head of partisans who echo their voices, espouse their personal -quarrels, and draw the sword at their command. It was this ancient -constitution—Athens as it stood before the Athenian democracy—which -the Macedonian Antipater professed to restore in 322 B. C., when he -caused the majority of the poorer citizens to be excluded altogether -from the political franchise.[196] - - [194] - - Ἀγροῖκος ὀργὴν, κυαμοτρὼξ, ἀκράχολος - Δῆμος Πνυκίτης, δύσκολον γερόντιον. - - Aristoph. Equit. 41. - - I need hardly mention that the Pnyx was the place in which the - Athenian public assemblies were held. - - [195] Plutarch (De Herodot. Malign. c. 15, p. 858) is angry - with Herodotus for imparting so petty and personal a character - to the dissensions between the Alkmæônids and Peisistratus; his - severe remarks in that treatise, however, tend almost always to - strengthen rather than to weaken the credibility of the historian. - - [196] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 27, ἀπεκρίνατο φιλίαν ἔσεσθαι τοῖς - Ἀθηναίοις καὶ ξυμμαχίαν, ἐκδοῦσι μὲν τοὺς περὶ Δημοσθένην - καὶ Ὑπερείδην, πολιτευομένοις δὲ τὴν ~πάτριον~ ἀπὸ τιμήματος - πολιτείαν, δεξαμένοις δὲ φρουρὰν εἰς τὴν Μουνυχίαν, ἔτι δὲ - χρήματα τοῦ πολέμου καὶ ζημίαν προσεκτίσασιν. Compare Diodor. - xviii, 18. - - Twelve thousand of the poorer citizens were disfranchised by this - change (Plutarch, Phokion, c. 28). - -By the stratagem recounted in a former chapter,[197] Peisistratus -had obtained from the public assembly a guard which he had employed -to acquire forcible possession of the acropolis. He thus became -master of the administration; but he employed his power honorably and -well, not disturbing the existing forms farther than was necessary -to insure to himself full mastery. Nevertheless, we may see by -the verses of Solon[198] (the only contemporary evidence which we -possess), that the prevalent sentiment was by no means favorable to -his recent proceeding, and that there was in many minds a strong -feeling both of terror and aversion, which presently manifested -itself in the armed coalition of his two rivals,—Megaklês at the head -of the Parali, or inhabitants of the sea-board, and Lykurgus at the -head of those in the neighboring plain. As the conjunction of the two -formed a force too powerful for Peisistratus to withstand, he was -driven into exile, after no long possession of his despotism. - - [197] See the preceding volume, ch. xi, p. 155. - - [198] Solon. Fragm. 10, ed. Bergk.— - - Εἰ δὲ πεπόνθατε λυγρὰ δι᾽ ὑμετέρην κακότητα, - Μήτι θεοῖς τούτων μοῖραν ἐπαμφέρετε, etc. - -But the time came, how soon we cannot tell, when the two rivals -who had expelled him quarrelled, and Megaklês made propositions to -Peisistratus, inviting him to resume the sovereignty, promising his -own aid, and stipulating that Peisistratus should marry his daughter. -The conditions being accepted, a plan was laid between the two new -allies for carrying them into effect, by a novel stratagem,—since -the simulated wounds and pretence of personal danger were not likely -to be played off a second time with success. The two conspirators -clothed a stately woman, six feet high, named Phyê, in the panoply -and costume of Athênê,—surrounded her with the processional -accompaniments belonging to the goddess,—and placed her in a chariot -with Peisistratus by her side. In this guise the exiled despot and -his adherents approached the city and drove up to the acropolis, -preceded by heralds, who cried aloud to the people: “Athenians, -receive ye cordially Peisistratus, whom Athênê has honored above -all other men, and is now bringing back into her own acropolis.” -The people in the city received the reputed goddess with implicit -belief and demonstrations of worship, while among the country cantons -the report quickly spread that Athênê had appeared in person to -restore Peisistratus, who thus found himself, without even a show of -resistance, in possession of the acropolis and of the government. -His own party, united with that of Megaklês, were powerful enough -to maintain him, when he had once acquired possession; and probably -all, except the leaders, sincerely believed in the epiphany of the -goddess, which came to be divulged as having been a deception, only -after Peisistratus and Megaklês had quarrelled.[199] - - [199] Herodot. i, 60, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἄστεϊ πειθόμενοι τὴν γυναῖκα - εἶναι ~αὐτὴν τὴν θεὸν~, προσεύχοντό τε τὴν ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐδέκοντο - τὸν Πεισίστρατον. A later statement (Athenæus, xiii, p. 609) - represents Phyê to have become afterwards the wife of Hipparchus. - - Of this remarkable story, not the least remarkable part is the - criticism with which Herodotus himself accompanies it. He treats - it as a proceeding infinitely silly (πρῆγμα εὐηθέστατον, ὡς ἐγὼ - εὐρίσκω, μακρῷ); he cannot conceive, how Greeks, so much superior - to barbarians,—and even Athenians, the cleverest of all the - Greeks,—could have fallen into such a trap. To him the story was - told as a deception from the beginning, and he did not perhaps - take pains to put himself into the state of feeling of those - original spectators who saw the chariot approach, without any - warning or preconceived suspicion. But even allowing for this, - his criticism brings to our view the alteration and enlargement - which had taken place in the Greek mind during the century - between Peisistratus and Periklês. Doubtless, neither the latter - nor any of his contemporaries could have succeeded in a similar - trick. - - The fact, and the criticism upon it, now before us are remarkably - illustrated by an analogous case recounted in a previous chapter, - (vol. ii, p. 421, chap. viii.) Nearly at the same period as this - stratagem of Peisistratus, the Lacedæmonians and the Argeians - agreed to decide, by a combat of three hundred select champions, - the dispute between them as to the territory of Kynuria. The - combat actually took place, and the heroism of Othryades, sole - Spartan survivor, has been already recounted. In the eleventh - year of the Peloponnesian war, shortly after or near upon the - period when we may conceive the history of Herodotus to have - been finished, the Argeians concluded a treaty with Lacedæmon, - and introduced as a clause into it the liberty of reviving their - pretensions to Kynuria, and of again deciding the dispute by a - combat of select champions. To the Lacedæmonians of that time - this appeared extreme folly,—the very proceeding which had been - actually resorted to a century before. Here is another case, in - which the change in the point of view, and the increased positive - tendencies in the Greek mind, are brought to our notice not less - forcibly than by the criticism of Herodotus upon Phyê-Athênê. - - Istrus (one of the Atthido-graphers of the third century B. - C.) and Antiklês published books respecting the personal - manifestations or epiphanies of the gods,—Ἀπόλλωνος ἐπιφανεῖαι: - see Istri Fragment. 33-37, ed. Didot. If Peisistratus and - Megaklês had never quarrelled, their joint stratagem might have - continued to pass for a genuine epiphany, and might have been - included as such in the work of Istrus. I will add, that the real - presence of the gods, at the festivals celebrated in their honor, - was an idea continually brought before the minds of the Greeks. - - The Athenians fully believed the epiphany of the god Pan to - Pheidippidês the courier, on his march to Sparta, a little before - the battle of Marathôn (Herodot. vi, 105, καὶ ταῦτα Ἀθηναῖοι - πιστεύσαντες εἶναι ἀληθέα), and even Herodotus himself does - not controvert it, though he relaxes the positive character - of history so far as to add—“as Pheidippidês himself said and - recounted publicly to the Athenians.” His informants in this case - were doubtless sincere believers; whereas, in the case of Phyê, - the story was told to him at first as a fabrication. - - At Gela in Sicily, seemingly not long before this restoration - of Peisistratus, Têlinês (ancestor of the despot Gelon) had - brought back some exiles to Gela, “without any armed force, but - merely through the sacred ceremonies and appurtenances of the - subterranean goddesses,”—ἔχων οὐδεμίην ἀνδρῶν δύναμιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἱρὰ - τουτέων τῶν θεῶν—τούτοισι δ᾽ ὦν πίσυνος ἐὼν, κατήγαγε (Herodot. - vii, 153). Herodotus does not tell us the details which he - had heard of the manner in which this restoration at Gela was - brought about; but his general language intimates, that they were - remarkable details, and they might have illustrated the story of - Phyê Athênê. - -The daughter of Megaklês, according to agreement, quickly became -the wife of Peisistratus, but she bore him no children; and it -became known that her husband, having already adult sons by a former -marriage, and considering that the Kylonian curse rested upon all -the Alkmæônid family, did not intend that she should become a -mother.[200] Megaklês was so incensed at this behavior, that he not -only renounced his alliance with Peisistratus, but even made his -peace with the third party, the adherents of Lykurgus,—and assumed so -menacing an attitude, that the despot was obliged to evacuate Attica. -He retired to Eretria in Eubœa, where he remained no less than ten -years; but a considerable portion of that time was employed in making -preparations for a forcible return, and he seems to have exercised, -even while in exile, a degree of influence much exceeding that of -a private man. He lent valuable aid to Lygdamis of Naxos,[201] in -constituting himself despot of that island, and he possessed, we -know not how, the means of rendering valuable service to different -cities, Thebes in particular. They repaid him by large contributions -of money to aid in his reëstablishment: mercenaries were hired from -Argos, and the Naxian Lygdamis came himself, both with money and with -troops. Thus equipped and aided, Peisistratus landed at Marathon in -Attica. How the Athenian government had been conducted during his -ten years’ absence, we do not know; but the leaders of it permitted -him to remain undisturbed at Marathon, and to assemble his partisans -both from the city and from the country: nor was it until he broke -up from Marathon and had reached Pallênê on his way to Athens, that -they took the field against him. Moreover, their conduct, even when -the two armies were near together, must have been either extremely -negligent or corrupt; for Peisistratus found means to attack them -unprepared, routing their forces almost without resistance. In fact, -the proceedings have altogether the air of a concerted betrayal: for -the defeated troops, though unpursued, are said to have dispersed and -returned to their homes forthwith, in obedience to the proclamation -of Peisistratus, who marched on to Athens, and found himself a third -time ruler.[202] - - [200] Herodot. i, 61. Peisistratus—ἐμίχθη οἱ οὐ κατὰ νόμον. - - [201] About Lygdamis, see Athenæus, viii, p. 348, and his - citation from the lost work of Aristotle on the Grecian - Πολιτεῖαι; also, Aristot. Politic. v, 5, 1. - - [202] Herodot. i, 63. - -On this third successful entry, he took vigorous precautions for -rendering his seat permanent. The Alkmæônidæ and their immediate -partisans retired into exile; but he seized the children of those -who remained, and whose sentiments he suspected, as hostages for -the behavior of their parents, and placed them in Naxos, under the -care of Lygdamis. Moreover, he provided himself with a powerful -body of Thracian mercenaries, paid by taxes levied upon the -people:[203] nor did he omit to conciliate the favor of the gods -by a purification of the sacred island of Delos: all the dead -bodies which had been buried within sight of the temple of Apollo -were exhumed and reinterred farther off. At this time the Delian -festival,—attended by the Asiatic Ionians and the islanders, and -with which Athens was of course peculiarly connected,—must have -been beginning to decline from its pristine magnificence; for the -subjugation of the continental Ionic cities by Cyrus had been already -achieved, and the power of Samos, though increased under the despot -Polykratês, seems to have increased at the expense and to the ruin -of the smaller Ionic islands. From the same feelings, in part, -which led to the purification of Delos,—partly as an act of party -revenue,—Peisistratus caused the houses of the Alkmæônids to be -levelled with the ground, and the bodies of the deceased members of -that family to be disinterred and cast out of the country.[204] - - [203] Herodot. i, 64. ἐπικούροισί τε πολλοῖσι, καὶ χρημάτων - συνόδοισι, τῶν μὲν αὐτόθεν, τῶν δὲ ἀπὸ Στρύμονος ποτάμου - προσιόντων. - - [204] Isokratês, Or. xvi, De Bigis, c. 351. - -This third and last period of the rule of Peisistratus lasted several -years, until his death in 527 B. C.: it is said to have been so -mild in its character, that he once even suffered himself to be -cited for trial before the Senate of Areopagus; yet as we know that -he had to maintain a large body of Thracian mercenaries out of the -funds of the people, we shall be inclined to construe this eulogium -comparatively rather than positively. Thucydidês affirms that both -he and his sons governed in a wise and virtuous spirit, levying -from the people only an income-tax of five per cent.[205] This is -high praise coming from such an authority, though it seems that -we ought to make some allowance for the circumstance of Thucydidês -being connected by descent with the Peisistratid family.[206] The -judgment of Herodotus is also very favorable respecting Peisistratus; -that of Aristotle favorable, yet qualified,—since he includes these -despots among the list of those who undertook public and sacred works -with the deliberate view of impoverishing as well as of occupying -their subjects. This supposition is countenanced by the prodigious -scale upon which the temple of Zeus Olympius at Athens was begun -by Peisistratus,—a scale much exceeding either the Parthenôn or -the temple of Athênê Polias, both of which were erected in later -times, when the means of Athens were decidedly larger,[207] and her -disposition to demonstrative piety certainly no way diminished. It -was left by him unfinished, nor was it ever completed until the Roman -emperor Hadrian undertook the task. Moreover, Peisistratus introduced -the greater Panathenaic festival, solemnized every four years, in the -third Olympic year: the annual Panathenaic festival, henceforward -called the Lesser, was still continued. - - [205] For the statement of Boeckh, Dr. Arnold, and Dr. Thirlwall, - that Peisistratus had levied a tythe or tax of ten per cent., - and that his sons reduced it to the half, I find no sufficient - warrant: certainly, the spurious letter of Peisistratus to Solon - in Diogenes Laërtius (i, 53) ought not to be considered as - proving anything. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, B. iii, c. - 6 (i, 351 German); Dr. Arnold ad Thucyd. vi, 34; Dr. Thirlwall - Hist. of Gr. ch. xi, pp. 72-74. Idomeneus (ap. Athenæ. xii, p. - 533) considers the sons of Peisistratus to have indulged in - pleasures to an extent more costly and oppressive to the people - than their father. Nor do I think that there is sufficient - authority to sustain the statement of Dr. Thirlwall (p. 68), - “He (Peisistratus) possessed lands on the Strymon in Thrace, - which yielded a large revenue.” Herodotus (i, 64) tells us that - Peisistratus brought mercenary soldiers from the Strymon, but - that he levied the money to pay them in Attica—ἐῤῥίζωσε τὴν - τυραννίδα ἐπικούροισί τε πολλοῖσι, καὶ χρημάτων συνόδοισι, τῶν - μὲν αὐτόθεν, τῶν δὲ ἀπὸ Στρύμονος ποταμοῦ συνιόντων. It is, - indeed, possible to construe this passage so as to refer both τῶν - μὲν and τῶν δὲ to χρημάτων, which would signify that Peisistratus - obtained his funds partly from the river Strymon, and thus serve - as basis to the statement of Dr. Thirlwall. But it seems to me - that the better way of construing the words is to refer τῶν μὲν - to χρημάτων συνόδοισι, and τῶν δὲ to ἐπικούροισι,—treating both - of them as genitives absolute. It is highly improbable that he - should derive money from the Strymon: it is highly probable that - his mercenaries came from thence. - - [206] Hermippus (ap. Marcellin. Vit. Thucyd. p. ix,) and the - Scholiast on Thucyd. i, 20, affirm that Thucydidês was connected - by relationship with the Peisistratidæ. His manner of speaking - of them certainly lends countenance to the assertion; not merely - as he twice notices their history, once briefly (i, 20) and - again at considerable length (vi, 54-59), though it does not - lie within the direct compass of his period,—but also as he so - emphatically announces his own personal knowledge of their family - relations,—Ὅτι δὲ πρεσβύτατος ὢν Ἱππίας ἦρξεν, ~εἰδὼς~ μὲν καὶ - ἀκοῇ ἀκριβέστερον ἄλλων ἰσχυρίζομαι (vi, 55). - - Aristotle (Politic. v, 9, 21) mentions it as a report (φασι) that - Peisistratus obeyed the summons to appear before the Areopagus; - Plutarch adds that the person who had summoned him did not appear - to bring the cause to trial (Vit. Solon, 31), which is not at all - surprising: compare Thucyd. vi, 56, 57. - - [207] Aristot. Politic, v, 9, 4; Dikæarchus, Vita Græciæ, pp. - 140-166, ed. Fuhr; Pausan. i, 18, 8. - -I have already noticed, at considerable length, the care which he -bestowed in procuring full and correct copies of the Homeric poems, -as well as in improving the recitation of them at the Panathenaic -festival,—a proceeding for which we owe him much gratitude, but which -has been shown to be erroneously interpreted by various critics. He -probably also collected the works of other poets,—called by Aulus -Gellius,[208] in language not well suited to the sixth century B. -C., a library thrown open to the public; and the service which he -thus rendered must have been highly valuable at a time when writing -and reading were not widely extended. His son Hipparchus followed up -the same taste, taking pleasure in the society of the most eminent -poets of the day,[209]—Simonidês, Anakreon, and Lasus; not to mention -the Athenian mystic Onomakritus, who, though not pretending to the -gift of prophecy himself, passed for the proprietor and editor of -the various prophecies ascribed to the ancient name of Musæus. The -Peisistratids were well versed in these prophecies, and set great -value upon them; but Onomakritus, being detected on one occasion -in the act of interpolating the prophecies of Musæus, was banished -by Hipparchus in consequence.[210] The statues of Hermês, erected -by this prince or by his personal friends in various parts of -Attica,[211] and inscribed with short moral sentences, are extolled -by the author of the Platonic dialogue called Hipparchus, with an -exaggeration which approaches to irony; but it is certain that -both the sons of Peisistratus, as well as himself, were exact in -fulfilling the religious obligations of the state, and ornamented the -city in several ways, especially the public fountain Kallirrhoê. They -are said to have maintained the preëxisting forms of law and justice, -merely taking care always to keep themselves and their adherents in -the effective offices of state, and in the full reality of power. -They were, moreover, modest and popular in their personal demeanor, -and charitable to the poor; yet one striking example occurs of -unscrupulous enmity, in their murder of Kimôn, by night, through the -agency of hired assassins.[212] There is good reason, however, for -believing that the government both of Peisistratus and of his sons -was in practice generally mild until after the death of Hipparchus -by the hands of Harmodius and Aristogeitôn, after which event the -surviving Hippias became alarmed, cruel, and oppressive during his -last four years. And the harshness of this concluding period left -upon the Athenian mind[213] that profound and imperishable hatred, -against the dynasty generally, which Thucydidês attests,—though he -labors to show that it was not deserved by Peisistratus, nor at first -by Hippias. - - [208] Aul. Gell. N. A. vi, 17. - - [209] Herodot. vii, 6; Pseudo-Plato, Hipparchus, p. 229. - - [210] Herodot. v, 93, VI, 6. Ὀνομάκριτον, χρησμολόγον καὶ - διαθέτην τῶν χρησμῶν τῶν Μουσαίου. See Pausan. i, 22, 7. Compare, - about the literary tendencies of the Peisistratids, Nitzsch, De - Historiâ Homeri, ch. 30, p. 168. - - [211] Philochor. Frag. 69, ed. Didot; Plato, Hipparch. p. 230. - - [212] Herodot. vi, 38-103; Theopomp. ap. Athenæ. xii, p. 533. - - [213] Thucyd. vi, 53; Pseudo-Plato, Hipparch. p. 230; Pausan. i, - 23, 1. - -Peisistratus left three legitimate sons,—Hippias, Hipparchus, and -Thessalus: the general belief at Athens among the contemporaries -of Thucydidês was, that Hipparchus was the eldest of the three and -had succeeded him; but the historian emphatically pronounces this -to be a mistake, and certifies, upon his own responsibility, that -Hippias was both eldest son and successor. Such an assurance from -him, fortified by certain reasons in themselves not very conclusive, -is sufficient ground for our belief,—the more so as Herodotus -countenances the same version. But we are surprised at such a degree -of historical carelessness in the Athenian public, and seemingly even -in Plato,[214] about a matter both interesting and comparatively -recent. In order to abate this surprise, and to explain how the name -of Hipparchus came to supplant that of Hippias in the popular talk, -Thucydidês recounts the memorable story of Harmodius and Aristogeitôn. - - [214] Thucyd. i, 20, about the general belief of the Athenian - public in his time—Ἀθηναίων γοῦν τὸ πλῆθος οἴονται ὑφ᾽ Ἁρμοδίου - καὶ Ἀριστογείτονος Ἵππαρχον τύραννον ὄντα ἀποθανεῖν, καὶ οὐκ - ἴσασιν ὅτι Ἱππίας μὲν πρεσβύτατος ὢν ἦρχε τῶν Πεισιστράτου - παιδῶν, etc. - - The Pseudo-Plato in the dialogue called Hipparchus adopts this - belief, and the real Plato in his Symposion (c. 9, p. 182) seems - to countenance it. - -Of these two Athenian citizens,[215] both belonging to the ancient -gens called Gephyræi, the former was a beautiful youth, attached to -the latter by a mutual friendship and devoted intimacy, which Grecian -manners did not condemn. Hipparchus made repeated propositions to -Harmodius, which were repelled, but which, on becoming known to -Aristogeitôn, excited both his jealousy and his fears lest the -disappointed suitor should employ force,—fears justified by the -proceedings not unusual with Grecian despots,[216] and by the -absence of all legal protection against outrage from such a quarter. -Under these feelings, he began to look about, in the best way that -he could, for some means of putting down the despotism. Meanwhile -Hipparchus, though not entertaining any designs of violence, was so -incensed at the refusal of Harmodius, that he could not be satisfied -without doing something to insult or humiliate him. In order to -conceal the motive from which the insult really proceeded, he -offered it, not directly to Harmodius, but to his sister. He caused -this young maiden to be one day summoned to take her station in a -religious procession as one of the kanêphoræ, or basket carriers, -according to the practice usual at Athens; but when she arrived at -the place where her fellow-maidens were assembled, she was dismissed -with scorn as unworthy of so respectable a function, and the summons -addressed to her was disavowed.[217] An insult thus publicly offered -filled Harmodius with indignation, and still farther exasperated the -feelings of Aristogeitôn: both of them, resolving at all hazards to -put an end to the despotism, concerted means for aggression with -a few select associates. They awaited the festival of the Great -Panathenæa, wherein the body of the citizens were accustomed to march -up in armed procession, with spear and shield, to the acropolis; -this being the only day on which an armed body could come together -without suspicion. The conspirators appeared armed like the rest -of the citizens, but carrying concealed daggers besides. Harmodius -and Aristogeitôn undertook with their own hands to kill the two -Peisistratids, while the rest promised to stand forward immediately -for their protection against the foreign mercenaries; and though -the whole number of persons engaged was small, they counted upon -the spontaneous sympathies of the armed bystanders in an effort to -regain their liberties, so soon as the blow should once be struck. -The day of the festival having arrived, Hippias, with his foreign -body-guard around him, was marshalling the armed citizens for -procession, in the Kerameikus without the gates, when Harmodius and -Aristogeitôn approached with concealed daggers to execute their -purpose. On coming near, they were thunderstruck to behold one of -their own fellow-conspirators talking familiarly with Hippias, who -was of easy access to every man, and they immediately concluded that -the plot was betrayed. Expecting to be seized, and wrought up to -a state of desperation, they resolved at least not to die without -having revenged themselves on Hipparchus, whom they found within the -city gates near the chapel called the Leôkorion, and immediately -slew him. His attendant guards killed Harmodius on the spot; while -Aristogeitôn, rescued for the moment by the surrounding crowd, was -afterwards taken, and perished in the tortures applied to make him -disclose his accomplices.[218] - - [215] Herodot. v, 55-58. Harmodius is affirmed by Plutarch to - have been of the deme Aphidnæ (Plutarch, Symposiacon, i, 10, p. - 628). - - It is to be recollected that he died before the introduction - of the Ten Tribes, and before the recognition of the demes as - political elements in the commonwealth. - - [216] For the terrible effects produced by this fear of ὕβρις εἰς - τὴν ἡλικίαν, see Plutarch, Kimon, 1; Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 17. - - [217] Thucyd. vi, 56. Τὸν δ᾽ οὖν Ἁρμόδιον ἀπαρνηθέντα τὴν - πείρασιν, ὥσπερ διενοεῖτο, προυπηλάκισεν· ἀδελφὴν γὰρ αὐτοῦ, - κόρην, ἐπαγγείλαντες ἥκειν κανοῦν οἴσουσαν ἐν πομπῇ τινι, - ἀπήλασαν, λέγοντες οὐδὲ ἐπαγγεῖλαι ἀρχὴν, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀξίαν εἶναι. - - Dr. Arnold, in his note, supposes that this exclusion of the - sister of Harmodius by the Peisistratids may have been founded on - the circumstance that she belonged to the gens Gephyræi (Herodot. - v, 57); her foreign blood, and her being in certain respects - ἄτιμος, disqualified her (he thinks) from ministering to the - worship of the gods of Athens. - - There is no positive reason to support the conjecture of Dr. - Arnold, which seems, moreover, virtually discountenanced by the - narrative of Thucydidês, who plainly describes the treatment - of this young woman as a deliberate, preconcerted insult. Had - there existed any assignable ground of exclusion, such as that - which Dr. Arnold supposes, leading to the inference that the - Peisistratids could not admit her without violating religious - custom, Thucydidês would hardly have neglected to allude to - it, for it would have lightened the insult; and indeed, on - that supposition, the sending of the original summons might - have been made to appear as an accidental mistake. I will add, - that Thucydidês, though no way forfeiting his obligations to - historical truth, is evidently not disposed to omit anything - which can be truly said in favor of the Peisistratids. - - [218] Thucyd. vi, 58, οὐ ῥᾳδίως διετέθη: compare Polyæn. i, 22; - Diodorus, Fragm. lib. x, p. 62, vol. iv, ed. Wess.; Justin, ii, - 9. See, also, a good note of Dr. Thirlwall on the passage, Hist. - of Gr. vol. ii, ch. xi, p. 77, 2nd ed. I agree with him, that we - may fairly construe the indistinct phrase of Thucydidês by the - more precise statements of later authors, who mention the torture. - -The news flew quickly to Hippias in the Kerameikus, who heard it -earlier than the armed citizens near him, awaiting his order for the -commencement of the procession. With extraordinary self-command, -he took advantage of this precious instant of foreknowledge, and -advanced towards them,—commanding them to drop their arms for a -short time, and assemble on an adjoining ground. They unsuspectingly -obeyed, and he immediately directed his guards to take possession of -the vacant arms. He was now undisputed master, and enabled to seize -the persons of all those citizens whom he mistrusted,—especially all -those who had daggers about them, which it was not the practice to -carry in the Panathenaic procession. - -Such is the memorable narrative of Harmodius and Aristogeitôn, -peculiarly valuable inasmuch as it all comes from Thucydidês.[219] -To possess great power,—to be above legal restraint,—to inspire -extraordinary fear,—is a privilege so much coveted by the giants -among mankind, that we may well take notice of those cases in which -it brings misfortune even upon themselves. The fear inspired by -Hipparchus,—of designs which he did not really entertain, but was -likely to entertain, and competent to execute without hindrance,—was -here the grand cause of his destruction. - - [219] Thucyd. i, 20, vi, 54-59; Herodot. v, 55, 56, vi, 123; - Aristot. Polit. v, 8, 9. - -The conspiracy here detailed happened in 514 B. C., during the -thirteenth year of the reign of Hippias,—which lasted four years -longer, until 510 B. C. And these last four years, in the belief -of the Athenian public, counted for his whole reign; nay, many of -them made the still greater historical mistake of eliding these -last four years altogether, and of supposing that the conspiracy of -Harmodius and Aristogeitôn had deposed the Peisistratid government -and liberated Athens. Both poets and philosophers shared this faith, -which is distinctly put forth in the beautiful and popular Skolion -or song on the subject: the two friends are there celebrated as -the authors of liberty at Athens,—“they slew the despot and gave -to Athens equal laws.”[220] So inestimable a present was alone -sufficient to enshrine in the minds of the subsequent democracy -those who had sold their lives to purchase it: and we must farther -recollect that the intimate connection between the two, so repugnant -to the modern reader, was regarded at Athens with sympathy,—so that -the story took hold of the Athenian mind by the vein of romance -conjointly with that of patriotism. Harmodius and Aristogeitôn were -afterwards commemorated both as the winners and as the protomartyrs -of Athenian liberty. Statues were erected in their honor shortly -after the final expulsion of the Peisistratids; immunity from taxes -and public burdens was granted to the descendants of their families; -and the speaker who proposed the abolition of such immunities, at a -time when the number had been abusively multiplied, made his only -special exception in favor of this respected lineage.[221] And since -the name of Hipparchus was universally notorious as the person slain, -we discover how it was that he came to be considered by an uncritical -public as the predominant member of the Peisistratid family,—the -eldest son and successor of Peisistratus,—the reigning despot,—to the -comparative neglect of Hippias. The same public probably cherished -many other anecdotes,[222] not the less eagerly believed because -they could not be authenticated, respecting this eventful period. - - [220] See the words of the song:— - - Ὅτι τὸν τύραννον κτανέτην - Ἰσονόμους τ᾽ Αθήνας ἐποιησάτην— - - ap. Athenæum, xv, p. 691. - - The epigram of the Keian Simonidês, (Fragm. 132, ed. Bergk—ap. - Hephæstion. c. 14, p. 26, ed. Gaisf.) implies a similar belief: - also, the passages in Plato, Symposion, p. 182, in Aristot. - Polit. v, 8, 21, and Arrian, Exped. Alex. iv, 10, 3. - - [221] Herodot. vi, 109; Demosthen. adv. Leptin. c. 27, p. 495; - cont. Meidiam, c. 47, p. 569; and the oath prescribed in the - Psephism of Demophantus, Andokidês, De Mysteriis, p. 13; Pliny, - H. N. xxxiv, 4-8; Pausan. i, 8, 5; Plutarch, Aristeidês, 27. - - The statues were carried away from Athens by Xerxês, and restored - to the Athenians by Alexander after his conquest of Persia - (Arrian, Ex. Al. iii, 14, 16; Pliny, H. N. xxxiv, 4-8). - - [222] One of these stories may be seen in Justin, ii, 9,—who - gives the name of Dioklês to Hipparchus,—“Diocles, alter ex - filiis, per vim stupratâ virgine, a fratre puellæ interficitur.” - -Whatever may have been the moderation of Hippias before, indignation -at the death of his brother, and fear for his own safety,[223] now -induced him to drop it altogether. It is attested both by Thucydidês -and Herodotus, and admits of no doubt, that his power was now -employed harshly and cruelly,—that he put to death a considerable -number of citizens. We find also a statement, noway improbable in -itself, and affirmed both in Pausanias and in Plutarch,—inferior -authorities, yet still in this case sufficiently credible,—that -he caused Leæna, the mistress of Aristogeitôn, to be tortured to -death, in order to extort from her a knowledge of the secrets and -accomplices of the latter.[224] But as he could not but be sensible -that this system of terrorism was full of peril to himself, so he -looked out for shelter and support in case of being expelled from -Athens; and with this view he sought to connect himself with Darius -king of Persia,—a connection full of consequences to be hereafter -developed. Æantidês, son of Hippoklus the despot of Lampsakus on -the Hellespont, stood high at this time in the favor of the Persian -monarch, which induced Hippias to give him his daughter Archedikê -in marriage; no small honor to the Lampsakene, in the estimation of -Thucydidês.[225] To explain how Hippias came to fix upon this town, -however, it is necessary to say a few words on the foreign policy of -the Peisistratids. - - [223] Ἡ γὰρ δειλία φονικώτατόν ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς τυραννίσιν—observes - Plutarch, (Artaxerxês, c. 25). - - [224] Pausan. i, 23, 2: Plutarch, De Garrulitate, p. 897; Polyæn. - viii, 45; Athenæus, xiii. p. 596. - - [225] We can hardly be mistaken in putting this interpretation on - the words of Thucydidês—Ἀθηναῖος ὢν, Λαμψακηνῷ ἔδωκε (vi, 59). - - Some financial tricks and frauds are ascribed to Hippias by the - author of the Pseudo-Aristotelian second book of the Œconomica - (ii, 4). I place little reliance on the statements in this - treatise respecting persons of early date, such as Kypselus or - Hippias; in respect to facts of the subsequent period of Greece, - between 450-300 B. C., the author’s means of information will - doubtless render him a better witness. - -It has already been mentioned that the Athenians, even so far -back as the days of the poet Alkæus, had occupied Sigeium in the -Troad, and had there carried on war with the Mityleneans; so that -their acquisitions in these regions date much before the time of -Peisistratus. Owing probably to this circumstance, an application -was made to them in the early part of his reign from the Dolonkian -Thracians, inhabitants of the Chersonese on the opposite side of the -Hellespont, for aid against their powerful neighbors the Absinthian -tribe of Thracians; and opportunity was thus offered for sending out -a colony to acquire this valuable peninsula for Athens. Peisistratus -willingly entered into the scheme, and Miltiadês son of Kypselus, a -noble Athenian, living impatiently under his despotism, was no less -pleased to take the lead in executing it: his departure and that -of other malcontents as founders of a colony suited the purpose of -all parties. According to the narrative of Herodotus,—alike pious -and picturesque,—and doubtless circulating as authentic at the -annual games which the Chersonesites, even in his time, celebrated -to the honor of their œkist,—it is the Delphian god who directs the -scheme and singles out the individual. The chiefs of the distressed -Dolonkians went to Delphi to crave assistance towards procuring -Grecian colonists, and were directed to choose for their œkist the -individual who should first show them hospitality on their quitting -the temple. They departed and marched all along what was called the -Sacred Road, through Phocis and Bœotia to Athens, without receiving -a single hospitable invitation; at length they entered Athens, and -passed by the house of Miltiadês, while he himself was sitting in -front of it. Seeing men whose costume and arms marked them out as -strangers, he invited them into his house and treated them kindly: -they then apprized him that he was the man fixed upon by the oracle, -and abjured him not to refuse his concurrence. After asking for -himself personally the opinion of the oracle, and receiving an -affirmative answer, he consented; sailing as œkist, at the head of a -body of Athenian emigrants, to the Chersonese.[226] - - [226] Herodot. vi, 36-37. - -Having reached this peninsula, and having been constituted despot -of the mixed Thracian and Athenian population, he lost no time in -fortifying the narrow isthmus by a wall reaching all across from -Kardia to Paktya, a distance of about four miles and a half; so that -the Absinthian invaders were for the time effectually shut out,[227] -though the protection was not permanently kept up. He also entered -into a war with Lampsakus, on the Asiatic side of the strait, but was -unfortunate enough to fall into an ambuscade and become a prisoner. -Nothing preserved his life except the immediate interference of -Crœsus king of Lydia, coupled with strenuous menaces addressed to -the Lampsakenes, who found themselves compelled to release their -prisoner; Miltiadês having acquired much favor with this prince, in -what manner we are not told. He died childless some time afterwards, -while his nephew Stesagoras, who succeeded him, perished by -assassination, some time subsequent to the death of Peisistratus at -Athens.[228] - - [227] Thus the Scythians broke into the Chersonese even - during the government of Miltiadês son of Kimôn, nephew of - Miltiadês the œkist, about forty years after the wall had been - erected (Herodot. vi, 40). Again, Periklês reëstablished the - cross-wall, on sending to the Chersonese a fresh band of one - thousand Athenian settlers (Plutarch, Periklês, c. 19): lastly, - Derkyllidas the Lacedæmonian built it anew, in consequence of - loud complaints raised by the inhabitants of their defenceless - condition,—about 397 B. C. (Xenophon. Hellen. iii, 2, 8-10). So - imperfect, however, did the protection prove, that about half a - century afterwards, during the first years of the conquests of - Philip of Macedon, an idea was entertained of digging through - the isthmus, and converting the peninsula into an island - (Demosthenês, Philippic ii, 6, p. 92, and De Haloneso, c. 10, p. - 86); an idea, however, never carried into effect. - - [228] Herodot. vi, 38, 39. - -The expedition of Miltiadês to the Chersonese must have occurred -early after the first usurpation of Peisistratus, since even his -imprisonment by the Lampsakenes happened before the ruin of Crœsus, -(546 B. C.). But it was not till much later,—probably during the -third and most powerful period of Peisistratus,—that the latter -undertook his expedition against Sigeium in the Troad. This -place appears to have fallen into the hands of the Mityleneans: -Peisistratus retook it,[229] and placed there his illegitimate son -Hegesistratus as despot. The Mityleneans may have been enfeebled -at this time (somewhere between 537-527 B. C.) not only by the -strides of Persian conquest on the mainland, but also by the ruinous -defeat which they suffered from Polykratês and the Samians.[230] -Hegesistratus maintained the place against various hostile attempts, -throughout all the reign of Hippias, so that the Athenian possessions -in those regions comprehended at this period both the Chersonese -and Sigeium.[231] To the former of the two, Hippias sent out -Miltiadês, nephew of the first œkist, as governor, after the death -of his brother Stesagoras. The new governor found much discontent -in the peninsula, but succeeded in subduing it by entrapping and -imprisoning the principal men in each town. He farther took into his -pay a regiment of five hundred mercenaries, and married Hegesipylê, -daughter of the Thracian king Olorus.[232] It appears to have -been about 515 B. C. that this second Miltiadês went out to the -Chersonese.[233] He seems to have been obliged to quit it for a time, -after the Scythian expedition of Darius, in consequence of having -incurred the hostility of the Persians; but he was there from the -beginning of the Ionic revolt until about 493 B. C., or two or three -years before the battle of Marathon, on which occasion we shall find -him acting commander of the Athenian army. - - [229] Herodot. v, 94. I have already said that I conceive this as - a different war from that in which the poet Alkæus was engaged. - - [230] Herodot. iii, 39. - - [231] Herodot. vi, 104, 139, 140. - - [232] Herodot. vi, 39-103. Cornelius Nepos, in his Life of - Miltiadês, confounds in one biography the adventures of two - persons,—Miltiadês son of Kypselus, the œkist,—and Miltiadês son - of Kimôn, the victor of Marathon,—the uncle and the nephew. - - [233] There is nothing that I know to mark the date except that - it was earlier than the death of Hipparchus in 514 B. C., and - also earlier than the expedition of Darius against the Scythians, - about 516 B. C., in which expedition Miltiadês was engaged: see - Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, and J. M. Schultz, Beitrag zu - genaueren Zeitbestimmungen der Hellen. Geschichten von der 63sten - bis zur 72sten Olympiade, p. 165, in the Kieler Philologische - Studien 1841. - -Both the Chersonese and Sigeium, though Athenian possessions, were -however now tributary and dependent on Persia. And it was to this -quarter that Hippias, during his last years of alarm, looked for -support in the event of being expelled from Athens: he calculated -upon Sigeium as a shelter, and upon Æantidês, as well as Darius, as -an ally. Neither the one nor the other failed him. - -The same circumstances which alarmed Hippias, and rendered his -dominion in Attica at once more oppressive and more odious, tended -of course to raise the hopes of his enemies, the Athenian exiles, -with the powerful Alkmæônids at their head. Believing the favorable -moment to be come, they even ventured upon an invasion of Attica, and -occupied a post called Leipsydrion in the mountain range of Parnês, -which separates Attica from Bœotia.[234] But their schemes altogether -failed: Hippias defeated and drove them out of the country. His -dominion now seemed confirmed, for the Lacedæmonians were on terms of -intimate friendship with him; and Amyntas king of Macedon, as well as -the Thessalians, were his allies. Yet the exiles whom he had beaten -in the open field succeeded in an unexpected manœuvre, which, favored -by circumstances, proved his ruin. - - [234] Herodot. v, 62. The unfortunate struggle at Leipsydrion - became afterwards the theme of a popular song (Athenæus, xv, - p. 695): see Hesychius, v. Λειψύδριον, and Aristotle, Fragm. - Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία, 37, ed. Neumann. - - If it be true that Alkibiadês, grandfather of the celebrated - Alkibiadês, took part with Kleisthenês and the Alkmæonid exiles - in this struggle (see Isokratês, De Bigis, Or. xvi, p. 351), he - must have been a mere youth. - -By an accident which had occurred in the year 548 B. C.,[235] the -Delphian temple was set on fire and burnt. To repair this grave loss -was an object of solicitude to all Greece; but the outlay required -was exceedingly heavy, and it appears to have been long before the -money could be collected. The Amphiktyons decreed that one-fourth -of the cost should be borne by the Delphians themselves, who found -themselves so heavily taxed by this assessment, that they sent envoys -throughout all Greece to collect subscriptions in aid, and received, -among other donations, from the Greek settlers in Egypt twenty minæ, -besides a large present of alum from the Egyptian king Amasis: their -munificent benefactor Crœsus fell a victim to the Persians in 546 -B. C., so that his treasure was no longer open to them. The total -sum required was three hundred talents (equal probably to about one -hundred and fifteen thousand pounds sterling),[236]—a prodigious -amount to be collected from the dispersed Grecian cities, who -acknowledged no common sovereign authority, and among whom the -proportion reasonable to ask from each was so difficult to determine -with satisfaction to all parties. At length, however, the money -was collected, and the Amphiktyons were in a situation to make a -contract for the building of the temple. The Alkmæônids, who had -been in exile ever since the third and final acquisition of power by -Peisistratus, took the contract; and in executing it, they not only -performed the work in the best manner, but even went much beyond the -terms stipulated; employing Parian marble for the frontage, where -the material prescribed to them was coarse stone.[237] As was before -remarked in the case of Peisistratus when he was in banishment, we -are surprised to find exiles whose property had been confiscated so -amply furnished with money,—unless we are to suppose that Kleisthenês -the Alkmæônid, grandson of the Sikyonian Kleisthenês,[238] inherited -through his mother wealth independent of Attica, and deposited it in -the temple of the Samian Hêrê. But the fact is unquestionable, and -they gained signal reputation throughout the Hellenic world for their -liberal performance of so important an enterprise. That the erection -took considerable time, we cannot doubt. It seems to have been -finished, as far as we can conjecture, about a year or two after -the death of Hipparchus,—512 B. C.,—more than thirty years after the -conflagration. - - [235] Pausan. x, 5, 5. - - [236] Herodot. i, 50, ii, 180. I have taken the three hundred - talents of Herodotus as being Æginæan talents, which are to - Attic talents in the ratio of 5 : 3. The Inscriptions prove that - the accounts of the temple were kept by the Amphiktyons on the - Æginæan scale of money: see Corpus Inscrip. Boeckh, No. 1688, and - Boeckh, Metrologie, vii, 4. - - [237] Herodot. vi, 62. The words of the historian would seem - to imply that they only began to think of this scheme of - building the temple after the defeat of Leipsydrion, and a year - or two before the expulsion of Hippias; a supposition quite - inadmissible, since the temple must have taken some years in - building. - - The loose and prejudiced statement in Philochorus, affirming that - the Peisistratids caused the Delphian temple to be burnt, and - also that they were at last deposed by the victorious arm of the - Alkmæônids (Philochori Fragment. 70, ed. Didot) makes us feel the - value of Herodotus and Thucydidês as authorities. - - [238] Herodot. vi, 128; Cicero, De Legg. ii, 16. The deposit here - mentioned by Cicero, which may very probably have been recorded - in an inscription in the temple, must have been made before the - time of the Persian conquest of Samos,—indeed, before the death - of Polykratês in 522 B. C., after which period the island fell at - once into a precarious situation, and very soon afterwards into - the greatest calamities. - -To the Delphians, especially, the rebuilding of their temple on -so superior a scale was the most essential of all services, and -their gratitude towards the Alkmæônids was proportionally great. -Partly through such a feeling, partly through pecuniary presents, -Kleisthenês was thus enabled to work the oracle for political -purposes, and to call forth the powerful arm of Sparta against -Hippias. Whenever any Spartan presented himself to consult the -oracle, either on private or public business, the answer of the -priestess was always in one strain, “Athens must be liberated.” -The constant repetition of this mandate at length extorted from -the piety of the Lacedæmonians a reluctant compliance. Reverence -for the god overcame their strong feeling of friendship towards -the Peisistratids, and Anchimolius son of Aster was despatched by -sea to Athens, at the head of a Spartan force to expel them. On -landing at Phalêrum, however, he found them already forewarned and -prepared, as well as farther strengthened by one thousand horse -specially demanded from their allies in Thessaly. Upon the plain of -Phalêrum, this latter force was found peculiarly effective, so that -the division of Anchimolius was driven back to their ships with great -loss and he himself slain.[239] The defeated armament had probably -been small, and its repulse only provoked the Lacedæmonians to send a -larger, under the command of their king Kleomenês in person, who on -this occasion marched into Attica by land. On reaching the plain of -Athens, he was assailed by the Thessalian horse, but repelled them -in so gallant a style, that they at once rode off and returned to -their native country; abandoning their allies with a faithlessness -not unfrequent in the Thessalian character. Kleomenês marched on to -Athens without farther resistance, and found himself, together with -the Alkmæônids and the malcontent Athenians generally, in possession -of the town. At that time there was no fortification except around -the acropolis, into which Hippias retired with his mercenaries and -the citizens most faithful to him; having taken care to provision it -well beforehand, so that it was not less secure against famine than -against assault. He might have defied the besieging force, which was -noway prepared for a long blockade; but, not altogether confiding in -his position, he tried to send his children by stealth out of the -country; and in this proceeding the children were taken prisoners. To -procure their restoration, Hippias consented to all that was demanded -of him, and withdrew from Attica to Sigeium in the Troad within the -space of five days. - - [239] Herodot. v, 62, 63. - -Thus fell the Peisistratid dynasty in 510 B. C., fifty years after -the first usurpation of its founder.[240] It was put down through the -aid of foreigners,[241] and those foreigners, too, wishing well to -it in their hearts, though hostile from a mistaken feeling of divine -injunction. Yet both the circumstances of its fall, and the course -of events which followed, conspire to show that it possessed few -attached friends in the country, and that the expulsion of Hippias -was welcomed unanimously by the vast majority of Athenians. His -family and chief partisans would accompany him into exile,—probably -as a matter of course, without requiring any formal sentence of -condemnation; and an altar was erected in the acropolis, with a -column hard by, commemorating both the past iniquity of the dethroned -dynasty, and the names of all its members.[242] - - [240] Herodot. v, 64, 65. - - [241] Thucyd. vi, 56, 57. - - [242] Thucyd. vi, 55. ὡς ὅ τε βωμὸς σημαίνει, καὶ ἡ στήλη περὶ - τῆς τῶν τυράννων ἀδικίας, ἡ ἐν τῇ Ἀθηναίων ἀκροπόλει σταθεῖσα. - - Dr. Thirlwall, after mentioning the departure of Hippias, - proceeds as follows: “After his departure many severe measures - were taken against his adherents, who appear to have been for a - long time afterwards a formidable party. They were punished or - repressed, some by death, others by exile or by the loss of their - political privileges. The family of the tyrants was condemned to - perpetual banishment, and appears to have been excepted from the - most comprehensive decrees of amnesty passed in later times.” - (Hist. of Gr. ch. xi, vol. ii, p. 81.) - - I cannot but think that Dr. Thirlwall has here been misled by - insufficient authority. He refers to the oration of Andokidês - de Mysteriis, sects. 106 and 78 (sect. 106 coincides in part - with ch. 18, in the ed. of Dobree). An attentive reading of - it will show that it is utterly unworthy of credit in regard - to matters anterior to the speaker by one generation or more. - The orators often permit themselves great license in speaking - of past facts, but Andokidês in this chapter passes the bounds - even of rhetorical license. First, he states something not - bearing the least analogy to the narrative of Herodotus as to - the circumstances preceding the expulsion of the Peisistratids, - and indeed tacitly setting aside that narrative; next, he - actually jumbles together the two capital and distinct exploits - of Athens,—the battle of Marathon and the repulse of Xerxês - ten years after it. I state this latter charge in the words of - Sluiter and Valckenaer, before I consider the former charge: - “Verissime ad hæc verba notat Valckenaerius—Confundere videtur - Andocidês diversissima; Persica sub Miltiade et Dario et - victoriam Marathoniam (v, 14)—quæque evenere sub Themistocle, - Xerxis gesta. Hic urbem incendio delevit, non ille (v, 20). - Nihil magis manifestum est, quam diversa ab oratore confundi.” - (Sluiter, Lection. Andocideæ, p. 147.) - - The criticism of these commentators is perfectly borne out by the - words of the orator, which are too long to find a place here. - But immediately prior to those words he expresses himself as - follows, and this is the passage which serves as Dr. Thirlwall’s - authority: Οἱ γὰρ πατέρες οἱ ὑμέτεροι, γενομένων τῇ πόλει κακῶν - μεγάλων, ὅτε οἱ τύραννοι εἶχον τὴν πόλιν, ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἔφυγε, - νικήσαντες μαχόμενοι τοὺς τυράννους ἐπὶ Παλληνίῳ, στρατηγοῦντος - Λεωγόρου τοῦ προπάππου τοῦ ἐμοῦ, καὶ Χαρίου οὗ ἐκεῖνος τὴν - θυγατέρα εἶχεν ἐξ ἧς ὁ ἡμέτερος ἦν πάππος, κατελθόντες εἰς τὴν - πατρίδα τοὺς μὲν ἀπέκτειναν, τῶν δὲ φυγὴν κατέγνωσαν, τοὺς δὲ - μένειν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐάσαντες ἠτίμωσαν. - - Both Sluiter (Lect. And. p. 8) and Dr. Thirlwall (Hist. p. 80) - refer this alleged victory of Leogoras and the Athenian demus to - the action described by Herodotus (v, 64) as having been fought - by Kleomenês of Sparta against the Thessalian cavalry. But the - two events have not a single circumstance in common, except - that each is a victory over the Peisistratidæ or their allies: - nor could they well be the same event, described in different - terms, seeing that Kleomenês, marching from Sparta to Athens, - could not have fought the Thessalians at Pallênê, which lay on - the road from _Marathon_ to Athens. Pallênê was the place where - Peisistratus, advancing from Marathon to Athens, on occasion of - his second restoration, gained his complete victory over the - opposing party, and marched on afterwards to Athens without - farther resistance (Herodot. i, 63). - - If, then, we compare the statement given by Andokidês of the - preceding circumstances, whereby the dynasty of the Peisistratids - was put down, with that given by Herodotus, we shall see that - the two are radically different; we cannot blend them together, - but must make our election between them. Not less different are - the representations of the two as to the circumstances which - immediately ensued on the fall of Hippias: they would scarcely - appear to relate to the same event. That “the adherents of the - Peisistratidæ were punished or repressed, some by death, others - by exile, or by the loss of their political privileges,” which - is the assertion of Andokidês and Dr. Thirlwall, is not only - not stated by Herodotus, but is highly improbable, if we accept - the facts which he does state; for he tells us that Hippias - capitulated and agreed to retire while possessing ample means of - resistance,—simply from regard to the safety of his children. It - is not to be supposed that he would leave his intimate partisans - exposed to danger; such of them as felt themselves obnoxious - would naturally retire along with him; and if this be what is - meant by “many persons condemned to exile,” here is no reason to - call it in question. But there is little probability that any - one was put to death, and still less probability that any were - punished by the loss of their political privileges. Within a year - afterwards came the comprehensive constitution of Kleisthenês, - to be described in the following chapter, and I consider it - eminently unlikely that there were a considerable class of - residents in Attica left out of this constitution, under the - category of partisans of Peisistratus: indeed, the fact cannot be - so, if it be true that the very first person banished under the - Kleisthenean ostracism was a person named Hipparchus, a kinsman - of Peisistratus (Androtion, Fr. 5, ed. Didot; Harpokration, v. - Ἵππαρχος); and this latter circumstance depends upon evidence - better than that of Andokidês. That there were a party in Attica - attached to the Peisistratids, I do not doubt; but that they were - “a powerful party,” (as Dr. Thirlwall imagines,) I see nothing to - show; and the extraordinary vigor and unanimity of the Athenian - people under the Kleisthenean constitution will go far to prove - that such could not have been the case. - - I will add another reason to evince how completely Andokidês - misconceives the history of Athens between 510-480 B. C. He - says that when the Peisistratids were put down, many of their - partisans were banished, many others allowed to stay at home with - the loss of their political privileges; but that afterwards, when - the overwhelming dangers of the Persian invasion supervened, - the people passed a vote to restore the exiles and to remove - the existing disfranchisements at home. He would thus have us - believe that the exiled partisans of the Peisistratids were all - restored, and the disfranchised partisans of the Peisistratids - all enfranchised, just at the moment of the Persian invasion, - and with the view of enabling Athens better to repel that grave - danger. This is nothing less than a glaring mistake; for the - first Persian invasion was undertaken with the express view of - restoring Hippias, and with the presence of Hippias himself at - Marathon; while the second Persian invasion was also brought - on in part by the instigation of his family. Persons who had - remained in exile or in a state of disfranchisement down to that - time, in consequence of their attachment to the Peisistratids, - could not in common prudence be called into action at the moment - of peril, to help in repelling Hippias himself. It is very - true that the exiles and the disfranchised were readmitted, - shortly before the invasion of Xerxês, and under the then - pressing calamities of the state. But these persons were not - philo-Peisistratids; they were a number gradually accumulated - from the sentences of exile and (atimy or) disfranchisement every - year passed at Athens,—for these were punishments applied by the - Athenian law to various crimes and public omissions,—the persons - so sentenced were not politically disaffected, and their aid - would then be of use in defending the state against a foreign - enemy. - - In regard to “the exception of the family of Peisistratus from - the most comprehensive decrees of amnesty passed in later - times,” I will also remark that, in the decree of amnesty, - there is no mention of them by name, nor any special exception - made against them: among a list of various categories excepted, - those are named “who have been condemned to death or exile - either as murderers or as despots,” (ἢ σφαγεῦσιν ἢ τυράννοις, - Andokid. c. 13.) It is by no means certain that the _descendants_ - of Peisistratus would be comprised in this exception, which - mentions only the person himself condemned; but even if this were - otherwise, the exception is a mere continuance of similar words - of exception in the old Solonian law, anterior to Peisistratus; - and, therefore, affords no indication of particular feeling - against the Peisistratids. - - Andokidês is a useful authority for the politics of Athens in his - own time (between 420-390 B. C.), but in regard to the previous - history of Athens between 510-480 B. C., his assertions are so - loose, confused, and unscrupulous, that he is a witness of no - value. The mere circumstance noted by Valckenaer, that he has - confounded together Marathon and Salamis, would be sufficient - to show this; but when we add to such genuine ignorance his - mention of his two great-grandfathers in prominent and victorious - leadership, which it is hardly credible that they could ever have - occupied,—when we recollect that the facts which he alleges to - have preceded and accompanied the expulsion of the Peisistratids - are not only at variance with those stated by Herodotus, but so - contrived as to found a factitious analogy for the cause which - he is himself pleading,—we shall hardly be able to acquit him of - something worse than ignorance in his deposition. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXI. - -GRECIAN AFFAIRS AFTER THE EXPULSION OF THE PEISISTRATIDS. — -REVOLUTION OF KLEISTHENES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMOCRACY AT ATHENS. - - -With Hippias disappeared the mercenary Thracian garrison, upon which -he and his father before him had leaned for defence as well as for -enforcement of authority; and Kleomenês with his Lacedæmonian forces -retired also, after staying only long enough to establish a personal -friendship, productive subsequently of important consequences, -between the Spartan king and the Athenian Isagoras. The Athenians -were thus left to themselves, without any foreign interference to -constrain them in their political arrangements. - -It has been mentioned in the preceding chapter, that the -Peisistratids had for the most part respected the forms of the -Solonian constitution: the nine archons, and the probouleutic or -preconsidering Senate of Four Hundred (both annually changed), -still continued to subsist, together with occasional meetings -of the people,—or rather of such portion of the people as was -comprised in the gentes, phratries, and four Ionic tribes. The -timocratic classification of Solon (or quadruple scale of income and -admeasurement of political franchises according to it) also continued -to subsist,—but all within the tether and subservient to the -purposes of the ruling family, who always kept one of their number -as real master, among the chief administrators, and always retained -possession of the acropolis as well as of the mercenary force. - -That overawing pressure being now removed by the expulsion of -Hippias, the enslaved forms became at once endued with freedom and -reality. There appeared again, what Attica had not known for thirty -years, declared political parties, and pronounced opposition between -two men as leaders,—on one side, Isagoras son of Tisander, a person -of illustrious descent,—on the other, Kleisthenês the Alkmæônid, -not less illustrious, and possessing at this moment a claim on the -gratitude of his countrymen as the most persevering as well as the -most effective foe of the dethroned despots. In what manner such -opposition was carried on we are not told. It would seem to have been -not altogether pacific; but at any rate, Kleisthenês had the worst -of it, and in consequence of this defeat, says the historian, “he -took into partnership the people, who had been before excluded from -everything.”[243] His partnership with the people gave birth to the -Athenian democracy: it was a real and important revolution. - - [243] Herodot. v, 66-69 ἑσσούμενος δὲ ὁ Κλεισθένης τὸν δῆμον - προσεταιρίζεται—ὡς γὰρ δὴ τὸν Ἀθηναίων δῆμον, πρότερον ἀπωσμένον - πάντων, τότε πρὸς τὴν ἑωϋτοῦ μοίρην προσεθήκατο, etc. - -The political franchise, or the character of an Athenian citizen, -both before and since Solon, had been confined to the primitive -four Ionic tribes, each of which was an aggregate of so many close -corporations or quasi-families,—the gentes and the phratries. None -of the residents in Attica, therefore, except those included in -some gens or phratry, had any part in the political franchise. Such -non-privileged residents were probably at all times numerous, and -became more and more so by means of fresh settlers: moreover, they -tended most to multiply in Athens and Peiræus, where emigrants would -commonly establish themselves. Kleisthenês broke down the existing -wall of privilege, and imparted the political franchise to the -excluded mass. But this could not be done by enrolling them in new -gentes or phratries, created in addition to the old; for the gentile -tie was founded upon old faith and feeling, which, in the existing -state of the Greek mind, could not be suddenly conjured up as a -bond of union for comparative strangers: it could only be done by -disconnecting the franchise altogether from the Ionic tribes as well -as from the gentes which constituted them, and by redistributing the -population into new tribes with a character and purpose exclusively -political. Accordingly, Kleisthenês abolished the four Ionic tribes, -and created in their place ten new tribes founded upon a different -principle, independent of the gentes and phratries. Each of his -new tribes comprised a certain number of demes or cantons, with -the enrolled proprietors and residents in each of them. The demes -taken altogether included the entire surface of Attica, so that -the Kleisthenean constitution admitted to the political franchise -all the free native Athenians; and not merely these, but also many -Metics, and even some of the superior order of slaves.[244] Putting -out of sight the general body of slaves, and regarding only the -free inhabitants, it was in point of fact a scheme approaching to -universal suffrage, both political and judicial. - - [244] Aristot. Polit. iii, 1, 10; vi, 2, 11. Κλεισθένης,—πολλοῖς - ἐφυλέτευσε ξένους καὶ δούλους μετοίκους. - - Several able critics, and Dr. Thirlwall among the number, - consider this passage as affording no sense, and assume some - conjectural emendation to be indispensable; though there is no - particular emendation which suggests itself as preëminently - plausible. Under these circumstances, I rather prefer to make - the best of the words as they stand; which, though unusual, - seem to me not absolutely inadmissible. The expression ξένος - μέτοικος (which is a perfectly good one, as we find in Aristoph. - Equit. 347,—εἴπου δικιδίον εἶπας εὖ κατὰ ξένου μετοίκου) may - be considered as the correlative to δούλους μετοίκους,—the - last word being construed both with δούλους and with ξένους. I - apprehend that there always must have been in Attica a certain - number of intelligent slaves living apart from their masters - (χωρὶς οἰκοῦντες), in a state between slavery and freedom, - working partly on condition of a fixed payment to him, partly for - themselves, and perhaps continuing to pass nominally as slaves - after they had bought their liberty by instalments. Such men - would be δοῦλοι μέτοικοι: indeed, there are cases in which δοῦλοι - signifies _freedmen_ (Meier, De Gentilitate Atticâ, p. 6): they - must have been industrious and pushing men, valuable partisans to - a political revolution. See K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech. - Staats Alterth. ch. 111, not. 15. - -The slight and cursory manner in which Herodotus announces this -memorable revolution tends to make us overlook its real importance. -He dwells chiefly on the alteration in the number and names of the -tribes: Kleisthenês, he says, despised the Ionians so much, that he -would not tolerate the continuance in Attica of the four tribes which -prevailed in the Ionic cities,[245] deriving their names from the -four sons of Ion,—just as his grandfather, the Sikyonian Kleisthenês, -hating the Dorians, had degraded and nicknamed the three Dorian -tribes at Sikyôn. Such is the representation of Herodotus, who seems -himself to have entertained some contempt for the Ionians,[246] -and therefore to have suspected a similar feeling where it had no -real existence. But the scope of Kleisthenês was something far more -extensive: he abolished the four ancient tribes, not because they -were Ionic, but because they had become incommensurate with the -existing condition of the Attic people, and because such abolition -procured both for himself and for his political scheme new as well -as hearty allies. And indeed, if we study the circumstances of the -case, we shall see very obvious reasons to suggest the proceeding. -For more than thirty years—an entire generation—the old constitution -had been a mere empty formality, working only in subservience to the -reigning dynasty, and stripped of all real controlling power. We may -be very sure, therefore, that both the Senate of Four Hundred and -the popular assembly, divested of that free speech which imparted -to them not only all their value but all their charm, had come to -be of little public estimation, and were probably attended only -by a few partisans; and thus the difference between qualified -citizens and men not so qualified,—between members of the four old -tribes, and men not members,—became during this period practically -effaced. This, in fact, was the only species of good which a Grecian -despotism ever seems to have done: it confounded the privileged and -the non-privileged under one coercive authority common to both, so -that the distinction between the two was not easy to revive when the -despotism passed away. As soon as Hippias was expelled, the senate -and the public assembly regained their efficiency. But had they been -continued on the old footing, including none except members of the -four tribes, these tribes would have been reinvested with a privilege -which in reality they had so long lost, that its revival would have -seemed an odious novelty, and the remaining population would probably -not have submitted to it. If, in addition, we consider the political -excitement of the moment,—the restoration of one body of men from -exile, and the departure of another body into exile,—the outpouring -of long-suppressed hatred, partly against these very forms, by -the corruption of which the despot had reigned,—we shall see that -prudence as well as patriotism dictated the adoption of an enlarged -scheme of government. Kleisthenês had learned some wisdom during -his long exile; and as he probably continued, for some time after -the introduction of his new constitution, to be the chief adviser -of his countrymen, we may consider their extraordinary success as a -testimony to his prudence and skill not less than to their courage -and unanimity. - - [245] Herodot. v, 69. Κλεισθένης,—ὑπεριδὼν Ἴωνας, ἵνα μὴ σφισι αἱ - αὐταὶ ἔωσι φυλαὶ καὶ Ἴωσι. - - [246] Such a disposition seems evident in Herodot. i, 143. - -Nor does it seem unreasonable to give him credit for a more generous -forward movement than what is implied in the literal account of -Herodotus. Instead of being forced against his will to purchase -popular support by proposing this new constitution, Kleisthenês may -have proposed it before, during the discussions which immediately -followed the retirement of Hippias; so that the rejection of it -formed the ground of quarrel—and no other ground is mentioned—between -him and Isagoras. The latter doubtless found sufficient support, in -the existing senate and public assembly, to prevent it from being -carried without an actual appeal to the people, and his opposition -to it is not difficult to understand. For, necessary as the change -had become, it was not the less a shock to ancient Attic ideas. -It radically altered the very idea of a tribe, which now became -an aggregation of demes, not of gentes,—of fellow-demots, not of -fellow-gentiles; and it thus broke up those associations, religious, -social, and political, between the whole and the parts of the old -system, which operated powerfully on the mind of every old-fashioned -Athenian. The patricians at Rome, who composed the gentes and -curiæ,—and the plebs, who had no part in these corporations,—formed -for a long time two separate and opposing fractions in the same -city, each with its own separate organization. It was only by slow -degrees that the plebs gained ground, and the political value of the -patrician gens was long maintained alongside of and apart from the -plebeian tribe. So too in the Italian and German cities of the Middle -Ages, the patrician families refused to part with their own separate -political identity, when the guilds grew up by the side of them; even -though forced to renounce a portion of their power, they continued -to be a separate fraternity, and would not submit to be regimented -anew, under an altered category and denomination, along with the -traders who had grown into wealth and importance.[247] But the reform -of Kleisthenês effected this change all at once, both as to the name -and as to the reality. In some cases, indeed, that which had been the -name of a gens was retained as the name of a deme, but even then the -old gentiles were ranked indiscriminately among the remaining demots; -and the Athenian people, politically considered, thus became one -homogeneous whole, distributed for convenience into parts, numerical, -local, and politically equal. It is, however, to be remembered, that -while the four Ionic tribes were abolished, the gentes and phratries -which composed them were left untouched, and continued to subsist -as family and religious associations, though carrying with them no -political privilege. - - [247] In illustration of what is here stated, see the account of - the modifications of the constitution of Zurich, in Blüntschli, - Staats und Rechts Geschichte der Stadt Zurich, book iii. ch. 2, - p. 322; also, Kortüm, Entstehungs Geschichte der Freistädtischen - Bünde im Mittelalter, ch. 5, pp. 74-75. - -The ten newly-created tribes, arranged in an established order of -precedence, were called,—Erechthêis, Ægêis, Pandiŏnis, Leontis, -Akamantis, Œnêis, Kekrŏpis, Hippothoöntis, Æantis, Antiochis; names -borrowed chiefly from the respected heroes of Attic legend.[248] -This number remained unaltered until the year 305 B. C., when it was -increased to twelve by the addition of two new tribes, Antigonias -and Demetrias, afterwards designated anew by the names of Ptolemais -and Attalis. The mere names of these last two, borrowed from living -kings, and not from legendary heroes, betray the change from -freedom to subservience at Athens. Each tribe comprised a certain -number of demes,—cantons, parishes, or townships,—in Attica. But -the total number of these demes is not distinctly ascertained; for -though we know that, in the time of Polemô (the third century B. -C.), it was one hundred and seventy-four, we cannot be sure that -it had always remained the same; and several critics construe the -words of Herodotus to imply that Kleisthenês at first recognized -exactly one hundred demes, distributed in equal proportion among his -ten tribes.[249] But such construction of the words is more than -doubtful, while the fact itself is improbable; partly because if the -change of number had been so considerable as the difference between -one hundred and one hundred and seventy-four, some positive evidence -of it would probably be found,—partly because Kleisthenês would, -indeed, have a motive to render the amount of citizen population -nearly equal, but no motive to render the number of demes equal, -in each of the ten tribes. It is well known how great is the force -of local habits, and how unalterable are parochial or cantonal -boundaries. In the absence of proof to the contrary, therefore, we -may reasonably suppose the number and circumscription of the demes, -as found or modified by Kleisthenês, to have subsisted afterwards -with little alteration, at least until the increase in the number of -the tribes. - - [248] Respecting these Eponymous Heroes of the Ten Tribes, - and the legends connected with them, see chapter viii of the - Ἐπιτάφιος Λόγος, erroneously ascribed to Demosthenês. - - [249] Herodot. v, 69. δέκα δὲ καὶ τοὺς δήμους κατένεμε ἐς τὰς - φυλάς. - - Schömann contends that Kleisthenês established exactly one - hundred demes to the ten tribes (De Comitiis Atheniensium, Præf. - p. xv and p. 363, and Antiquitat. Jur. Pub. Græc. ch. xxii, p. - 260), and K. F. Hermann (Lehrbuch der Griech. Staats Alt. ch. - 111) thinks that this is what Herodotus meant to affirm, though - he does not believe the fact to have really stood so. - - I incline, as the least difficulty in the case, to construe δέκα - with φυλὰς and not with δήμους, as Wachsmuth (i, 1, p. 271) and - Dieterich (De Clisthene, a treatise cited by K. F. Hermann, but - which I have not seen) construe it. - -There is another point, however, which is at once more certain, and -more important to notice. The demes which Kleisthenês assigned to -each tribe were in no case all adjacent to each other; and therefore -the tribe, as a whole, did not correspond with any continuous portion -of the territory, nor could it have any peculiar local interest, -separate from the entire community. Such systematic avoidance of -the factions arising out of neighborhood will appear to have been -more especially necessary, when we recollect that the quarrels of -the Parali, the Diakrii, the Pediaki, during the preceding century, -had all been generated from local feud, though doubtless artfully -fomented by individual ambition. Moreover, it was only by this same -precaution that the local predominance of the city, and the formation -of a city-interest distinct from that of the country, was obviated; -which could hardly have failed to arise had the city by itself -constituted either one deme or one tribe. Kleisthenês distributed -the city (or found it already distributed) into several demes, and -those demes among several tribes; while Peiræus and Phalêrum, each -constituting a separate deme, were also assigned to different tribes; -so that there were no local advantages either to bestow predominance, -or to create a struggle for predominance, of one tribe over the -rest.[250] Each deme had its own local interests to watch over; but -the tribe was a mere aggregate of demes for political, military, and -religious purposes, with no separate hopes or fears, apart from the -whole state. Each tribe had a chapel, sacred rites and festivals, -and a common fund for such meetings, in honor of its eponymous hero, -administered by members of its own choice;[251] and the statues of -all the ten eponymous heroes, fraternal patrons of the democracy, -were planted in the most conspicuous part of the agora of Athens. -In the future working of the Athenian government, we shall trace no -symptom of disquieting local factions,—a capital amendment, compared -with the disputes of the preceding century, and traceable, in part, -to the absence of border-relations between demes of the same tribe. - - [250] The deme _Melitê_ belonged to the tribe Kekropis; - _Kollytus_, to the tribe Ægêis; _Kydathenæon_, to the tribe - Pandionis; _Kerameis_ or _Kerameikus_, to the Akamantis; - _Skambônidæ_, to the Leontis. - - All these five were demes within the city of Athens, and all - belonged to different tribes. - - _Peiræus_ belonged to the Hippothoöntis; _Phalêrum_, to - the Æantis; _Xypetê_, to the Kekropis; _Thymætadæ_, to the - Hippothoöntis. These four demes, adjoining to each other, - formed a sort of quadruple local union, for festivals and other - purposes, among themselves; though three of them belonged to - different tribes. - - See the list of the Attic demes, with a careful statement of - their localities in so far as ascertained, in Professor Ross, - Die Demen von Attika. Halle, 1846. The distribution of the - city-demes, and of Peiræus and Phalêrum, among different tribes, - appears to me a clear proof of the intention of the original - distributors. It shows that they wished from the beginning - to make the demes constituting each tribe discontinuous, and - that they desired to prevent both the growth of separate - tribe-interests and ascendency of one tribe over the rest. It - contradicts the belief of those who suppose that the tribe was - at first composed of continuous demes, and that the breach of - continuity arose from subsequent changes. - - Of course there were many cases in which adjoining demes belonged - to the same tribe; but not one of the ten tribes was made up - altogether of adjoining demes. - - [251] See Boeckh, Corp. Inscriptt. Nos. 85, 128, 213, etc.: - compare Demosthen. cont. Theokrin. c. 4. p. 1326 R. - -The deme now became the primitive constituent element of the -commonwealth, both as to persons and as to property. It had its own -demarch, its register of enrolled citizens, its collective property, -its public meetings and religious ceremonies, its taxes levied and -administered by itself. The register of qualified citizens[252] was -kept by the demarch, and the inscription of new citizens took place -at the assembly of the demots, whose legitimate sons were enrolled -on attaining the age of eighteen, and their adopted sons at any time -when presented and sworn to by the adopting citizen. The citizenship -could only be granted by a public vote of the people, but wealthy -non-freemen were enabled sometimes to evade this law and purchase -admission upon the register of some poor deme, probably by means of -a fictitious adoption. At the meetings of the demots, the register -was called over, and it sometimes happened that some names were -expunged,—in which case the party thus disfranchised had an appeal to -the popular judicature.[253] So great was the local administrative -power, however, of these demes, that they are described as the -substitute,[254] under the Kleisthenean system, for the naukraries -under the Solonian and ante-Solonian. The trittyes and naukraries, -though nominally preserved, and the latter (as some affirm) augmented -in number from forty-eight to fifty, appear henceforward as of little -public importance. - - [252] We may remark that this register was called by a special - name, the Lexiarchic register; while the primitive register of - phrators and gentiles always retained, even in the time of the - orators, its original name of the common register—Harpokration, - v. Κοινὸν γραμματεῖον καὶ ληξιαρχικόν. - - [253] See Schömann, Antiq. Jur. P. Græc. ch. xxiv. The oration - of Demosthenês against Eubulidês is instructive about these - proceedings of the assembled demots: compare Harpokration, v. - Διαψήφισις, and Meier, De Bonis Damnatorum, ch. xii, p. 78, etc. - - [254] Aristot. Fragment. de Republ., ed. Neumann.—Ἀθην. πολιτ. - Fr. 40, p. 88; Schol. ad Aristophan. Ran. 37; Harpokration, v. - Δήμαρχος—Ναυκραρικά; Photius, v. Ναυκραρία. - -Kleisthenês preserved, but at the same time modified and expanded, -all the main features of Solon’s political constitution; the public -assembly, or ekklesia,—the preconsidering senate, composed of members -from all the tribes,—and the habit of annual election, as well as -annual responsibility of magistrates, by and to the ekklesia. The -full value must now have been felt of possessing such preëxisting -institutions to build upon, at a moment of perplexity and dissension. -But the Kleisthenean ekklesia acquired new strength, and almost a -new character, from the great increase of the number of citizens -qualified to attend it; while the annually-changed senate, instead -of being composed of four hundred members taken in equal proportion -from each of the old four tribes, was enlarged to five hundred, -taken equally from each of the new ten tribes. It now comes before -us, under the name of Senate of Five Hundred, as an active and -indispensable body throughout the whole Athenian democracy: and the -practice now seems to have begun (though the period of commencement -cannot be decisively proved), of determining the names of the -senators by lot. Both the senate thus constituted, and the public -assembly, were far more popular and vigorous than they had been under -the original arrangement of Solon. - -The new constitution of the tribes, as it led to a change in the -annual senate, so it transformed, no less directly, the military -arrangements of the state, both as to soldiers and as to officers. -The citizens called upon to serve in arms were now marshalled -according to tribes,—each tribe having its own taxiarchs as officers -for the hoplites, and its own phylarch at the head of the horsemen. -Moreover, there were now created for the first time ten strategi, or -generals, one from each tribe; and two hipparchs, for the supreme -command of the horsemen. Under the prior Athenian constitution it -appears that the command of the military force had been vested in the -third archon, or polemarch, no strategi then existing; and even after -the latter had been created, under the Kleisthenean constitution, -the polemarch still retained a joint right of command along with -them,—as we are told at the battle of Marathon, where Kallimachus -the polemarch not only enjoyed an equal vote in the council of war -along with the ten strategi, but even occupied the post of honor on -the right wing.[255] The ten generals, annually changed, are thus -(like the ten tribes) a fruit of the Kleisthenean constitution, which -was at the same time powerfully strengthened and protected by such -remodelling of the military force. The functions of the generals -becoming more extensive as the democracy advanced, they seem to -have acquired gradually not merely the direction of military and -naval affairs, but also that of the foreign relations of the city -generally,—while the nine archons, including the polemarch, were by -degrees lowered down from that full executive and judicial competence -which they had once enjoyed, to the simple ministry of police and -preparatory justice. Encroached upon by the strategi on one side, -they were also restricted in efficiency by the rise of the popular -dikasteries or numerous jury-courts, on the other. We may be very -sure that these popular dikasteries had not been permitted to meet -or to act under the despotism of the Peisistratids, and that the -judicial business of the city must then have been conducted partly -by the Senate of Areopagus, partly by the archons; perhaps with a -nominal responsibility of the latter at the end of their year of -office to an acquiescent ekklesia. And if we even assume it to be -true, as some writers contend, that the habit of direct popular -judicature, over and above this annual trial of responsibility, had -been partially introduced by Solon, it must have been discontinued -during the long coercion exercised by the supervening dynasty. But -the outburst of popular spirit, which lent force to Kleisthenês, -doubtless carried the people into direct action as jurors in the -aggregate Heliæa, not less than as voters in the ekklesia,—and the -change was thus begun which contributed to degrade the archons from -their primitive character as judges, into the lower function of -preliminary examiners and presidents of a jury. Such convocation of -numerous juries, beginning first with the aggregate body of sworn -citizens above thirty years of age, and subsequently dividing them -into separate bodies or pannels, for trying particular causes, became -gradually more frequent and more systematized: until at length, in -the time of Periklês, it was made to carry a small pay, and stood out -as one of the most prominent features of Athenian life. We cannot -particularize the different steps whereby such final development was -attained, and the judicial competence of the archon cut down to the -mere power of inflicting a small fine; but the first steps of it are -found in the revolution of Kleisthenês, and it seems to have been -consummated by the reforms of Periklês. Of the function exercised by -the nine archons as well as by many other magistrates and official -persons at Athens, in convoking a dikastery, or jury-court, bringing -on causes for trial,—and presiding over the trial,—a function -constituting one of the marks of superior magistracy, and called the -Hegemony, or presidency of a dikastery,—I shall speak more at length -hereafter. At present, I wish merely to bring to view the increased -and increasing sphere of action on which the people entered at the -memorable turn of affairs now before us. - - [255] Herodot. vi, 109-111. - -The financial affairs of the city underwent at this epoch as complete -a change as the military: in fact, the appointment of magistrates -and officers by tens, one from each tribe, seems to have become the -ordinary practice. A board of ten, called Apodektæ, were invested -with the supreme management of the exchequer, dealing with the -contractors as to those portions of the revenue which were farmed, -receiving all the taxes from the collectors, and disbursing them -under competent authority. The first nomination of this board is -expressly ascribed to Kleisthenês,[256] as a substitute for certain -persons called Kôlakretæ, who had performed the same function -before, and who were now retained only for subordinate services. -The duties of the apodektæ were afterwards limited to receiving -the public income, and paying it over to the ten treasurers of -the goddess Athênê, by whom it was kept in the inner chamber of -the Parthenon, and disbursed as needed; but this more complicated -arrangement cannot be referred to Kleisthenês. From his time forward -too, the Senate of Five Hundred steps far beyond its original -duty of preparing matters for the discussion of the ekklesia: it -embraces, besides, a large circle of administrative and general -superintendence, which hardly admits of any definition. Its sittings -become constant, with the exception of special holidays, and the year -is distributed into ten portions called Prytanies,—the fifty senators -of each tribe taking by turns the duty of constant attendance -during one prytany, and receiving during that time the title of -The Prytanes: the order of precedence among the tribes in these -duties was annually determined by lot. In the ordinary Attic year -of twelve lunar months, or three hundred and fifty-four days, six -of the prytanies contained thirty-five days, four of them contained -thirty-six: in the intercalated years of thirteen months, the number -of days was thirty-eight and thirty-nine respectively. Moreover, a -farther subdivision of the prytany into five periods of seven days -each, and of the fifty tribe-senators into five bodies of ten each, -was recognized: each body of ten presided in the senate for one -period of seven days, drawing lots every day among their number for -a new chairman, called Epistatês, to whom during his day of office -were confided the keys of the acropolis and the treasury, together -with the city seal. The remaining senators, not belonging to the -prytanizing tribe, might of course attend if they chose; but the -attendance of nine among them, one from each of the remaining nine -tribes, was imperatively necessary to constitute a valid meeting, and -to insure a constant representation of the collective people. - - [256] Harpokration, v. Ἀποδέκται. - -During those later times known to us through the great orators, -the ekklesia, or formal assembly of the citizens, was convoked -four times regularly during each prytany, or oftener if necessity -required,—usually by the senate, though the stratêgi had also the -power of convoking it by their own authority. It was presided over by -the prytanes, and questions were put to the vote by their epistatês, -or chairman; but the nine representatives of the non-prytanizing -tribes were always present as a matter of course, and seem, indeed, -in the days of the orators, to have acquired to themselves the -direction of it, together with the right of putting questions for -the vote,[257]—setting aside wholly or partially the fifty prytanes. -When we carry our attention back, however, to the state of the -ekklesia, as first organized by Kleisthenês (I have already remarked -that expositors of the Athenian constitution are too apt to neglect -the distinction of times, and to suppose that what was the practice -between 400-330 B. C. had been always the practice), it will appear -probable that he provided one regular meeting in each prytany, and -no more; giving to the senate and the stratêgi power of convening -special meetings if needful, but establishing one ekklesia during -each prytany, or ten in the year, as a regular necessity of state. -How often the ancient ekklesia had been convoked during the interval -between Solon and Peisistratus, we cannot exactly say,—probably -but seldom during the year. But under the Peisistratids, its -convocation had dwindled down into an inoperative formality; and -the reëstablishment of it by Kleisthenês, not merely with plenary -determining powers, but also under full notice and preparation of -matters beforehand, together with the best securities for orderly -procedure, was in itself a revolution impressive to the mind of -every Athenian citizen. To render the ekklesia efficient, it was -indispensable that its meetings should be both frequent and free. -Men thus became trained to the duty both of speakers and hearers, -and each man, while he felt that he exercised his share of influence -on the decision, identified his own safety and happiness with the -vote of the majority, and became familiarized with the notion of -a sovereign authority which he neither could nor ought to resist. -This is an idea new to the Athenian bosom; and with it came the -feelings sanctifying free speech and equal law,—words which no -Athenian citizen ever afterwards heard unmoved: together with that -sentiment of the entire commonwealth as one and indivisible, which -always overruled, though it did not supplant, the local and cantonal -special ties. It is not too much to say that these patriotic and -ennobling impulses were a new product in the Athenian mind, to which -nothing analogous occurs even in the time of Solon. They were kindled -in part doubtless by the strong reaction against the Peisistratids, -but still more by the fact that the opposing leader, Kleisthenês, -turned that transitory feeling to the best possible account, and -gave to it a vigorous perpetuity, as well as a well-defined positive -object, by the popular elements conspicuous in his constitution. His -name makes less figure in history than we should expect, because -he passed for the mere renovator of Solon’s scheme of government -after it had been overthrown by Peisistratus. Probably he himself -professed this object, since it would facilitate the success of his -propositions: and if we confine ourselves to the letter of the case, -the fact is in a great measure true, since the annual senate and -the ekklesia are both Solonian,—but both of them under his reform -were clothed in totally new circumstances, and swelled into gigantic -proportions. How vigorous was the burst of Athenian enthusiasm, -altering instantaneously the position of Athens among the powers of -Greece, we shall hear presently from the lips of Herodotus, and shall -find still more unequivocally marked in the facts of his history. - - [257] See the valuable treatise of Schömann, De Comitiis, - _passim_; also his Antiq. Jur. Publ. Gr. ch. xxxi; Harpokration, - v. Κυρία Ἐκκλησία; Pollux, viii, 95. - -But it was not only the people formally installed in their ekklesia, -who received from Kleisthenês the real attributes of sovereignty,—it -was by him also that the people were first called into direct action -as dikasts, or jurors. I have already remarked, that this custom may -be said, in a certain limited sense, to have begun in the time of -Solon, since that lawgiver invested the popular assembly with the -power of pronouncing the judgment of accountability upon the archons -after their year of office. Here, again, the building, afterwards -so spacious and stately, was erected on a Solonian foundation, -though it was not itself Solonian. That the popular dikasteries, in -the elaborate form in which they existed from Periklês downward, -were introduced all at once by Kleisthenês, it is impossible to -believe; yet the steps by which they were gradually wrought out -are not distinctly discoverable. It would rather seem, that at -first only the aggregate body of citizens above thirty years of -age exercised judicial functions, being specially convoked and -sworn to try persons accused of public crimes, and when so employed -bearing the name of the heliæa, or heliasts; private offences and -disputes between man and man being still determined by individual -magistrates in the city, and a considerable judicial power still -residing in the Senate of Areopagus. There is reason to believe that -this was the state of things established by Kleisthenês, and which -afterwards came to be altered by the greater extent of judicial -duty gradually accruing to the heliasts, so that it was necessary -to subdivide the collective heliæa. According to the subdivision, -as practised in the times best known, six thousand citizens above -thirty years of age were annually selected by lot out of the whole -number, six hundred from each of the ten tribes: five thousand of -these citizens were arranged in ten pannels or decuries of five -hundred each, the remaining one thousand being reserved to fill up -vacancies in case of death or absence among the former. The whole -six thousand took a prescribed oath, couched in very striking words, -and every man received a ticket inscribed with his own name as well -as with a letter designating his decury. When there were causes or -crimes ripe for trial, the thesmothets, or six inferior archons, -determined by lot, first, which decuries should sit, according to -the number wanted,—next, in which court, or under the presidency -of what magistrate, the decury B or E should sit, so that it could -not be known beforehand in what cause each would be judge. In the -number of persons who actually attended and sat, however, there -seems to have been much variety, and sometimes two decuries sat -together.[258] The arrangement here described, we must recollect, is -given to us as belonging to those times when the dikasts received a -regular pay, after every day’s sitting; and it can hardly have long -continued without that condition, which was not realized before -the time of Periklês. Each of these decuries sitting in judicature -was called _The Heliæa_,—a name which belongs properly to the -collective assembly of the people; this collective assembly having -been itself the original judicature. I conceive that the practice of -distributing this collective assembly, or heliæa, into sections of -jurors for judicial duty, may have begun under one form or another -soon after the reform of Kleisthenês, since the direct interference -of the people in public affairs tended more and more to increase. But -it could only have been matured by degrees into that constant and -systematic service which the pay of Periklês called forth at last in -completeness. Under the last-mentioned system the judicial competence -of the archons was annulled, and the third archon, or polemarch, -withdrawn from all military functions. Still, this had not been yet -done at the time of the battle of Marathon, in which Kallimachus the -polemarch not only commanded along with the stratêgi, but enjoyed a -sort of preëminence over them: nor had it been done during the year -after the battle of Marathon, in which Aristeidês was archon,—for -the magisterial decisions of Aristeidês formed one of the principal -foundations of his honorable surname, the Just.[259] - - [258] See in particular on this subject the treatise of Schömann, - De Sortitione Judicum (Gripswald, 1820), and the work of the - same author, Antiq. Jur. Publ. Græc. ch. 49-55, p. 264, _seqq._; - also Heffter, Die Athenäische Gerichtsverfassung, part ii, ch. - 2, p. 51, _seqq._; Meier and Schömann, Der Attische Prozess, pp. - 127-135. - - The views of Schömann respecting the sortition of the Athenian - jurors have been bitterly attacked, but in no way refuted, by F. - V. Fritzsche (De Sortitione Judicum apud Athenienses Conmentatio, - Leipsic, 1835). - - Two or three of these dikastic tickets, marking the name and the - deme of the citizen, and the letter of the decury to which during - that particular year he belonged, have been recently dug up near - Athens:— - - Δ. Διόδωρος Ε. Δεινίας - Φρεάῤῥιος. Ἀλαιεύς. - - (Boeckh, Corp. Inscrip. Nos. 207-208.) - - Fritzsche (p. 73) considers these to be tickets of senators, not - of dikasts, contrary to all probability. - - For the Heliastic oath, and its remarkable particulars, see - Demosthen. cont. Timokrat. p. 746. See also Aristophanês, Plutus, - 277 (with the valuable Scholia, though from different hands and - not all of equal correctness) and 972; Ekklesiazusæ, 678, _seqq._ - - [259] Plutarch, Arist. 7; Herodot. vi, 109-111. - -With this question, as to the comparative extent of judicial power -vested by Kleisthenês in the popular dikastery and the archons, are -in reality connected two others in Athenian constitutional law; -relating, first, to the admissibility of all citizens for the post -of archon,—next, to the choosing of archons by lot. It is well known -that, in the time of Periklês, the archons, and various other -individual functionaries, had come to be chosen by lot,—moreover, all -citizens were legally admissible, and might give in their names to be -drawn for by lot, subject to what was called the dokimasy, or legal -examination into their status of citizen, and into various moral -and religious qualifications, before they took office; while at the -same time the function of the archon had become nothing higher than -preliminary examination of parties and witnesses for the dikastery, -and presidence over it when afterwards assembled, together with the -power of imposing by authority a fine of small amount upon inferior -offenders. - -Now all these three political arrangements hang essentially together. -The great value of the lot, according to Grecian democratical ideas, -was that it equalized the chance of office between rich and poor. But -so long as the poor citizens were legally inadmissible, choice by lot -could have no recommendation either to the rich or to the poor; in -fact, it would be less democratical than election by the general mass -of citizens, because the poor citizen would under the latter system -enjoy an important right of interference by means of his suffrage, -though he could not be elected himself.[260] Again, choice by lot -could never under any circumstances be applied to those posts where -special competence, and a certain measure of attributes possessed -only by a few, could not be dispensed with without obvious peril,—nor -was it ever applied, throughout the whole history of democratical -Athens, to the stratêgi, or generals, who were always elected by -show of hands of the assembled citizens. Accordingly, we may regard -it as certain that, at the time when the archons first came to be -chosen by lot, the superior and responsible duties once attached -to that office had been, or were in course of being, detached from -it, and transferred either to the popular dikasts or to the ten -elected stratêgi: so that there remained to these archons only a -routine of police and administration, important indeed to the state, -yet such as could be executed by any citizen of average probity, -diligence, and capacity. At least there was no obvious absurdity -in thinking so; and the dokimasy excluded from the office men of -notoriously discreditable life, even after they might have drawn the -successful lot. Periklês,[261] though chosen stratêgus, year after -year successively, was never archon; and it may even be doubted -whether men of first-rate talents and ambition often gave in their -names for the office. To those of smaller aspirations[262] it was -doubtless a source of importance, but it imposed troublesome labor, -gave no pay, and entailed a certain degree of peril upon any archon -who might have given offence to powerful men, when he came to pass -through the trial of accountability which followed immediately upon -his year of office. There was little to make the office acceptable -either to very poor men, or to very rich and ambitious men; and -between the middling persons who gave in their names, any one might -be taken without great practical mischief, always assuming the two -guarantees of the dokimasy before, and accountability after, office. -This was the conclusion—in my opinion a mistaken conclusion, and such -as would find no favor at present—to which the democrats of Athens -were conducted by their strenuous desire to equalize the chances of -office for rich and poor. But their sentiment seems to have been -satisfied by a partial enforcement of the lot to the choice of some -offices,—especially the archons, as the primitive chief magistrates -of the state,—without applying it to all, or to the most responsible -and difficult. Nor would they have applied it to the archons, if it -had been indispensably necessary that these magistrates should retain -their original very serious duty of judging disputes and condemning -offenders. - - [260] Aristotle puts these two together; election of magistrates - by the mass of the citizens, but only out of persons possessing - a high pecuniary qualification; this he ranks as the least - democratical democracy, if one may use the phrase (Politic. - iii, 6-11), or a mean between democracy and oligarchy,—an - ἀριστοκρατία, or πολιτεῖα, in his sense of the word (iv, 7, 3). - He puts the employment of the lot as a symptom of decisive and - extreme democracy, such as would never tolerate a pecuniary - qualification of eligibility. - - So again Plato (Legg. iii, p. 692), after remarking that the - legislator of Sparta first provided the senate, next the ephors, - as a bridle upon the kings, says of the ephors that they were - “something nearly approaching to an authority emanating from the - lot,”—οἷον ψάλιον ἐνέβαλεν αὐτῇ τὴν τῶν ἐφόρων δύναμιν, ἐγγὺς τῆς - κληρωτῆς ἀγαγὼν δυνάμεως. - - Upon which passage there are some good remarks in Schömann’s - edition of Plutarch’s Lives of Agis and Kleomenês (Comment. ad - Ag. c. 8, p. 119). It is to be recollected that the actual mode - in which the Spartan ephors were chosen, as I have already stated - in my first volume, cannot be clearly made out, and has been much - debated by critics:— - - “Mihi hæc verba, quum illud quidem manifestum faciant, quod etiam - aliunde constat, sorte captos ephoros non esse, tum hoc alterum, - quod Hermannus statuit, creationem sortitioni non absimilem - fuisse, nequaquam demonstrare videntur. Nimirum nihil aliud nisi - prope accedere ephororum magistratus ad cos dicitur, qui sortito - capiantur. _Sortitis autem magistratibus hoc maxime proprium est, - ut promiscue—non ex genere, censu, dignitate—a quolibet capi - possint_: quamobrem quum ephori quoque fere promiscue fierent ex - omni multitudine civium, poterat haud dubie magistratus eorum - ἐγγὺς τῆς κληρωτῆς δυνάμεως esse dici, etiamsi αἱρετοὶ essent—h. - e. suffragiis creati. Et video Lachmannum quoque, p. 165, not. 1, - de Platonis loco similiter judicare.” - - The employment of the lot, as Schömann remarks, implies universal - admissibility of all citizens to office: though the converse does - not hold good,—the latter does not of necessity imply the former. - Now, as we know that universal admissibility did not become - the law of Athens until after the battle of Platæa, so we may - conclude that the employment of the lot had no place before that - epoch,—_i. e._ had no place under the constitution of Kleisthenês. - - [261] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 9-16. - - [262] See a passage about such characters in Plato, Republic, v, - p. 475 B. - -I think, therefore, that these three points: 1. The opening of the -post of archon to all citizens indiscriminately; 2. The choice of -archons by lot; 3. The diminished range of the archon’s duties and -responsibilities, through the extension of those belonging to the -popular courts of justice on the one hand and to the stratêgi on the -other—are all connected together, and must have been simultaneous, -or nearly simultaneous, in the time of introduction: the enactment -of universal admissibility to office certainly not coming after the -other two, and probably coming a little before them. - -Now in regard to the eligibility of all Athenians indiscriminately to -the office of archon, we find a clear and positive testimony as to -the time when it was first introduced. Plutarch tells us[263] that -the oligarchical,[264] but high-principled Aristeidês, was himself -the proposer of this constitutional change,—shortly after the battle -of Platæa, with the consequent expulsion of the Persians from Greece, -and the return of the refugee Athenians to their ruined city. Seldom -has it happened in the history of mankind, that rich and poor have -been so completely equalized as among the population of Athens in -that memorable expatriation and heroic struggle. Nor are we at all -surprised to hear that the mass of the citizens, coming back with -freshly-kindled patriotism as well as with the consciousness that -their country had only been recovered by the equal efforts of all, -would no longer submit to be legally disqualified from any office -of state. It was on this occasion that the constitution was first -made really “common” to all, and that the archons, stratêgi, and all -functionaries, first began to be chosen from all Athenians without -any difference of legal eligibility.[265] No mention is made of the -lot, in this important statement of Plutarch, which appears to me -every way worthy of credit, and which teaches us that, down to the -invasion of Xerxês, not only had the exclusive principle of the -Solonian law of qualification continued in force (whereby the first -three classes on the census were alone admitted to all individual -offices, and the fourth or Thêtic class excluded), but also the -archons had hitherto been elected by the citizens,—not taken by lot. - - [263] Plutarch, Arist. 22. - - [264] So at least the supporters of the constitution of - Kleisthenês were called by the contemporaries of Periklês. - - [265] Plutarch, Arist. _ut sup._ γράφει ψήφισμα, κοινὴν εἶναι τὴν - πολιτείαν, καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἐξ Ἀθηναίων πάντων αἱρεῖσθαι. - -Now for financial purposes, the quadruple census of Solon was -retained long after this period, even beyond the Peloponnesian war -and the oligarchy of Thirty. But we thus learn that Kleisthenês in -his constitution retained it for political purposes also, in part at -least: he recognized the exclusion of the great mass of the citizens -from all individual offices,—such as the archon, the stratêgus, etc. -In his time, probably, no complaints were raised on the subject. His -constitution gave to the collective bodies—senate, ekklesia, and -heliæa, or dikastery—a degree of power and importance such as they -had never before known or imagined: and we may well suppose that the -Athenian people of that day had no objection even to the proclaimed -system and theory of being exclusively governed by men of wealth -and station as individual magistrates,—especially since many of the -newly-enfranchised citizens had been previously metics and slaves. -Indeed, it is to be added that, even under the full democracy of -later Athens, though the people had then become passionately attached -to the theory of equal admissibility of all citizens to office, yet, -in practice, poor men seldom obtained offices which were elected by -the general vote, as will appear more fully in the course of this -history.[266] - - [266] So in the Italian republics of the twelfth and thirteenth - century, the nobles long continued to possess the exclusive right - of being elected to the consulate and the great offices of state, - even after those offices had come to be elected by the people: - the habitual misrule and oppression of the nobles gradually put - an end to this right, and even created in many towns a resolution - positively to exclude them. At Milan, towards the end of the - twelfth century, the twelve consuls, with the Podestat, possessed - all the powers of government: these consuls were nominated by - one hundred electors chosen by and among the people. Sismondi - observes: “Cependant le peuple imposa lui-même a ces électeurs, - la règle fondamentale de choisir tous les magistrats dans le - corps de la noblesse. Ce n’étoit point encore la possession des - magistratures que l’on contestoit aux gentilshommes: on demandoit - seulement qu’ils fussent les mandataires immédiats de la nation. - Mais plus d’une fois, en dépit du droit incontestable des - citoyens, les consuls regnant s’attribuèrent l’élection de leurs - successeurs.” (Sismondi, Histoire des Républiques Italiennes, - chap. xii, vol. ii, p. 240.) - -The choice of the stratêgi remained ever afterwards upon the footing -on which Aristeidês thus placed it. But the lot for the choice of -archon must have been introduced shortly after his proposition of -universal eligibility, and in consequence too of the same tide of -democratical feeling,—introduced as a farther corrective, because the -poor citizen, though he had become eligible, was nevertheless not -elected. And at the same time, I imagine, that elaborate distribution -of the Heliæa, or aggregate body of dikasts, or jurors, into separate -pannels, or dikasteries, for the decision of judicial matters, was -first regularized. It was this change that stole away from the -archons so important a part of their previous jurisdiction: it was -this change that Periklês more fully consummated by insuring pay -to the dikasts. But the present is not the time to enter into the -modifications which Athens underwent during the generation after the -battle of Platæa. They have been here briefly noticed for the purpose -of reasoning back, in the absence of direct evidence, to Athens as -it stood in the generation before that memorable battle, after the -reform of Kleisthenês. His reform, though highly democratical, -stopped short of the mature democracy which prevailed from Periklês -to Demosthenês, in three ways especially, among various others; -and it is therefore sometimes considered by the later writers as -an aristocratical constitution:[267] 1. It still recognized the -archons as judges to a considerable extent, and the third archon, or -polemarch, as joint military commander along with the stratêgi. 2. -It retained them as elected annually by the body of citizens, not as -chosen by lot.[268] 3. It still excluded the fourth class of the -Solonian census from all individual office, the archonship among the -rest. The Solonian law of exclusion, however, though retained in -principle, was mitigated in practice thus far,—that whereas Solon -had rendered none but members of the highest class on the census -(the Pentakosiomedimni) eligible to the archonship, Kleisthenês -opened that dignity to all the first three classes, shutting out -only the fourth. That he did this may be inferred from the fact that -Aristeidês, assuredly not a rich man, became archon. - - [267] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 15. τὴν ἐπὶ Κλεισθένους ἐγείρειν - ἀριστοκρατίαν πειρωμένου: compare Plutarch, Aristeidês, c. 2, and - Isokratês, Areopagiticus, Or. vii, p. 143, p. 192, ed. Bek. - - [268] Herodotus speaks of Kallimachus the Polemarch, at Marathon, - as ὁ τῷ κυάμῳ λαχὼν Πολέμαρχος (vi, 110). - - I cannot but think that in this case he transfers to the year - 490 B. C. the practice of his own time. The polemarch, at the - time of the battle of Marathon, was in a certain sense the first - stratêgus; and the stratêgi were never taken by lot, but always - chosen by show of hands, even to the end of the democracy. It - seems impossible to believe that the stratêgi were elected, and - that the polemarch, at the time when his functions were the same - as theirs, was chosen by lot. - - Herodotus seems to have conceived the choice of magistrates by - lot as being of the essence of a democracy (Herodot. iii, 80). - - Plutarch also (Periklês, c. 9) seems to have conceived the - choice of archons by lot as a very ancient institution of - Athens: nevertheless, it results from the first chapter of his - life of Aristeidês,—an obscure chapter, in which conflicting - authorities are mentioned without being well discriminated,—that - Aristeidês was _chosen archon by the people_,—not drawn by lot: - an additional reason for believing this is, that he was archon in - the year following the battle of Marathon, at which, he had been - one of the ten generals. Idomeneus distinctly affirmed this to be - the fact.—οὐ κυαμευτὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἑλομένων Ἀθηναίων (Plutarch, Arist. - c. 1). - - Isokratês also (Areopagit. Or. vii, p. 144, p. 195, ed. Bekker) - conceived the constitution of Kleisthenês as including all - the three points noticed in the text: 1. A high pecuniary - qualification of eligibility for individual offices. 2. Election - to these offices by all the citizens, and accountability to the - same after office. 3. No employment of the lot.—He even contends - that this election is more truly democratical than sortition; - since the latter process might admit men attached to oligarchy, - which would not happen under the former,—ἔπειτα καὶ δημοτικωτέραν - ἐνόμιζον ταύτην τὴν κατάστασιν ἢ τὴν διὰ τοῦ λαγχάνειν - γιγνομένην· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῇ κληρώσει τὴν τύχην βραβεύσειν, καὶ - πολλάκις λήψεσθαι τὰς ἀρχὰς τοὺς τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας ἐπιθυμοῦντας, - etc. This would be a good argument if there were no pecuniary - qualification for eligibility,—such pecuniary qualification is - a provision which he lays down, but which he does not find it - convenient to insist upon emphatically. - - I do not here advert to the γραφὴ παρανόμων, the νομοφύλακες, and - the sworn νομόθεται,—all of them institutions belonging to the - time of Periklês at the earliest; not to that of Kleisthenês. - -I am also inclined to believe that the Senate of Five Hundred, as -constituted by Kleisthenês, was taken, not by election, but by lot, -from the ten tribes,—and that every citizen became eligible to it. -Election for this purpose—that is, the privilege of annually electing -a batch of fifty senators, all at once, by each tribe—would probably -be thought more troublesome than valuable; nor do we hear of separate -meetings of each tribe for purposes of election. Moreover, the office -of senator was a collective, not an individual office; the shock, -therefore, to the feelings of semi-democratized Athens, from the -unpleasant idea of a poor man sitting among the fifty prytanes, would -be less than if they conceived him as polemarch at the head of the -right wing of the army, or as an archon administering justice. - -A farther difference between the constitution of Solon and that -of Kleisthenês is to be found in the position of the Senate of -Areopagus. Under the former, that senate had been the principal -body in the state, and he had even enlarged its powers; under the -latter, it must have been treated at first as an enemy, and kept -down. For as it was composed only of all the past archons, and as, -during the preceding thirty years, every archon had been a creature -of the Peisistratids, the Areopagites collectively must have been -both hostile and odious to Kleisthenês and his partisans,—perhaps a -fraction of its members might even retire into exile with Hippias. -Its influence must have been sensibly lessened by the change -of party, until it came to be gradually filled by fresh archons -springing from the bosom of the Kleisthenean constitution. But during -this important interval, the new-modelled Senate of Five Hundred, -and the popular assembly, stepped into that ascendency which they -never afterwards lost. From the time of Kleisthenês forward, the -Areopagites cease to be the chief and prominent power in the state: -yet they are still considerable; and when the second fill of the -democratical tide took place, after the battle of Platæa, they -became the focus of that which was then considered as the party of -oligarchical resistance. I have already remarked that the archons, -during the intermediate time (about 509-477 B. C.), were all elected -by the ekklesia, not chosen by lot,—and that the fourth (or poorest -and most numerous) class on the census were by law then ineligible; -while election at Athens, even when every citizen without exception -was an elector and eligible, had a natural tendency to fall upon -men of wealth and station. We thus see how it happened that the -past archons, when united in the Senate of Areopagus, infused into -that body the sympathies, prejudices, and interests of the richer -classes. It was this which brought them into conflict with the more -democratical party headed by Periklês and Ephialtês, in times when -portions of the Kleisthenean constitution had come to be discredited -as too much imbued with oligarchy. - -One other remarkable institution, distinctly ascribed to Kleisthenês, -yet remains to be noticed,—the Ostracism; upon which I have already -made some remarks,[269] in touching upon the memorable Solonian -proclamation against neutrality in a sedition. It is hardly too much -to say that, without this protective process, none of the other -institutions would have reached maturity. - - [269] See above, chap. xi. vol. iii. p. 145. - -By the ostracism, a citizen was banished without special accusation, -trial, or defence, for a term of ten years,—subsequently diminished -to five. His property was not taken away, nor his reputation -tainted; so that the penalty consisted solely in the banishment from -his native city to some other Greek city. As to reputation, the -ostracism was a compliment rather than otherwise;[270] and so it was -vividly felt to be, when, about ninety years after Kleisthenês, the -conspiracy between Nikias and Alkibiadês fixed it upon Hyperbolus. -The two former had both recommended the taking of an ostracizing -vote, each hoping to cause the banishment of the other; but before -the day arrived, they accommodated the difference. To fire off the -safety-gun of the republic against a person so little dangerous as -Hyperbolus, was denounced as the prostitution of a great political -ceremony: “it was not against such men as him (said the comic writer, -Plato),[271] that the oyster-shell (or potsherd) was intended to be -used.” The process of ostracism was carried into effect by writing -upon a shell, or potsherd, the name of the person whom a citizen -thought it prudent for a time to banish; which shell, when deposited -in the proper vessel, counted for a vote towards the sentence. - - [270] Aristeidês Rhetor. Orat. xlvi. vol ii. p. 317, ed. Dindorf. - - [271] Plutarch (Nikias, c. 11; Alkibiad. c. 13; Aristeid. c. 7): - Thucyd. viii, 73. Plato Comicus said, respecting Hyperbolus— - - Οὐ γὰρ τοιούτων οὕνεκ᾽ ὄστραχ᾽ ηὑρέθη. - - Theophrastus had stated that Phæax, and not Nikias, was the rival - of Alkibiadês on this occasion, when Hyperbolus was ostracized; - but most authors, says Plutarch, represent Nikias as the person. - It is curious that there should be any difference of statement - about a fact so notorious, and in the best-known time of Athenian - history. - - Taylor thinks that the oration which now passes as that of - Andokidês against Alkibiadês, is really by Phæax, and was read - by Plutarch as the oration of Phæax in an actual contest of - ostracism between Phæax, Nikias, and Alkibiadês. He is opposed by - Ruhnken and Valckenaer (see Sluiter’s preface to that oration, c. - 1, and Ruhnken, Hist. Critic. Oratt. Græcor. p. 135). I cannot - agree with either: I cannot think with him, that it is a real - oration of Phæax; nor with them, that it is a real oration in any - genuine cause of ostracism whatever. It appears to me to have - been composed after the ostracism had fallen into desuetude, - and when the Athenians had not only become somewhat ashamed - of it, but had lost the familiar conception of what it really - was. For how otherwise can we explain the fact, that the author - of that oration complains that he is about to be ostracized - without any secret voting, in which the very essence of the - ostracism consisted, and from which its name was borrowed (οὔτε - διαψηφισαμένων κρυβδὴν, c. 2)? His oration is framed as if the - audience whom he was addressing were about to ostracize one out - of the three, by show of hands. But the process of ostracizing - included no meeting and haranguing,—nothing but simple deposit of - the shells in a cask; as may be seen by the description of the - special railing-in of the agora, and by the story (true or false) - of the unlettered country-citizen coming into the city to give - his vote, and asking Aristeidês, without even knowing his person, - to write the name for him on the shell (Plutarch, Aristeid. c. - 7). There was, indeed, previous discussion in the senate as - well as in the ekklesia, whether a vote of ostracism should be - entered upon at all; but the author of the oration to which I - allude does not address himself to _that_ question; he assumes - that the vote is actually about to be taken, and that one of the - three—himself, Nikias, or Alkibiadês—must be ostracized (c. 1). - Now, doubtless, in practice, the decision commonly lay between - two formidable rivals; but it was not publicly or formally put so - before the people: every citizen might write upon the shell such - name as he chose. Farther, the open denunciation of the injustice - of ostracism as a system (c. 2), proves an age later than the - banishment of Hyperbolus. Moreover, the author having begun by - remarking that he stands in contest with Nikias as well as with - Alkibiadês, says nothing more about Nikias to the end of the - speech. - -I have already observed that all the governments of the Grecian -cities, when we compare them with that idea which a modern reader is -apt to conceive of the measure of force belonging to a government, -were essentially weak, the good as well as the bad,—the democratical, -the oligarchical, and the despotic. The force in the hands of any -government, to cope with conspirators or mutineers, was extremely -small, with the single exception of a despot surrounded by his -mercenary troop; so that no tolerably sustained conspiracy or usurper -could be put down except by the direct aid of the people in support -of the government; which amounted to a dissolution, for the time, -of constitutional authority, and was pregnant with reactionary -consequences such as no man could foresee. To prevent powerful men -from attempting usurpation was, therefore, of the greatest possible -moment; and a despot or an oligarchy might exercise preventive means -at pleasure,[272] much sharper than the ostracism, such as the -assassination of Kimon, mentioned in my last chapter, as directed -by the Peisistratids. At the very least, they might send away any -one, from whom they apprehended attack or danger, without incurring -even so much as the imputation of severity. But in a democracy, -where arbitrary action of the magistrate was the thing of all -others most dreaded, and where fixed laws, with trial and defence -as preliminaries to punishment, were conceived by the ordinary -citizen as the guarantees of his personal security and as the pride -of his social condition,—the creation of such an exceptional power -presented serious difficulty. If we transport ourselves to the times -of Kleisthenês, immediately after the expulsion of the Peisistratids, -when the working of the democratical machinery was as yet untried, -we shall find this difficulty at its maximum; but we shall also -find the necessity of vesting such a power somewhere absolutely -imperative. For the great Athenian nobles had yet to learn the lesson -of respect for any constitution; their past history had exhibited -continual struggles between the armed factions of Megaklês, Lykurgus, -and Peisistratus, put down after a time by the superior force and -alliances of the latter. And though Kleisthenês, the son of Megaklês, -might be firmly disposed to renounce the example of his father, and -to act as the faithful citizen of a fixed constitution,—he would know -but too well that the sons of his father’s companions and rivals -would follow out ambitious purposes without any regard to the limits -imposed by law, if ever they acquired sufficient partisans to present -a fair prospect of success. Moreover, when any two candidates for -power, with such reckless dispositions, came into a bitter personal -rivalry, the motives to each of them, arising as well out of fear -as out of ambition, to put down his opponent at any cost to the -constitution, might well become irresistible, unless some impartial -and discerning interference could arrest the strife in time. “If the -Athenians were wise (Aristeidês is reported to have said,[273] in the -height and peril of his parliamentary struggle with Themistoklês), -they would cast both Themistoklês and me into the barathrum.”[274] -And whoever reads the sad narrative of the Korkyræan sedition, in -the third book of Thucydidês, together with the reflections of the -historian upon it,[275] will trace the gradual exasperation of these -party feuds, beginning even under democratical forms, until at length -they break down the barriers of public as well as of private morality. - - [272] See the discussion of the ostracism in Aristot. Politic. - iii, 8, where he recognizes the problem as one common to all - governments. - - Compare, also, a good Dissertation—J. A. Paradys, De Ostracismo - Atheniensium, Lugduni Batavor. 1793; K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der - Griechischen Staatsalterthümer, ch. 130; and Schömann, Antiq. - Jur. Pub. Græc. ch. xxxv, p. 233. - - [273] Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 3. - - [274] The barathrum was a deep pit, said to have had iron spikes - at the bottom, into which criminals condemned to death were - sometimes cast. Though probably an ancient Athenian punishment, - it seems to have become at the very least extremely rare, if not - entirely disused, during the times of Athens historically known - to us; but the phrase continued in speech after the practice had - become obsolete. The iron spikes depend on the evidence of the - Schol. Aristophan. Plutus, 431,—a very doubtful authority, when - we read the legend which he blends with his statement. - - [275] Thucyd. iii, 70, 81, 82. - -Against this chance of internal assailants Kleisthenês had to protect -the democratical constitution,—first, by throwing impediments -in their way and rendering it difficult for them to procure the -requisite support; next, by eliminating them before any violent -projects were ripe for execution. To do either the one or the other, -it was necessary to provide such a constitution as would not only -conciliate the good-will, but kindle the passionate attachment, -of the mass of citizens, insomuch that not even any considerable -minority should be deliberately inclined to alter it by force. It was -necessary to create in the multitude, and through them to force upon -the leading ambitious men, that rare and difficult sentiment which -we may term a constitutional morality; a paramount reverence for the -forms of the constitution, enforcing obedience to the authorities -acting under and within those forms, yet combined with the habit of -open speech, of action subject only to definite legal control, and -unrestrained censure of those very authorities as to all their public -acts,—combined too with a perfect confidence in the bosom of every -citizen, amidst the bitterness of party contest, that the forms of -the constitution will be not less sacred in the eyes of his opponents -than in his own. This coexistence of freedom and self-imposed -restraint,—of obedience to authority with unmeasured censure of the -persons exercising it,—may be found in the aristocracy of England -(since about 1688) as well as in the democracy of the American United -States: and because we are familiar with it, we are apt to suppose -it a natural sentiment; though there seem to be few sentiments more -difficult to establish and diffuse among a community, judging by the -experience of history. We may see how imperfectly it exists at this -day in the Swiss cantons; and the many violences of the first French -revolution illustrate, among various other lessons, the fatal effects -arising from its absence, even among a people high in the scale of -intelligence. Yet the diffusion of such constitutional morality, -not merely among the majority of any community, but throughout the -whole, is the indispensable condition of a government at once free -and peaceable; since even any powerful and obstinate minority may -render the working of free institutions impracticable, without being -strong enough to conquer ascendency for themselves. Nothing less -than unanimity, or so overwhelming a majority as to be tantamount -to unanimity, on the cardinal point of respecting constitutional -forms, even by those who do not wholly approve of them, can render -the excitement of political passion bloodless, and yet expose all the -authorities in the state to the full license of pacific criticism. - -At the epoch of Kleisthenês, which by a remarkable coincidence is the -same as that of the regifuge at Rome, such constitutional morality, -if it existed anywhere else, had certainly no place at Athens; and -the first creation of it in any particular society must be esteemed -an interesting historical fact. By the spirit of his reforms,—equal, -popular, and comprehensive, far beyond the previous experience of -Athenians,—he secured the hearty attachment of the body of citizens; -but from the first generation of leading men, under the nascent -democracy, and with such precedents as they had to look back upon, no -self-imposed limits to ambition could be expected: and the problem -required was to eliminate beforehand any one about to transgress -these limits, so as to escape the necessity of putting him down -afterwards, with all that bloodshed and reaction, in the midst of -which the free working of the constitution would be suspended at -least, if not irrevocably extinguished. To acquire such influence -as would render him dangerous under democratical forms, a man must -stand in evidence before the public, so as to afford some reasonable -means of judging of his character and purposes; and the security -which Kleisthenês provided, was, to call in the positive judgment -of the citizens respecting his future promise purely and simply, so -that they might not remain too long neutral between two formidable -political rivals,—pursuant in a certain way to the Solonian -proclamation against neutrality in a sedition, as I have already -remarked in a former chapter. He incorporated in the constitution -itself the principle of _privilegium_ (to employ the Roman phrase, -which signifies, not a peculiar favor granted to any one, but a -peculiar inconvenience imposed), yet only under circumstances solemn -and well defined, with full notice and discussion beforehand, and -by the positive secret vote of a large proportion of the citizens. -“No law shall be made against any single citizen, without the same -being made against _all_ Athenian citizens; unless it shall so seem -good to six thousand citizens voting secretly.”[276] Such was that -general principle of the constitution, under which the ostracism -was a particular case. Before the vote of ostracism could be taken, -a case was to be made out in the senate and the public assembly -to justify it. In the sixth prytany of the year, these two bodies -debated and determined whether the state of the republic was menacing -enough to call for such an exceptional measure.[277] If they decided -in the affirmative, a day was named, the agora was railed round, with -ten entrances left for the citizens of each tribe, and ten separate -casks or vessels for depositing the suffrages, which consisted of a -shell, or a potsherd, with the name of the person written on it whom -each citizen designed to banish. At the end of the day, the number -of votes was summed up, and if six thousand votes were found to have -been given against any one person, that person was ostracized; if -not, the ceremony ended in nothing.[278] Ten days were allowed to -him for settling his affairs, after which he was required to depart -from Attica for ten years, but retained his property, and suffered no -other penalty. - - [276] Andokidês, De Mysteriis, p. 12, c. 13. Μηδὲ νόμον ἐπ᾽ ἀνδρὶ - ἐξεῖναι θεῖναι, ἐὰν μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν Ἀθηναίοις· ἐὰν μὴ - ἑξακισχιλίοις δόξῃ, κρυβδὴν ψηφιζομένοις. According to the usual - looseness in dealing with the name of Solon, this has been called - a law of Solon (see Petit. Leg. Att. p. 188), though it certainly - cannot be older than Kleisthenês. - - “Privilegia ne irroganto,” said the law of the Twelve Tables at - Rome (Cicero, Legg. iii, 4-19). - - [277] Aristotle and Philochorus, ap. Photium, App. p. 672 and - 675, ed. Porson. - - It would rather appear by that passage that the ostracism was - never formally abrogated; and that even in the later times, to - which the description of Aristotle refers, the form was still - preserved of putting the question whether the public safety - called for an ostracizing vote, long after it had passed both out - of use and out of mind. - - [278] Philochorus, _ut supra_; Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 7; Schol. - ad Aristophan. Equit. 851; Pollux, viii, 19. - - There is a difference of opinion among the authorities, as well - as among the expositors, whether the minimum of six thousand - applies to the votes given in all, or to the votes given against - any one name. I embrace the latter opinion, which is supported - by Philochorus, Pollux, and the Schol. on Aristophanês, though - Plutarch countenances the former. Boeckh, in his Public Economy - of Athens, and Wachsmuth, (i, 1, p. 272) are in favor of Plutarch - and the former opinion; Paradys (Dissertat. De Ostr. p. 25), - Platner, and Hermann (see K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Gr. - Staatsalt. ch. 130, not. 6) support the other, which appears to - me the right one. - - For the purpose, so unequivocally pronounced, of the general law - determining the absolute minimum necessary for a _privilegium_, - would by no means be obtained, if the simple majority of votes, - among six thousand voters in all, had been allowed to take - effect. A person might then be ostracized with a very small - number of votes against him, and without creating any reasonable - presumption that he was dangerous to the constitution; which - was by no means either the purpose of Kleisthenês, or the - well-understood operation of the ostracism, so long as it - continued to be a reality. - -It was not the maxim at Athens to escape the errors of the people, -by calling in the different errors, and the sinister interest -besides, of an extra-popular or privileged few; nor was any third -course open, since the principles of representative government were -not understood, nor indeed conveniently applicable to very small -communities. Beyond the judgment of the people—so the Athenians -felt—there was no appeal; and their grand study was to surround the -delivery of that judgment with the best securities for rectitude and -the best preservatives against haste, passion, or private corruption. -Whatever measure of good government could not be obtained in that -way, could not, in their opinion, be obtained at all. I shall -illustrate the Athenian proceedings on this head more fully when I -come to speak of the working of their mature democracy: meanwhile, -in respect to this grand protection of the nascent democracy,—the -vote of ostracism,—it will be found that the securities devised by -Kleisthenês, for making the sentence effectual against the really -dangerous man, and against no one else, display not less foresight -than patriotism. The main object was, to render the voting an -expression of deliberate public feeling, as distinguished from mere -factious antipathy: the large minimum of votes required, one-fourth -of the entire citizen population, went far to insure this effect,—the -more so, since each vote, taken as it was in a secret manner, -counted unequivocally for the expression of a genuine and independent -sentiment, and could neither be coerced nor bought. Then again, -Kleisthenês did not permit the process of ostracizing to be opened -against any one citizen exclusively. If opened at all, every one -without exception was exposed to the sentence; so that the friends of -Themistoklês could not invoke it against Aristeidês,[279] nor those -of the latter against the former, without exposing their own leader -to the same chance of exile. It was not likely to be invoked at all, -therefore, until exasperation had proceeded so far as to render -both parties insensible to this chance,—the precise index of that -growing internecive hostility, which the ostracism prevented from -coming to a head. Nor could it even then be ratified, unless a case -was shown to convince the more neutral portion of the senate and the -ekklesia: moreover, after all, the ekklesia did not itself ostracize, -but a future day was named, and the whole body of the citizens were -solemnly invited to vote. It was in this way that security was -taken not only for making the ostracism effectual in protecting -the constitution, but to hinder it from being employed for any -other purpose. And we must recollect that it exercised its tutelary -influence, not merely on those occasions when it was actually -employed, but by the mere knowledge that it might be employed, and by -the restraining effect which that knowledge produced on the conduct -of the great men. Again, the ostracism, though essentially of an -exceptional nature, was yet an exception sanctified and limited -by the constitution itself; so that the citizen, in giving his -ostracizing vote, did not in any way depart from the constitution -or lose his reverence for it. The issue placed before him—“Is there -any man whom you think vitally dangerous to the state? if so, -whom?”—though vague, was yet raised directly and legally. Had there -been no ostracism, it might probably have been raised both indirectly -and illegally, on the occasion of some special imputed crime of a -suspected political leader, when accused before a court of justice, -—a perversion, involving all the mischief of the ostracism, without -its protective benefits. - - [279] The practical working of the ostracism presents it as a - struggle between two contending leaders, accompanied with chance - of banishment to both—Periklês πρὸς τὸν Θουκυδίδην εἰς ἀγῶνα περὶ - τοῦ ὀστράκου καταστὰς, καὶ διακινδυνεύσας, ἐκεῖνον μὲν ἐξέβαλε, - κατέλυσε δὲ τὴν ἀντιτεταγμένην ἑταιρείαν (Plutarch, Periklês, c. - 14; compare Plutarch, Nikias, c. 11). - -Care was taken to divest the ostracism of all painful consequence -except what was inseparable from exile; and this is not one of the -least proofs of the wisdom with which it was devised. Most certainly, -it never deprived the public of candidates for political influence: -and when we consider the small amount of individual evil which it -inflicted,—evil too diminished, in the cases of Kimon and Aristeidês, -by a reactionary sentiment which augmented their subsequent -popularity after return,—two remarks will be quite sufficient to -offer in the way of justification. First, it completely produced its -intended effect; for the democracy grew up from infancy to manhood -without a single attempt to overthrow it by force,[280]—a result, -upon which no reflecting contemporary of Kleisthenês could have -ventured to calculate. Next, through such tranquil working of the -democratical forms, a constitutional morality quite sufficiently -complete was produced among the leading Athenians, to enable the -people after a certain time to dispense with that exceptional -security which the ostracism offered.[281] To the nascent democracy, -it was absolutely indispensable; to the growing yet militant -democracy, it was salutary; but the full-grown democracy both could -and did stand without it. The ostracism passed upon Hyperbolus, -about ninety years after Kleisthenês, was the last occasion of its -employment. And even this can hardly be considered as a serious -instance: it was a trick concerted between two distinguished -Athenians (Nikias and Alkibiadês), to turn to their own political -account a process already coming to be antiquated. Nor would -such a manœuvre have been possible, if the contemporary Athenian -citizens had been penetrated with the same, serious feeling of the -value of ostracism as a safeguard of democracy, as had been once -entertained by their fathers and grandfathers. Between Kleisthenês -and Hyperbolus, we hear of about ten different persons as having -been banished by ostracism. First of all, Hipparchus of the deme -Cholargus, the son of Charmus, a relative of the recently-expelled -Peisistratid despots;[282] then Aristeidês, Themistoklês, Kimon, and -Thucydidês son of Melêsias, all of them renowned political leaders; -also Alkibiadês and Megaklês (the paternal and maternal grandfathers -of the distinguished Alkibiadês), and Kallias, belonging to another -eminent family at Athens;[283] lastly, Damôn, the preceptor of -Periklês in poetry and music, and eminent for his acquisitions in -philosophy.[284] In this last case comes out the vulgar side of -humanity, aristocratical as well as democratical; for with both, the -process of philosophy and the persons of philosophers are wont to -be alike unpopular. Even Kleisthenês himself is said to have been -ostracized under his own law, and Xanthippus; but both upon authority -too weak to trust.[285] Miltiadês was not ostracized at all, but -tried and punished for misconduct in his command. - - [280] It is not necessary in this remark to take notice, either - of the oligarchy of Four Hundred, or that of Thirty, called the - Thirty Tyrants, established during the closing years of the - Peloponnesian war, and after the ostracism had been discontinued. - Neither of these changes were brought about by the excessive - ascendency of any one or few men: both of them grew out of the - embarrassments and dangers of Athens in the latter period of her - great foreign war. - - [281] Aristotle (Polit. iii, 8, 6) seems to recognize the - political necessity of the ostracism, as applied even to obvious - superiority of wealth, connection, etc. (which he distinguishes - pointedly from superiority of merit and character), and upon - principles of symmetry only, even apart from dangerous designs - on the part of the superior mind. No painter, he observes, will - permit a foot, in his picture of a man, to be of disproportionate - size with the entire body, though separately taken it may be - finely painted; nor will the chorus-master allow any one voice, - however beautiful, to predominate beyond a certain proportion - over the rest. - - His final conclusion is, however, that the legislator ought, if - possible, so to construct his constitution, as to have no need of - such exceptional remedy; but, if this cannot be done, then the - second-best step is to apply the ostracism. Compare also v, 2, 5. - - The last century of the free Athenian democracy realized the - first of these alternatives. - - [282] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 11: Harpokration. v. Ἵππαρχος. - - [283] Lysias cont. Alkibiad. A. c. 11, p. 143: Harpokration. v. - Ἀλκιβιάδης; Andokidês cont. Alkibiad. c. 11-12, pp. 129, 130: - this last oration may afford evidence as to the facts mentioned - in it, though I cannot imagine it to be either genuine, or - belonging to the time to which it professes to refer, as has been - observed in a previous note. - - [284] Plutarch, Periklês. c. 4; Plutarch. Aristeid. c. 1. - - [285] Ælian, V. H. xiii, 24; Herakleidês, περὶ Πολιτειῶν, c. 1, - ed. Köhler. - -I should hardly have said so much about this memorable and peculiar -institution of Kleisthenês, if the erroneous accusations against the -Athenian democracy,—of envy, injustice, and ill-treatment of their -superior men, had not been greatly founded upon it, and if such -criticisms had not passed from ancient times to modern with little -examination. In monarchical governments, a pretender to the throne, -numbering a certain amount of supporters, is, as a matter of course, -excluded from the country. The duke of Bordeaux cannot now reside in -France,—nor could Napoleon after 1815,—nor Charles Edward in England -during the last century. No man treats this as any extravagant -injustice, yet it is the parallel of the ostracism,—with a stronger -case in favor of the latter, inasmuch as the change from one regal -dynasty to another does not of necessity overthrow all the collateral -institutions and securities of the country. Plutarch has affirmed -that the ostracism arose from the envy and jealousy inherent in a -democracy,[286] and not from justifiable fears,—an observation often -repeated, yet not the less demonstrably untrue. Not merely because -ostracism so worked as often to increase the influence of that -political leader whose rival it removed,—but still more, because, -if the fact had been as Plutarch says, this institution would have -continued as long as the democracy; whereas it finished with the -banishment of Hyperbolus, at a period when the government was more -decisively democratical than it had been in the time of Kleisthenês. -It was, in truth, a product altogether of fear and insecurity,[287] -on the part both of the democracy and its best friends,—fear -perfectly well-grounded, and only appearing needless because the -precautions taken prevented attack. So soon as the diffusion of a -constitutional morality had placed the mass of the citizens above all -serious fear of an aggressive usurper the ostracism was discontinued. -And doubtless the feeling, that it might safely be dispensed with, -must have been strengthened by the long ascendency of Periklês,—by -the spectacle of the greatest statesman whom Athens ever produced, -acting steadily within the limits of the constitution; as well as by -the ill-success of his two opponents, Kimon and Thucydidês,—aided by -numerous partisans and by the great comic writers, at a period when -comedy was a power in the state such as it has never been before -or since,—in their attempts to get him ostracized. They succeeded -in fanning up the ordinary antipathy of the citizens towards -philosophers, so far as to procure the ostracism of his friend and -teacher Damôn: but Periklês himself, to repeat the complaint of his -bitter enemy, the comic poet Kratinus,[288] “was out of the reach of -the oyster-shell.” If Periklês was not conceived to be dangerous to -the constitution, none of his successors were at all likely to be so -regarded. Damôn and Hyperbolus were the two last persons ostracized: -both of them were cases, and the only cases, of an unequivocal abuse -of the institution, because, whatever the grounds of displeasure -against them may have been, it is impossible to conceive either -of them as menacing to the state,—whereas all the other known -sufferers were men of such position and power, that the six or -eight thousand citizens who inscribed each name on the shell, or at -least a large proportion of them, may well have done so under the -most conscientious belief that they were guarding the constitution -against real danger. Such a change, in the character of the persons -ostracized, plainly evinces that the ostracism had become dissevered -from that genuine patriotic prudence which originally rendered it -both legitimate and popular. It had served for two generations an -inestimable tutelary purpose,—it lived to be twice dishonored,—and -then passed, by universal acquiescence, into matter of history. - - [286] Plutarch, Themistoklês, 22; Plutarch, Aristeidês, 7, - παραμυθία φθόνου καὶ κουφισμός. See the same opinions repeated by - Wachsmuth, Hellenische Alterthumskunde, ch. 48, vol. i, p. 272, - and by Platner, Prozess and Klagen bey den Attikern, vol. i, p. - 386. - - [287] Thucyd. viii, 73, διὰ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀξιώματος φόβον. - - [288] Kratinus ap. Plutarch, Periklês, 13. - - Ὁ σχινοκέφαλος Ζεὺς ὁδὶ προσέρχεται - Περικλέης, τᾠδεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ κρανíου - Ἔχων, ἐπειδὴ τοὔστρακον παροίχεται. - - For the attacks of the comic writers upon Damôn, see Plutarch, - Periklês, c. 4. - -A process analogous to the ostracism subsisted at Argos,[289] at -Syracuse, and in some other Grecian democracies. Aristotle states -that it was abused for factious purposes: and at Syracuse, where it -was introduced after the expulsion of the Gelonian dynasty, Diodorus -affirms that it was so unjustly and profusely applied, as to deter -persons of wealth and station from taking any part in public affairs; -for which reason it was speedily discontinued. We have no particulars -to enable us to appreciate this general statement. But we cannot -safely infer that because the ostracism worked on the whole well at -Athens, it must necessarily have worked well in other states,—the -more so, as we do not know whether it was surrounded with the same -precautionary formalities, nor whether it even required the same -large minimum of votes to make it effective. This latter guarantee, -so valuable in regard to an institution essentially easy to abuse, is -not noticed by Diodorus in his brief account of the Petalism,—so the -process was denominated at Syracuse.[290] - - [289] Aristot. Polit. iii, 8, 4; v, 2, 5. - - [290] Diodor. xi, 55-87. This author describes very imperfectly - the Athenian ostracism, transferring to it apparently the - circumstances of the Syracusan Petalism. - -Such was the first Athenian democracy, engendered as well by the -reaction against Hippias and his dynasty as by the memorable -partnership, whether spontaneous or compulsory, between Kleisthenês -and the unfranchised multitude. It is to be distinguished, both -from the mitigated oligarchy established by Solon before, and from -the full-grown and symmetrical democracy which prevailed afterwards -from the beginning of the Peloponnesian war towards the close of the -career of Periklês. It was, indeed, a striking revolution, impressed -upon the citizen not less by the sentiments to which it appealed -than by the visible change which it made in political and social -life. He saw himself marshalled in the ranks of hoplites, alongside -of new companions in arms,—he was enrolled in a new register, and -his property in a new schedule, in his deme and by his demarch, an -officer before unknown,—he found the year distributed afresh, for -all legal purposes, into ten parts bearing the name of prytanies, -each marked by a solemn and free-spoken ekklesia, at which he had -a right to be present,—that ekklesia was convoked and presided by -senators called prytanes, members of a senate novel both as to -number and distribution,—his political duties were now performed as -member of a tribe, designated by a name not before pronounced in -common Attic life, connected with one of ten heroes whose statues -he now for the first time saw in the agora, and associating him -with fellow-tribemen from all parts of Attica. All these and many -others were sensible novelties, felt in the daily proceedings of the -citizen. But the great novelty of all was, the authentic recognition -of the ten new tribes as a sovereign dêmos, or people, apart from -all specialties of phratric or gentile origin, with free speech and -equal law; retaining no distinction except the four classes of the -Solonian property-schedule with their gradations of eligibility. To -a considerable proportion of citizens this great novelty was still -farther endeared by the fact that it had raised them out of the -degraded position of metics and slaves; and to the large majority of -all the citizens, it furnished a splendid political idea, profoundly -impressive to the Greek mind,—capable of calling forth the most -ardent attachment as well as the most devoted sense of active -obligation and obedience. We have now to see how their newly-created -patriotism manifested itself. - -Kleisthenês and his new constitution carried with them so completely -the popular favor, that Isagoras had no other way of opposing -it except by calling in the interference of Kleomenês and the -Lacedæmonians. Kleomenês listened the more readily to this call, as -he was reported to have been on an intimate footing with the wife -of Isagoras. He prepared to come to Athens; but his first aim was -to deprive the democracy of its great leader Kleisthenês, who, as -belonging to the Alkmæônid family, was supposed to be tainted with -the inherited sin of his great-grandfather Megaklês, the destroyer -of the usurper Kylôn. Kleomenês sent a herald to Athens, demanding -the expulsion “of the accursed,”—so this family were called by their -enemies, and so they continued to be called eighty years afterwards, -when the same manœuvre was practised by the Lacedæmonians of that -day against Periklês. This requisition had been recommended by -Isagoras, and was so well-timed that Kleisthenês, not venturing to -disobey it, retired voluntarily, so that Kleomenês, though arriving -at Athens only with a small force, found himself master of the city. -At the instigation of Isagoras, he sent into exile seven hundred -families, selected from the chief partisans of Kleisthenês: his next -attempt was to dissolve the new Senate of Five Hundred and place -the whole government in the hands of three hundred adherents of the -chief whose cause he espoused. But now was seen the spirit infused -into the people by their new constitution. At the time of the first -usurpation of Peisistratus, the Senate of that day had not only not -resisted, but even lent themselves to the scheme. But the new Senate -of Kleisthenês resolutely refused to submit to dissolution, and the -citizens manifested themselves in a way at once so hostile and so -determined, that Kleomenês and Isagoras were altogether baffled. -They were compelled to retire into the acropolis and stand upon the -defensive; and this symptom of weakness was the signal for a general -rising of the Athenians, who besieged the Spartan king on the holy -rock. He had evidently come without any expectation of finding, or -any means of overpowering, resistance; for at the end of two days his -provisions were exhausted, and he was forced to capitulate. He and -his Lacedæmonians, as well as Isagoras, were allowed to retire to -Sparta; but the Athenians of the party captured along with him were -imprisoned, condemned,[291] and executed by the people. - - [291] Herodot. v, 70-72; compare Schol. ad Aristophan. Lysistr. - 274. - -Kleisthenês, with the seven hundred exiled families, was immediately -recalled, and his new constitution materially strengthened by this -first success. Yet the prospect of renewed Spartan attack was -sufficiently serious to induce him to send envoys to Artaphernês, the -Persian satrap at Sardis, soliciting the admission of Athens into the -Persian alliance: he probably feared the intrigues of the expelled -Hippias in the same quarter. Artaphernês, having first informed -himself who the Athenians were, and where they dwelt,—replied that, -if they chose to send earth and water to the king of Persia, they -might be received as allies, but upon no other condition. Such were -the feelings of alarm under which the envoys had quitted Athens, -that they went the length of promising this unqualified token of -submission. But their countrymen, on their return, disavowed them -with scorn and indignation.[292] - - [292] Herodot. v, 73. - -It was at this time that the first connection began between Athens -and the little Bœotian town of Platæa, situated on the northern -slope of the range of Kithæron, between that mountain and the river -Asôpus,—on the road from Athens to Thebes; and it is upon this -first occasion that we become acquainted with the Bœotians and -their polities. In one of my preceding volumes,[293] the Bœotian -federation has already been briefly described, as composed of some -twelve or thirteen autonomous towns under the headship of Thebes, -which was, or professed to have been, their mother-city. Platæa had -been, so the Thebans affirmed, their latest foundation;[294] it was -ill-used by them, and discontented with the alliance. Accordingly, -as Kleomenês was on his way back from Athens, the Platæans took the -opportunity of addressing themselves to him, craved the protection -of Sparta against Thebes, and surrendered their town and territory -without reserve. The Spartan king, having no motive to undertake a -trust which promised nothing but trouble, advised them to solicit -the protection of Athens, as nearer and more accessible for them in -case of need. He foresaw that this would embroil the Athenians with -Bœotia; and such anticipation was in fact his chief motive for giving -the advice, which the Platæans followed. Selecting an occasion of -public sacrifice at Athens, they dispatched thither envoys, who sat -down as suppliants at the altar, surrendered their town to Athens, -and implored protection against Thebes. Such an appeal was not to be -resisted, and protection was promised; it was soon needed, for the -Thebans invaded the Platæan territory, and an Athenian force marched -to defend it. Battle was about to be joined, when the Corinthians -interposed with their mediation, which was accepted by both parties. -They decided altogether in favor of Platæa, pronouncing that the -Thebans had no right to employ force against any seceding member of -the Bœotian federation.[295] But the Thebans, finding the decision -against them, refused to abide by it, and, attacking the Athenians on -their return, sustained a complete defeat: the latter avenged this -breach of faith by joining to Platæa the portion of Theban territory -south of the Asôpus, and making that river the limit between the -two. By such success, however, the Athenians gained nothing, except -the enmity of Bœotia,—as Kleomenês had foreseen. Their alliance with -Platæa, long continued, and presenting in the course of this history -several incidents touching to our sympathies, will be found, if we -except one splendid occasion,[296] productive only of burden to the -one party, yet insufficient as a protection to the other. - - [293] See vol. ii, p. 295, part ii, ch. 3. - - [294] Thucyd. iii, 61. - - [295] Herodot. vi, 108. ἐᾷν Θηβαίους Βοιωτῶν τοὺς μὴ βουλομένους - ἐς Βοιωτοὺς τελέειν. This is an important circumstance in regard - to Grecian political feeling: I shall advert to it hereafter. - - [296] Herodot. vi, 108. Thucydidês (iii, 58), when recounting - the capture of Platæa by the Lacedæmonians in the third year of - the Peloponnesian war, states that the alliance between Platæa - and Athens was then in its 93rd year of date; according to which - reckoning it would begin in the year 519 B. C., where Mr. Clinton - and other chronologers place it. - - I venture to think that the immediate circumstances, as recounted - in the text from Herodotus (whether Thucydidês conceived them - in the same way, cannot be determined), which brought about the - junction of Platæa with Athens, cannot have taken place in 519 B. - C., but must have happened _after_ the expulsion of Hippias from - Athens in 510 B. C.,—for the following reasons:— - - 1. No mention is made of Hippias, who yet, if the event had - happened in 519 B. C., must have been the person to determine - whether the Athenians should assist Platæa or not. The Platæan - envoys present themselves at a public sacrifice in the attitude - of suppliants, so as to touch the feelings of the Athenian - citizens generally: had Hippias been then despot, _he_ would have - been the person to be propitiated and to determine for or against - assistance. - - 2. We know no cause which should have brought Kleomenês with a - Lacedæmonian force near to Platæa in the year 519 B. C.: we know - from the statement of Herodotus (v, 76) that no Lacedæmonian - expedition against Attica took place at that time. But in the - year to which I have referred the event, Kleomenês is on his - march near the spot upon a known and assignable object. From the - very tenor of the narrative, it is plain that Kleomenês and his - army were not designedly in Bœotia, nor meddling with Bœotian - affairs, at the time when the Platæans solicited his aid; he - declines to interpose in the matter, pleading the great distance - between Sparta and Platæa as a reason. - - 3. Again, Kleomenês, in advising the Platæans to solicit - Athens, does not give the advice through good-will towards - them, but through a desire to harass and perplex the Athenians, - by entangling them in a quarrel with the Bœotians. At the - point of time to which I have referred the incident, this was - a very natural desire: he was angry, and perhaps alarmed, at - the recent events which had brought about his expulsion from - Athens. But what was there to make him conceive such a feeling - against Athens during the reign of Hippias? That despot was on - terms of the closest intimacy with Sparta: the Peisistratids - were (ξείνους—ξεινίους ταμάλιστα—Herod. v, 63, 90, 91) “the - particular guests” of the Spartans, who were only induced to - take part against Hippias from a reluctant obedience to the - oracles procured, one after another, by Kleisthenês. The motive, - therefore, assigned by Herodotus, for the advice given by - Kleomenês to the Platæans, can have no application to the time - when Hippias was still despot. - - 4. That Herodotus did not conceive the victory gained by the - Athenians over Thebes as having taken place _before_ the - expulsion of Hippias, is evident from his emphatic contrast - between their warlike spirit and success when liberated from the - despots, and their timidity or backwardness while under Hippias - (Ἀθηναῖοι τυραννευόμενοι μὲν, οὐδαμῶν τῶν σφέας περιοικεόντων - ἔσαν τὰ πολέμια ἀμείνους, ἀπαλλαχθέντες δὲ τυράννων, μακρῷ πρῶτοι - ἐγένοντο· δηλοῖ ὦν ταῦτα, ὅτι κατεχόμενοι μὲν, ἐθελοκάκεον, - etc. v, 78). The man who wrote thus cannot have believed that, - in the year 519 B. C., while Hippias was in full sway, the - Athenians gained an important victory over the Thebans, cut off - a considerable portion of the Theban territory for the purpose - of joining it to that of the Platæans, and showed from that time - forward their constant superiority over Thebes by protecting her - inferior neighbor against her. - - These different reasons, taking them altogether, appear to me - to show that the first alliance between Athens and Platæa, as - Herodotus conceives and describes it, cannot have taken place - before the expulsion of Hippias, in 510 B. C.; and induce me to - believe, either that Thucydidês was mistaken in the date of that - event, or that Herodotus has not correctly described the facts. - Not seeing any reason to suspect the description given by the - latter, I have departed, though unwillingly, from the date of - Thucydidês. - - The application of the Platæans to Kleomenês, and his advice - grounded thereupon, may be connected more suitably with his first - expedition to Athens, after the expulsion of Hippias, than with - his second. - -Meanwhile Kleomenês had returned to Sparta full of resentment -against the Athenians, and resolved on punishing them, as well as on -establishing his friend Isagoras as despot over them. Having been -taught, however, by humiliating experience, that this was no easy -achievement, he would not make the attempt, without having assembled -a considerable force; he summoned allies from all the various states -of Peloponnesus, yet without venturing to inform them what he was -about to undertake. He at the same time concerted measures with the -Bœotians, and with the Chalkidians of Eubœa, for a simultaneous -invasion of Attica on all sides. It appears that he had greater -confidence in their hostile dispositions towards Athens than in those -of the Peloponnesians, for he was not afraid to acquaint them with -his design,—and probably the Bœotians were incensed with the recent -interference of Athens in the affair of Platæa. As soon as these -preparations were completed, the two kings of Sparta, Kleomenês and -Demaratus, put themselves at the head of the united Peloponnesian -force, marched into Attica, and advanced as far as Eleusis on the way -to Athens. But when the allies came to know the purpose for which -they were to be employed, a spirit of dissatisfaction manifested -itself among them. They had no unfriendly sentiment towards Athens; -and the Corinthians especially, favorably disposed rather than -otherwise towards that city, resolved to proceed no farther, withdrew -their contingent from the camp, and returned home. At the same time, -king Demaratus, either sharing in the general dissatisfaction, or -moved by some grudge against his colleague which had not before -manifested itself, renounced the undertaking also. And these two -examples, operating upon the preëxisting sentiment of the allies -generally, caused the whole camp to break up and return home without -striking a blow.[297] - - [297] Herodot. v, 75. - -We may here remark that this is the first instance known in -which Sparta appears in act as recognized head of an obligatory -Peloponnesian alliance,[298] summoning contingents from the cities -to be placed under the command of her king. Her headship, previously -recognized in theory, passes now into act, but in an unsatisfactory -manner, so as to prove the necessity of precaution and concert -beforehand,—which will be found not long wanting. - - [298] Compare Kortüm, Zur Geschichte Hellenischer - Staats-Verfassungen, p. 35 (Heidelberg, 1821). - - I doubt, however, his interpretation of the words in Herodotus - (v, 63)—εἴτε ἰδίῳ στόλῳ, εἴτε δημοσίῳ χρησόμενοι. - -Pursuant to the scheme concerted, the Bœotians and Chalkidians -attacked Attica at the same time that Kleomenês entered it. The -former seized Œnoê and Hysiæ, the frontier demes of Attica on the -side towards Platæa, while the latter assailed the north-eastern -frontier, which faces Eubœa. Invaded on three sides, the Athenians -were in serious danger, and were compelled to concentrate all their -forces at Eleusis against Kleomenês, leaving the Bœotians and -Chalkidians unopposed. But the unexpected breaking up of the invading -army from Peloponnesus proved their rescue, and enabled them to turn -the whole of their attention to the other frontier. They marched into -Bœotia to the strait called Euripus, which separates it from Eubœa, -intending to prevent the junction of the Bœotians and Chalkidians, -and to attack the latter first apart. But the arrival of the Bœotians -caused an alteration in their scheme; they attacked the Bœotians -first, and gained a victory of the most complete character,—killing -a large number, and capturing seven hundred prisoners. On the very -same day they crossed over to Eubœa, attacked the Chalkidians, and -gained another victory so decisive that it at once terminated the -war. Many Chalkidians were taken, as well as Bœotians, and conveyed -in chains to Athens, where after a certain detention they were at -last ransomed for two minæ per man; and the tenth of the sum thus -raised was employed in the fabrication of a chariot and four horses -in bronze, which was placed in the acropolis to commemorate the -victory. Herodotus saw this trophy when he was at Athens. He saw -too, what was a still more speaking trophy, the actual chains in -which the prisoners had been fettered, exhibiting in their appearance -the damage undergone when the acropolis was burnt by Xerxês: an -inscription of four lines described the offerings and recorded the -victory out of which they had sprung.[299] - - [299] Herodot. v, 77; Ælian, V. H. vi, 1; Pausan. i, 28, 2. - -Another consequence of some moment arose out of this victory. The -Athenians planted a body of four thousand of their citizens as -klêruchs (lot-holders) or settlers upon the lands of the wealthy -Chalkidian oligarchy called the Hippobotæ,—proprietors probably in -the fertile plain of Lêlantum, between Chalkis and Eretria. This is -a system which we shall find hereafter extensively followed out by -the Athenians in the days of their power; partly with the view of -providing for their poorer citizens,—partly to serve as garrison -among a population either hostile or of doubtful fidelity. These -Attic klêruchs (I can find no other name by which to speak of them) -did not lose their birthright as Athenian citizens: they were not -colonists in the Grecian sense, and they are known by a totally -different name,—but they corresponded very nearly to the colonies -formally planted out on the conquered lands by Rome. The increase -of the poorer population was always more or less painfully felt in -every Grecian city. For though the aggregate population never seems -to have increased very fast, yet the multiplication of children in -poor families caused the subdivision of the smaller lots of land, -until at last they became insufficient for a maintenance; and the -persons thus impoverished found it difficult to obtain subsistence -in other ways, more especially as the labor for the richer classes -was so much performed by imported slaves. Doubtless some families -possessed of landed property became extinct; but this did not at -all benefit the smaller and poorer proprietors; for the lands thus -rendered vacant passed, not to them, but by inheritance, or bequest, -or intermarriage, to other proprietors, for the most part in easy -circumstances,—since one opulent family usually intermarried with -another. I shall enter more fully at a future opportunity into this -question,—the great and serious problem of population, as it affected -the Greek communities generally, and as it was dealt with in theory -by the powerful minds of Plato and Aristotle. At present it is -sufficient to notice that the numerous klêruchies sent out by Athens, -of which this to Eubœa was the first, arose in a great measure out of -the multiplication of the poorer population, which her extended power -was employed in providing for. Her subsequent proceedings with a view -to the same object will not be always found so justifiable as this -now before us, which grew naturally, according to the ideas of the -time, out of her success against the Chalkidians. - -The war between Athens, however, and Thebes with her Bœotian allies, -still continued, to the great and repeated disadvantage of the -latter, until at length the Thebans in despair sent to ask advice of -the Delphian oracle, and were directed to “solicit aid from those -nearest to them.”[300] “How (they replied) are we to obey? Our -nearest neighbors, of Tanagra, Korôneia, and Thespiæ, are now, and -have been from the beginning, lending us all the aid in their power.” -An ingenious Theban, however, coming to the relief of his perplexed -fellow-citizens, dived into the depths of legend and brought up a -happy meaning. “Those nearest to us (he said) are the inhabitants of -Ægina: for Thêbê (the eponym of Thebes) and Ægina (the eponym of that -island) were both sisters, daughters of Asôpus: let us send to crave -assistance from the Æginetans.” If his subtle interpretation (founded -upon their descent from the same legendary progenitors) did not at -once convince all who heard it, at least no one had any better to -suggest; and envoys were at once sent to the Æginetans,—who, in reply -to a petition founded on legendary claims, sent to the help of the -Thebans a reinforcement of legendary, but venerated, auxiliaries,—the -Æakid heroes. We are left to suppose that their effigies are here -meant. It was in vain, however, that the glory and the supposed -presence of the Æakids Telamôn and Pêleus were introduced into the -Theban camp. Victory still continued on the side of Athens; and the -discouraged Thebans again sent to Ægina, restoring the heroes,[301] -and praying for aid of a character more human and positive. Their -request was granted, and the Æginetans commenced war against Athens -without even the decent preliminary of a herald and declaration.[302] - - [300] Herodot. v, 80. - - [301] In the expression of Herodotus, the Æakid heroes are - _really_ sent from Ægina, and _really_ sent back by the Thebans - (v, 80-81)—Οἱ δέ σφι αἰτέουσι ἐπικουρίην τοὺς Αἰακίδας συμπέμπειν - ἔφασαν, αὖτις οἱ Θηβαῖοι πέμψαντες, ~τοὺς μὲν Αἰακίδας σφι - ἀπεδίδοσαν, τῶν δὲ ἀνδρῶν ἐδέοντο~. Compare again v, 75; viii, - 64; and Polyb. vii, 9, 2. θεῶν τῶν συστρατευομένων. - - Justin gives a narrative of an analogous application from the - Epizephyrian Lokrians to Sparta (xx, 3): “Territi Locrenses - ad Spartanos decurrunt: auxilium supplices deprecantur: illi - longinquâ militiâ gravati, auxilium a Castore et Polluce petere - eos jubent. Neque legati responsum sociæ urbis spreverunt; - profectique in proximum templum, facto sacrificio, auxilium - deorum implorant. Litatis hostiis, _obtentoque, ut rebantur, - quod petebant—haud secus læti quam si deos ipsos secum avecturi - essent_—pulvinaria iis in navi componunt, faustisque profecti - ominibus, _solatia suis pro auxiliis_ deportant.” In comparing - the expressions of Herodotus with those of Justin, we see that - the former believes the direct literal presence and action of the - Æakid heroes (“the Thebans sent back the heroes, and asked for - men”), while the latter explains away the divine intervention - into a mere fancy and feeling on the part of those to whom it is - supposed to be accorded. This was the tone of those later authors - whom Justin followed: compare also Pausan. iii, 19, 2. - - [302] Herodot. v, 81-82. - -This remarkable embassy first brings us into acquaintance with the -Dorians of Ægina,—oligarchical, wealthy, commercial, and powerful -at sea, even in the earliest days; more analogous to Corinth than -to any of the other cities called Dorian. The hostility which they -now began without provocation against Athens,—repressed by Sparta at -the critical moment of the battle of Marathon,—then again breaking -out,—and hushed for a while by the common dangers of the Persian -invasion under Xerxês, was appeased only with the conquest of the -island about twenty years after that event, and with the expulsion -and destruction of its inhabitants some years later. There had been -indeed, according to Herodotus,[303] a feud of great antiquity -between Athens and Ægina,—of which he gives the account in a singular -narrative, blending together religion, politics, exposition of -ancient customs, etc.; but at the time when the Thebans solicited -aid from Ægina, the latter was at peace with Athens. The Æginetans -employed their fleet, powerful for that day, in ravaging Phalêrum -and the maritime demes of Attica; nor had the Athenians as yet any -fleet to resist them.[304] It is probable that the desired effect was -produced, of diverting a portion of the Athenian force from the war -against Bœotia, and thus partially relieving Thebes. But the war of -Athens against both of them continued for a considerable time, though -we have no information respecting its details. - - [303] Herodot. v, 83-88. - - [304] Herodot. v, 81-89. μεγάλως Ἀθηναίους ἐσινέοντο. - -Meanwhile the attention of Athens was called off from these combined -enemies by a more menacing cloud, which threatened to burst upon -her from the side of Sparta. Kleomenês and his countrymen, full of -resentment at the late inglorious desertion of Eleusis, were yet -more incensed by the discovery, which appears to have been then -recently made, that the injunctions of the Delphian priestess for the -expulsion of Hippias from Athens had been fraudulently procured.[305] -Moreover, Kleomenês, when shut up in the acropolis of Athens with -Isagoras, had found there various prophecies previously treasured -up by the Peisistratids, many of which foreshadowed events highly -disastrous to Sparta. And while the recent brilliant manifestations -of courage, and repeated victories, on the part of Athens, seemed to -indicate that such prophecies might perhaps be realized,—Sparta had -to reproach herself, that, from the foolish and mischievous conduct -of Kleomenês, she had undone the effect of her previous aid against -the Peisistratids, and thus lost that return of gratitude which the -Athenians would otherwise have testified. Under such impressions, the -Spartan authorities took the remarkable step of sending for Hippias -from his residence at Sigeium to Peloponnesus, and of summoning -deputies from all their allies to meet him at Sparta. - - [305] Herodot. v, 90. - -The convocation thus summoned deserves notice as the commencement -of a new era in Grecian politics. The previous expedition of -Kleomenês against Attica presents to us the first known example -of Spartan headship passing from theory into act: that expedition -miscarried because the allies, though willing to follow, would -not follow blindly, nor be made the instruments of executing -purposes repugnant to their feelings. Sparta had now learned the -necessity, in order to insure their hearty concurrence, of letting -them know what she contemplated, so as to ascertain at least -that she had no decided opposition to apprehend. Here, then, is -the third stage in the spontaneous movement of Greece towards a -systematic conjunction, however imperfect, of its many autonomous -units. First we have Spartan headship suggested in theory, from a -concourse of circumstances which attract to her the admiration of -all Greece,—power, unrivalled training, undisturbed antiquity, etc.: -next, the theory passes into act, yet rude and shapeless: lastly, the -act becomes clothed with formalities, and preceded by discussion and -determination. The first convocation of the allies at Sparta, for the -purpose of having a common object submitted to their consideration, -may well be regarded as an important event in Grecian political -history. The proceedings at the convocation are no less important, -as an indication of the way in which the Greeks of that day felt and -acted, and must be borne in mind as a contrast with times hereafter -to be described. - -Hippias having been presented to the assembled allies, the Spartans -expressed their sorrow for having dethroned him,—their resentment -and alarm at the new-born insolence of Athens,[306] already tasted -by her immediate neighbors, and menacing to every state represented -in the convocation,—and their anxiety to restore Hippias, not less -as a reparation for past wrong, than as a means, through his rule, -of keeping Athens low and dependent. But the proposition, though -emanating from Sparta, was listened to by the allies with one common -sentiment of repugnance. They had no sympathy for Hippias,—no -dislike, still less any fear, of Athens,—and a profound detestation -of the character of a despot. The spirit which had animated the armed -contingents at Eleusis now reappeared among the deputies at Sparta, -and the Corinthians again took the initiative. Their deputy Sosiklês -protested against the project in the fiercest and most indignant -strain: no language can be stronger than that of the long harangue -which Herodotus puts into his mouth, wherein the bitter recollections -prevalent at Corinth respecting Kypselus and Periander are poured -forth. “Surely, heaven and earth are about to change places,—the fish -are coming to dwell on dry land, and mankind going to inhabit the -sea,—when you, Spartans, propose to subvert the popular governments, -and to set up in the cities that wicked and bloody thing called -a Despot.[307] First try what it is, for yourselves at Sparta, -and then force it upon others if you can: you have not tasted its -calamities as we have, and you take very good care to keep it away -from yourselves. We adjure you, by the common gods of Hellas,—plant -not despots in her cities: if you persist in a scheme so wicked, know -that the Corinthians will not second you.” - - [306] Herodot. v, 90, 91. - - [307] Herodot. v, 92. ... τυραννίδας ἐς τὰς πόλις κατάγειν - παρασκευάζεσθε, τοῦ οὔτε ἀδικώτερον ἐστὶ οὐδὲν κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους - οὔτε μιαιφονώτερον. - -This animated appeal was received with a shout of approbation and -sympathy on the part of the allies. All with one accord united with -Sosiklês in adjuring the Lacedæmonians[308] “not to revolutionize any -Hellenic city.” No one listened to Hippias when he replied, warning -the Corinthians that the time would come, when they, more than any -one else, would dread and abhor the Athenian democracy, and wish the -Peisistratidæ back again. He knew well, says Herodotus, that this -would be, for he was better acquainted with the prophecies than any -man. But no one then believed him, and he was forced to take his -departure back to Sigeium: the Spartans not venturing to espouse his -cause against the determined sentiment of the allies.[309] - - [308] Herodot. v, 93. μὴ ποιέειν μηδὲν νεώτερον περὶ πόλιν Ἑλλάδα. - - [309] Herodot. v, 93-94. - -That determined sentiment deserves notice, because it marks the -present period of the Hellenic mind: fifty years later it will -be found materially altered. Aversion to single-headed rule, and -bitter recollection of men like Kypselus and Periander, are now -the chords which thrill in an assembly of Grecian deputies: the -idea of a revolution, implying thereby a great and comprehensive -change, of which the party using the word disapproves, consists in -substituting a permanent One in place of those periodical magistrates -and assemblies which were the common attribute of oligarchy and -democracy: the antithesis between these last two is as yet in the -background, nor does there prevail either fear of Athens or hatred of -the Athenian democracy. But when we turn to the period immediately -before the Peloponnesian war, we find the order of precedence -between these two sentiments reversed. The anti-monarchical feeling -has not perished, but has been overlaid by other and more recent -political antipathies,—the antithesis between democracy and oligarchy -having become, not indeed the only sentiment, but the uppermost -sentiment, in the minds of Grecian politicians generally, and the -soul of active party-movement. Moreover, a hatred of the most deadly -character has grown up against Athens and her democracy, especially -in the grandsons of those very Corinthians who now stand forward -as her sympathizing friends. The remarkable change of feeling here -mentioned is nowhere so strikingly exhibited as when we contrast -the address of the Corinthian Sosiklês, just narrated, with the -speech of the Corinthian envoys at Sparta, immediately antecedent -to the Peloponnesian war, as given to us in Thucydidês.[310] It -will hereafter be fully explained by the intermediate events, by -the growth of Athenian power, and by the still more miraculous -development of Athenian energy. - - [310] Thucydid. i, 68-71, 120-124. - -Such development, the fruit of the fresh-planted democracy as well -as the seed for its sustentation and aggrandizement, continued -progressive during the whole period just adverted to. But the first -unexpected burst of it, under the Kleisthenean constitution, and -after the expulsion of Hippias, is described by Herodotus in terms -too emphatic to be omitted. After narrating the successive victories -of the Athenians over both Bœotians and Chalkidians, that historian -proceeds: “Thus did the Athenians grow in strength. And we may find -proof, not merely in this instance but everywhere else, how valuable -a thing freedom is: since even the Athenians, while under a despot, -were not superior in war to any of their surrounding neighbors, but, -so soon as they got rid of their despots, became by far the first of -all. These things show that while kept down by one man, they were -slack and timid, like men working for a master; but when they were -liberated, every single man became eager in exertions for his own -benefit.” The same comparison reappears a short time afterwards, -where he tells us, that “the Athenians when free, felt themselves a -match for Sparta; but while kept down by any man under a despotism, -were feeble and apt for submission.”[311] - - [311] Herodot. v, 78-91. Ἀθηναῖοι μέν νυν ηὔξηντο· δηλοῖ - δὲ οὐ κατ᾽ ἓν μόνον ἀλλὰ πανταχῇ, ἡ ἰσηγορίη ὡς ἔστι χρῆμα - σπουδαῖον, εἰ καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι τυραννευόμενοι μὲν, οὐδαμῶν τῶν - σφέας περιοικεόντων ἔσαν τὰ πολέμια ἀμείνους, ἀπαλλαχθέντες δὲ - τυράννων, μακρῷ πρῶτοι ἐγένοντο· δηλοῖ ὦν ταῦτα, ὅτι κατεχόμενοι - μὲν, ἐθελοκάκεον, ὡς δεσπότῃ ἐργαζόμενοι, ἐλευθερωθέντων δὲ, - αὐτὸς ἕκαστος ἑωϋτῷ προθυμέετο κατεργάζεσθαι. - - (c. 91.) Οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι—νόῳ λαβόντες, ὡς ἐλεύθερον μὲν ἐὸν τὸ - γένος τὸ Ἀττικὸν, ἰσόῤῥοπον τῷ ἑωϋτῶν ἂν γένοιτο, κατεχόμενον δὲ - ὑπό του τυραννίδι, ἀσθενὲς καὶ πειθαρχέεσθαι ἐτοῖμον. - -Stronger expressions cannot be found to depict the rapid improvement -wrought in the Athenian people by their new democracy. Of course -this did not arise merely from suspension of previous cruelties, or -better laws, or better administration. These, indeed, were essential -conditions, but the active transforming cause here was, the principle -and system of which such amendments formed the detail: the grand -and new idea of the sovereign People, composed of free and equal -citizens,—or liberty and equality, to use words which so profoundly -moved the French nation half a century ago. It was this comprehensive -political idea which acted with electric effect upon the Athenians, -creating within them a host of sentiments, motives, sympathies, and -capacities, to which they had before been strangers. Democracy in -Grecian antiquity possessed the privilege, not only of kindling an -earnest and unanimous attachment to the constitution in the bosoms of -the citizens, but also of creating an energy of public and private -action, such as could never be obtained under an oligarchy, where -the utmost that could be hoped for was a passive acquiescence and -obedience. Mr. Burke has remarked that the mass of the people are -generally very indifferent about theories of government; but such -indifference—although improvements in the practical working of all -governments tend to foster it—is hardly to be expected among any -people who exhibit decided mental activity and spirit on other -matters; and the reverse was unquestionably true, in the year 500 B. -C., among the communities of ancient Greece. Theories of government -were there anything but a dead letter: they were connected with -emotions of the strongest as well as of the most opposite character. -The theory of a permanent ruling One, for example, was universally -odious: that of a ruling Few, though acquiesced in, was never -positively attractive, unless either where it was associated with the -maintenance of peculiar education and habits, as at Sparta, or where -it presented itself as the only antithesis to democracy, the latter -having by peculiar circumstances become an object of terror. But the -theory of democracy was preëminently seductive; creating in the mass -of the citizens an intense positive attachment, and disposing them -to voluntary action and suffering on its behalf, such as no coercion -on the part of other governments could extort. Herodotus,[312] in -his comparison of the three sorts of government, puts in the front -rank of the advantages of democracy, “its most splendid name and -promise,”—its power of enlisting the hearts of the citizens in -support of their constitution, and of providing for all a common -bond of union and fraternity. This is what even democracy did not -always do: but it was what no other government in Greece _could_ do: -a reason alone sufficient to stamp it as the best government, and -presenting the greatest chance of beneficent results, for a Grecian -community. Among the Athenian citizens, certainly, it produced a -strength and unanimity of positive political sentiment, such as -has rarely been seen in the history of mankind, which excites our -surprise and admiration the more when we compare it with the apathy -which had preceded,—and which is even implied as the natural state of -the public mind in Solon’s famous proclamation against neutrality in -a sedition.[313] Because democracy happens to be unpalatable to most -modern readers, they have been accustomed to look upon the sentiment -here described only in its least honorable manifestations,—in the -caricatures of Aristophanês, or in the empty common-places of -rhetorical declaimers. But it is not in this way that the force, -the earnestness, or the binding value, of democratical sentiment at -Athens is to be measured. We must listen to it as it comes from the -lips of Periklês,[314] while he is strenuously enforcing upon the -people those active duties for which it both implanted the stimulus -and supplied the courage; or from the oligarchical Nikias in the -harbor of Syracuse, when he is endeavoring to revive the courage -of his despairing troops for one last death-struggle, and when he -appeals to their democratical patriotism as to the only flame yet -alive and burning even in that moment of agony.[315] From the time -of Kleisthenês downward, the creation of this new mighty impulse -makes an entire revolution in the Athenian character. And if the -change still stood out in so prominent a manner before the eyes of -Herodotus, much more must it have been felt by the contemporaries -among whom it occurred. - - [312] Herodot. iii, 80. Πλῆθος δὲ ἄρχον, ~πρῶτα μὲν, οὔνομα - πάντων κάλλιστον ἔχει, ἰσονομίην~· δεύτερα δὲ, τούτων τῶν ὁ - μόναρχος, ποιέει οὐδέν· πάλῳ μὲν ἀρχὰς ἄρχει, ὑπεύθυνον δὲ ἀρχὴν - ἔχει, βουλεύματα δὲ πάντα ἐς τὸ κοινὸν ἀναφέρει. - - The democratical speaker at Syracuse, Athenagoras, also puts this - name and promise in the first rank of advantages—(Thucyd. vi, - 39)—ἐγὼ δέ φημι, ~πρῶτα μὲν~, δῆμον ξύμπαν ὠνόμασθαι, ὀλιγαρχίαν - δὲ, μέρος, etc. - - [313] See the preceding chapter xi, of this History, vol. iii, p. - 145, respecting the Solonian declaration here adverted to. - - [314] See the two speeches of Periklês in Thucyd. ii, 35-46, and - ii, 60-64. Compare the reflections of Thucydidês upon the two - democracies of Athens and Syracuse, vi, 69 and vii, 21-55. - - [315] Thucyd. vii, 69. Πατρίδος τε τῆς ἐλευθερωτάτης ὑπομιμνήσκων - καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτῇ ἀνεπιτακτοῦ πᾶσιν ἐς τὴν δίαιταν ἐξουσίας, etc. - -The attachment of an Athenian citizen to his democratical -constitution comprised two distinct veins of sentiment: first, -his rights, protection, and advantages derived from it,—next, -his obligations of exertion and sacrifice towards it and with -reference to it. Neither of these two veins of sentiment was ever -wholly absent; but according as the one or the other was present -at different times in varying proportions, the patriotism of the -citizen was a very different feeling. That which Herodotus remarks -is, the extraordinary efforts of heart and hand which the Athenians -suddenly displayed,—the efficacy of the active sentiment throughout -the bulk of the citizens; and we shall observe even more memorable -evidences of the same phenomenon in tracing down the history from -Kleisthenês to the end of the Peloponnesian war: we shall trace -a series of events and motives eminently calculated to stimulate -that self-imposed labor and discipline which the early democracy -had first called forth. But when we advance farther down, from the -restoration of the democracy after the Thirty Tyrants to the time -of Demosthenês,—I venture upon this brief anticipation, in the -conviction that one period of Grecian history can only be thoroughly -understood by contrasting it with another,—we shall find a sensible -change in Athenian patriotism. The active sentiment of obligation is -comparatively inoperative,—the citizen, it is true, has a keen sense -of the value of the democracy as protecting him and insuring to him -valuable rights, and he is, moreover, willing to perform his ordinary -sphere of legal duties towards it; but he looks upon it as a thing -established, and capable of maintaining itself in a due measure of -foreign ascendency, without any such personal efforts as those which -his forefathers cheerfully imposed upon themselves. The orations -of Demosthenês contain melancholy proofs of such altered tone of -patriotism,—of that languor, paralysis, and waiting for others to -act, which preceded the catastrophe of Chæroneia, notwithstanding -an unabated attachment to the democracy as a source of protection -and good government.[316] That same preternatural activity which the -allies of Sparta, at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, both -denounced and admired in the Athenians, is noted by the orator as now -belonging to their enemy Philip. - - [316] Compare the remarkable speech of the Corinthian envoys - at Sparta (Thucyd. i, 68-71), with the φιλοπραγμοσύνη which - Demosthenês so emphatically notices in Philip (Olynthiac. i, 6, - p. 13): also Philippic. i, 2, and the Philippics and Olynthiacs - generally. - -Such variations in the scale of national energy pervade history, -modern as well as ancient, but in regard to Grecian history, -especially, they can never be overlooked. For a certain measure, -not only of positive political attachment, but also of active -self-devotion, military readiness, and personal effort, was -the indispensable condition of maintaining Hellenic autonomy, -either in Athens or elsewhere; and became so more than ever when -the Macedonians were once organized under an enterprising and -semi-Hellenized prince. The democracy was the first creative cause -of that astonishing personal and many-sided energy which marked the -Athenian character, for a century downward from Kleisthenês. That the -same ultra-Hellenic activity did not longer continue, is referable to -other causes, which will be hereafter in part explained. No system -of government, even supposing it to be very much better and more -faultless than the Athenian democracy, can ever pretend to accomplish -its legitimate end apart from the personal character of the people, -or to supersede the necessity of individual virtue and vigor. During -the half-century immediately preceding the battle of Chæroneia, the -Athenians had lost that remarkable energy which distinguished them -during the first century of their democracy, and had fallen much more -nearly to a level with the other Greeks, in common with whom they -were obliged to yield to the pressure of a foreign enemy. I here -briefly notice their last period of languor, in contrast with the -first burst of democratical fervor under Kleisthenês, now opening,—a -feeling which will be found, as we proceed, to continue for a longer -period than could have been reasonably anticipated, but which was -too high-strung to become a perpetual and inherent attribute of any -community. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXII. - -RISE OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE. — CYRUS. - - -In the preceding chapter, I have followed the history of Central -Greece very nearly down to the point at which the history of the -Asiatic Greeks becomes blended with it, and after which the two -streams begin to flow to a great degree in the same channel. I now -revert to the affairs of the Asiatic Greeks, and of the Asiatic kings -as connected with them, at the point in which they were left in my -seventeenth chapter. - -The concluding facts recounted in that chapter were of sad and -serious moment to the Hellenic world. The Ionic and Æolic Greeks -on the Asiatic coast had been conquered and made tributary by the -Lydian king Crœsus: “down to that time (says Herodotus) all Greeks -had been free.” Their conqueror Crœsus, who ascended the throne in -560 B. C., appeared to be at the summit of human prosperity and -power in his unassailable capital, and with his countless treasures -at Sardis. His dominions comprised nearly the whole of Asia Minor, -as far as the river Halys to the east; on the other side of that -river began the Median monarchy under his brother-in-law Astyagês, -extending eastward to some boundary which we cannot define, but -comprising in a south-eastern direction Persis proper, or Farsistan, -and separated from the Kissians and Assyrians on the west by the line -of Mount Zagros—the present boundary-line between Persia and Turkey. -Babylonia, with its wondrous city, between the Euphrates and the -Tigris, was occupied by the Assyrians, or Chaldæans, under their king -Labynêtus: a territory populous and fertile, partly by nature, partly -by prodigies of labor, to a degree which makes us mistrust even an -honest eye-witness who describes it afterwards in its decline,—but -which was then in its most flourishing condition. The Chaldæan -dominion under Labynêtus reached to the borders of Egypt, including, -as dependent territories, both Judæa and Phenicia. In Egypt reigned -the native king Amasis, powerful and affluent, sustained in his -throne by a large body of Grecian mercenaries, and himself favorably -disposed to Grecian commerce and settlement. Both with Labynêtus and -with Amasis, Crœsus was on terms of alliance; and as Astyagês was -his brother-in-law, the four kings might well be deemed out of the -reach of calamity. Yet within the space of thirty years or a little -more, the whole of their territories had become embodied in one vast -empire, under the son of an adventurer as yet not known even by name. - -The rise and fall of Oriental dynasties has been in all times -distinguished by the same general features. A brave and adventurous -prince, at the head of a population at once poor, warlike, and -greedy, acquires dominion,—while his successors, abandoning -themselves to sensuality and sloth, probably also to oppressive -and irascible dispositions, become in process of time victims -to those same qualities in a stranger which had enabled their -own father to seize the throne. Cyrus, the great founder of the -Persian empire, first the subject and afterwards the dethroner of -the Median Astyagês, corresponds to this general description, as -far at least as we can pretend to know his history. For in truth, -even the conquests of Cyrus, after he became ruler of Media, are -very imperfectly known, whilst the facts which preceded his rise -up to that sovereignty cannot be said to be known at all: we have -to choose between different accounts at variance with each other, -and of which the most complete and detailed is stamped with all the -character of romance. The Cyropædia of Xenophon is memorable and -interesting, considered with reference to the Greek mind, and as a -philosophical novel:[317] that it should have been quoted so largely -as authority on matters of history, is only one proof among many how -easily authors have been satisfied as to the essentials of historical -evidence. The narrative given by Herodotus of the relations between -Cyrus and Astyagês, agreeing with Xenophon in little more than the -fact that it makes Cyrus son of Kambysês and Mandanê, and grandson -of Astyagês, goes even beyond the story of Romulus and Remus in -respect to tragical incident and contrast. Astyagês, alarmed by a -dream, condemns the new-born infant of his daughter Mandanê to be -exposed: Harpagus, to whom the order is given, delivers the child to -one of the royal herdsmen, who exposes it in the mountains, where -it is miraculously suckled by a bitch.[318] Thus preserved, and -afterwards brought up as the herdsman’s child, Cyrus manifests great -superiority both physical and mental, is chosen king in play by the -boys of the village, and in this capacity severely chastises the -son of one of the courtiers; for which offence he is carried before -Astyagês, who recognizes him for his grandson, but is assured by -the Magi that his dream is out, and that he has no farther danger -to apprehend from the boy,—and therefore permits him to live. With -Harpagus, however, Astyagês is extremely incensed, for not having -executed his orders: he causes the son of Harpagus to be slain, and -served up to be eaten by his unconscious father at a regal banquet. -The father, apprized afterwards of the fact, dissembles his feelings, -but conceives a deadly vengeance against Astyagês for this Thyestean -meal. He persuades Cyrus, who has been sent back to his father and -mother in Persia, to head a revolt of the Persians against the -Medes; whilst Astyagês—to fill up the Grecian conception of madness -as a precursor to ruin—sends an army against the revolters, commanded -by Harpagus himself. Of course the army is defeated,—Astyagês, after -a vain resistance, is dethroned,—Cyrus becomes king in his place,—and -Harpagus repays the outrage which he has undergone by the bitterest -insults. - - [317] Among the lost productions of Antisthenês the contemporary - of Xenophon and Plato, and emanating like them from the tuition - of Sokratês, was one Κῦρος, ἢ περὶ Βασιλείας (Diogenes Laërt. vi, - 15). - - [318] That this was the real story—a close parallel of Romulus - and Remus—we may see by Herodotus, i, 122. Some rationalizing - Greeks or Persians transformed it into a more plausible - tale,—that the herdsman’s wife who suckled the boy Cyrus was - named Κυνώ (Κυών is a dog, male or female); contending that this - latter was the real basis of fact, and that the intervention of - the bitch was an exaggeration built upon the name of the woman, - in order that the divine protection shown to Cyrus might be still - more manifest,—οἱ δὲ τοκέες παραλαβόντες τὸ οὔνομα τοῦτ (~ἵνα - θειοτέρως δοκέῃ τοῖσι Πέρσῃσι περιεῖναί σφι ὁ παῖς~), κατέβαλον - φάτιν ὡς ἐκκείμενον Κῦρον κύων ἐξέθρεψε· ἐνθεῦτεν μὲν ἡ φάτις - αὐτὴ κεχωρήκεε. - - In the first volume of this History, I have noticed various - transformations operated by Palæphatus and others upon the Greek - mythes,—the ram which carried Phryxus and Hellê across the - Hellespont is represented to us as having been in _reality_ a man - _named Krius_, who aided their flight,—the winged horse which - carried Bellerophon was a ship _named_ Pegasus, etc. - - This same operation has here been performed upon the story of the - suckling of Cyrus; for we shall run little risk in affirming that - the miraculous story is the older of the two. The feelings which - welcome a miraculous story are early and primitive; those which - break down the miracle into a common-place fact are of subsequent - growth. - -Such are the heads of a beautiful narrative which is given at -some length in Herodotus. It will probably appear to the reader -sufficiently romantic, though the historian intimates that he had -heard three other narratives different from it, and that all were -more full of marvels, as well as in wider circulation, than his -own, which he had borrowed from some unusually sober-minded Persian -informants.[319] In what points the other three stories departed from -it, we do not hear. - - [319] Herodot. i, 95. Ὡς ὦν Περσέων ~μετεξέτεροι~ λέγουσιν, οἱ - ~μὴ βουλόμενοι σεμνοῦν~ τὰ περὶ Κῦρον, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐόντα λέγειν - λόγον, κατὰ ταῦτα γράψω· ἐπιστάμενος περὶ Κύρου καὶ ~τριφασίας - ἄλλας~ λόγων ὁδοὺς φῆναι. His informants were thus select - persons, who differed from the Persians generally. - - The long narrative respecting the infancy and growth of Cyrus is - contained in Herodot. i, 107-129. - -To the historian of Halikarnassus, we have to oppose the physician -of the neighboring town Knidus,—Ktêsias, who contradicted Herodotus, -not without strong terms of censure, on many points, and especially -upon that which is the very foundation of the early narrative -respecting Cyrus; for he affirmed that Cyrus was noway related to -Astyagês.[320] However indignant we may be with Ktêsias, for the -disparaging epithets which he presumed to apply to an historian -whose work is to us inestimable,—we must nevertheless admit that as -surgeon, in actual attendance on king Artaxerxês Mnêmon, and healer -of the wound inflicted on that prince at Kunaxa by his brother Cyrus -the younger,[321] he had better opportunities even than Herodotus of -conversing with sober-minded Persians; and that the discrepancies -between the two statements are to be taken as a proof of the -prevalence of discordant, yet equally accredited, stories. Herodotus -himself was in fact compelled to choose one out of four. So rare and -late a plant is historical authenticity. - - [320] See the Extracts from the lost Persian History of Ktêsias, - in Photius Cod. lxxii, also appended to Schweighaüser’s edition - of Herodotus, vol. iv, p. 345. Φησὶ δὲ (Ktêsias) αὐτὸν τῶν - πλειόνων ἃ ἱστορεῖ αὐτόπτην γενόμενον, ἢ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν Περσῶν (ἔνθα - τὸ ὁρᾷν μὴ ἐνεχώρει) αὐτήκοον καταστάντα, οὕτως τὴν ἱστορίαν - συγγράψαι. - - To the discrepancies between Xenophon, Herodotus, and Ktêsias, on - the subject of Cyrus, is to be added the statement of Æschylus - (Persæ, 747), the oldest authority of them all, and that of the - Armenian historians: see Bähr ad Ktesiam, p. 85: comp. Bähr’s - comments on the discrepancies, p. 87. - - [321] Xenophon, Anabas. i, 8, 26. - -That Cyrus was the first Persian conqueror, and that the space which -he overran covered no less than fifty degrees of longitude, from -the coast of Asia Minor to the Oxus and the Indus, are facts quite -indisputable; but of the steps by which this was achieved, we know -very little. The native Persians, whom he conducted to an empire so -immense, were an aggregate of seven agricultural and four nomadic -tribes,—all of them rude, hardy, and brave,[322]—dwelling in a -mountainous region, clothed in skins, ignorant of wine or fruit, or -any of the commonest luxuries of life, and despising the very idea -of purchase or sale. Their tribes were very unequal in point of -dignity, probably also in respect to numbers and powers, among one -another: first in estimation among them stood the Pasargadæ; and the -first phratry, or clan, among the Pasargadæ were the Achæmenidæ, to -whom Cyrus himself belonged. Whether his relationship to the Median -king whom he dethroned was a matter of fact, or a politic fiction, -we cannot well determine. But Xenophon, in noticing the spacious -deserted cities, Larissa and Mespila,[323] which he saw in his march -with the Ten Thousand Greeks on the eastern side of the Tigris, -gives us to understand that the conquest of Media by the Persians was -reported to him as having been an obstinate and protracted struggle. -However this may be, the preponderance of the Persians was at last -complete: though the Medes always continued to be the second nation -in the empire, after the Persians, properly so called; and by early -Greek writers the great enemy in the East is often called “the -Mede,[324]” as well as “the Persian.” Ekbatana always continued to -be one of the capital cities, and the usual summer residence, of the -kings of Persia; Susa on the Choaspês, on the Kissian plain farther -southward, and east of the Tigris, being their winter abode. - - [322] Herodot. i, 71-153; Arrian, v, 4; Strabo, xv, p. 727; - Plato, Legg. iii, p. 695. - - [323] Xenophon, Anabas. iii, 3, 6; iii, 4, 7-12. Strabo had read - accounts which represented the last battle between Astyagês and - Cyrus to have been fought near Pasargadæ (xv, p. 730). - - It has been rendered probable by Ritter, however, that the - ruined city which Xenophon called Mespila was the ancient - Assyrian Nineveh, and the other deserted city which Xenophon - calls Larissa, situated as it was on the Tigris, must have - been originally Assyrian, and not Median. See about Nineveh, - above,—the Chapter on the Babylonians, vol. iii, ch. xix, p. 305, - note. - - The land east of the Tigris, in which Nineveh and Arbêla were - situated, seems to have been called Aturia,—a dialectic variation - of Assyria (Strabo, xvi, p. 737; Dio Cass. lxviii, 28). - - [324] Xenophanês, Fragm. p. 39, ap. Schneidewin, Delectus Poett. - Elegiac. Græc.— - - Πήλικος ἦσθ᾽ ὅθ᾽ ὁ Μῆδος ἀφίκετο; - - compare Theognis, v, 775, and Herodot. i, 163. - -The vast space of country comprised between the Indus on the east, -the Oxus and Caspian sea to the north, the Persian gulf and Indian -ocean to the south, and the line of Mount Zagros to the west, -appears to have been occupied in these times by a great variety -of different tribes and people, but all or most of them belonging -to the religion of Zoroaster, and speaking dialects of the Zend -language.[325] It was known amongst its inhabitants by the common -name of Iran, or Aria: it is, in its central parts at least, a high, -cold plateau, totally destitute of wood and scantily supplied with -water; much of it, indeed, is a salt and sandy desert, unsusceptible -of culture. Parts of it are eminently fertile, where water can be -procured and irrigation applied; and scattered masses of tolerably -dense population thus grew up. But continuity of cultivation is not -practicable, and in ancient times, as at present, a large proportion -of the population of Iran seems to have consisted of wandering or -nomadic tribes, with their tents and cattle. The rich pastures, -and the freshness of the summer climate, in the region of mountain -and valley near Ekbatana, are extolled by modern travellers, just -as they attracted the Great King in ancient times, during the hot -months. The more southerly province called Persis proper (Farsistan) -consists also in part of mountain land interspersed with valley and -plain, abundantly watered, and ample in pasture, sloping gradually -down to low grounds on the sea-coast which are hot and dry. The -care bestowed, both by Medes and Persians, on the breeding of -their horses, was remarkable.[326] There were doubtless material -differences between different parts of the population of this -vast plateau of Iran. Yet it seems that, along with their common -language and religion, they had also something of a common character, -which contrasted with the Indian population east of the Indus, -the Assyrians west of Mount Zagros, and the Massagetæ and other -Nomads of the Caspian and the sea of Aral,—less brutish, restless, -and bloodthirsty, than the latter,—more fierce, contemptuous, and -extortionate, and less capable of sustained industry, than the two -former. There can be little doubt, at the time of which we are now -speaking, when the wealth and cultivation of Assyria were at their -maximum, that Iran also was far better peopled than ever it has been -since European observers have been able to survey it; especially the -north-eastern portion, Baktria and Sogdiana: so that the invasions of -the nomads from Turkestan and Tartary, which have been so destructive -at various intervals since the Mohammedan conquest, were before that -period successfully kept back. - - [325] Strabo, xv, p. 724. ὁμόγλωττοι παρὰ μικρόν. See Heeren, - Ueber den Verkehr der Alten Welt, part i, book i, pp. 320-340, - and Ritter, Erdkunde, West-Asien, b. iii, Abtheil. ii, sects. 1 - and 2, pp. 17-84. - - [326] About the province of Persis, see Strabo, xv, p. 727; - Diodor. xix, 21; Quintus Curtius, v, 13, 14, pp. 432-434, with - the valuable explanatory notes of Mützell (Berlin, 1841). - Compare, also, Morier’s Second Journey in Persia, pp. 49-120, and - Ritter, Erdkunde, West Asien, pp. 712-738. - -The general analogy among the population of Iran probably enabled the -Persian conqueror with comparative ease to extend his empire to the -east, after the conquest of Ekbatana, and to become the full heir of -the Median kings. And if we may believe Ktêsias, even the distant -province of Baktria had been before subject to those kings: it at -first resisted Cyrus, but finding that he had become son-in-law of -Astyagês as well as master of his person, it speedily acknowledged -his authority.[327] - - [327] Ktêsias, Persica, c. 2. - -According to the representation of Herodotus, the war between Cyrus -and Crœsus of Lydia began shortly after the capture of Astyagês, -and before the conquest of Baktria.[328] Crœsus was the assailant, -wishing to avenge his brother-in-law, to arrest the growth of the -Persian conqueror, and to increase his own dominions: his more -prudent councillors in vain represented to him that he had little -to gain, and much to lose, by war with a nation alike hardy and -poor. He is represented, as just at that time recovering from the -affliction arising out of the death of his son. To ask advice of -the oracle, before he took any final decision, was a step which no -pious king would omit; but in the present perilous question, Crœsus -did more,—he took a precaution so extreme, that, if his piety had -not been placed beyond all doubt by his extraordinary munificence -to the temples, he might have drawn upon himself the suspicion of a -guilty skepticism.[329] Before he would send to ask advice respecting -the project itself, he resolved to test the credit of some of the -chief surrounding oracles,—Delphi, Dôdôna, Branchidæ near Milêtus, -Amphiaraus at Thebes, Trophônius at Lebadeia, and Ammôn in Libya. His -envoys started from Sardis on the same day, and were all directed on -the hundredth day afterwards to ask at the respective oracles how -Crœsus was at that precise moment employed. This was a severe trial: -of the manner in which it was met by four out of the six oracles -consulted, we have no information, and it rather appears that their -answers were unsatisfactory. But Amphiaraus maintained his credit -undiminished, and Apollo at Delphi, more omniscient than Apollo at -Branchidæ, solved the question with such unerring precision, as -to afford a strong additional argument against persons who might -be disposed to scoff at divination. No sooner had the envoys put -the question to the Delphian priestess, on the day named, “What is -Crœsus now doing?” than she exclaimed, in the accustomed hexameter -verse,[330] “I know the number of grains of sand, and the measures -of the sea; I understand the dumb, and I hear the man who speaks -not. The smell reaches me of a hard-skinned tortoise boiled in a -copper with lamb’s flesh,—copper above and copper below.” Crœsus -was awestruck on receiving this reply. It described with the -utmost detail that which he had been really doing, insomuch that -he accounted the Delphian oracle and that of Amphiaraus the only -trustworthy oracles on earth,—following up these feelings with a -holocaust of the most munificent character, in order to win the favor -of the Delphian god. Three thousand cattle were offered up, and upon -a vast sacrificial pile were placed the most splendid purple robes -and tunics, together with couches and censers of gold and silver: -besides which he sent to Delphi itself the richest presents in -gold and silver,—ingots, statues, bowls, jugs, etc., the size and -weight of which we read with astonishment; the more so as Herodotus -himself saw them a century afterwards at Delphi.[331] Nor was Crœsus -altogether unmindful of Amphiaraus, whose answer had been creditable, -though less triumphant than that of the Pythian priestess. He sent -to Amphiaraus a spear and shield of pure gold, which were afterwards -seen at Thebes by Herodotus: this large donative may help the reader -to conceive the immensity of those which he sent to Delphi. - - [328] Herodot. i, 153. - - [329] That this point of view should not be noticed in Herodotus, - may appear singular, when we read his story (vi, 86) about - the Milesian Glaukus, and the judgment that overtook him for - having tested the oracle; but it is put forward by Xenophon as - constituting part of the guilt of Crœsus (Cyropæd. vii, 2, 17). - - [330] Herodot. i, 47-50. - - [331] Herodot. i, 52-54. - -The envoys who conveyed these gifts were instructed to ask, at the -same time, whether Crœsus should undertake an expedition against -the Persians,—and, if so, whether he should prevail on any allies -to assist him. In regard to the second question, the answer both of -Apollo and Amphiaraus was decisive, recommending him to invite the -alliance of the most powerful Greeks. In regard to the first and most -momentous question, their answer was as remarkable for circumspection -as it had been before for detective sagacity: they told Crœsus that, -if he invaded the Persians, he would subvert a mighty monarchy. The -blindness of Crœsus interpreted this declaration into an unqualified -promise of success. He sent farther presents to the oracle, and again -inquired whether his kingdom would be durable. “When a mule shall -become king of the Medes (replied the priestess), then must thou run -away,—be not ashamed.”[332] - - [332] Herodot. i, 55. - -More assured than ever by such an answer, Crœsus sent to Sparta, -under the kings Anaxandridês and Aristo, to tender presents and -solicit their alliance.[333] His propositions were favorably -entertained,—the more so, as he had before gratuitously furnished -some gold to the Lacedæmonians, for a statue to Apollo. The alliance -now formed was altogether general,—no express effort being as yet -demanded from them, though it soon came to be. But the incident is to -be noted, as marking the first plunge of the leading Grecian state -into Asiatic politics; and that too without any of the generous -Hellenic sympathy which afterwards induced Athens to send her -citizens across the Ægean. Crœsus was the master and tribute-exactor -of the Asiatic Greeks, and their contingents seem to have formed part -of his army for the expedition now contemplated; which army consisted -principally, not of native Lydians, but of foreigners. - - [333] Herodot. i, 67-70. - -The river Halys formed the boundary at this time between the Median -and Lydian empires: and Crœsus, marching across that river into the -territory of the Syrians or Assyrians of Kappadokia, took the city of -Pteria and many of its surrounding dependencies, inflicting damage -and destruction upon these distant subjects of Ekbatana. Cyrus lost -no time in bringing an army to their defence considerably larger than -that of Crœsus, and at the same time tried, though unsuccessfully, -to prevail on the Ionians to revolt from him. A bloody battle took -place between the two armies, but with indecisive result: and Crœsus, -seeing that he could not hope to accomplish more with his forces as -they stood, thought it wise to return to his capital, in order to -collect a larger army for the next campaign. Immediately on reaching -Sardis, he despatched envoys to Labynêtus king of Babylon; to Amasis -king of Egypt; to the Lacedæmonians, and to other allies; calling -upon all of them to send auxiliaries to Sardis during the course -of the fifth coming month. In the mean time, he dismissed all the -foreign troops who had followed him into Kappadokia.[334] - - [334] Herodot. i, 77. - -Had these allies appeared, the war might perhaps have been prosecuted -with success; and on the part of the Lacedæmonians at least, there -was no tardiness; for their ships were ready and their troops almost -on board, when the unexpected news reached them that Crœsus was -already ruined.[335] Cyrus had foreseen and forestalled the defensive -plan of his enemy. He pushed on with his army to Sardis without -delay, compelling the Lydian prince to give battle with his own -unassisted subjects. The open and spacious plain before that town was -highly favorable to the Lydian cavalry, which at that time, Herodotus -tells us, was superior to the Persian. But Cyrus devised a stratagem -whereby this cavalry was rendered unavailable,—placing in front of -his line the baggage camels, which the Lydian horses could not endure -either to smell or to behold.[336] The horsemen of Crœsus were thus -obliged to dismount; nevertheless, they fought bravely on foot, and -were not driven into the town till after a sanguinary combat. - - [335] Herodot. i, 83. - - [336] The story about the successful employment of the camels - appears also in Xenophon, Cyropæd. vii, 1, 47. - -Though confined within the walls of his capital, Crœsus had still -good reason for hoping to hold out until the arrival of his allies, -to whom he sent pressing envoys of acceleration: for Sardis was -considered impregnable,—one assault had already been repulsed, -and the Persians would have been reduced to the slow process of -blockade. But on the fourteenth day of the siege, accident did for -the besiegers that which they could not have accomplished either -by skill or force. Sardis was situated on an outlying peak of the -northern side of Tmôlus; it was well-fortified everywhere except -towards the mountain; and on that side, the rock, was so precipitous -and inaccessible, that fortifications were thought unnecessary, nor -did the inhabitants believe assault to be possible. But Hyrœades, -a Persian soldier, having accidentally seen one of the garrison -descending this precipitous rock to pick up his helmet, which had -rolled down, watched his opportunity, tried to climb up, and found -it not impracticable. Others followed his example, the strong-hold -was thus seized first, and the whole city was speedily taken by -storm.[337] - - [337] Herodot. i, 84. - -Cyrus had given especial orders to spare the life of Crœsus, who was -accordingly made prisoner. But preparations were made for a solemn -and terrible spectacle. The captive king was destined to be burnt in -chains, together with fourteen Lydian youths, on a vast pile of wood: -and we are even told that the pile was already kindled and the victim -beyond the reach of human aid, when Apollo sent a miraculous rain to -preserve him. As to the general fact of supernatural interposition, -in one way or another, Herodotus and Ktêsias both agree, though they -describe differently the particular miracles wrought.[338] It is -certain that Crœsus, after some time, was released and well treated -by his conqueror, and lived to become the confidential adviser of the -latter as well as of his son Kambysês:[339] Ktêsias also acquaints us -that a considerable town and territory near Ekbatana, called Barênê, -was assigned to him, according to a practice which we shall find not -unfrequent with the Persian kings. - - [338] Compare Herodot. i, 84-87, and Ktêsias, Persica, c. 4; - which latter seems to have been copied by Polyænus, vii, 6, 10. - - It is remarkable that among the miracles enumerated by Ktêsias, - no mention is made of fire or of the pile of wood kindled: - we have the chains of Crœsus miraculously struck off, in the - midst of thunder and lightning, but no _fire_ mentioned. This - is deserving of notice, as illustrating the fact that Ktêsias - derived his information from _Persian_ narrators, who would not - be likely to impute to Cyrus the use of fire for such a purpose. - The Persians worshipped fire as a god, and considered it impious - to burn a dead body (Herodot. iii, 16). Now Herodotus seems to - have heard the story, about the burning, from Lydian informants - (λέγεται ὑπὸ Λυδῶν, Herodot. i, 87): whether the Lydians regarded - fire in the same point of view as the Persians, we do not know; - but even if they did, they would not be indisposed to impute to - Cyrus an act of gross impiety, just as the Egyptians imputed - another act equally gross to Kambysês, which Herodotus himself - treats as a falsehood (iii, 16). - - The long narrative given by Nikolaus Damaskênus of the treatment - of Crœsus by Cyrus, has been supposed by some to have been - borrowed from the Lydian historian Xanthus, elder contemporary - of Herodotus. But it seems to me a mere compilation, not well - put together, from Xenophon’s Cyropædia, and from the narrative - of Herodotus, perhaps including some particular incidents out of - Xanthus (see Nikol. Damas. Fragm. ed. Orell. pp. 57-70, and the - Fragments of Xanthus in Didot’s Historic. Græcor. Fragm. p. 40). - - [339] Justin (i, 7) seems to copy Ktêsias, about the treatment of - Crœsus. - -The prudent counsel and remarks as to the relations between Persians -and Lydians, whereby Crœsus is said by Herodotus to have first -earned this favorable treatment, are hardly worth repeating; but the -indignant remonstrance sent by Crœsus to the Delphian god is too -characteristic to be passed over. He obtained permission from Cyrus -to lay upon the holy pavement of the Delphian temple the chains with -which he had at first been bound. The Lydian envoys were instructed, -after exhibiting to the god these humiliating memorials, to ask -whether it was his custom to deceive his benefactors, and whether he -was not ashamed to have encouraged the king of Lydia in an enterprise -so disastrous? The god, condescending to justify himself by the lips -of the priestess, replied: “Not even a god can escape his destiny. -Crœsus has suffered for the sin of his fifth ancestor (Gygês), who, -conspiring with a woman, slew his master and wrongfully seized the -sceptre. Apollo employed all his influence with the Mœræ (Fates) to -obtain that this sin might be expiated by the children of Crœsus, and -not by Crœsus himself; but the Mœræ would grant nothing more than a -postponement of the judgment for three years. Let Crœsus know that -Apollo has thus procured for him a reign three years longer than -his original destiny,[340] after having tried in vain to rescue him -altogether. Moreover, he sent that rain which at the critical moment -extinguished the burning pile. Nor has Crœsus any right to complain -of the prophecy by which he was encouraged to enter on the war; for -when the god told him, that he would subvert _a great empire_, it was -his duty to have again inquired which empire the god meant; and if he -neither understood the meaning, nor chose to ask for information, he -has himself to blame for the result. Besides, Crœsus neglected the -warning given to him, about the acquisition of the Median kingdom by -a mule: Cyrus was that mule,—son of a Median mother of royal breed, -by a Persian father, at once of different race and of lower position.” - - [340] Herodot. i, 91. Προθυμεομένου δὲ Λοξίεω ὅκως ἂν κατὰ τοὺς - παῖδας τοὺς Κροίσου γένοιτο τὸ Σαρδίων πάθος, καὶ μὴ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν - Κροῖσον, οὐκ οἷόν τε ἐγένετο παραγαγεῖν Μοίρας· ὅσον δὲ ἐνέδωκαν - αὗται, ἠνύσατο, καὶ ἐχαρίσατό οἱ· τρία γὰρ ἔτεα ἐπανεβάλετο τὴν - Σαρδίων ἅλωσιν. Καὶ τοῦτο ἐπιστάσθω Κροῖσος, ὡς ὕστερον τοῖσι - ἔτεσι τούτοισι ἁλοὺς τῆς πεπρωμένης. - -This triumphant justification extorted even from Crœsus himself -a full confession, that the sin lay with him, and not with the -god.[341] It certainly illustrates, in a remarkable manner, the -theological ideas of the time; and it shows us how much, in the -mind of Herodotus, the facts of the centuries preceding his own, -unrecorded as they were by any contemporary authority, tended to -cast themselves into a sort of religious drama; the threads of the -historical web being in part put together, in part originally spun, -for the purpose of setting forth the religious sentiment and doctrine -woven in as a pattern. The Pythian priestess predicts to Gygês -that the crime which he had committed in assassinating his master -would be expiated by his fifth descendant, though, as Herodotus -tells us, no one took any notice of this prophecy until it was at -last fulfilled:[342] we see thus that the history of the first -Mermnad king is made up after the catastrophe of the last. There -was something in the main facts of the history of Crœsus profoundly -striking to the Greek mind: a king at the summit of wealth and -power,—pious in the extreme, and munificent towards the gods,—the -first destroyer of Hellenic liberty in Asia,—then precipitated, at -once and on a sudden, into the abyss of ruin. The sin of the first -parent helped much towards the solution of this perplexing problem, -as well as to exalt the credit of the oracle, when made to assume the -shape of an unnoticed prophecy. In the affecting story (discussed -in a former chapter[343]) of Solon and Crœsus, the Lydian king is -punished with an acute domestic affliction, because he thought -himself the happiest of mankind,—the gods not suffering anyone to be -arrogant except themselves;[344] and the warning of Solon is made -to recur to Crœsus after he has become the prisoner of Cyrus, in -the narrative of Herodotus. To the same vein of thought belongs the -story, just recounted, of the relations of Crœsus with the Delphian -oracle. An account is provided, satisfactory to the religious -feelings of the Greeks, how and why he was ruined,—but nothing less -than the overruling and omnipotent Mœræ could be invoked to explain -so stupendous a result. - - [341] Herodot. i, 91. Ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας συνέγνω ἑωϋτοῦ εἶναι τὴν - ἁμαρτάδα, καὶ οὐ τοῦ θεοῦ. - - Xenophon also, in the Cyropædia (vii, 2, 16-25), brings Crœsus to - the same result of confession and humiliation, though by steps - somewhat different. - - [342] Herodot. i, 13. - - [343] See above, chap, xi, vol. iii, pp. 149-153. - - [344] Herodot. vii, 10. οὐ γὰρ ἐᾷ φρονέειν ἄλλον μέγα ὁ θεὸς ἢ - ἑωϋτόν. - -It is rarely that these supreme goddesses, or hyper-goddesses—since -the gods themselves must submit to them—are brought into such -distinct light and action. Usually, they are kept in the dark, or -are left to be understood as the unseen stumbling-block in cases of -extreme incomprehensibility; and it is difficult clearly to determine -(as in the case of some complicated political constitutions) where -the Greeks conceived sovereign power to reside, in respect to the -government of the world. But here the sovereignty of the Mœræ, and -the subordinate agency of the gods, are unequivocally set forth.[345] -Yet the gods are still extremely powerful, because the Mœræ comply -with their requests up to a certain point, not thinking it proper -to be wholly inexorable; but their compliance is carried no farther -than they themselves choose. Nor would they, even in deference to -Apollo,[346] alter the original sentence of punishment for the -sin of Gygês in the person of his fifth descendant,—a sentence, -moreover, which Apollo himself had formally prophesied shortly after -the sin was committed; so that, if the Mœræ had listened to his -intercession on behalf of Crœsus, his own prophetic credit would have -been endangered. Their unalterable resolution has predetermined the -ruin of Crœsus, and the grandeur of the event is manifested by the -circumstance, that even Apollo himself cannot prevail upon them to -alter it, or to grant more than a three years’ respite. The religious -element must here be viewed as giving the form—the historical element -as giving the matter only, and not the whole matter—of the story; and -these two elements will be found conjoined more or less throughout -most of the history of Herodotus, though, as we descend to later -times, we shall find the historical element in constantly increasing -proportion. His conception of history is extremely different from -that of Thucydidês, who lays down to himself the true scheme and -purpose of the historian, common to him with the philosopher,—to -recount and interpret the past, as a rational aid towards the -prevision of the future.[347] - - [345] In the oracle reported in Herodot. vii, 141, as delivered - by the Pythian priestess to Athens on occasion of the approach - of Xerxês, Zeus is represented in the same supreme position as - the present oracle assigns to the Mœræ, or Fates: Pallas in vain - attempts to propitiate him in favor of Athens, just as, in this - case, Apollo tries to mitigate the Mœræ in respect to Crœsus— - - Οὐ δύναται Παλλὰς Δί᾽ Ὀλύμπιον ἐξιλάσασθαι, - Λισσομένη πολλοῖσι λόγοις καὶ μήτιδι πυκνῇ, etc. - - Compare also viii, 109, and ix, 16. - - O. Müller (Dissertation on the Eumenides of Æschylus, p. 222, - Eng. Transl.) says: “On no occasion does Zeus Soter exert his - influence directly, like Apollo, Minerva, and the Erinnyes; - but whereas Apollo is prophet and exegetes by virtue of wisdom - derived from him, and Minerva is indebted to him for her sway - over states and assemblies,—nay, the very Erinnyes exercise their - functions in his name,—this Zeus stands always in the background, - and has in reality only to settle a conflict existing within - himself. For with Æschylus, as with all men of profound feeling - among the Greeks from the earliest times, Jupiter is the only - real god, in the higher sense of the word. Although he is, in - the spirit of ancient theology, a generated god, arisen out of - an imperfect state of things, and not produced till the third - stage of a development of nature,—still he is, at the time we are - speaking of, the spirit that pervades and governs the universe.” - - To the same purpose Klausen expresses himself (Theologumena - Æschyli, pp. 6-69). - - It is perfectly true that many passages may be produced from - Greek authors which ascribe to Zeus the supreme power here - noted. But it is equally true that this conception is not - uniformly adhered to, and that sometimes the Fates, or Mœræ are - represented as supreme; occasionally represented as the stronger - and Zeus as the weaker (Promêtheus, 515). The whole tenor of - that tragedy, in fact, brings out the conception of a Zeus - τύραννος,—whose power is not supreme, even for the time; and - is not destined to continue permanently, even at its existing - height. The explanations given by Klausen of this drama appear to - me incorrect; nor do I understand how it is to be reconciled with - the above passage quoted from O. Müller. - - The two oracles here cited from Herodotus exhibit plainly the - fluctuation of Greek opinion on this subject: in the one, the - supreme determination, and the inexorability which accompanies - it, are ascribed to Zeus,—in the other, to the Mœræ. This double - point of view adapted itself to different occasions, and served - as a help for the interpretation of different events. Zeus was - supposed to have certain sympathies for human beings; misfortunes - happened to various men which he not only did not wish to bring - on, but would have been disposed to avert; here the Mœræ, who had - no sympathies, were introduced as an explanatory cause, tacitly - implied as overruling Zeus. “Cum Furiis Æschylus Parcas tantum - non ubique conjungit,” says Klausen (Theol. Æsch. p. 39); and - this entire absence of human sympathies constitutes the common - point of both,—that in which the Mœræ and the Erinnyes differ - from all the other gods,—πέφρικα τὰν ὠλεσίοικον θεὰν, οὐ θεοῖς - ὁμοίαν (Æschyl. Sept. ad Theb. 720): compare Eumenid. 169, 172, - and, indeed, the general strain of that fearful tragedy. - - In Æschylus, as in Herodotus, Apollo is represented as exercising - persuasive powers over the Mœræ (Eumenid. 724),—Μοίρας ἔπεισας - ἀφθίτους θεῖναι βροτούς. - - [346] The language of Herodotus deserves attention. Apollo tells - Crœsus: “I applied to the Mœræ to get the execution of the - judgment postponed from your time to that of your children,—but - I could not prevail upon them; but as much as they would yield - _of their own accord_, I procured for you.” (ὅσον δὲ ~ἐνέδωκαν - αὗται~, ἐχαρίσατό οἱ—i, 91.) - - [347] Thucyd. i, 22. - -The destruction of the Lydian monarchy, and the establishment of the -Persians at Sardis—an event pregnant with consequences to Hellas -generally—took place in 546 B. C.[348] Sorely did the Ionic Greeks -now repent that they had rejected the propositions made to them -by Cyrus for revolting from Crœsus,—though at the time when these -propositions were made, it would have been highly imprudent to listen -to them, since the Lydian power might reasonably be looked upon as -the stronger. As soon as Sardis had fallen, they sent envoys to the -conqueror, entreating that they might be enrolled as his tributaries, -on the footing which they had occupied under Crœsus. The reply was -a stern and angry refusal, with the exception of the Milesians, to -whom the terms which they asked were granted:[349] why this favorable -exception was extended to them, we do not know. The other continental -Ionians and Æolians (exclusive of Milêtus, and exclusive also of the -insular cities which the Persians had no means of attacking), seized -with alarm, began to put themselves in a condition of defence: it -seems that the Lydian king had caused their fortifications to be -wholly or partially dismantled, for we are told that they now began -to erect walls; and the Phôkæans especially devoted to that purpose -a present which they had received from the Iberian Arganthônius, -king of Tartêssus. Besides thus strengthening their own cities, they -thought it advisable to send a joint embassy entreating aid from -Sparta; they doubtless were not unapprized that the Spartans had -actually equipped an army for the support of Crœsus. Their deputies -went to Sparta, where the Phôkæan Pythermus, appointed by the rest -to be spokesman, clothing himself in a purple robe,[350] in order -to attract the largest audience possible, set forth their pressing -need of succor against the impending danger. The Lacedæmonians -refused the prayer; nevertheless, they despatched to Phôkæa some -commissioners to investigate the state of affairs,—who perhaps, -persuaded by the Phôkæans, sent Lakrinês, one of their number, to -the conqueror at Sardis, to warn him that he should not lay hands on -any city of Hellas,—for the Lacedæmonians would not permit it. “Who -are these Lacedæmonians? (inquired Cyrus from some Greeks who stood -near him)—how many are there of them, that they venture to send me -such a notice?” Having received the answer, wherein it was stated -that the Lacedæmonians had a city and a regular market at Sparta, he -exclaimed: “I have never yet been afraid of men like these, who have -a set place in the middle of their city, where they meet to cheat one -another and forswear themselves. If I live, they shall have troubles -of their own to talk about, apart from the Ionians.” To buy or sell, -appeared to the Persians a contemptible practice; for they carried -out consistently, one step farther, the principle upon which even -many able Greeks condemned the lending of money on interest; and the -speech of Cyrus was intended as a covert reproach of Grecian habits -generally.[351] - - [348] This important date depends upon the evidence of Solinus - (Polyhistor, i, 112) and Sosikratês (ap. Diog. Laërt. i, 95): see - Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellen. ad ann. 546, and his Appendix, ch. - 17, upon the Lydian kings. - - Mr. Clinton and most of the chronologists accept the date without - hesitation, but Volney (Recherches sur l’Histoire Ancienne, - vol. i, pp. 306-308; Chronologie des Rois Lydiens) rejects it - altogether; considering the capture of Sardis to have occurred - in 557 B. C., and the reign of Crœsus to have begun in 571 B. - C. He treats very contemptuously the authority of Solinus and - Sosikratês, and has an elaborate argumentation to prove that the - date which he adopts is borne out by Herodotus. This latter does - not appear to me at all satisfactory: I adopt the date of Solinus - and Sosikratês, though agreeing with Volney that such positive - authority is not very considerable, because there is nothing to - contradict them, and because the date which they give seems in - consonance with the stream of the history. - - Volney’s arguments suppose in the mind of Herodotus a degree of - chronological precision altogether unreasonable, in reference - to events anterior to contemporary records. He, like other - chronologists, exhausts his ingenuity to find a proper point of - historical time for the supposed conversation between Solon and - Crœsus (p. 320). - - [349] Herodot. i, 141. - - [350] Herodot. i, 152. The purple garment, so attractive a - spectacle amid the plain clothing universal at Sparta, marks the - contrast between Asiatic and European Greece. - - [351] Herodot. i, 153. ταῦτα ἐς τοὺς πάντας Ἕλληνας ἀπέῤῥιψε ὁ - Κῦρος τὰ ἔπεα, etc. - -This blank menace of Lakrinês, an insulting provocation to the -enemy rather than a real support to the distressed, was the only -benefit which the Ionic Greeks derived from Sparta. They were left -to defend themselves as best they could against the conqueror; -who presently, however, quitted Sardis to prosecute in person his -conquests in the East, leaving the Persian Tabalus with a garrison -in the citadel, but consigning both the large treasure captured, and -the authority over the Lydian population, to the Lydian Paktyas. -As he carried away Crœsus along with him, he probably considered -himself sure of the fidelity of those Lydians whom the deposed -monarch recommended. But he had not yet arrived at his own capital, -when he received the intelligence that Paktyas had revolted, arming -the Lydian population, and employing the treasure in his charge to -hire fresh troops. On hearing this news, Cyrus addressed himself -to Crœsus, according to Herodotus, in terms of much wrath against -the Lydians, and even intimated that he should be compelled to sell -them all as slaves. Upon which Crœsus, full of alarm for his people, -contended strenuously that Paktyas alone was in fault, and deserving -of punishment; but he at the same time advised Cyrus to disarm the -Lydian population, and to enforce upon them effeminate attire, -together with habits of playing on the harp and shopkeeping. “By this -process (he said) you will soon see them become women instead of -men.”[352] This suggestion is said to have been accepted by Cyrus, -and executed by his general Mazarês. The conversation here reported, -and the deliberate plan for enervating the Lydian character supposed -to be pursued by Cyrus, is evidently an hypothesis imagined by some -of the contemporaries or predecessors of Herodotus,—to explain the -contrast between the Lydians whom they saw before them, after two or -three generations of slavery, and the old irresistible horsemen of -whom they heard in fame, at the time when Crœsus was lord from the -Halys to the Ægean sea. - - [352] Herodot. i, 155. - -To return to Paktyas,—he had commenced his revolt, come down to the -sea-coast, and employed the treasures of Sardis in levying a Grecian -mercenary force, with which he invested the place and blocked up -the governor Tabalus. But he manifested no courage worthy of so -dangerous an enterprise; for no sooner had he heard that the Median -general Mazarês was approaching at the head of an army dispatched -by Cyrus against him, than he disbanded his force and fled to Kymê -for protection as a suppliant. Presently, arrived a menacing summons -from Mazarês, demanding that he should be given up forthwith, which -plunged the Kymæans into profound dismay; for the idea of giving -up a suppliant to destruction was shocking to Grecian sentiment. -They sent to solicit advice from the holy temple of Apollo, at -Branchidæ near Milêtus; and the reply directed, that Paktyas should -be surrendered. Nevertheless, so ignominious did such a surrender -appear, that Aristodikus and some other Kymæan citizens denounced the -messengers as liars, and required that a more trustworthy deputation -should be sent to consult the god. Aristodikus himself, forming one -of the second body, stated the perplexity to the oracle, and received -a repetition of the same answer; whereupon he proceeded to rob the -birds’-nests which existed in abundance in and about the temple. -A voice from the inner oracular chamber speedily arrested him, -exclaiming: “Most impious of men, how darest thou to do such things? -Wilt thou snatch my suppliants from the temple itself?” Unabashed -by the rebuke, Aristodikus replied: “Master, thus dost _thou_ help -suppliants thyself: and dost thou command the Kymæans to give up a -suppliant?” “Yes, I do command it[353] (rejoined the god forthwith), -in order that the crime may bring destruction upon you the sooner, -and that you may not in future come to consult the oracle upon the -surrender of suppliants.” - - [353] Herodot. i, 159. - -The ingenuity of Aristodikus completely nullified the oracular -response, and left the Kymæans in their original perplexity. Not -choosing to surrender Paktyas, nor daring to protect him against a -besieging army, they sent him away to Mitylênê, whither the envoys of -Mazarês followed and demanded him; offering a reward so considerable, -that the Kymæans became fearful of trusting them, and again conveyed -away the suppliant to Chios, where he took refuge in the temple of -Athênê Poliuchus. But here again the pursuers followed, and the -Chians were persuaded to drag him from the temple and surrender -him, on consideration of receiving the territory of Atarneus (a -district on the continent over against the island of Lesbos) as -purchase-money. Paktyas was thus seized and sent prisoner to Cyrus, -who had given the most express orders for this capture: hence the -unusual intensity of the pursuit. But it appears that the territory -of Atarneus was considered as having been ignominiously acquired by -the Chians; none even of their own citizens would employ any article -of its produce for holy or sacrificial purposes.[354] - - [354] Herodot. i, 160. The short fragment from Charôn of - Lampsakus, which Plutarch (De Malignitat. Herod. p. 859) cites - here, in support of one among his many unjust censures on - Herodotus, is noway inconsistent with the statement of the - latter, but rather tends to confirm it. - - In writing this treatise on the alleged ill-temper of Herodotus, - we see that Plutarch had before him the history of Charôn of - Lampsakus, more ancient by one generation than the historian - whom he was assailing, and also belonging to Asiatic Greece. Of - course, it suited the purpose of his work to produce all the - contradictions to Herodotus which he could find in Charôn: the - fact that he has produced none of any moment, tends to strengthen - our faith in the historian of Halikarnassus, and to show that in - the main his narrative was in accordance with that of Charôn. - -Mazarês next proceeded to the attack and conquest of the Greeks on -the coast; an enterprise which, since he soon died of illness, was -completed by his successor Harpagus. The towns assailed successively -made a gallant but ineffectual resistance: the Persian general by -his numbers drove the defenders within their walls, against which -he piled up mounds of earth, so as either to carry the place by -storm or to compel surrender. All of them were reduced, one after -the other: with all, the terms of subjection were doubtless harder -than those which had been imposed upon them by Crœsus, because Cyrus -had already refused to grant these terms to them, with the single -exception of Milêtus, and because they had since given additional -offence by aiding the revolt of Paktyas. The inhabitants of Priênê -were sold into slavery: they were the first assailed by Mazarês, and -had perhaps been especially forward in the attack made by Paktyas on -Sardis.[355] - - [355] Herodot. i, 161-169. - -Among these unfortunate towns, thus changing their master and passing -out into a harsher subjection, two deserve especial notice,—Teôs and -Phôkæa. The citizens of the former, so soon as the mound around -their walls had rendered farther resistance impossible, embarked and -emigrated, some to Thrace, where they founded Abdêra,—others to the -Cimmerian Bosphorus, where they planted Phanagoria; a portion of -them, however, must have remained to take the chances of subjection, -since the town appears in after-times still peopled and still -Hellenic.[356] - - [356] Herodot. i, 168; Skymnus Chius, Fragm. v, 153; Dionys. - Perieg. v, 553. - -The fate of Phôkæa, similar in the main, is given to us with more -striking circumstances of detail, and becomes the more interesting, -since the enterprising mariners who inhabited it had been the -torch-bearers of Grecian geographical discovery in the west. I have -already described their adventurous exploring voyages of former days -into the interior of the Adriatic, and along the whole northern -and western coasts of the Mediterranean as far as Tartêssus (the -region around and adjoining to Cadiz),—together with the favorable -reception given to them by old Arganthônius, king of the country, -who invited them to emigrate in a body to his kingdom, offering -them the choice of any site which they might desire. His invitation -was declined, though probably the Phôkæans may have subsequently -regretted the refusal; and he then manifested his good-will towards -them by a large present to defray the expense of constructing -fortifications round their town.[357] The walls, erected in part, by -this aid, were both extensive and well built; yet they could not -hinder Harpagus from raising his mounds of earth up against them, -while he was politic enough at the same time to tempt them with -offers of a moderate capitulation; requiring only that they should -breach their walls in one place by pulling down one of the towers, -and consecrate one building in the interior of the town as a token -of subjection. To accept these terms, was to submit themselves to -the discretion of the besieger, for there could be no security that -they would be observed; and the Phôkæans, while they asked for one -day to deliberate upon their reply, entreated that, during that -day, Harpagus should withdraw his troops altogether from the walls. -With this demand the latter complied, intimating, at the same time, -that he saw clearly through the meaning of it. The Phôkæans had -determined that the inevitable servitude impending over their town -should not be shared by its inhabitants, and they employed their day -of grace in preparation for collective exile, putting on ship-board -their wives and children as well as their furniture and the movable -decorations of their temples. They then set sail for Chios, leaving -to the conqueror a deserted town for the occupation of a Persian -garrison.[358] - - [357] Herodot. i, 163. Ὁ δὲ πυθόμενος παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸν Μῆδον ὡς - αὔξοιτο, ἐδίδου σφι χρήματα τεῖχος περιβαλέσθαι τὴν πόλιν. - - I do not understand why the commentators debate what or who is - meant by τὸν Μῆδον: it plainly means the Median or Persian power - generally: but the chronological difficulty is a real one, if - we are to suppose that there was time between the first alarm - conceived of the Median power of the Ionians, and the siege of - Phôkæa by Harpagus, to inform Arganthônius of the circumstances, - and to procure from him this large aid as well as to build the - fortifications. The Ionic Greeks neither actually did conceive, - nor had reason to conceive, any alarm respecting Persian power, - until the arrival of Cyrus before Sardis; and within a month from - that time Sardis was in his possession. If we are to suppose - communication with Arganthônius, grounded upon this circumstance, - at the distance of Tartêssus, and under the circumstances of - ancient navigation, we must necessarily imagine, also, that the - attack made by Harpagus upon Phôkæa—which city he assailed before - any of the rest—was postponed for at least two or three years. - Such postponement is not wholly impossible, yet it is not in the - spirit of the Herodotean narrative, nor do I think it likely. It - is much more probable that the informants of Herodotus made a - slip in chronology, and ascribed the donations of Arganthônius to - a motive which did not really dictate them. - - As to the fortifications (which Phôkæa and the other Ionic cities - are reported to have erected after the conquest of Sardis by the - Persians), the case may stand thus. While these cities were all - independent, before they were first conquered by Crœsus, they - must undoubtedly have had fortifications. When Crœsus conquered - them, he directed the demolition of the fortifications; but - demolition does not necessarily mean pulling down the entire - walls: when one or a few breaches are made, the city is laid - open, and the purpose of Crœsus would thus be answered. Such may - well have been the state of the Ionian cities at the time when - they first thought it necessary to provide defences against the - Persians at Sardis: they repaired and perfected the breached - fortifications. - - The conjecture of Larcher (see the Notes both of Larcher - and Wesseling),—τὸν Λυδὸν instead of τὸν Μῆδον,—is not an - unreasonable one, if it had any authority: the donation of - Arganthônius would then be transferred to the period anterior - to the Lydian conquest: it would get rid of the chronological - difficulty above adverted to, but it would introduce some new - awkwardness into the narrative. - - [358] Herodot. i, 164. - -It appears that the fugitives were not very kindly received at Chios; -at least, when they made a proposition for purchasing from the Chians -the neighboring islands of Œnussæ as a permanent abode, the latter -were induced to refuse by apprehensions of commercial rivalry. It -was necessary to look farther for a settlement: and Arganthônius -their protector, being now dead, Tartêssus was no longer inviting. -Twenty years before, however, the colony of Alalia in the island of -Corsica had been founded from Phôkæa by the direction of the oracle, -and thither the general body of Phôkæans now resolved to repair. -Having prepared their ships for this distant voyage, they first -sailed back to Phôkæa, surprised the Persian garrison whom Harpagus -had left in the town, and slew them: they then sunk in the harbor a -great lump of iron, and bound themselves by a solemn and unanimous -oath never again to see Phôkæa until that iron should come up to the -surface. Nevertheless, in spite of the oath, the voyage of exile had -been scarcely begun when more than half of them repented of having -so bound themselves,—and became homesick.[359] They broke their vow -and returned to Phôkæa. But as Herodotus does not mention any divine -judgment as having been consequent on the perjury, we may, perhaps, -suspect that some gray-headed citizen, to whom transportation to -Corsica might be little less than a sentence of death, both persuaded -himself, and certified to his companions, that he had seen the -sunken lump of iron raised up and floating for a while buoyant upon -the waves. Harpagus must have been induced to pardon the previous -slaughter of his Persian garrison, or at least to believe that it -had been done by those Phôkæans who still persisted in exile. He -wanted tribute-paying subjects, not an empty military post, and the -repentant home-seekers were allowed to number themselves among the -slaves of the Great King. - - [359] Herodot. i, 165. ὑπερημίσεας τῶν ἀστῶν ἔλαβε πόθος τε - καὶ οἶκτος τῆς πόλιος καὶ τῶν ἠθέων τῆς χώρης· ψευδόρκιοί τε - γενόμενοι, etc. The colloquial term which I have ventured to - place in the text expresses exactly, as well as briefly, the - meaning of the historian. A public oath, taken by most of the - Greek cities with similar ceremony of lumps of iron thrown into - the sea, is mentioned in Plutarch, Aristid. c. 25. - -Meanwhile the smaller but more resolute half of the Phôkæans executed -their voyage to Alalia in Corsica, with their wives and children, -in sixty pentekontêrs, or armed ships, and established themselves -along with the previous settlers. They remained there for five -years,[360] during which time their indiscriminate piracies had -become so intolerable (even at that time, piracy committed against -a foreign vessel seems to have been both frequent and practised -without much disrepute), that both the Tyrrhenian seaports along -the Mediterranean coast of Italy, and the Carthaginians, united to -put them down. There subsisted particular treaties between these -two, for the regulation of the commercial intercourse between -Africa and Italy, of which the ancient treaty preserved by Polybius -between Rome and Carthage (made in 509 B. C.) may be considered as a -specimen.[361] Sixty Carthaginian and as many Tuscan ships attacked -the sixty Phôkæan ships near Alalia, and destroyed forty of them, -yet not without such severe loss to themselves that the victory was -said to be on the side of the latter; who, however, in spite of this -Kadmeian victory (so a battle was denominated in which the victors -lost more than the vanquished), were compelled to carry back their -remaining twenty vessels to Alalia, and to retire with their wives -and families, in so far as room could be found for them, to Rhegium. -At last, these unhappy exiles found a permanent home by establishing -the new settlement of Elea, or Velia, in the gulf of Policastro, on -the Italian coast (then called Œnôtrian) southward from Poseidônia, -or Pæstum. It is probable that they were here joined by other exiles -from Ionia, in particular by the Kolophonian philosopher and poet -Xenophanês, from whom what was afterwards called the Eleatic school -of philosophy, distinguished both for bold consistency and dialectic -acuteness, took its rise. The Phôkæan captives, taken prisoners in -the naval combat by Tyrrhenians and Carthaginians, were stoned to -death; but a divine judgment overtook the Tyrrhenian town of Agylla, -in consequence of this cruelty; and even in the time of Herodotus, -a century afterwards, the Agyllæans were still expiating the sin by -a periodical solemnity and agon, pursuant to the penalty which the -Delphian oracle had imposed upon them.[362] - - [360] Herodot. i, 166. - - [361] Aristot. Polit. iii, 5, 11; Polyb. iii, 22. - - [362] Herodot. i, 167. - -Such was the fate of the Phôkæan exiles, while their brethren -at home remained as subjects of Harpagus, in common with all the -other Ionic and Æolic Greeks except Milêtus. For even the insular -inhabitants of Lesbos and Chios, though not assailable by sea, -since the Persians had no fleet, thought it better to renounce -their independence and enrol themselves as Persian subjects,—both -of them possessing strips of the mainland which they were unable -to protect otherwise. Samos, on the other hand, maintained its -independence, and even reached, shortly after this period, under -the despotism of Polykratês, a higher degree of power than ever. -Perhaps the humiliation of the other maritime Greeks around may have -rather favored the ambition of this unscrupulous prince, to whom I -shall revert presently. But we may readily conceive that the public -solemnities in which the Ionic Greeks intermingled, in place of -those gay and richly-decked crowds which the Homeric hymn describes -in the preceding century as assembled at Delos, presented scenes of -marked despondency: one of their wisest men, indeed, Bias of Priênê, -went so far as to propose, at the Pan-Ionic festival, a collective -emigration of the entire population of the Ionic towns to the island -of Sardinia. Nothing like freedom, he urged, was now open to them -in Asia; but in Sardinia, one great Pan-Ionic city might be formed, -which would not only be free herself, but mistress of her neighbors. -The proposition found no favor; the reason of which is sufficiently -evident from the narrative just given respecting the unconquerable -local attachment on the part of the Phôkæan majority. But Herodotus -bestows upon it the most unqualified commendation, and regrets that -it was not acted upon.[363] Had such been the case, the subsequent -history of Carthage, Sicily, and even Rome, might have been sensibly -altered. - - [363] Herodot. i, 170. Πυνθάνομαι γνώμην Βίαντα ἄνδρα Πριηνέα - ἀποδέξασθαι Ἴωσι χρησιμωτάτην, τῇ εἰ ἐπείθοντο, παρεῖχε ἂν σφι - εὐδαιμονέειν Ἑλλήνων μάλιστα. - -Thus subdued by Harpagus, the Ionic and Æolic Greeks were employed as -auxiliaries to him in the conquest of the south-western inhabitants -of Asia Minor,—Karians, Kaunians, Lykians, and Doric Greeks of Knidus -and Halikarnassus. Of the fate of the latter town, Herodotus tells -us nothing, though it was his native place. The inhabitants of -Knidus, a place situated on a long outlying tongue of land, at first -tried to cut through the narrow isthmus which joined them to the -continent, but abandoned the attempt with a facility which Herodotus -explains by referring it to a prohibition of the oracle:[364] nor did -either the Karians or the Kaunians offer any serious resistance. The -Lykians only, in their chief town Xanthus, made a desperate defence. -Having in vain tried to repel the assailants in the open field, and -finding themselves blocked up in their city, they set fire to it -with their own hands; consuming in the flames their women, children, -and servants, while the armed citizens marched out and perished to -a man in combat with the enemy.[365] Such an act of brave and even -ferocious despair is not in the Grecian character. In recounting, -however, the languid defence and easy submission of the Greeks of -Knidus, it may surprise us to call to mind that they were Dorians -and colonists from Sparta. So that the want of steadfast courage, -often imputed to Ionic Greeks as compared to Dorian, ought properly -to be charged on Asiatic Greeks as compared with European; or rather -upon that mixture of indigenous with Hellenic population, which all -the Asiatic colonies, in common with most of the other colonies, -presented, and which in Halikarnassus was particularly remarkable; -for it seems to have been half Karian, half Dorian, and was even -governed by a line of Karian despots. - - [364] Herodot. i, 174. - - [365] Herodot. i, 176. The whole population of Xanthus perished, - except eighty families accidentally absent: the subsequent - occupants of the town were recruited from strangers. Nearly five - centuries afterwards, their descendants in the same city slew - themselves in the like desperate and tragical manner, to avoid - surrendering to the Roman army under Marcus Brutus (Plutarch, - Brutus, c. 31). - -Harpagus and the Persians thus mastered, without any considerable -resistance, the western and southern portions of Asia Minor; -probably, also, though we have no direct account of it, the entire -territory within the Halys which had before been ruled by Crœsus. The -tributes of the conquered Greeks were transmitted to Ekbatana instead -of to Sardis. While Harpagus was thus employed, Cyrus himself had -been making still more extensive conquests in Upper Asia and Assyria, -of which I shall speak in the coming chapter. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXIII. - -GROWTH OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE. - - -In the preceding chapter an account has been given, the best which we -can pick out from Herodotus, of the steps by which the Asiatic Greeks -became subject to Persia. And if his narrative is meagre, on a matter -which vitally concerned not only so many of his brother Greeks, but -even his own native city, we can hardly expect that he should tell us -much respecting the other conquests of Cyrus. He seems to withhold -intentionally various details which had come to his knowledge, and -merely intimates in general terms that while Harpagus was engaged -on the coast of the Ægean, Cyrus himself assailed and subdued all -the nations of Upper Asia, “not omitting any one of them.”[366] -He alludes to the Baktrians and the Sakæ,[367] who are also named -by Ktêsias as having become subject partly by force, partly by -capitulation; but he deems only two of the exploits of Cyrus worthy -of special notice,—the conquest of Babylon, and the final expedition -against the Massagetæ. In the short abstract which we now possess -of the lost work of Ktêsias, no mention appears of the important -conquest of Babylon; but his narrative, as far as the abstract -enables us to follow it, diverges materially from that of Herodotus, -and must have been founded on data altogether different. - - [366] Herodot. i, 177. - - [367] Herodot. i, 153. - -“I shall mention (says Herodotus)[368] those conquests which gave -Cyrus most trouble, and are most memorable: after he had subdued all -the rest of the continent, he attacked the Assyrians.” Those who -recollect the description of Babylon and its surrounding territory, -as given in a former chapter, will not be surprised to learn that -the capture of it gave the Persian aggressor much trouble: their -only surprise will be, how it could ever have been taken at -all,—or, indeed, how a hostile army could have even reached it. -Herodotus informs us that the Babylonian queen Nitôkris—mother of -that very Labynêtus who was king when Cyrus attacked the place—had -been apprehensive of invasion from the Medes after their capture of -Nineveh, and had executed many laborious works near the Euphratês -for the purpose of obstructing their approach. Moreover, there -existed what was called the wall of Media (probably built by her, -but certainly built prior to the Persian conquest), one hundred -feet high and twenty feet thick,[369] across the entire space of -seventy-five miles which joined the Tigris with one of the canals of -the Euphratês. And the canals themselves, as we may see by the march -of the Ten Thousand Greeks after the battle of Kunaxa, presented -means of defence altogether insuperable by a rude army such as that -of the Persians. On the east, the territory of Babylonia was defended -by the Tigris, which cannot be forded lower than the ancient Nineveh -or the modern Mosul.[370] In addition to these ramparts, natural as -well as artificial, to protect the territory,—populous, cultivated, -productive, and offering every motive to its inhabitants to resist -even the entrance of an enemy,—we are told that the Babylonians -were so thoroughly prepared for the inroad of Cyrus that they had -accumulated a store of provisions within the city walls for many -years. - - [368] Herodot. i, 177. τὰ δὲ οἱ πάρεσχε πόνον τε πλεῖστον, καὶ - ἀξιαπηγητότατά ἐστι, τούτων ἐπιμνήσομαι. - - [369] See Xenophon, Anabas. i, 7, 15; ii, 4, 12. For the - inextricable difficulties in which the Ten Thousand Greeks were - involved, after the battle of Kunaxa, and the insurmountable - obstacles which impeded their march, assuming any resisting force - whatever, see Xenoph. Anab. ii, 1, 11; ii, 2, 3; ii, 3, 10; ii, - 4, 12-13. These obstacles, doubtless, served as a protection to - them against attack, not less than as an impediment to their - advance; and the well-supplied villages enabled them to obtain - plenty of provisions: hence the anxiety of the Great King to - help them across the Tigris out of Babylonia. But it is not easy - to see how, in the face of such difficulties, any invading army - could reach Babylon. - - Ritter represents the wall of Media as having reached across from - the Euphratês to the Tigris at the point where they come nearest - together, about two hundred stadia or twenty-five miles across. - But it is nowhere stated, so far as I can find, that this wall - reached to the Euphratês,—still less that its length was two - hundred stadia, for the passages of Strabo cited by Ritter do not - prove either point (ii, 80; xi, 529). And Xenophon (ii, 4, 12) - gives the length of the wall as I have stated it in the text, = - 20 parasangs = 600 stadia = 75 miles. - - The passage of the Anabasis (i, 7, 15) seems to connect the - Median wall with the canals, and not with the river Euphratês. - The narrative of Herodotus, as I have remarked in a former - chapter, leads us to suppose that he descended that river to - Babylon; and if we suppose that the wall did not reach the - Euphratês, this would afford some reason why he makes no mention - of it. See Ritter, West Asien, b. iii, Abtheilung iii, Abschn. i, - sect. 29, pp. 19-22. - - [370] Ὁ Τίγρης μέγας τε καὶ οὐδαμοῦ διαβατὸς ἔς τε ἐπὶ τὴν - ἐκβολὴν (Arrian, vii, 7, 7). By which he means, that it is not - fordable below the ancient Nineveh, or Mosul; for a little above - that spot, Alexander himself forded it with his army, a few days - before the battle of Arbêla—not without very great difficulty - (Arrian, iii, 7, 8; Diodor. xvii, 55). - -Strange as it may seem, we must suppose that the king of Babylon, -after all the cost and labor spent in providing defences for the -territory, voluntarily neglected to avail himself of them, suffered -the invader to tread down the fertile Babylonia without resistance, -and merely drew out the citizens to oppose him when he arrived under -the walls of the city,—if the statement of Herodotus is correct.[371] -And we may illustrate this unaccountable omission by that which we -know to have happened in the march of the younger Cyrus to Kunaxa -against his brother Artaxerxês Mnêmon. The latter had caused to be -dug, expressly in preparation for this invasion, a broad and deep -ditch, thirty feet wide and eight feet deep, from the wall of Media -to the river Euphratês, a distance of twelve parasangs, or forty-live -English miles, leaving only a passage of twenty feet broad close -alongside of the river. Yet when the invading army arrived at this -important pass, they found not a man there to defend it, and all of -them marched without resistance through the narrow inlet. Cyrus the -younger, who had up to that moment felt assured that his brother -would fight, now supposed that he had given up the idea of defending -Babylon:[372] instead of which, two days afterwards, Artaxerxês -attacked him on an open plain of ground, where there was no advantage -of position on either side; though the invaders were taken rather -unawares in consequence of their extreme confidence, arising from -recent unopposed entrance within the artificial ditch. - - [371] Herodot. i, 190. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐγένετο ἐλαύνων ἀγχοῦ τῆς πόλιος, - συνέβαλόν τε οἱ Βαβυλώνιοι, καὶ ἑσσωθέντες τῇ μάχῃ, κατειλήθησαν - ἐς τὸ ἄστυ. - - Just as if Babylon was as easy to be approached as Sardis,—οἷά τε - ἐπιστάμενοι ἔτι πρότερον τὸν Κῦρον οὐκ ἀτρεμίζοντα, ἀλλ᾽ ὁρέοντες - αὐτὸν παντὶ ὁμοίως ἔθνεϊ ἐπιχειρέοντα, προεσάξαντο σίτια ἐτέων - κάρτα πολλῶν. - - [372] Xenophon, Anabas. i, 7, 14-20; Diodor. xiv, 22; Plutarch, - Artaxerxês, c. 7. I follow Xenophon without hesitation, where he - differs from these two latter. - -This anecdote is the more valuable as an illustration, because all -its circumstances are transmitted to us by a discerning eye-witness. -And both the two incidents here brought into comparison demonstrate -the recklessness, changefulness, and incapacity of calculation, -belonging to the Asiatic mind of that day,—as well as the great -command of hands possessed by these kings, and their prodigal waste -of human labor.[373] We shall see, as we advance in this history, -farther evidences of the same attributes, which it is essential to -bear in mind, for the purpose of appreciating both Grecian dealing -with Asiatics, and the comparative absence of such defects in the -Grecian character. Vast walls and deep ditches are an inestimable -aid to a brave and well commanded garrison; but they cannot be made -entirely to supply the want of bravery and intelligence. - - [373] Xenophon, Cyropæd. iii, 3, 26, about the πολυχειρία of the - barbaric kings. - -In whatever manner the difficulties of approaching Babylon may have -been overcome, the fact that they were overcome by Cyrus is certain. -On first setting out for this conquest, he was about to cross the -river Gyndês (one of the affluents from the East which joins the -Tigris near the modern Bagdad, and along which lay the high road -crossing the pass of Mount Zagros from Babylon to Ekbatana), when -one of the sacred white horses, which accompanied him, insulted the -river[374] so far as to march in and try to cross it by himself. -The Gyndês resented this insult, and the horse was drowned: upon -which Cyrus swore in his wrath that he would so break the strength -of the river as that women in future should pass it without wetting -their knees. Accordingly, he employed his entire army, during the -whole summer season, in digging three hundred and sixty artificial -channels to disseminate the unity of the stream. Such, according to -Herodotus, was the incident which postponed for one year the fall of -the great Babylon; but in the next spring Cyrus and his army were -before the walls, after having defeated and driven in the population -who came out to fight. But the walls were artificial mountains (three -hundred feet high, seventy-five feet thick, and forming a square -of fifteen miles to each side), within which the besieged defied -attack, and even blockade, having previously stored up several years’ -provision. Through the midst of these walls, however, flowed the -Euphratês; and this river, which had been so laboriously trained -to serve for protection, trade, and sustenance to the Babylonians, -was now made the avenue of their ruin. Having left a detachment of -his army at the two points where the Euphratês enters and quits -the city, Cyrus retired with the remainder to the higher part of -its course, where an ancient Babylonian queen had prepared one of -the great lateral reservoirs for carrying off in case of need the -superfluity of its water. Near this point Cyrus caused another -reservoir and another canal of communication to be dug, by means of -which he drew off the water of the Euphrates to such a decree that -it became not above the height of a man’s thigh. The period chosen -was that of a great Babylonian festival, when the whole population -were engaged in amusement and revelry; and the Persian troops left -near the town, watching their opportunity, entered from both sides -along the bed of the river, and took it by surprise with scarcely -any resistance. At no other time, except during a festival, could -they have done this, says Herodotus, had the river been ever so low; -for both banks throughout the whole length of the town were provided -with quays, with continuous walls, and with gates at the end of every -street which led down to the river at right angles: so that if the -population had not been disqualified by the influences of the moment, -they would have caught the assailants in the bed of the river “as a -trap,” and overwhelmed them from the walls alongside. Within a square -of fifteen miles to each side, we are not surprised to hear that both -the extremities were already in the power of the besiegers before the -central population heard of it, and while they were yet absorbed in -unconscious festivity.[375] - - [374] Herodot. i, 189-202. ἐνθαῦτά οἱ τῶν τις ἱρῶν ἵππων τῶν - λευκῶν ὑπὸ ὕβριος ἐσβὰς ἐς τὸν ποταμὸν, διαβαίνειν ἐπειρᾶτο.... - Κάρτα τε δὴ ἐχαλέπαινε τῷ ποταμῷ ὁ Κῦρος τοῦτο ὑβρίσαντι, etc. - - [375] Herodot. i, 191. This latter portion of the story, if we - may judge from the expression of Herodotus, seems to excite - more doubt in his mind than all the rest, for he thinks it - necessary to add, “as the residents at Babylon say,” ὡς λέγεται - ὑπὸ τῶν ταύτῃ οἰκημένων. Yet if we assume the size of the place - to be what he has affirmed, there seems nothing remarkable in - the fact that the people in the centre did not at once hear of - the capture; for the first business of the assailants would be - to possess themselves of the walls and gates. It is a lively - illustration of prodigious magnitude, and as such it is given by - Aristotle (Polit. iii, 1, 12); who, however, exaggerates it by - giving as a report that the inhabitants in the centre did not - hear of the capture until the third day. No such exaggeration as - this appears in Herodotus. - - Xenophon, in the Cyropædia (vii, 5, 7-18), following the story - that Cyrus drained off the Euphratês, represents it as effected - in a manner differing from Herodotus. According to him, Cyrus - dug two vast and deep ditches, one on each side round the town, - from the river above the town to the river below it: watching the - opportunity of a festival day in Babylon, he let the water into - both of these side ditches, which fell into the main stream again - below the town: hence the main stream in its passage through - the town became nearly dry. The narrative of Xenophon, however, - betrays itself, as not having been written from information - received on the spot, like that of Herodotus; for he talks of - αἱ ἄκραι of Babylon, just as he speaks of the ἄκραι of the - hill-towns of Karia (compare Cyropædia, vii, 4, 1, 7, with vii, - 5, 34). There were no ἄκραι on the dead flat of Babylon. - -Such is the account given by Herodotus of the circumstances which -placed Babylon—the greatest city of western Asia—in the power of the -Persians. To what extent the information communicated to him was -incorrect, or exaggerated, we cannot now decide; but the way in which -the city was treated would lead us to suppose that its acquisition -cannot have cost the conqueror either much time or much loss. Cyrus -comes into the list as king of Babylon, and the inhabitants with -their whole territory become tributary to the Persians, forming the -richest satrapy in the empire; but we do not hear that the people -were otherwise ill-used, and it is certain that the vast walls and -gates were left untouched. This was very different from the way in -which the Medes had treated Nineveh, which seems to have been ruined -and for a long time absolutely uninhabited, though reoccupied on a -reduced scale under the Parthian empire; and very different also from -the way in which Babylon itself was treated twenty years afterwards -by Darius, when reconquered after a revolt. - -The importance of Babylon, marking as it does one of the -peculiar forms of civilization belonging to the ancient world -in a state of full development, gives an interest even to the -half-authenticated stories respecting its capture; but the other -exploits ascribed to Cyrus,—his invasion of India, across the desert -of Arachosia,[376]—and his attack upon the Massagetæ, nomads ruled -by queen Tomyris, and greatly resembling the Scythians, across the -mysterious river which Herodotus calls Araxês,—are too little known -to be at all dwelt upon. In the latter he is said to have perished, -his army being defeated in a bloody battle.[377] He was buried at -Pasargadæ, in his native province of Persis proper, where his tomb -was honored and watched until the breaking up of the empire,[378] -while his memory was held in profound veneration among the Persians. - - [376] Arrian, vi, 24, 4. - - [377] Herodot. i, 205-214; Arrian, v, 4, 14; Justin, i, 8; - Strabo, xi, p. 512. - - According to Ktêsias, Cyrus was slain in an expedition against - the Derbikes, a people in the Caucasian regions,—though his army - afterwards prove victorious and conquer the country (Ktesiæ - Persica, c. 8-9),—see the comment of Bähr on the passage, in his - edition of Ktêsias. - - [378] Strabo, xv, pp. 730, 731; Arrian, vi, 29. - -Of his real exploits, we know little except their results; but in -what we read respecting him there seems, though amidst constant -fighting, very little cruelty. Xenophon has selected his life as -the subject of a moral romance, which for a long time was cited -as authentic history, and which even now serves as an authority, -expressed or implied, for disputable and even incorrect conclusions. -His extraordinary activity and conquests admit of no doubt. He left -the Persian empire[379] extending from Sogdiana and the rivers -Jaxartês and Indus eastward, to the Hellespont and the Syrian coast -westward, and his successors made no permanent addition to it except -that of Egypt. Phenicia and Judæa were dependencies of Babylon, at -the time when he conquered it, with their princes and grandees in -Babylonian captivity. They seem to have yielded to him, and become -his tributaries,[380] without difficulty; and the restoration of -their captives was conceded to them. It was from Cyrus that the -habits of the Persian kings took commencement, to dwell at Susa in -the winter, and Ekbatana during the summer; the primitive territory -of Persis, with its two towns of Persepolis and Pasargadæ, being -reserved for the burial-place of the kings and the religious -sanctuary of the empire. How or when the conquest of Susiana was -made, we are not informed; it lay eastward of the Tigris, between -Babylonia and Persis proper, and its people, the Kissians, as far as -we can discern, were of Assyrian and not of Arian race. The river -Choaspês, near Susa, was supposed to furnish the only water fit for -the palate of the Great King, and is said to have been carried about -with him wherever he went.[381] - - [379] The town Kyra, or Kyropolis, on the river Sihon, or - Jaxartês, was said to have been founded by Cyrus,—it was - destroyed by Alexander (Strabo, xi, pp. 517, 518; Arrian, iv, 2, - 2; Curtius, vii, 6, 16). - - [380] Herodot. iii, 19. - - [381] Herodot. i, 188; Plutarch, Artaxerxês, c. 3; Diodor. xvii, - 71. - -While the conquests of Cyrus contributed to assimilate the distinct -types of civilization in western Asia,—not by elevating the worse, -but by degrading the better,—upon the native Persians themselves -they operated as an extraordinary stimulus, provoking alike their -pride, ambition, cupidity, and warlike propensities. Not only did the -territory of Persis proper pay no tribute to Susa or Ekbatana,—being -the only district so exempted between the Jaxartês and the -Mediterranean,—but the vast tributes received from the remaining -empire were distributed to a great degree among its inhabitants. -Empire to them meant,—for the great men, lucrative satrapies, or -pachalics, with powers altogether unlimited, pomp inferior only to -that of the Great King, and standing armies which they employed -at their own discretion, sometimes against each other,[382]—for -the common soldiers, drawn from their fields or flocks, constant -plunder, abundant maintenance, and an unrestrained license, either -in the suite of one of the satraps, or in the large permanent troop -which moved from Susa to Ekbatana with the Great King. And if the -entire population of Persis proper did not migrate from their abodes -to occupy some of those more inviting spots which the immensity of -the imperial dominion furnished,—a dominion extending (to use the -language of Cyrus the younger, before the battle of Kunaxa)[383] from -the region of insupportable heat to that of insupportable cold,—this -was only because the early kings discouraged such a movement, in -order that the nation might maintain its military hardihood,[384] and -be in a situation to furnish undiminished supplies of soldiers. - - [382] Xenophon, Anabas. i, 1, 8. - - [383] Xenophon, Anabas. i, 7, 6; Cyropæd. viii, 6, 19. - - [384] Herodot. ix, 122. - -The self-esteem and arrogance of the Persians was no less remarkable -than their avidity for sensual enjoyment. They were fond of wine to -excess; their wives and their concubines were both numerous; and -they adopted eagerly from foreign nations new fashions of luxury as -well as of ornament. Even to novelties in religion, they were not -strongly averse; for though they were disciples of Zoroaster, with -magi as their priests, and as indispensable companions of their -sacrifices, worshipping Sun, Moon, Earth, Fire, etc., and recognizing -neither image, temple, nor altar,—yet they had adopted the voluptuous -worship of the goddess Mylitta from the Assyrians and Arabians. A -numerous male offspring was the Persian’s boast, and his warlike -character and consciousness of force were displayed in the education -of these youths, who were taught, from five years old to twenty, -only three things,—to ride, to shoot with the bow, and to speak the -truth.[385] To owe money, or even to buy and sell, was accounted -among the Persians disgraceful,—a sentiment which they defended by -saying, that both the one and the other imposed the necessity of -telling falsehood. To exact tribute from subjects, to receive pay or -presents from the king, and to give away without forethought whatever -was not immediately wanted, was their mode of dealing with money. -Industrious pursuits were left to the conquered, who were fortunate -if by paying a fixed contribution, and sending a military contingent -when required, they could purchase undisturbed immunity for their -remaining concerns.[386] They could not thus purchase safety for the -family hearth, since we find instances of noble Grecian maidens torn -from their parents for the harem of the satrap.[387] - - [385] The modern Persians at this day exhibit almost matchless - skill in shooting with the firelock, as well as with the bow, on - horseback. See Sir John Malcolm, Sketches of Persia, ch. xvii, p. - 201; see also Kinneir, Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire, - p. 32. - - [386] About the attributes of the Persian character, see Herodot. - i, 131-140: compare i, 153. - - He expresses himself very strongly as to the facility with which - the Persians imbibed foreign customs, and especially foreign - luxuries (i, 135),—ξεινικὰ δὲ νόμαια Πέρσαι προσίενται ἀνδρῶν - μάλιστα,—καὶ εὐπαθείας τε παντοδαπὰς πυνθανόμενοι ἐπιτηδεύουσι. - - That rigid tenacity of customs and exclusiveness of tastes, - which mark the modern Orientals, appear to be of the growth of - Mohammedanism, and to distinguish them greatly from the old - Zoroastrian Persians. - - [387] Herodot. ix, 76; Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 26. - -To a people of this character, whose conceptions of political society -went no farther than personal obedience to a chief, a conqueror like -Cyrus would communicate the strongest excitement and enthusiasm of -which they were capable. He had found them slaves, and made them -masters; he was the first and greatest of national benefactors,[388] -as well as the most forward of leaders in the field; they followed -him from one conquest to another, during the thirty years of his -reign, their love of empire growing with the empire itself. And this -impulse of aggrandizement continued unabated during the reigns of -his three next successors,—Kambysês, Darius, and Xerxês,—until it -was at length violently stifled by the humiliating defeats of Platæa -and Salamis; after which the Persians became content with defending -themselves at home, and playing a secondary game. But at the time -when Kambysês son of Cyrus succeeded to his father’s sceptre, Persian -spirit was at its highest point, and he was not long in fixing upon -a prey both richer and less hazardous than the Massagetæ, at the -opposite extremity of the empire. Phenicia and Judæa being already -subject to him, he resolved to invade Egypt, then highly flourishing -under the long and prosperous reign of Amasis. Not much pretence -was needed to color the aggression, and the various stories which -Herodotus mentions as causes of the war, are only interesting -inasmuch as they imply a vein of Egyptian party feeling,—affirming -that the invasion was brought upon Amasis by a daughter of Apriês, -and was thus a judgment upon him for having deposed the latter. As to -the manner in which she had produced this effect, indeed, the most -contradictory stories were circulated.[389] - - [388] Herodot. i, 210; iii, 159. - - [389] Herodot. iii, 1-4. - -Kambysês summoned the forces of his empire for this new enterprise, -and among them both the Phenicians and the Asiatic Greeks, Æolic -as well as Ionic,[390] insular as well as continental,—nearly all -the maritime force and skill of the Ægean sea. He was apprized by a -Greek deserter from the mercenaries in Egypt, named Phanês, of the -difficulties of the march, and the best method of surmounting them; -especially the three days of sandy desert, altogether without water, -which lay between Egypt and Judæa. By the aid of the neighboring -Arabians,—with whom he concluded a treaty, and who were requited -for this service with the title of equal allies, free from all -tribute,—he was enabled to surmount this serious difficulty, and to -reach Pelusium at the eastern mouth of the Nile, where the Ionian -and Karian troops in the Egyptian service, as well as the Egyptian -military, were assembled to oppose him.[391] - - [390] Herodot. iii, 1, 19, 44. - - [391] The narrative of Ktêsias is, in respect both to the - Egyptian expedition and to the other incidents of Persian - history, quite different in its details from that of Herodotus, - agreeing only in the main events (Ktêsias, Persica, c. 7). To - blend the two together is impossible. - - Tacitus (Histor. i, 11) notes the difficulty of approach for an - invading army to Egypt: “Egyptum, provinciam aditu difficilem, - annonæ fecundam, superstitione ac lasciviâ discordem et mobilem,” - etc. - -Fortunately for himself, the Egyptian king Amasis had died during -the interval of the Persian preparations, a few months before the -expedition took place,—after forty-four years of unabated prosperity. -His death, at this critical moment, was probably the main cause of -the easy conquest which followed; his son Psammenitus succeeding -to his crown, but neither to his abilities nor his influence. The -result of the invasion was foreshadowed, as usual, by a menacing -prodigy,—rain falling at Thebes in Upper Egypt; and was brought about -by a single victory, though bravely disputed, at Pelusium,—followed -by the capture of Memphis, with the person of king Psammenitus, after -a siege of some duration. Kambysês had sent forward a Mitylenæan ship -to Memphis, with heralds to summon the city; but the Egyptians, in a -paroxysm of fury, rushed out of the walls, destroyed the vessel, and -tore the crew into pieces,—a savage proceeding, which drew upon them -severe retribution after the capture. Psammenitus, after being at -first treated with harshness and insult, was at length released, and -even allowed to retain his regal dignity as a dependent of Persia. -But being soon detected, or at least believed to be concerned, in -raising revolt against the conquerors, he was put to death, and Egypt -was placed under a satrap.[392] - - [392] Herodot. iii, 10-16. About the Arabians, between Judæa and - Egypt, see iii, c. 5, 88-91. - -There yet lay beyond Egypt territories for Kambysês to -conquer,—though Kyrênê and Barka, the Greek colonies near the coast -of Libya, placed themselves at once out of the reach of danger by -sending to him tribute and submission at Memphis. He projected three -new enterprises: one against Carthage, by sea; the other two, by -land, against the Ethiopians, far to the southward up the course of -the Nile, and against the oracle and oasis of Zeus Ammon, amidst the -deserts of Libya. Towards Ethiopia he himself conducted his troops, -but was compelled to bring them back without reaching it, since they -were on the point of perishing with famine; while the division which -he sent against the temple of Ammon is said to have been overwhelmed -by a sand-storm in the desert. The expedition against Carthage was -given up, for a reason which well deserves to be commemorated. -The Phenicians, who formed the most efficient part of his navy, -refused to serve against their kinsmen and colonists, pleading the -sanctity of mutual oaths as well as the ties both of relationship and -traffic.[393] Even the frantic Kambysês was compelled to accept, and -perhaps to respect, this honorable refusal, which was not imitated -by the Ionic Greeks when Darius and Xerxês demanded the aid of their -ships against Athens,—we must add, however, that they were then in -a situation much more exposed and helpless than that in which the -Phenicians stood before Kambysês. - - [393] Herodot. iii, 19. - -Among the sacred animals so numerous and so different throughout the -various nomes of Egypt, the most venerated of all was the bull Apis. -Yet such peculiar conditions were required by the Egyptian religion -as to the birth, the age, and the marks of this animal, that, when -he died, it was difficult to find a new calf properly qualified to -succeed him. Much time was sometimes spent in the search, and when -an unexceptionable successor was at last found, the demonstrations -of joy in Memphis were extravagant and universal. At the moment -when Kambysês returned to Memphis from his Ethiopian expedition, -full of humiliation for the result, it so happened that a new Apis -was just discovered; and as the population of the city gave vent -to their usual festival pomp and delight, he construed it into an -intentional insult towards his own recent misfortunes. In vain did -the priests and magistrates explain to him the real cause of these -popular manifestations; he persisted in his belief, punished some -of them with death and others with stripes, and commanded every man -seen in holiday attire to be slain. Furthermore,—to carry his outrage -against Egyptian feeling to the uttermost pitch,—he sent for the -newly-discovered Apis, and plunged his dagger into the side of the -animal, who shortly afterwards died of the wound.[394] - - [394] Herodot. iii, 29. - -After this brutal deed,—calculated to efface in the minds of the -Egyptian priests the enormities of Cheops and Chephrên, and doubtless -unparalleled in all the twenty-four thousand years of their anterior -history,—Kambysês lost every spark of reason which yet remained to -him, and the Egyptians found in this visitation a new proof of the -avenging interference of their gods. Not only did he commit every -variety of studied outrage against the conquered people among whom -he was tarrying, as well as their temples and their sepulchres,—but -he also dealt his blows against his Persian friends and even his -nearest blood-relations. Among these revolting atrocities, one of the -greatest deserves peculiar notice, because the fate of the empire was -afterwards materially affected by it. His younger brother Smerdis had -accompanied him into Egypt, but had been sent back to Susa, because -the king became jealous of the admiration which his personal strength -and qualities called forth.[395] That jealousy was aggravated into -alarm and hatred by a dream, portending dominion and conquest to -Smerdis; so that the frantic Kambysês sent to Susa secretly a -confidential Persian, Prexaspês, with express orders to get rid of -his brother. Prexaspês fulfilled his commission effectively, burying -the slain prince with his own hands,[396] and keeping the deed -concealed from all except a few of the chiefs at the regal residence. - - [395] Ktêsias calls the brother Tanyoxarkês, and says that - Cyrus had left him satrap, without tribute, of Baktria and the - neighboring regions (Persica, c. 8). Xenophon, in the Cyropædia, - also calls him Tanyoxarkês, but gives him a different satrapy - (Cyropæd. viii, 7, 11). - - [396] Herodot. iii, 30-62. - -Among these few chiefs, however, there was one, the Median -Patizeithês, belonging to the order of the Magi, who saw in it a -convenient stepping-stone for his own personal ambition, and made use -of it as a means of covertly supplanting the dynasty of the great -Cyrus. Enjoying the full confidence of Kambysês, he had been left -by that prince, on departing for Egypt, in the entire management of -the palace and treasures, with extensive authority.[397] Moreover, -he happened to have a brother extremely resembling in person the -deceased Smerdis; and as the open and dangerous madness of Kambysês -contributed to alienate from him the minds of the Persians, he -resolved to proclaim this brother king in his room, as if it were -the younger son of Cyrus succeeding to the disqualified elder. On -one important point, the false Smerdis differed from the true. He -had lost his ears, which Cyrus himself had caused to be cut off for -an offence; but the personal resemblance, after all, was of little -importance, since he was seldom or never allowed to show himself -to the people.[398] Kambysês, having heard of this revolt in Syria -on his return from Egypt, was mounting his horse in haste for the -purpose of going to suppress it, when an accident from his sword -put an end to his life. Herodotus tells us that, before his death, -he summoned the Persians around him, confessed that he had been -guilty of putting his brother to death, and apprized them that the -reigning Smerdis was only a Median pretender,—conjuring them at -the same time not to submit to the disgrace of being ruled by any -other than a Persian and an Achæmenid. But if it be true that he -ever made known the facts, no one believed him. For Prexaspês, on -his part, was compelled by regard to his own safety, to deny that -he had imbrued his hands in the blood of a son of Cyrus;[399] and -thus the opportune death of Kambysês placed the false Smerdis without -opposition at the head of the Persians, who all, or for the most -part, believed themselves to be ruled by a genuine son of Cyrus. -Kambysês had reigned for seven years and five months. - - [397] Herodot. iii, 61-63. - - [398] Herodot. iii, 68-69.—“Auribus decisis vivere jubet,” says - Tacitus, about a case under the Parthian government (Annal. xii, - 14),—nor have the Turkish authorities given up the infliction - of it at the present moment, or at least down to a very recent - period. - - [399] Herodot. iii, 64-66. - -For seven months did Smerdis reign without opposition, seconded -by his brother Patizeithês; and if he manifested his distrust of -the haughty Persians around him, by neither inviting them into his -palace nor showing himself out of it, he at the same time studiously -conciliated the favor of the subject provinces, by remission of -tribute and of military service for three years.[400] Such a -departure from the Persian principle of government was in itself -sufficient to disgust the warlike and rapacious Achæmenids at Susa. -But it seems that their suspicions as to his genuine character had -never been entirely set at rest, and in the eighth month those -suspicions were converted into certainty. According to what seems -to have been the Persian usage, he had taken to himself the entire -harem of his predecessor, among whose wives was numbered Phædymê, -daughter of a distinguished Persian, named Otanês. At the instance -of her father, Phædymê undertook the dangerous task of feeling the -head of Smerdis while he slept, and thus detected the absence of -ears.[401] Otanês, possessed of the decisive information, lost no -time in concerting, with five other noble Achæmenids, means for -ridding themselves of a king who was at once a Mede, a Magian, and a -man without ears;[402] Darius, son of Hystaspês, the satrap of Persis -proper, arriving just in time to join the conspiracy as the seventh. -How these seven noblemen slew Smerdis in his palace at Susa,—how they -subsequently debated among themselves whether they should establish -in Persia a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy,—how, after the -first of the three had been resolved upon, it was determined that the -future king, whichever he might be, should be bound to take his wives -only from the families of the seven conspirators,—how Darius became -king, from the circumstance of his horse being the first to neigh -among those of the conspirators at a given spot, by the stratagem of -the groom Œbarês,—how Otanês, standing aside beforehand from this -lottery for the throne, reserved for himself as well as for his -descendants perfect freedom and exemption from the rule of the future -king, whichsoever might draw the prize,—all these incidents may be -found recounted by Herodotus with his usual vivacity, but with no -small addition of Hellenic ideas as well as of dramatic ornament. - - [400] Herodot. iii, 67. - - [401] Herodot. iii, 68-69. - - [402] Herodot. iii, 69-73. ἀρχόμεθα μὲν ἐόντες Πέρσαι, ὑπὸ Μήδου - ἀνδρὸς μάγου, καὶ τούτου ὦτα οὐκ ἔχοντος. - - Compare the description of the insupportable repugnance of the - Greeks of Kyrênê to be governed by the _lame_ Battus (Herodot. - iv, 161). - -It was thus that the upright tiara, the privileged head-dress of -the Persian kings,[403] passed away from the lineage of Cyrus, yet -without departing from the great phratry of the Achæmenidæ,—to -which Darius and his father Hystaspês, as well as Cyrus, belonged. -That important fact is unquestionable, and probably the acts -ascribed to the seven conspirators are in the main true, apart from -their discussions and intentions. But on this as well as on other -occasions, we must guard ourselves against an illusion which the -historical manner of Herodotus is apt to create. He presents to us -with so much descriptive force the personal narrative,—individual -action and speech, with all its accompanying hopes, fears, doubts, -and passions,—that our attention is distracted from the political -bearing of what is going on; which we are compelled often to gather -up from hints in the speeches of performers, or from consequences -afterwards indirectly noticed. When we put together all the -incidental notices which he lets drop, it will be found that the -change of sceptre from Smerdis to Darius was a far larger political -event than his direct narrative would seem to announce. Smerdis -represents preponderance to the Medes over the Persians, and -comparative degradation to the latter; who, by the installation of -Darius, are again placed in the ascendent. The Medes and the Magians -are in this case identical; for the Magians, though indispensable -in the capacity of priests to the Persians, were essentially one of -the seven Median tribes.[404] It thus appears that though Smerdis -ruled as a son of the great Cyrus, yet he ruled by means of Medes -and Magians, depriving the Persians of that supreme privilege and -predominance to which they had become accustomed.[405] We see this by -what followed immediately after the assassination of Smerdis and his -brother in the palace. The seven conspirators, exhibiting the bloody -heads of both these victims as an evidence of their deed, instigated -the Persians in Susa to a general massacre of the Magians, many -of whom were actually slain, and the rest only escaped by flight, -concealment, or the hour of night. And the anniversary of this day -was celebrated afterwards among the Persians by a solemnity and -festival, called the Magophonia; no Magian being ever allowed on that -day to appear in public.[406] The descendants of the Seven maintained -a privileged name and rank,[407] even down to the extinction of the -monarchy by Alexander the Great. - - [403] Compare Aristophan. Aves, 487, with the Scholia, and - Herodot. vii, 61; Arrian, iv, 6, 29. The cap of the Persians - generally was loose, low, clinging about the head in folds; that - of the king was high and erect above the head. See the notes of - Wesseling and Schweighaüser, upon πῖλοι ἀπαγέες in Herodot. _l. - c._ - - [404] Herodot. i, 101-120. - - [405] In the speech which Herodotus puts into the mouth of - Kambysês on his deathbed, addressed to the Persians around him - in a strain of prophetic adjuration (iii, 65), he says: Καὶ δὴ - ὑμῖν τάδε ἐπισκήπτω, θεοὺς τοὺς βασιληΐους ἐπικαλέων, καὶ πᾶσιν - ὑμῖν καὶ μάλιστα Ἀχαιμενιδέων τοῖσι παρεοῦσι, μὴ περιϊδεῖν - τὴν ἡγεμονίην αὖτις ἐς Μήδους περιελθοῦσαν· ἀλλ᾽ εἴτε δόλῳ - ἔχουσι αὐτὴν κτησάμενοι (the personification of the deceased - son of Cyrus), δόλῳ ἀπαιρεθῆναι ὑπὸ ὑμέων· εἴτε καὶ σθένεϊ τεῷ - κατεργασάμενοι, σθένεϊ κατὰ τὸ κάρτερον ἀνασώσασθαι (the forcible - opposition of the Medes to Darius, which he put down by superior - force on the Persian side): compare the speech of Gobryas, one of - the seven Persian conspirators (iii, 73), and that of Prexaspês - (iii, 75); also Plato, Legg. iii, 12, p. 695. - - Heeren has taken a correct view of the reign of Smerdis the - Magian, and its political character (Ideen über den Verkehr, - etc., der Alten Welt, part i, abth. i, p. 431). - - [406] Herodot. iii, 79. Σπασάμενοι δὲ τὰ ἐγχειρίδια, ἔκτεινον - ὅκου τινὰ μάγον εὕρισκον· εἰ δὲ μὴ νὺξ ἐπελθοῦσα ἔσχε, ἔλιπον ἂν - οὐδένα μάγον. Ταύτην τὴν ἡμέρην θεραπεύουσι Πέρσαι κοινῇ μάλιστα - τῶν ἡμερέων· καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ ὁρτὴν μεγάλην ἀνάγουσι, ἣ κέκληται ὑπὸ - Περσέων Μαγοφόνια. - - The periodical celebration of the Magophonia is attested by - Ktêsias,—one of the few points of complete agreement with - Herodotus. He farther agrees in saying that a Magian usurped the - throne, through likeness of person to the deceased son of Cyrus, - whom Kambysês had slain,—but all his other statements differ from - Herodotus (Ktêsias, 10-14). - - [407] Even at the battle of Arbela,—“Summæ Orsines præerat, a - septem Persis oriundus, ad Cyrum quoque, nobilissimum regem, - originem sui referens.” (Quintus Curtius, iv, 12, 7, or iv, 45, - 7, Zumpt.): compare Strabo, xi, p. 531; Florus, iii, 5, 1. - -Furthermore, it appears that the authority of Darius was not readily -acknowledged throughout the empire, and that an interval of confusion -ensued before it became so.[408] The Medes actually revolted, and -tried to maintain themselves by force against Darius, who however -found means to subdue them: though, when he convoked his troops from -the various provinces, he did not receive from the satraps universal -obedience. The powerful Orœtês, especially, who had been appointed -by Cyrus satrap of Lydia and Ionia, not only sent no troops to the -aid of Darius against the Medes,[409] but even took advantage of -the disturbed state of the government to put to death his private -enemy Mitrobatês satrap of Phrygia, and appropriate that satrapy -in addition to his own. Aryandês also, the satrap nominated by -Kambysês in Egypt, comported himself as the equal of Darius rather -than as his subject.[410] The subject provinces generally, to whom -Smerdis had granted remission of tribute and military service for -the space of three years, were grateful and attached to his memory, -and noway pleased with the new dynasty; moreover, the revolt of the -Babylonians, conceived a year or two before it was executed, took its -rise from the feelings of this time.[411] But the renewal of the old -conflict between the two principal sections of the empire, Medes and -Persians, is doubtless the most important feature in this political -revolution. The false Smerdis with his brother, both of them Medes -and Magians, had revived the Median nationality to a state of -supremacy over the Persian, recalling the memory of what it had been -under Astyagês; while Darius,—a pure Persian, and not (like the mule -Cyrus) half Mede and half Persian,—replaced the Persian nationality -in its ascendent condition, though not without the necessity of -suppressing by force a rebellion of the Medes.[412] - - [408] Herodot. iii, 127. Δαρεῖος—ἅτε οἰδεόντων οἱ ἔτι τῶν - πρηγμάτων, etc.,—mention of the ταραχή (iii, 126, 150). - - [409] Herodot. iii, 126. Μετὰ γὰρ τὸν Καμβύσεω θάνατον, καὶ τῶν - Μάγων τὴν βασιληΐην, μένων ἐν τῇσι Σάρδισι Ὀροίτης, ὠφέλει μὲν - οὐδὲν Πέρσας, ~ὑπὸ Μήδων ἀπαραιρημένους τὴν ἀρχήν~· ὁ δὲ ἐν - ταύτῃ τῇ ταραχῇ κατὰ μὲν ἔκτεινε Μιτροβάτεα ... ἄλλα τε ἐξύβρισε - παντοῖα, etc. - - [410] Herodot. iv, 166. Ὁ δὲ Ἀρυάνδης ἦν οὗτος τῆς Αἰγύπτου - ὕπαρχος ὑπὸ Καμβύσεω κατεστεώς· ὃς ὑστέρῳ χρόνῳ παρισεύμενος - Δαρείῳ διεφθάρη. - - [411] Herodot. iii, 67-150. - - [412] Herodot. i, 130. Ἀστυάγης μέν νυν βασιλεύσας ἐπ᾽ ἔτεα πέντε - καὶ τριήκοντα, οὕτω τῆς ἀρχῆς κατεπαύσθη. Μῆδοι δὲ ὑπέκυψαν - Πέρσῃσι διὰ τὴν τούτου πικρότητα.... Ὑστέρῳ μέντοι χρόνῳ - μετεμέλησέ τέ σφι ταῦτα ποιήσασι, καὶ ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ Δαρείου· - ἀποστάντες δὲ, ὀπίσω κατεστράφθησαν, μάχῃ νικηθέντες· τότε δὲ, - ἐπὶ Ἀστυάγεος, οἱ Πέρσαι τε καὶ ὁ Κῦρος ἐπαναστάντες τοῖσι - Μήδοισι, ἦρχον τὸ ἀπὸ τούτου τῆς Ἀσίης. - - This passage—asserting that the Medes, some time after the - deposition of Astyagês and the acquisition of Persian supremacy - by Cyrus, repented of having suffered their discontent - against Astyagês to place this supremacy in the hands of - the Persians, revolted from Darius, and were reconquered - after a contest—appears to me to have been misunderstood by - chronologists. Dodwell, Larcher, and Mr. Fynes Clinton (indeed, - most, if not all, of the chronologists) explain it as alluding - to a revolt of the Medes against the Persian king Darius Nothus, - mentioned in the Hellenica of Xenophon (i, 2, 12), and belonging - to the year 408 B. C. See Larcher ad Herodot. i, 130, and his Vie - d’Hérodote, prefixed to his translation (p. lxxxix); also Mr. - Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, ad ann. 408 and 455, and his Appendix, - c, 18, p. 316. - - The revolt of the Medes alluded to by Herodotus is, in my - judgment, completely distinct from the revolt mentioned by - Xenophon: to identify the two, as these eminent chronologists do, - is an hypothesis not only having nothing to recommend it, but - open to grave objection. The revolt mentioned by Herodotus was - against Darius son of Hystaspês, not against Darius Nothus; and - I have set forth with peculiar care the circumstances connected - with the conspiracy and accession of the former, for the purpose - of showing that they all decidedly imply that conflict between - Median and Persian supremacy, which Herodotus directly announces - in the passage now before us. - - 1. When Herodotus speaks of Darius, without any adjective - designation, why should we imagine that he means any other than - Darius the son of Hystaspês, on whom he dwells so copiously in - his narrative? Once only in the course of his history (ix, 108) - another Darius (the young prince, son of Xerxês the First) is - mentioned; but with this exception, Darius son of Hystaspês is - uniformly, throughout the work, spoken of under his simple name: - Darius Nothus is never alluded to at all. - - 2. The deposition of Astyagês took place in 559 B. C.; the - beginning of the reign of Darius occurred in 520 B. C.; now - repentance on the part of the Medes, for what they had done at - the former of those two epochs, might naturally prompt them to - try to repair it in the latter. But between the deposition of - Astyagês in 559 B. C., and the revolt mentioned by Xenophon - against Darius Nothus in 408 B. C., the interval is more than one - hundred and fifty years. To ascribe a revolt which took place in - 408 B. C., to repentance for something which had occurred one - hundred and fifty years before, is unnatural and far-fetched, if - not positively inadmissible. - - The preceding arguments go to show that the natural construction - of the passage in Herodotus points to Darius son of Hystaspês, - and not to Darius Nothus; but this is not all. There are yet - stronger reasons why the reference to Darius Nothus should be - discarded. - - The supposed mention, in Herodotus, of a fact so late as 408 B. - C., perplexes the whole chronology of his life and authorship. - According to the usual statement of his biography, which every - one admits, and which there is no reason to call in question, - he was born in 484 B. C. Here, then, is an event alluded to in - his history, which occurred when the historian was seventy-six - years old, and the allusion to which he must be presumed to - have written when about eighty years old, if not more; for his - mention of the fact by no means implies that it was particularly - recent. Those who adopt this view, do not imagine that he wrote - his whole history at that age; but they maintain that he made - later additions, of which they contend that this is one. I do - not say that this is impossible: we know that Isokratês composed - his Panathenaic oration at the age of ninety-four; but it must - be admitted to be highly improbable,—a supposition which ought - not to be advanced without some cogent proof to support it. But - here no proof whatever is produced. Herodotus mentions a revolt - of the Medes against Darius,—Xenophon also mentions a revolt of - the Medes against Darius; hence, chronologists have taken it as - a matter of course, that both authors must allude to the same - event; though the supposition is unnatural as regards the text, - and still more unnatural as regards the biography, of Herodotus. - - In respect to that biography, Mr. Clinton appears to me to have - adopted another erroneous opinion; in which, however, both - Larcher and Wesseling are against him, though Dahlmann and Heyse - agree with him. He maintains that the passage in Herodotus - (iii, 15), wherein it is stated that Pausiris succeeded his - father Amyrtæus by consent of the Persians in the government of - Egypt, is to be referred to a fact which happened subsequent to - the year 414 B. C., or the tenth year of Darius Nothus; since - it was in that year that Amyrtæus acquired the government of - Egypt. But this opinion rests altogether upon the assumption - that a certain Amyrtæus, whose name and date occur in Manetho - (see Eusebius, Chronicon), is the same person as the Amyrtæus - mentioned in Herodotus; which identity is not only not proved, - but is extremely improbable, since Mr. Clinton himself admits - (F. H. Appendix, p. 317), while maintaining the identity: “He - (Amyrtæus) had conducted a war against the Persian government - _more than fifty years before_.” This, though not impossible, is - surely very improbable; it is at least equally probable that the - Amyrtæus of Manetho was a different person from (perhaps even the - _grandson_ of) that Amyrtæus in Herodotus, who had carried on war - against the Persians more than fifty wars before; it appears to - me, indeed, that this is the more reasonable hypothesis of the - two. - - I have permitted myself to prolong this note to an unusual - length, because the supposed mention of such recent events in the - history of Herodotus, as those in the reign of Darius Nothus, has - introduced very gratuitous assumptions as to the time and manner - in which that history was composed. It cannot be shown that there - is a single event of precise and ascertained date, alluded to in - his history, later than the capture of the Lacedæmonian heralds - in the year 430 B. C. (Herodot. vii, 137: see Larcher, Vie - d’Hérodote, p. lxxxix); and this renders the composition of his - history as an entire work much more smooth and intelligible. - - It may be worth while to add, that whoever reads attentively - Herodotus, vi, 98,—and reflects at the same time that the - destruction of the Athenian armament at Syracuse (the greatest - of all Hellenic disasters, hardly inferior, for its time, to the - Russian campaign of Napoleon, and especially impressive to one - living at Thurii, as may be seen by the life of Lysias, Plutarch, - Vit. x, Oratt. p. 835) happened during the reign of Darius Nothus - in 413 B. C.,—will not readily admit the hypothesis of additions - made to the history during the reign of the latter, or so late - as 408 B. C. Herodotus would hardly have dwelt so expressly and - emphatically upon mischief done by Greeks to each other in the - reigns of Darius son of Hystaspês, Xerxês, and Artaxerxês, if he - had lived to witness the greater mischiefs so inflicted during - the reign of Darius Nothus, and had kept his history before him - for the purpose of inserting new events. The destruction of the - Athenians before Syracuse would have been a thousand times more - striking to his imagination than the revolt of the Medes against - Darius Nothus, and would have impelled him with much greater - force to alter or enlarge the chapter vi, 98. - - The sentiment too which Herodotus places in the mouth of - Demaratus respecting the Spartans (vii, 104) appears to have been - written _before_ the capture of the Spartans in Sphakteria, in - 425 B. C., rather than _after_ it: compare Thucyd. iv, 40. - - Dahlmann (Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Geschichte, vol. ii, - pp. 41-47) and Heyse (Quæstiones Herodoteæ, pp. 74-77, Berlin, - 1827) both profess to point out six passages in Herodotus - which mark events of later date than 430 B. C. But none of - the chronological indications which they adduce appear to me - trustworthy. - -It has already been observed that the subjugation of the recusant -Medes was not the only embarrassment of the first years of Darius. -Orœtês, satrap of Phrygia, Lydia, and Ionia, ruling seemingly the -entire western coast of Asia Minor,—possessing a large military -force and revenue, and surrounded by a body-guard of one thousand -native Persians,—maintained a haughty independence. He secretly made -away with couriers sent to summon him to Susa, and even wreaked his -vengeance upon some of the principal Persians who had privately -offended him. Darius, not thinking it prudent to attack him by open -force, proposed to the chief Persians at Susa, the dangerous problem -of destroying him by stratagem. Thirty among them volunteered to -undertake it, and Bagæus, son of Artontês, to whom on drawing lots -the task devolved, accomplished it by a manœuvre which might serve -as a lesson to the Ottoman government, in its embarrassments with -contumacious Pashas. Having proceeded to Sardis, furnished with -many different royal ordinances, formally set forth and bearing -the seal of Darius,—he was presented to Orœtês in audience, with -the public secretary of the satrapy close at hand, and the Persian -guards standing around. He presented his ordinances to be read aloud -by the secretary, choosing first those which related to matters of -no great importance; but when he saw that the guards listened with -profound reverence, and that the king’s name and seal imposed upon -them irresistibly, he ventured upon the real purport of his perilous -mission. An ordinance was handed to the secretary, and read by him -aloud, as follows: “Persians, king Darius forbids you to serve any -longer as guards to Orœtês.” The obedient guards at once delivered -up their spears, when Bagæus caused the final warrant to be read to -them: “King Darius commands the Persians in Sardis to kill Orœtês.” -The guards drew their swords and killed him on the spot: his large -treasure was conveyed to Susa: Darius became undisputed master, and -probably Bagæus satrap.[413] - - [413] Herodot. iii, 127, 128. - -Another devoted adherent, and another yet more memorable piece -of cunning, laid prostrate before Darius the mighty walls and -gates of the revolted Babylon. The inhabitants of that city had -employed themselves assiduously,—both during the lax provincial -superintendence of the false Smerdis, and during the period of -confusion and conflict which elapsed before Darius became firmly -established and obeyed,—in making every preparation both for -declaring and sustaining their independence. Having accumulated a -large store of provisions and other requisites for a long siege, -without previous detection, they at length proclaimed their -independence openly. And such was the intensity of their resolution -to maintain it, that they had recourse to a proceeding, which, if -correctly reported by Herodotus, forms one of the most frightful -enormities recorded in his history. To make their provisions last -out longer, they strangled all the women in the city, reserving -only their mothers, and one woman to each family for the purpose of -baking.[414] We cannot but suppose that this has been magnified from -a partial into an universal destruction. Yet taking it even with -such allowance, it illustrates that ferocious force of will,—and -that predominance of strong nationality, combined with antipathy to -foreigners, over all the gentler sympathies,—which seems to mark -the Semitic nations, and which may be traced so much in the Jewish -history of Josephus. - - [414] Herodot. iii, 150. - -Darius, assembling all the forces in his power, laid siege to the -revolted city, but could make no impression upon it, either by force -or by stratagem. He tried to repeat the proceeding by which Cyrus -had taken it at first; but the besieged were found this time on -their guard. The siege had lasted twenty months without the smallest -progress, and the Babylonians derided the besiegers from the height -of their impregnable walls, when a distinguished Persian nobleman -Zopyrus,—son of Megabyzus, who had been one of the seven conspirators -against Smerdis,—presented himself one day before Darius in a state -of frightful mutilation: his nose and ears were cut off, and his body -misused in every way. He had designedly so maimed himself, “thinking -it intolerable that Assyrians should thus laugh the Persians to -scorn,”[415] in the intention which he presently intimated to Darius, -of passing into the town as a deserter, with a view of betraying -it,—for which purpose measures were concerted. The Babylonians, -seeing a Persian of the highest rank in so calamitous a condition, -readily believed his assurance, that he had been thus punished by -the king’s order, and that he came over to them as the only means of -procuring for himself single vengeance. They intrusted him with the -command of a detachment, with which he gained several advantages in -different sallies, according to previous concert with Darius, until -at length, the confidence of the Babylonians becoming unbounded, -they placed in his hands the care of the principal gates. At the -critical moment these gates were thrown open, and the Persians became -masters of the city.[416] - - [415] Herodot. iii, 155. δεινόν τι ποιεύμενος, Ἀσσυρίους Πέρσῃσι - καταγελᾷν. Compare the speech of Mardonius, vii, 9. - - The horror of Darius, at the first sight of Zopyrus in this - condition, is strongly dramatized by Herodotus. - - [416] Herodot. iii, 154-158. - -Thus was the impregnable Babylon a second time reduced,[417] and -Darius took precautions on this occasion to put it out of condition -for resisting a third time. He caused the walls and gates to be -demolished, and three thousand of the principal citizens to be -crucified: the remaining inhabitants were left in the dismantled -city, fifty thousand women being levied by assessment upon the -neighboring provinces, to supply the place of the women strangled -when it first revolted.[418] Zopyrus was appointed satrap of the -territory for life, with enjoyment of its entire revenues, receiving -besides every additional reward which it was in the power of Darius -to bestow, and generous assurances from the latter that he would -rather have Zopyrus without wounds than the possession of Babylon. -I have already intimated in a former chapter that the demolition -of the walls here mentioned is not to be regarded as complete and -continuous, nor was there any necessity that it should be so. Partial -demolition would be quite sufficient to leave the city without -defence; and the description given by Herodotus of the state of -things as they stood at the time of his visit, proves that portions -of the walls yet subsisted. One circumstance is yet to be added in -reference to the subsequent condition of Babylon under the Persian -empire. The city with the territory belonging to it constituted a -satrapy, which not only paid a larger tribute (one thousand Euboic -talents of silver) and contributed a much larger amount of provisions -in kind for the maintenance of the Persian court, than any other -among the twenty satrapies of the empire, but furnished besides an -annual supply of five hundred eunuch youths.[419] We may presume that -this was intended in part as a punishment for the past revolt, since -the like obligation was not imposed upon any other satrapy. - - [417] Ktêsias represents the revolt and recapture of Babylon - to have taken place, not under Darius, but under his son and - successor Xerxês. He says that the Babylonians, revolting, - slew their satrap Zopyrus; that they were besieged by Xerxês, - and that Megabyzus son of Zopyrus caused the city to be taken - by practising that very stratagem which Herodotus ascribes to - Zopyrus himself (Persica, c. 20-22). - - This seems inconsistent with the fact, that Megabyzus was general - of the Persian army in Egypt in the war with the Athenians, - about 460 B. C. (Diodor. Sic. xi, 75-77): he would hardly have - been sent on active service had he been so fearfully mutilated; - moreover, the whole story of Ktêsias appears to me far less - probable than that of Herodotus; for on this, as on other - occasions, to blend the two together is impossible. - - [418] Herodot. iii, 159, 160. “From the women thus introduced - (says Herodotus) the present Babylonians are sprung.” - - To crucify subdued revolters by thousands is, fortunately, so - little in harmony with modern European manners, that it may - not be amiss to strengthen the confidence of the reader in the - accuracy of Herodotus, by producing an analogous narrative of - incidents far more recent. Voltaire gives, from the MS. of - General Lefort, one of the principal and confidential officers of - Peter the Great, the following account of the suppression of the - revolted Strelitzes at Moscow, in 1698: these Strelitzes were the - old native militia, or Janissaries, of the Russian Czars, opposed - to all the reforms of Peter. - - “Pour étouffer ces troubles, le czar part secrètement de - Vienne, arrive enfin à Moscou, et surprend tout le monde par sa - présence: il récompense les troupes qui ont vaincu les Strélitz: - les prisons étaient pleines de ces malheureux. Si leur crime - était grand, le châtiment le fut aussi. Leurs chefs, plusieurs - officiers, et quelques prêtres, furent condamnés à la mort: - quelques-uns furent roués, deux femmes enterrées vives. On pendit - autour des murailles de la ville et on fit périr dans d’autres - supplices deux mille Strélitz; leurs corps restèrent deux jours - exposés sur les grands chemins, et surtout autour du monastère - où résidaient les princesses Sophie et Eudoxe. On érigea des - colonnes de pierre où le crime et le châtiment furent gravés. - Un très-grand nombre qui avaient leurs femmes et leurs enfans - furent dispersés avec leurs familles dans la Sibérie, dans le - royaume d’Astrakhan, dans le pays d’Azof: par là du moins leur - punition fut utile à l’état: ils servirent à défricher des terres - qui manquaient d’habitans et de culture.” (Voltaire, Histoire - de Russie, part i, ch. x, tom. 31, of the Œuvres Complètes de - Voltaire, p. 148, ed. Paris, 1825.) - - [419] Herodot. iii, 92. - -Thus firmly established on the throne, Darius occupied it for -thirty-six years, and his reign was one of organization, different -from that of his two predecessors; a difference which the Persians -well understood and noted, calling Cyrus the father, Kambysês the -master, and Darius the retail-trader, or huckster.[420] In the -mouth of the Persians this latter epithet must be construed as no -insignificant compliment, since it intimates that he was the first to -introduce some methodical order into the imperial administration and -finances. Under the two former kings there was no definite amount of -tribute levied upon the subject provinces: which furnished what were -called presents, subject to no fixed limit except such as might be -satisfactory to the satrap in each district. But Darius—succeeding -as he did to Smerdis, who had rendered himself popular with the -provinces by large financial exemptions, and having farther to -encounter jealousy and dissatisfaction from Persians, his former -equals in rank—probably felt it expedient to relieve the provinces -from the burden of undefined exactions. He distributed the whole -empire into twenty departments, imposing upon each a fixed annual -tax, and a fixed contribution for the maintenance of the court. This -must doubtless have been a great improvement, though the limitation -of the sum which the Great King at Susa would require, did not at all -prevent the satrap in his own province from indefinite requisitions -beyond it. The latter was a little king, who acted nearly as he -pleased in the internal administration of his province,—subject only -to the necessity of sending up the imperial tribute, of keeping off -foreign enemies, and of furnishing an adequate military contingent -for the foreign enterprises of the Great King. To every satrap was -attached a royal secretary, or comptroller, of the revenue,[421] -who probably managed the imperial finances in the province, and to -whom the court of Susa might perhaps look as a watch upon the satrap -himself. It is not to be supposed that the Persian authorities in -any province meddled with the details of taxation, or contribution, -as they bore upon individuals. The court having fixed the entire -sum payable by the satrapy in the aggregate, the satrap or the -secretary apportioned it among the various component districts, -towns, or provinces, leaving to the local authorities in each of -these latter the task of assessing it upon individual inhabitants. -From necessity, therefore, as well as from indolence of temper and -political incompetence, the Persians were compelled to respect -authorities which they found standing both in town and country, -and to leave in their hands a large measure of genuine influence; -frequently overruled, indeed, by oppressive interference on the part -of the satrap, whenever any of his passions prompted,—but never -entirely superseded. In the important towns and stations, Persian -garrisons were usually kept, and against the excesses of the military -there was probably little or no protection to the subject people. -Yet still, the provincial governments were allowed to continue, and -often even the petty kings who had governed separate districts during -their state of independence prior to the Persian conquest, retained -their title and dignity as tributaries to the court of Susa.[422] -The empire of the Great King was thus an aggregate of heterogeneous -elements, connected together by no tie except that of common fear and -subjection,—noway coherent nor self-supporting, nor pervaded by any -common system or spirit of nationality. It resembled, in its main -political features, the Turkish and Persian empires of the present -day,[423] though distinguished materially by the many differences -arising out of Mohammedanism and Christianity, and apparently not -reaching the same extreme of rapacity, corruption, and cruelty in -detail. - - [420] Herodot. iii, 89. What the Persian denomination was, - which Herodotus or his informants translated κάπηλος, we do not - know; but this latter word was used often by Greeks to signify - a cheat, or deceiver generally: see Etymologic. Magn. p. 490, - 11, and Suidas, v. Κάπελος. Ὁ δ᾽ Αἴσχυλος τὰ δόλια πáντα καλεῖ - κάπηλα—“Κάπηλα προσφέρων τεχνήματα.” (Æschylus, Fragment. 328, - ed. Dindorf: compare Euripid. Hippolyt. 953.) - - [421] Herodot. iii, 128. This division of power, and double - appointment by the Great King, appears to have been retained - until the close of the Persian empire: see Quintus Curtius, v, - l, 17-20 (v, 3, 19-21, Zumpt). The present Turkish government - nominates a Defterdar as finance administrator in each province, - with authority derived directly from itself, and professedly - independent of the Pacha. - - [422] Herodot. iii, 15. - - [423] Respecting the administration of the modern Persian empire, - see Kinneir, Geograph. Memoir of Persia, pp. 29, 43, 47. - -Darius distributed the Persian empire into twenty satrapies, each -including a certain continuous territory, and one or more nations -inhabiting it, the names of which Herodotus sets forth. The amount -of tribute payable by each satrapy was determined: payable in gold, -according to the Euboic talent, by the Indians in the easternmost -satrapy,—in silver, according to the Babylonian, or larger talent, -by the remaining nineteen. Herodotus computes the ratio of gold to -silver as 13 : 1. From the nineteen satrapies which paid in silver, -there was levied annually the sum of seven thousand seven hundred -and forty Babylonian talents, equal to something about two million -nine hundred and sixty-four thousand pounds sterling: from the -Indians, who alone paid in gold, there was received a sum equal (at -the rate of 1 : 13) to four thousand six hundred and eighty Euboic -talents of silver, or to about one million two hundred and ninety -thousand pounds sterling.[424] - - [424] Herodot. iii, 95. The text of Herodotus contains an - erroneous summing up of items, which critics have no means of - correcting with certainty. Nor is it possible to trust the huge - sum which he alleges to have been levied from the Indians, though - all the other items, included in the nineteen silver-paying - divisions, seem within the probable truth; and indeed both - Rennell and Robertson think the total too small: the charges on - some of the satrapies are decidedly smaller than the reality. - - The vast sum of fifty thousand talents is said to have been - found by Alexander the Great, laid up by successive kings at - Susa alone, besides the treasures at Persepolis, Pasargadæ, - and elsewhere (Arrian, iii, 16, 12; Plutarch, Alexand. 37). - Presuming these talents to be Babylonian or Æginæan talents (in - the proportion 5 : 3 to Attic talents), fifty thousand talents - would be equal to nineteen million pounds sterling; if they were - Attic talents, it would be equal to eleven million six hundred - thousand pounds sterling. The statements of Diodorus give even - much larger sums (xvii, 66-71: compare Curtius, v, 2, 8; v, 6, 9; - Strabo, xv, p. 730). It is plain that the numerical affirmations - were different in different authors, and one cannot pretend to - pronounce on the trustworthiness of such large figures without - knowing more of the original returns on which they were founded. - That there were prodigious sums of gold and silver, is quite - unquestionable. Respecting the statement of the Persian revenue - given by Herodotus, see Boeckh, Metrologie, ch. v, 1-2. - - Amedée Jaubert, in 1806, estimated the population of the modern - Persian empire at about seven million souls; of which about - six million were settled population, the rest nomadic: he also - estimated the Schah’s revenue at about two million nine hundred - thousand tomans, or one million five hundred thousand pounds - sterling. Others calculated the population higher, at nearer - twelve million souls. Kinneir gives the revenue at something more - than three million pounds sterling: he thinks that the whole - territory between the Euphratês and the Indus does not contain - above eighteen millions of souls (Geogr. Memoir of Persia, pp. - 44-47: compare Ritter, West Asien, Abtheil. ii, Abschn. iv, pp. - 879-889). - - The modern Persian empire contains not so much as the eastern - half of the ancient, which covered all Asiatic Turkey and Egypt - besides. - -To explain how it happened that this one satrapy was charged with -a sum equal to two-fifths of the aggregate charge on the other -nineteen, Herodotus dwells upon the vast population, the extensive -territory, and the abundant produce in gold, among those whom he -calls Indians,—the easternmost inhabitants of the earth, since -beyond them there was nothing but uninhabitable sand,—reaching, as -far as we can make it out, from Baktria southward along the Indus -to its mouth, but how far eastward we cannot determine. Darius is -said to have undertaken an expedition against them and subdued them: -moreover, he is affirmed to have constructed and despatched vessels -down the Indus, from the city of Kaspatyri and the territory of -the Paktyes, in its upper regions, all the way down to its mouth: -then into the Indian ocean, round the peninsula of Arabia, and up -the Red Sea to Egypt. The ships were commanded by Skylax,—a Greek -of Karyanda on the south-western coast of Asia Minor;[425] who, if -this statement be correct, executed a scheme of nautical enterprise -not only one hundred and seventy years earlier, but also far more -extensive, than the famous voyage of Nearchus, admiral of Alexander -the Great,—since the latter only went from the Indus to the Persian -gulf. The eastern portions of the Persian empire remained so unknown -and unvisited until the Macedonian invasion, that we are unable to -criticize these isolated statements of Herodotus. None of the Persian -kings subsequent to Darius appear to have visited them, and whether -the prodigious sum demandable from them according to the Persian -rent-roll was ever regularly levied, may reasonably be doubted. At -the same time, we may reasonably believe that the mountains in the -northern parts of Persian India—Cabul and Little Thibet—were at that -time extremely productive in gold, and that quantities of that metal, -such as now appear almost fabulous, may have been often obtained. It -appears that the produce of gold in all parts of the earth, as far -as hitherto known, is obtained exclusively near the surface; so that -a country once rich in that metal may well have been exhausted of its -whole supply, and left at a later period without any gold at all. - - [425] Herodot. iii, 102; iv, 44. See the two Excursus of Bähr - on these two chapters, vol. ii, pp. 648-671 of his edit. of - Herodotus. - - It certainly is singular that neither Nearchus, nor Ptolemy, - nor Aristobulus, nor Arrian, take any notice of this remarkable - voyage distinctly asserted by Herodotus to have been - accomplished. Such silence, however, affords no sufficient reason - for calling the narrative in question. The attention of the - Persian kings, successors to Darius, came to be far more occupied - with the western than with the eastern portions of their empire. - -Of the nineteen silver-paying satrapies, the most heavily imposed was -Babylonia, which paid one thousand talents: the next in amount of -charge was Egypt, paying seven hundred talents, besides the produce -of the fish from the lake of Mœris. The remaining satrapies varied -in amount, down as low as one hundred and seventy talents, which -was the sum charged on the seventh satrapy (in the enumeration of -Herodotus), comprising the Sattagydæ, the Gandarii, the Dodikæ, and -the Aparytæ. The Ionians, Æolians, Magnesians on the Mæander, and on -Mount Sipylus, Karians, Lykians, Milyans, and Pamphylians,—including -the coast of Asia Minor, southward of Kanê, and from thence round -the southern promontory to Phasêlis,—were rated as one division, -paying four hundred talents. But we may be sure that much more than -this was really taken from the people, when we read that Magnesia -alone afterwards paid to Themistoklês a revenue of fifty talents -annually.[426] The Mysians and Lydians were included, with some -others, in another division, and the Hellespontine Greeks in a -third, with Phrygians, Bithynians, Paphlagonians, Mariandynians, and -Syrians, paying three hundred and sixty talents,—nearly the same as -was paid by Syria proper, Phenicia, and Judæa, with the island of -Cyprus. Independent of this regular tribute, and the undefined sums -extorted over and above it,[427] there were some dependent nations, -which, though exempt from tribute, furnished occasional sums called -presents; and farther contributions were exacted for the maintenance -of the vast suite who always personally attended the king. One entire -third of this last burden was borne by Babylonia alone in consequence -of its exuberant fertility.[428] It was paid in produce, as indeed -the peculiar productions of every part of the empire seem to have -been sent up for the regal consumption. - - [426] Thucyd. i, 138. - - [427] Herodot. iii, 117. - - [428] Herodot. i, 192. Compare the description of the dinner and - supper of the Great King, in Polyænus, iv, 3, 32; also Ktêsias - and Deinôn ap Athenæum, ii, p. 67. - -However imperfectly we are now able to follow the geographical -distribution of the subject nations as given by Herodotus, it is -extremely valuable as the only professed statistics remaining, of -the entire Persian empire. The arrangement of satrapies, which he -describes, underwent modification in subsequent times; at least -it does not harmonize with various statements in the Anabasis of -Xenophon, and in other authors who recount Persian affairs belonging -to the fourth century B. C. But we find in no other author except -Herodotus any entire survey and distribution of the empire. It is, -indeed, a new tendency which now manifests itself in the Persian -Darius, compared with his predecessors: not simply to conquer, to -extort, and to give away,—but to do all this with something like -method and system,[429] and to define the obligations of the satraps -towards Susa. Another remarkable example of the same tendency is to -be found in the fact, that Darius was the first Persian king who -coined money: his coin, both in gold and silver, the Daric, was the -earliest produce of a Persian mint.[430] The revenue, as brought -to Susa in metallic money of various descriptions, was melted down -separately, and poured in a fluid state into jars or earthenware -vessels; when the metal had cooled and hardened, the jar was broken, -leaving a standing solid mass, from which portions were cut off as -the occasion required.[431] And in addition to these administrative, -financial, and monetary arrangements, of which Darius was the first -originator, we may probably ascribe to him the first introduction -of that system of roads, resting-places, and permanent relays of -couriers, which connected both Susa and Ekbatana with the distant -portions of the empire. Herodotus describes in considerable detail -the imperial road from Sardis to Susa, a journey of ninety days, -crossing the Halys, the Euphratês, the Tigris, the Greater and Lesser -Zab, the Gyndês, and the Choaspês. And we may see by this account -that in his time it was kept in excellent order, with convenience for -travellers.[432] - - [429] Plato, Legg. iii, 12, p. 695. - - [430] Herodot. iv, 166; Plutarch, Kimon, 10. - - The gold Daric, of the weight of two Attic drachmæ; (Stater - Daricus), equivalent to twenty Attic silver drachmæ (Xenoph. - Anab. i, 7, 18), would be about 16_s._ 3_d._ English. But it - seems doubtful whether that ratio between gold and silver (10 : - 1) can be reckoned upon as the ordinary ratio in the fifth and - fourth centuries B. C. Mr. Hussey calculates the golden Daric as - equal to £1, 1_s._ 3_d._ English (Hussey, Essay on the Ancient - Weights and Money, Oxford, 1836, ch. iv, s. 8, p. 68; ch. vii, s. - 3, p. 103). - - I cannot think, with Mr. Hussey, that there is any reason for - believing either the name or the coin _Daric_ to be older than - Darius son of Hystaspês. Compare Boeckh, Metrologie, ix, 5, p. - 129. - - Particular statements respecting the value of gold and silver, - as exchanged one against the other, are to be received with some - reserve as the basis of any general estimate, since we have not - the means of comparing a great many such statements together. - For the process of coinage was imperfectly performed, and the - different pieces, both of gold and silver, in circulation, - differed materially in weight one with the other. Herodotus gives - the ratio of gold to silver as 13 : 1. - - [431] Herodot. iii, 96. - - [432] Herodot. v, 52-53; viii, 98. “It appears to be a favorite - idea with all barbarous princes, that the badness of the roads - adds considerably to the natural strength of their dominions. The - Turks and Persians are undoubtedly of this opinion: the public - highways are, therefore, neglected, and particularly so towards - the frontiers.” (Kinneir, Geog. Mem. of Pers. p. 43.) - - The description of Herodotus contrasts favorably with the picture - here given by Mr. Kinneir. - -It was Darius also who first completed the conquest of the Ionic -Greeks by the acquisition of the important island of Samos. That -island had maintained its independence, at the time when the Persian -general Harpagus effected the conquest of Ionia. It did not yield -voluntarily when Chios and Lesbos submitted, and the Persians had -no fleet to attack it; nor had the Phenicians yet been taught to -round the Triopian cape. Indeed, the depression which overtook the -other cities of Ionia, tended rather to the aggrandizement of Samos, -under the energetic and unscrupulous despotism of Polykratês. That -ambitious Samian, about ten years after the conquest of Sardis -by Cyrus (seemingly between 536-532 B. C.), contrived to seize -by force or fraud the government of his native island, with the -aid of his brothers Pantagnôtus and Sylosôn, and a small band of -conspirators.[433] At first, the three brothers shared the supreme -power; but presently Polykratês put to death Pantagnôtus, banished -Sylosôn, and made himself despot alone. In this station, his -ambition, his perfidy, and his good fortune, were alike remarkable. -He conquered several of the neighboring islands, and even some towns -on the mainland; he carried on successful war against Milêtus; and -signally defeated the Lesbian ships which came to assist Milêtus; he -got together a force of one hundred armed ships called pentekonters, -and one thousand mercenary bowmen,—aspiring to nothing less than the -dominion of Ionia, with the islands in the Ægean. Alike terrible -to friend and foe by his indiscriminate spirit of aggression, he -acquired a naval power which seems at that time to have been the -greatest in the Grecian world.[434] He had been in intimate alliance -with Amasis, king of Egypt, who, however, ultimately broke with -him. Considering his behavior towards allies, such rupture is not -at all surprising; but Herodotus ascribes it to the alarm which -Amasis conceived at the uninterrupted and superhuman good fortune of -Polykratês,—a degree of good fortune sure to draw down ultimately -corresponding intensity of suffering from the hands of the envious -gods. Indeed, Herodotus,—deeply penetrated with this belief in an -ever-present nemesis, which allows no man to be very happy, or long -happy, with impunity,—throws it into the form of an epistolary -warning from Amasis to Polykratês, advising him to inflict upon -himself some seasonable mischief or suffering; in order, if possible, -to avert the ultimate judgment,—to let blood in time, so that the -plethora of happiness might not end in apoplexy.[435] Pursuant to -such counsel, Polykratês threw into the sea a favorite ring, of -matchless price and beauty; but unfortunately, in a few days, the -ring reappeared in the belly of a fine fish, which a fisherman had -sent to him as a present. Amasis now foresaw that the final apoplexy -was inevitable, and broke off the alliance with Polykratês without -delay,—a well-known story, interesting as evidence of ancient belief, -and not less to be noted as showing the power of that belief to beget -fictitious details out of real characters, such as I have already -touched upon in the history of Solon and Crœsus, and elsewhere. - - [433] Herodot. iii, 120. - - [434] Herodot. iii, 39; Thucyd. i, 13. - - [435] Herodot. iii, 40-42. ... ἤν δὲ μὴ ἐναλλὰξ ἤδη τὠπὸ τούτου - αἱ εὐτυχίαι τοι τοιαύταισι πάθαισι προσπίπτωσι, τρόπῳ τῷ ἐξ ἐμεῦ - ὑποκειμένῳ ~ἀκέο~: compare vii, 203, and i, 32. - -The facts mentioned by Herodotus rather lead us to believe that it -was Polykratês, who, with characteristic faithlessness, broke off his -friendship with Amasis;[436] finding it suitable to his policy to -cultivate the alliance of Kambysês, when that prince was preparing -for his invasion of Egypt. In that invasion, the Ionic subjects of -Persia were called upon to serve, and Polykratês, deeming it a good -opportunity to rid himself of some Samian malcontents, sent to the -Persian king to tender auxiliaries from himself. Kambysês, having -eagerly caught at the prospect of aid from the first naval potentate -in the Ægean, forty Samian triremes were sent to the Nile, having on -board the suspected persons, as well as conveying a secret request to -the Persian king that they might never be suffered to return. Either -they never went to Egypt, however, or they found means to escape; -very contradictory stories had reached Herodotus. But they certainly -returned to Samos, attacked Polykratês at home, and were driven off -by his superior force without making any impression. Whereupon they -repaired to Sparta to entreat assistance.[437] - - [436] Herodot. iii, 44. - - [437] Herodot. iii, 44. - -We may here notice the gradually increasing tendency in the Grecian -world to recognize Sparta as something like a head, protector, or -referee, in cases either of foreign danger or internal dispute. The -earliest authentic instance known to us, of application to Sparta -in this character, is that of Crœsus against Cyrus: next, that of -the Ionic Greeks against the latter: the instance of the Samians now -before us, is the third. The important events connected with, and -consequent upon, the expulsion of the Peisistratidæ from Athens, -manifesting yet more formally the headship of Sparta, occur fifteen -years after the present event; they have been already recounted in -a previous chapter, and serve as a farther proof of progress in the -same direction. To watch the growth of these new political habits, is -essential to a right understanding of Grecian history. - -On reaching Sparta, the Samian exiles, borne down with despondency -and suffering, entered at large into the particulars of their case. -Their long speaking annoyed instead of moving the Spartans, who -said, or are made to say: “We have forgotten the first part of the -speech, and the last part is unintelligible to us.” Upon which the -Samians appeared the next day, simply with an empty wallet, saving: -“Our wallet has no meal in it.” “Your wallet is superfluous,” (said -the Spartans;) _i. e._ the words would have been sufficient without -it.[438] The aid which they implored was granted. - - [438] Herodot. iii, 46. τῷ θυλάκῳ περιείργασθαι. - -We are told that both the Lacedæmonians and the Corinthians,—who -joined them in the expedition now contemplated,—had separate -grounds of quarrel with the Samians,[439] which operated as a -more powerful motive than the simple desire to aid the suffering -exiles. But it rather seems that the subsequent Greeks generally -construed the Lacedæmonian interference against Polykratês as an -example of standing Spartan hatred against despots. Indeed, the only -facts which we know, to sustain this anti-despotic sentiment for -which the Lacedæmonians had credit, are, their proceedings against -Polykratês and Hippias; there may have been other analogous cases, -but we cannot specify them with certainty. However this may be, -a joint Lacedæmonian and Corinthian force accompanied the exiles -back to Samos, and assailed Polykratês in the city. They did their -best to capture it, for forty days, and were at one time on the -point of succeeding, but were finally obliged to retire without any -success. “The city would have been taken,” says Herodotus, “if all -the Lacedæmonians had acted like Archias and Lykôpas,”—who, pressing -closely upon the retreating Samians, were shut within the town-gates, -and perished. The historian had heard this exploit in personal -conversation with Archias, grandson of the person above mentioned, in -the deme Pitana at Sparta,—whose father had been named Samius, and -who respected the Samians above any other Greeks, because they had -bestowed upon the two brave warriors, slain within their town, an -honorable and public funeral.[440] It is rarely that Herodotus thus -specifies his informants: had he done so more frequently the value -as well as the interest of his history would have been materially -increased. - - [439] Herodot. iii, 47, 48, 52. - - [440] Herodot. iii, 54-56. - -On the retirement of the Lacedæmonian force, the Samian exiles were -left destitute; and looking out for some community to plunder, -weak as well as rich, they pitched upon the island of Siphnos. The -Siphnians of that day were the wealthiest islanders in the Ægean, -from the productiveness of their gold and silver mines,—the produce -of which was annually distributed among the citizens, reserving a -tithe for the Delphian temple.[441] Their treasure-chamber was among -the most richly furnished of which that holy place could boast, and -they themselves, probably, in these times of early prosperity, were -numbered among the most brilliant of the Ionic visitors at the Delian -festival. The Samians landing at Siphnos, demanded a contribution, -under the name of a loan, of ten talents: which being refused, they -proceeded to ravage the island, inflicting upon the inhabitants -a severe defeat, and ultimately extorting from them one hundred -talents. They next purchased from the inhabitants of Hermionê, in -the Argolic peninsula, the neighboring island of Hydrea, famous in -modern Greek warfare. But it appears that their plans must have been -subsequently changed, for, instead of occupying it, they placed it -under the care of the Trœzenians, and repaired themselves to Krete, -for the purpose of expelling the Zakynthian settlers at Kydônia. In -this they succeeded, and were induced to establish themselves in that -place. But after they had remained there five years, the Kretans -obtained naval aid from Ægina, whereby the place was recovered, and -the Samian intruders finally sold into slavery.[442] - - [441] Herodot. iii, 57. νησιωτέων μάλιστα ἐπλούτεον. - - [442] Herodot. iii, 58, 59. - -Such was the melancholy end of the enemies of Polykratês: meanwhile, -that despot himself was more powerful and prosperous than ever. -Samos, under him, was “the first of all cities, Hellenic or -barbaric:[443]” and the great works admired by Herodotus in the -island,[444]—an aqueduct for the city, tunnelled through a mountain -for the length of seven furlongs,—a mole to protect the harbor, two -furlongs long and twenty fathoms deep, and the vast temple of Hêrê, -may probably have been enlarged and completed, if not begun, by -him. Aristotle quotes the public works of Polykratês as instances of -the profound policy of despots, to occupy as well as to impoverish -their subjects.[445] The earliest of all Grecian thalassokrats, -or sea-kings,—master of the greatest naval force in the Ægean, as -well as of many among its islands,—he displayed his love of letters -by friendship to Anakreon, and his piety by consecrating to the -Delian Apollo[446] the neighboring island of Rhêneia. But while -thus outshining all his contemporaries, victorious over Sparta and -Corinth, and projecting farther aggrandizement, he was precipitated -on a sudden into the abyss of ruin;[447] and that too, as if to -demonstrate unequivocally the agency of the envious gods, not from -the revenge of any of his numerous victims, but from the gratuitous -malice of a stranger whom he had never wronged and never even seen. -The Persian satrap Orœtês, on the neighboring mainland, conceived -an implacable hatred against him: no one could tell why,—for he -had no design of attacking the island; and the trifling reasons -conjecturally assigned, only prove that the real reason, whatever it -might be, was unknown. Availing himself of the notorious ambition -and cupidity of Polykratês, Orœtês sent to Samos a messenger, -pretending that his life was menaced by Kambysês, and that he was -anxious to make his escape with his abundant treasures. He proposed -to Polykratês a share in this treasure, sufficient to make him master -of all Greece, as far as that object could be achieved by money, -provided the Samian prince would come over to convey him away. -Mæandrius, secretary of Polykratês, was sent over to Magnêsia on -the Mæander, to make inquiries; he there saw the satrap with eight -large coffers full of gold,—or rather apparently so, being in reality -full of stones, with a layer of gold at the top,[448]—tied up ready -for departure. The cupidity of Polykratês was not proof against so -rich a bait: he crossed over to Magnêsia with a considerable suite, -and thus came into the power of Orœtês, in spite of the warnings of -his prophets and the agony of his terrified daughter, to whom his -approaching fate had been revealed in a dream. The satrap slew him -and crucified his body; releasing all the Samians who accompanied -him, with an intimation that they ought to thank him for procuring -them a free government,—but retaining both the foreigners and the -slaves as prisoners.[449] The death of Orœtês himself, which ensued -shortly afterwards, has already been described. It is considered -by Herodotus as a judgment for his flagitious deed in the case of -Polykratês.[450] - - [443] Herodot. iii, 139. πολίων πασέων πρώτην Ἑλληνίδων καὶ - βαρβάρων. - - [444] Herodot. iii, 60. - - [445] Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 4. τῶν περὶ Σάμον ἔργα Πολυκράτεια· - πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα δύναται ταὐτὸν, ἀσχολίαν καὶ πενίαν τῶν ἀρχομένων. - - [446] Thucyd. i, 14; iii, 104. - - [447] Herodot. iii, 120. - - [448] Compare the trick of Hannibal at Gortyn in Krete,—Cornelius - Nepos (Hannibal, c. 9). - - [449] Herodot. iii, 124, 125. - - [450] Herodot. iii, 126. Ὀροίτεα Πολυκράτεος τίσιες μετῆλθον. - -At the departure of the latter from Samos, in anticipation of a -speedy return, Mæandrius had been left as his lieutenant at Samos; -and the unexpected catastrophe of Polykratês filled him with surprise -and consternation. Though possessed of the fortresses, the soldiers, -and the treasures, which had constituted the machinery of his -powerful master, he knew the risk of trying to employ them on his -own account. Partly from this apprehension, partly from the genuine -political morality which prevailed with more or less force in every -Grecian bosom, he resolved to lay down his authority and enfranchise -the island. “He wished (says the historian, in a remarkable -phrase)[451] to act like the justest of men; but he was not allowed -to do so.” His first proceeding was to erect in the suburbs an altar -in honor of Zeus Eleutherius, and to inclose a piece of ground as -a precinct, which still existed in the time of Herodotus: he next -convened an assembly of the Samians. “You know (says he) that the -whole power of Polykratês is now in my hands, nor is there anything -to hinder me from continuing to rule over you. Nevertheless, what -I condemn in another I will not do myself,—and I have always -disapproved of Polykratês, and others like him, for seeking to rule -over men as good as themselves. Now that Polykratês has come to the -end of his destiny, I at once lay down the command, and proclaim -among you equal law; reserving to myself as privileges, first, six -talents out of the treasures of Polykratês,—next, the hereditary -priesthood of Zeus Eleutherius for myself and my descendants forever. -To him I have just set apart a sacred precinct, as the God of that -freedom which I now hand over to you.” - - [451] Herodot. iii, 142. τῷ δικαιοτάτῳ ἀνδρῶν βουλομένῳ γενέσθαι, - οὐκ ἐξεγένετο. Compare his remark on Kadmus, who voluntarily - resigned the despotism at Kôs (vii, 164). - -This reasonable and generous proposition fully justifies the epithet -of Herodotus. But very differently was it received by the Samian -hearers. One of the chief men among them, Telesarchus, exclaimed, -with the applause of the rest, “_You_ rule us, low-born and scoundrel -as you are! you are not worthy to rule: don’t think of that, but give -us some account of the money which you have been handling.”[452] - - [452] Herodot. iii, 142. Ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἄξιος εἶ σύ γε ἡμέων ἄρχειν, - γεγονώς τε κακὸς, καὶ ἐὼν ὄλεθρος· ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὅκως λόγον δώσεις - τῶν ἐνεχείρισας χρημάτων. - -Such an unexpected reply caused a total revolution in the mind -of Mæandrius. It left him no choice but to maintain dominion at -all hazards,—which he accordingly resolved to do. Retiring into -the acropolis, under pretence of preparing his money-accounts for -examination, he sent for Telesarchus and his chief political enemies, -one by one,—intimating that they were open to inspection. As fast as -they arrived they were put in chains, while Mæandrius remained in -the acropolis, with his soldiers and his treasures, as the avowed -successor of Polykratês. And thus the Samians, after a short hour -of insane boastfulness, found themselves again enslaved. “It seemed -(says Herodotus) that they were not willing to be free.”[453] - - [453] Herodot. iii, 143. οὐ γὰρ δὴ, ὡς οἴκασι, ἐβουλέατο εἶναι - ἐλεύθεροι. - -We cannot but contrast their conduct on this occasion with that -of the Athenians about twelve years afterwards, on the expulsion -of Hippias, which has been recounted in a previous chapter. The -position of the Samians was far the more favorable of the two, for -the quiet and successful working of a free government; for they had -the advantage of a voluntary as well as a sincere resignation from -the actual despot. Yet the thirst for reactionary investigation -prevented them even from taking a reasonable estimate of their own -power of enforcing it: they passed at once from extreme subjection -to overbearing and ruinous rashness. Whereas the Athenians, under -circumstances far less promising, avoided the fatal mistake of -sacrificing the prospects of the future to recollections of the -past; showed themselves both anxious to acquire the rights, and -willing to perform the obligations, of a free community; listened -to wise counsels, maintained unanimous action, and overcame, by -heroic efforts, forces very greatly superior. If we compare the -reflections of Herodotus on the one case and on the other,[454] we -shall be struck with the difference which those reflections imply -between the Athenians and the Samians,—a difference partly referable, -doubtless, to the pure Hellenism of the former, contrasted with the -half-Asiatized Hellenism of the latter,—but also traceable in a great -degree to the preliminary lessons of the Solonian constitution, -overlaid, but not extinguished, during the despotism of the -Peisistratids which followed. - - [454] Herodot. v, 78, and iii, 142, 143. - -The events which succeeded in Samos are little better than a series -of crimes and calamities. The prisoners, whom Mæandrius had detained -in the acropolis, were slain during his dangerous illness, by his -brother Lykarêtus, under the idea that this would enable him more -easily to seize the sceptre. But Mæandrius recovered, and must have -continued as despot for a year or two: it was, however, a weak -despotism, contested more or less in the island, and very different -from the iron hand of Polykratês. In this untoward condition, the -Samians were surprised by the arrival of a new claimant for their -sceptre and acropolis,—and, what was much more formidable, a Persian -army to back him. - -Sylosôn, the brother of Polykratês, having taken part originally in -his brother’s conspiracy and usurpation, had been at first allowed -to share the fruits of it, but quickly found himself banished. In -this exile he remained during the whole life of Polykratês, and -until the accession of Darius to the Persian throne, which followed -about a year after the death of Polykratês. He happened to be at -Memphis, in Egypt, during the time when Kambysês was there with his -conquering army, and when Darius, then a Persian of little note, -was serving among his guards. Sylosôn was walking in the agora of -Memphis, wearing a scarlet cloak, to which Darius took a great -fancy, and proposed to buy it. A divine inspiration prompted Sylosôn -to reply,[455] “I cannot for any price sell it; but I give it you -for nothing, if it must be yours.” Darius thanked him, and accepted -the cloak; and for some years the donor accused himself of a silly -piece of good-nature.[456] But as events came round, Sylosôn at -length heard with surprise that the unknown Persian, whom he had -presented with the cloak at Memphis, was installed as king in the -palace at Susa. He went thither, proclaimed himself as a Greek, as -well as benefactor of the new king, and was admitted to the regal -presence. Darius had forgotten his person, but perfectly remembered -the adventure of the cloak, when it was brought to his mind,—and -showed himself forward to requite, on the scale becoming the Great -King, former favors, though small, rendered to the simple soldier -at Memphis. Gold and silver were tendered to Sylosôn in profusion, -but he rejected them,—requesting that the island of Samos might be -conquered and handed over to him, without slaughter or enslavement of -inhabitants. His request was complied with. Otanês, the originator -of the conspiracy against Smerdis, was sent down to the coast of -Ionia with an army, carried Sylosôn over to Samos, and landed him -unexpectedly on the island.[457] - - [455] Herodot. iii, 139. Ὁ δὲ Συλοσῶν, ὁρέων τὸν Δαρεῖον μεγάλως - ἐπιθυμέοντα τῆς χλάνιδος, θείῃ τύχῃ χρεώμενος, λέγει, etc. - - [456] Herodot. iii, 140. ἠπίστατό οἱ τοῦτο ἀπολωλέναι δι᾽ εὐηθίην. - - [457] Herodot. iii, 141-144. - -Mæandrius was in no condition to resist the invasion, nor were the -Samians generally disposed to sustain him. He accordingly concluded a -convention with Otanês, whereby he agreed to make way for Sylosôn, to -evacuate the island, and to admit the Persians at once into the city; -retaining possession, however—for such time as might be necessary -to embark his property and treasures—of the acropolis, which had a -separate landing-place, and even a subterranean passage and secret -portal for embarkation,—probably one of the precautionary provisions -of Polykratês. Otanês willingly granted these conditions, and -himself with his principal officers entered the town, the army being -quartered around; while Sylosôn seemed on the point of ascending the -seat of his deceased brother without violence or bloodshed. But the -Samians were destined to a fate more calamitous. Mæandrius had a -brother named Charilaus, violent in his temper, and half a madman, -whom he was obliged to keep in confinement. This man looking out -of his chamber-window, saw the Persian officers seated peaceably -throughout the town and even under the gates of the acropolis, -unguarded, and relying upon the convention: it seems that these were -the chief officers, whose rank gave them the privilege of being -carried about on their seats.[458] The sight inflamed both his wrath -and his insane ambition; he clamored for liberty and admission to his -brother, whom he reviled as a coward no less than a tyrant. “Here -are you, worthless man, keeping me, your own brother, in a dungeon, -though I have done no wrong worthy of bonds; while you do not dare -to take your revenge on the Persians, who are casting you out as a -houseless exile, and whom it would be so easy to put down. If you are -afraid of them, give me your guards; I will make the Persians repent -of their coming here, and I will send you safely out of the island -forthwith.”[459] - - [458] Herodot. iii, 146. τῶν Περσέων τοὺς διφροφορευμένους καὶ - λόγου πλείστου ἀξίους. - - [459] Herodot. iii, 145. Ἐμὲ μὲν, ὦ κάκιστε ἀνδρῶν, ἐόντα σεωϋτοῦ - ἀδελφεὸν, καὶ ἀδικήσαντα οὐδὲν ἄξιον δεσμοῦ, δήσας γοργύρης - ἠξίωσας· ὁρέων δὲ τοὺς Πέρσας ἐκβάλλοντάς τέ σε καὶ ἄνοικον - ποιεῦντας, οὐ τολμᾷς τίσασθαι, οὕτω δή τι ἐόντας εὐπετέας - χειρωθῆναι. - - The highly dramatic manner of Herodotus cannot be melted down - into smooth historical recital. - -Mæandrius, on the point of quitting Samos forever, had little -personal motive to care what became of the population. He had -probably never forgiven them for disappointing his honorable -intentions after the death of Polykratês, nor was he displeased to -hand over to Sylosôn an odious and blood-stained sceptre, which he -foresaw would be the only consequence of his brother’s mad project. -He therefore sailed away with his treasures, leaving the acropolis -to his brother Charilaus; who immediately armed the guards, sallied -forth from his fortress, and attacked the unsuspecting Persians. -Many of the great officers were slain without resistance before -the army could be got together; but at length Otanês collected his -troops and drove the assailants back into the acropolis. While he -immediately began the siege of that fortress, he also resolved, as -Mæandrius had foreseen, to take a signal revenge for the treacherous -slaughter of so many of his friends and companions. His army, no -less incensed than himself, were directed to fall upon the Samian -people and massacre them without discrimination,—man and boy, on -ground sacred as well as profane. The bloody order was too faithfully -executed, and Samos was handed over to Sylosôn, stripped of its male -inhabitants.[460] Of Charilaus and the acropolis we hear no farther, -perhaps he and his guards may have escaped by sea. Lykarêtus,[461] -the other brother of Mæandrius, must have remained either in the -service of Sylosôn or in that of the Persians; for we find him some -years afterwards intrusted by the latter with an important command. - - [460] Herodot. iii, 149. ἔρημον ἐοῦσαν ἀνδρῶν. - - [461] Herodot. v, 27. - -Sylosôn was thus finally installed as despot of an island peopled -chiefly, if not wholly, with women and children: we may, however, -presume, that the deed of blood has been described by the historian -as more sweeping than it really was. It seems, nevertheless, to have -sat heavily on the conscience of Otanês, who was induced sometime -afterwards, by a dream and by a painful disease, to take measures -for repeopling the island.[462] From whence the new population came, -we are not told: but wholesale translations of inhabitants from one -place to another were familiar to the mind of a Persian king or -satrap. - - [462] Herodot. iii, 148. - -Mæandrius, following the example of the previous Samian exiles -under Polykratês, went to Sparta and sought aid for the purpose -of reëstablishing himself at Samos. But the Lacedæmonians had no -disposition to repeat an attempt which had before turned out so -unsuccessfully, nor could he seduce king Kleomenês by the display of -his treasures and finely-wrought gold plate. The king, however, not -without fear that such seductions might win over some of the Spartan -leading men, prevailed with the ephors to send Mæandrius away.[463] - - [463] Herodot. iii, 149. - -Sylosôn seems to have remained undisturbed at Samos, as a tributary -of Persia, like the Ionic cities on the continent: some years -afterwards we find his son Æakês reigning in the island.[464] -Strabo states that it was the harsh rule of Sylosôn which caused -the depopulation of the island. But the cause just recounted out -of Herodotus is both very different and sufficiently plausible in -itself; and as Strabo seems in the main to have derived his account -from Herodotus, we may suppose that on this point he has incorrectly -remembered his authority.[465] - - [464] Herodot. vi, 13. - - [465] Strabo, xiv, p. 638. He gives a proverbial phrase about the - depopulation of the island— - - Ἕκητι Συλοσῶντος εὐρυχορίη, - - which is perfectly consistent with the narrative of Herodotus. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXIV. - -DEMOKEDES. — DARIUS INVADES SCYTHIA. - - -Darius had now acquired full authority throughout the Persian empire, -having put down the refractory satrap Orœtês, as well as the revolted -Medes and Babylonians. He had, moreover, completed the conquest of -Ionia, by the important addition of Samos; and his dominion thus -comprised all Asia Minor, with its neighboring islands. But this -was not sufficient for the ambition of a Persian king, next but one -in succession to the great Cyrus. The conquering impulse was yet -unabated among the Persians, who thought it incumbent upon their -king, and whose king thought it incumbent upon himself, to extend the -limits of the empire. Though not of the lineage of Cyrus, Darius had -taken pains to connect himself with it by marriage; he had married -Atossa and Artystonê, daughters of Cyrus,—and Parmys, daughter of -Smerdis, the younger son of Cyrus. Atossa had been first the wife of -her brother Kambysês; next, of the Magian Smerdis, his successor; -and thirdly of Darius, to whom she bore four children.[466] Of those -children the eldest was Xerxês, respecting whom more will be said -hereafter. - - [466] Herodot. iii, 88; vii, 2. - -Atossa, mother of the only Persian king who ever set foot in Greece, -the Sultana Validi of Persia during the reign of Xerxês, was a person -of commanding influence in the reign of her last husband,[467] as -well as in that of her son, and filled no inconsiderable space even -in Grecian imagination, as we may see both by Æschylus and Herodotus. -Had her influence prevailed, the first conquering appetites of Darius -would have been directed, not against the steppes of Scythia, but -against Attica and Peloponnesus; at least, so Herodotus assures us. -The grand object of the latter in his history is to set forth the -contentions of Hellas with the barbarians or non-Hellenic world; -and with an art truly epical, which manifests itself everywhere -to the careful reader of his nine books, he preludes to the real -dangers which were averted at Marathon and Platæa, by recounting the -first conception of an invasion of Greece by the Persians,—how it -originated, and how it was abandoned. For this purpose,—according -to his historical style, wherein general facts are set forth as -subordinate and explanatory accompaniments to the adventures of -particular persons,—he give us the interesting, but romantic, history -of the Krotoniate surgeon Dêmokêdês. - - [467] Herodot. vii, 3. ἡ γὰρ Ἄτοσσα εἶχε τὸ πᾶν κράτος. Compare - the description given of the ascendency of the savage Sultana - Parysatis over her son Artaxerxês Mnêmon (Plutarch, Artaxerxês, - c. 16, 19, 23). - -Dêmokêdês, son of a citizen of Krotôn named Kalliphôn, had turned -his attention in early youth to the study and practice of medicine -and surgery (for that age, we can make no difference between the -two), and had made considerable progress in it. His youth coincides -nearly with the arrival of Pythagoras at Krotôn, (550-520,) where the -science of the surgeon, as well as the art of the gymnastic trainer, -seem to have been then prosecuted more actively than in any part -of Greece. His father Kalliphôn, however, was a man of such severe -temper, that the son ran away from him, and resolved to maintain -himself by his talents elsewhere. He went to Ægina, and began to -practice in his profession; and so rapid was his success, even in his -first year,—though very imperfectly equipped with instruments and -apparatus,[468]—that the citizens of the island made a contract with -him to remain there for one year, at a salary of one talent (about -three hundred and eighty-three pounds sterling, an Æginæan talent). -The year afterwards he was invited to come to Athens, then under the -Peisistratids, at a salary of one hundred minæ, or one and two-thirds -of a talent; and in the following year, Polykratês of Samos tempted -him by the offer of two talents. With that despot he remained, and -accompanied him in his last calamitous visit to the satrap Orœtês: on -the murder of Polykratês, being seized among the slaves and foreign -attendants, he was left to languish with the rest in imprisonment and -neglect. When again, soon after, Orœtês himself was slain, Dêmokêdês -was numbered among his slaves and chattels and sent up to Susa. - - [468] Herodot. iii, 131. ἀσκευής περ ἐὼν, καὶ ἔχων οὐδὲν τῶν - ὅσα περὶ τὴν τέχνην ἔστιν ἐργαλήϊα,—the description refers to - surgical rather than to medical practice. - - That curious assemblage of the cases of particular patients - with remarks, known in the works of Hippokratês, under the - title Ἐπιδήμιαι (Notes of visits to different cities), is very - illustrative of what Herodotus here mentions about Dêmokêdês. - Consult, also, the valuable Prolegomena of M. Littré, in his - edition of Hippokratês now in course of publication, as to - the character, means of action, and itinerant habits of the - Grecian ἰατροί: see particularly the preface to vol. v, p. 12, - where he enumerates the various places visited and noted by - Hippokratês. The greater number of the Hippokratic observations - refer to various parts of Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly; but - there are some, also, which refer to patients in the islands of - Syros and Delos, at Athens, Salamis, Elis, Corinth, and Œniadæ - in Akarnania. “On voit par là combien étoit juste le nom de - Periodeutes ou voyageurs donnés à ces anciens médecins.” - - Again, M. Littré, in the same preface, p. 25, illustrates - the proceedings and residence of the ancient ἰατρός: “On se - tromperoit si on se représentoit la demeure d’un médecin d’alors - comme celle d’un médecin d’aujourd’hui. La maison du médecin - de l’antiquité, du moins au temps d’Hippocrate et aux époques - voisines, renfermoit un local destiné à la pratique d’un grand - nombre d’opérations, contenant les machines et les instrumens - nécessaires, et de plus étant aussi une boutique de pharmacie. - Ce local se nommait ἰατρεῖον.” See Plato, Legg. i, p. 646, iv, - p. 720. Timæus accused Aristotle of having begun as a surgeon, - practising to great profit in surgery, or ἰατρεῖον, and having - quitted this occupation late in life, to devote himself to the - study of science,—σοφιστὴν ὀψιμαθῆ καὶ μισητὸν ὑπάρχοντα, καὶ τὸ - πολυτίμητον ἰατρεῖον ἀρτίως ἀποκεκλεικότα (Polyb. xii, 9). - - See, also, the Remarques Retrospectives attached by M. Littré - to volume iv, of the same work (pp. 654-658), where he dwells - upon the intimate union of surgical and medical practice in - antiquity. At the same time, it must be remarked that a passage - in the remarkable medical oath, published in the collection of - Hippokratic treatises, recognizes in the plainest manner the - distinction between the physician and the operator,—the former - binds himself by this oath not to perform the operation “even - of lithotomy, but to leave it to the operators, or workmen:” - Οὐ τεμέω δὲ οὐδὲ μὴν λιθιῶντας, ἐκχωρήσω δὲ ἐργάστῃσιν ἀνδράσι - πρήξιος τῆσδε (Œuvres d’Hippocrate, vol. iv, p. 630, ed. Littré). - M. Littré (p. 617) contests this explanation, remarking that the - various Hippokratic treatises represent the ἰατρός as performing - all sorts of operations, even such as require violent and - mechanical dealing. But the words of the oath are so explicit, - that it seems more reasonable to assign to the oath itself a - later date than the treatises, when the habits of practitioners - may have changed. - -He had not been long at that capital, when Darius, leaping from his -horse in the chase, sprained his foot badly, and was carried home -in violent pain. The Egyptian surgeons, supposed to be the first -men in their profession,[469] whom he habitually employed, did -him no good, but only aggravated his torture; for seven days and -nights he had no sleep, and he as well as those around him began to -despair. At length, some one who had been at Sardis, accidentally -recollected that he had heard of a Greek surgeon among the slaves -of Orœtês: search was immediately made, and the miserable slave -was brought, in chains as well as in rags,[470] into the presence -of the royal sufferer. Being asked whether he understood surgery, -he affected ignorance; but Darius, suspecting this to be a mere -artifice, ordered out the scourge and the pricking instrument, to -overcome it. Dêmokêdês now saw that there was no resource, admitted -that he had acquired some little skill, and was called upon to do his -utmost in the case before him. He was fortunate enough to succeed -perfectly, in alleviating the pain, in procuring sleep for the -exhausted patient, and ultimately in restoring the foot to a sound -state. Darius, who had abandoned all hopes of such a cure, knew no -bounds to his gratitude. As a first reward, he presented him with -two sets of chains in solid gold,—a commemoration of the state in -which Dêmokêdês had first come before him,—he next sent him into the -harem to visit his wives. The conducting eunuchs introduced him as -the man who had restored the king to life, and the grateful sultanas -each gave to him a saucer full of golden coins called staters;[471] -in all so numerous, that the slave Skitôn, who followed him, was -enriched by merely picking up the pieces which dropped on the floor. -Nor was this all. Darius gave him a splendid house and furniture, -made him the companion of his table, and showed him every description -of favor. He was about to crucify the Egyptian surgeons who had been -so unsuccessful in their attempts to cure him; but Dêmokêdês had -the happiness of preserving their lives, as well as of rescuing an -unfortunate companion of his imprisonment,—an Eleian prophet, who had -followed the fortunes of Polykratês. - - [469] About the Persian habit of sending to Egypt for surgeons, - compare Herodot. iii, 1. - - [470] Herodot iii, 129. τὸν δὲ ὡς ἐξεῦρον ἐν τοῖσι Ὀροίτεω - ἀνδραπόδοισι ὅκου δὴ ἀπημελημένον, παρῆγον ἐς μέσον, πέδας τε - ἕλκοντα καὶ ῥάκεσιν ἐσθημένον. - - [471] Herodot. iii, 130. The golden stater was equal to about - 1_l._ 1_s._ 3_d._ English money (Hussey, Ancient Weights, vii, 3, - p. 103). - - The ladies in a Persian harem appear to have been less - unapproachable and invisible than those in modern Turkey; in - spite of the observation of Plutarch, Artaxerxês, c. 27. - -But there was one favor which Darius would on no account grant; yet -upon this one Dêmokêdês had set his heart,—the liberty of returning -to Greece. At length accident, combined with his own surgical skill, -enabled him to escape from the splendor of his second detention, as -it had before extricated him from the misery of the first. A tumor -formed upon the breast of Atossa; at first, she said nothing to any -one, but as it became too bad for concealment, she was forced to -consult Dêmokêdês. He promised to cure her, but required from her -a solemn oath that she would afterwards do for him anything which -he should ask,—pledging himself at the same time to ask nothing -indecent.[472] The cure was successful, and Atossa was required to -repay it by procuring his liberty. He knew that the favor would -be refused, even to her, if directly solicited, but he taught her -a stratagem for obtaining under false pretences the consent of -Darius. She took an early opportunity, Herodotus tells us,[473] in -bed, of reminding Darius that the Persians expected from him some -positive addition to the power and splendor of the empire; and when -Darius, in answer, acquainted her that he contemplated a speedy -expedition against the Scythians, she entreated him to postpone it, -and to turn his forces first against Greece: “I have heard (she -said) about the maidens of Sparta, Athens, Argos, and Corinth, and -I want to have some of them as slaves to serve me—(we may conceive -the smile of triumph with which the sons of those who had conquered -at Platæa and Salamis would hear this part of the history read by -Herodotus);—you have near you the best person possible to give -information about Greece,—that Greek who cured your foot.” Darius -was induced by this request to send some confidential Persians into -Greece to procure information, along with Dêmokêdês. Selecting -fifteen of them, he ordered them to survey the coasts and cities -of Greece, under guidance of Dêmokêdês, but with peremptory orders -upon no account to let him escape or to return without him. He next -sent for Dêmokêdês himself, explained to him what he wanted, and -enjoined him imperatively to return as soon as the business had been -completed; he farther desired him to carry away with him all the -ample donations which he had already received, as presents to his -father and brothers, promising that on his return fresh donations -of equal value should make up the loss: lastly, he directed that a -storeship, “filled with all manner of good things,” should accompany -the voyage. Dêmokêdês undertook the mission with every appearance of -sincerity. The better to play his part, he declined to take away what -he already possessed at Susa,—saying, that he should like to find his -property and furniture again on coming back, and that the storeship -alone, with its contents, would be sufficient both for the voyage and -for all necessary presents. - - [472] Herodot. iii, 133. δεήσεσθαι δὲ οὐδενὸς τῶν ὅσα αἰσχύνην - ἐστὶ φέροντα. Another Greek physician at the court of Susa, about - seventy years afterwards,—Apollonidês of Kôs,—in attendance on a - Persian princess, did not impose upon himself the same restraint: - his intrigue was divulged, and he was put to death miserably - (Ktêsias, Persica, c. 42). - - [473] Herodot. iii, 134. - -Accordingly, he and the fifteen Persian envoys went down to Sidon -in Phenicia, where two armed triremes were equipped, with a large -storeship in company; and the voyage of survey into Greece was -commenced. They visited and examined all the principal places in -Greece,—probably beginning with the Asiatic and insular Greeks, -crossing to Eubœa, circumnavigating Attica and Peloponnesus, then -passing to Korkyra and Italy. They surveyed the coasts and cities, -taking memoranda[474] of everything worthy of note which they saw: -this Periplûs, if it had been preserved, would have been inestimable, -as an account of the actual state of the Grecian world about 518 -B. C. As soon as they arrived at Tarentum, Dêmokêdês—now within -a short distance of his own home, Krotôn—found an opportunity of -executing what he had meditated from the beginning. At his request -Aristophilidês, the king of Tarentum, seized the fifteen Persians, -and detained them as spies, at the same time taking the rudders -from off their ships,—while Dêmokêdês himself made his escape to -Krotôn. As soon as he had arrived there, Aristophilidês released the -Persians, and suffered them to pursue their voyage: they went on to -Krotôn, found Dêmokêdês in the market-place, and laid hands upon him. -But his fellow-citizens released him, not without opposition from -some who were afraid of provoking the Great King, and in spite of -remonstrances, energetic and menacing, from the Persians themselves: -indeed, the Krotôniates not only protected the restored exile, but -even robbed the Persians of their storeship. The latter, disabled -from proceeding farther, as well by this loss as by the secession -of Dêmokêdês, commenced their voyage homeward, but unfortunately -suffered shipwreck near the Iapygian cape, and became slaves in -that neighborhood. A Tarentine exile, named Gillus, ransomed them -and carried them up to Susa,—a service for which Darius promised -him any recompense that he chose. Restoration to his native city -was all that Gillus asked; and that too, not by force, but by the -mediation of the Asiatic Greeks of Knidus, who were on terms of -intimate alliance with the Tarentines. This generous citizen,—an -honorable contrast to Dêmokêdês, who had not scrupled to impel the -stream of Persian conquest against his country, in order to procure -his own release,—was unfortunately disappointed of his anticipated -recompense. For though the Knidians, at the injunction of Darius, -employed all their influence at Tarentum to procure a revocation -of the sentence of exile, they were unable to succeed, and force -was out of the question.[475] The last words addressed by Dêmokêdês -at parting to his Persian companions, exhorted them to acquaint -Darius that he (Dêmokêdês) was about to marry the daughter of the -Krotoniate Milo,—one of the first men in Krotôn, as well as the -greatest wrestler of his time. The reputation of Milo was very great -with Darius,—probably from the talk of Dêmokêdês himself: moreover, -gigantic muscular force could be appreciated by men who had no relish -either for Homer or Solon. And thus did this clever and vainglorious -Greek, sending back his fifteen Persian companions to disgrace, and -perhaps to death, deposit in their parting ears a braggart message, -calculated to create for himself a factitious name at Susa. He paid -a large sum to Milo as the price of his daughter, for this very -purpose.[476] - - [474] Herodot. iii, 136. προσίσχοντες δὲ αὐτῆς τὰ παραθαλάσσια - ἐθήσαντο καὶ ἀπεγράφοντο. - - [475] Herodot. iii, 137, 138. - - [476] Herodot. iii, 137. κατὰ δὴ τοῦτό μοι σπεῦσαι δοκέει τὸν - γάμον τοῦτον τελέσας χρήματα μεγάλα Δημοκήδης, ἵνα φανῇ πρὸς - Δαρείου ἐὼν καὶ ἐν τῇ ἑωϋτοῦ δόκιμος. - -Thus finishes the history of Dêmokêdês, and of the “first Persians -(to use the phrase of Herodotus) who ever came over from Asia into -Greece.”[477] It is a history well deserving of attention, even -looking only to the liveliness of the incidents, introducing us as -they do into the full movement of the ancient world,—incidents which -I see no reason for doubting, with a reasonable allowance for the -dramatic amplification of the historian. Even at that early date, -Greek medical intelligence stands out in a surpassing manner, and -Dêmokêdês is the first of those many able Greek surgeons who were -seized, carried up to Susa,[478] and there detained for the Great -King, his court, and harem. - - [477] Herodot. iii, 138. - - [478] Xenophon, Memorab. iv, 2, 33. Ἄλλους δὲ πόσους οἴει (says - Sokratês) διὰ σοφίαν ἀναρπάστους πρὸς βασιλέα γεγονέναι, καὶ ἐκεῖ - δουλεύειν; - - We shall run little risk in conjecturing that, among the - intelligent and able men thus carried off, surgeons and - physicians would be selected as the first and most essential. - - Apollônidês of Kôs—whose calamitous end has been alluded to in - a previous note—was resident as surgeon, or physician, with - Artaxerxês Longimanus (Ktêsias, Persica, c. 30), and Polykritus - of Mendê, as well as Ktêsias himself, with Artaxerxês Mnêmon - (Plutarch, Artaxerxês, c. 31). - -But his history suggests, in another point of view, far more serious -reflections. Like the Milesian Histiæus (of whom I shall speak -hereafter,) he cared not what amount of risk he brought upon his -country in order to procure his own escape from a splendid detention -at Susa. And the influence which he originated and brought to bear -was on the point of precipitating upon Greece the whole force of -the Persian empire, at a time when Greece was in no condition to -resist it. Had the first aggressive expedition of Darius, with his -own personal command and fresh appetite for conquest, been directed -against Greece instead of against Scythia (between 516-514 B. C.), -Grecian independence would have perished almost infallibly. For -Athens was then still governed by the Peisistratids; what she was, -under them, we have had occasion to notice in a former chapter. -She had then no courage for energetic self-defence, and probably -Hippias himself, far from offering resistance, would have found it -advantageous to accept Persian dominion as a means of strengthening -his own rule, like the Ionian despots: moreover, Grecian habit of -coöperation was then only just commencing. But fortunately, the -Persian invader did not touch the shore of Greece until more than -twenty years afterwards, in 490 B. C.; and during that precious -interval, the Athenian character had undergone the memorable -revolution which has been before described. Their energy and their -organization had been alike improved, and their force of resistance -had become decupled; moreover, their conduct had so provoked the -Persian that resistance was then a matter of necessity with them, -and submission on tolerable terms an impossibility. When we come -to the grand Persian invasion of Greece, we shall see that Athens -was the life and soul of all the opposition offered. We shall see -farther, that with all the efforts of Athens, the success of the -defence was more than once doubtful; and would have been converted -into a very different result, if Xerxês had listened to the best of -his own counsellors. But had Darius, at the head of the very same -force which he conducted into Scythia, or even an inferior force, -landed at Marathon in 514 B. C., instead of sending Datis in 490 B. -C.,—he would have found no men like the victors of Marathon to meet -him. As far as we can appreciate the probabilities, he would have met -with little resistance except from the Spartans singly, who would -have maintained their own very defensible territory against all his -efforts,—like the Mysians and Pisidians in Asia Minor, or like the -Mainots of Laconia in later days; but Hellas generally would have -become a Persian satrapy. Fortunately, Darius, while bent on invading -some country, had set his mind on the attack of Scythia, alike -perilous and unprofitable. His personal ardor was wasted on those -unconquerable regions, where he narrowly escaped the disastrous fate -of Cyrus,—nor did he ever pay a second visit to the coasts of the -Ægean. Yet the amorous influences of Atossa, set at work by Dêmokêdês -might well have been sufficiently powerful to induce Darius to assail -Greece instead of Scythia,—a choice in favor of which all other -recommendations concurred; and the history of free Greece would then -probably have stopped at this point, without unrolling any of the -glories which followed. So incalculably great has been the influence -of Grecian development, during the two centuries between 500-300 B. -C., on the destinies of mankind, that we cannot pass without notice a -contingency which threatened to arrest that development in the bud. -Indeed, it may be remarked that the history of any nation, considered -as a sequence of causes and effects, affording applicable knowledge, -requires us to study not merely real events, but also imminent -contingencies,—events which were on the point of occurring, but yet -did not occur. When we read the wailings of Atossa in the Persæ of -Æschylus, for the humiliation which her son Xerxês had just undergone -in his flight from Greece,[479] we do not easily persuade ourselves -to reverse the picture, and to conceive the same Atossa twenty years -earlier, numbering as her slaves at Susa the noblest Hêrakleid and -Alkmæônid maidens from Greece. Yet the picture would really have -been thus reversed,—the wish of Atossa would have been fulfilled, -and the wailings would have been heard from enslaved Greek maidens -in Persia,—if the mind of Darius had not happened to be preoccupied -with a project not less insane even than those of Kambysês against -Ethiopia and the Libyan desert. Such at least is the moral of the -story of Dêmokêdês. - - [479] Æschyl. Pers. 435-845, etc. - -That insane expedition across the Danube into Scythia comes now -to be recounted. It was undertaken by Darius for the purpose of -avenging the inroad and devastation of the Scythians in Media and -Upper Asia, about a century before. The lust of conquest imparted -unusual force to this sentiment of wounded dignity, which in the -case of the Scythians could hardly be connected with any expectation -of plunder or profit. In spite of the dissuading admonition of his -brother Artabanus,[480] Darius summoned the whole force of his -empire, army and navy, to the Thracian Bosphorus,—a force not less -than seven hundred thousand horse and foot, and six hundred ships, -according to Herodotus. On these prodigious numbers we can lay no -stress. But it appears that the names of all the various nations -composing the host were inscribed on two pillars, erected by order -of Darius on the European side of the Bosphorus, and afterwards seen -by Herodotus himself in the city of Byzantium,—the inscriptions -were bilingual, in Assyrian characters as well as Greek. The Samian -architect Mandroklês had been directed to throw a bridge of boats -across the Bosphorus, about half-way between Byzantium and the mouth -of the Euxine. So peremptory were the Persian kings that their orders -for military service should be punctually obeyed, and so impatient -were they of the idea of exemptions, that when a Persian father named -Œobazus entreated that one of his three sons, all included in the -conscription, might be left at home, Darius replied that all three of -them should be left at home,—an answer which the unsuspecting father -heard with delight. They were indeed all left at home,—for they were -all put to death.[481] A proceeding similar to this is ascribed -afterwards to Xerxês;[482] whether true or not as matters of fact, -both tales illustrate the wrathful displeasure with which the Persian -kings were known to receive such petitions for exemption. - - [480] Herodot. iv, 1, 83. There is nothing to mark the precise - year of the Scythian expedition; but as the accession of Darius - is fixed to 521 B. C., and as the expedition is connected with - the early part of his reign, we may conceive him to have entered - upon it as soon as his hands were free; that is, as soon as he - had put down the revolted satraps and provinces, Orœtês, the - Medes, Babylonians, etc. Five years seems a reasonable time to - allow for these necessities of the empire, which would bring - the Scythian expedition to 516-515 B. C. There is reason for - supposing it to have been before 514 B. C., for in that year - Hipparchus was slain at Athens, and Hippias the surviving - brother, looking out for securities and alliances abroad, gave - his daughter in marriage to Æantidês son of Hippoklus, despot - of Lampsakus, “perceiving that Hippoklus and his son had great - influence with Darius,” (Thucyd. vi, 59.) Now Hippoklus could - not well have acquired this influence _before_ the Scythian - expedition; for Darius came down then for the first time to the - western sea; Hippoklus served upon that expedition (Herodot. iv, - 138), and it was probably then that his favor was acquired, and - farther confirmed during the time that Darius stayed at Sardis - after his return from Scythia. - - Professor Schultz (Beiträge zu genaueren Zeitbestimmungen der - Hellen. Geschicht. von der 63n bis zur 72n Olympiade, p. 168, in - the Kieler Philolog. Studien) places the expedition in 513 B. - C.; but I think a year or two earlier is more probable. Larcher, - Wesseling, and Bähr (ad Herodot. iv, 145) place it in 508 B. C., - which is later than the truth; indeed, Larcher himself places the - reduction of Lemnos and Imbros by Otanês in 511 B. C., though - that event decidedly came after the Scythian expedition (Herodot. - v, 27; Larcher, Table Chronologique, Trad. d’Hérodot. t. vii, pp. - 633-635). - - [481] Herodot. iv, 84. - - [482] Herodot. vii, 39. - -The naval force of Darius seems to have consisted entirely of subject -Greeks, Asiatic and insular; for the Phenician fleet was not brought -into the Ægean until the subsequent Ionic revolt. At this time all -or most of the Asiatic Greek cities were under despots, who leaned -on the Persian government for support, and who appeared with their -respective contingents to take part in the Scythian expedition.[483] -Of Ionic Greeks were seen,—Strattis, despot of Chios; Æakês son -of Sylosôn, despot of Samos; Laodamas, of Phôkæa; and Histiæus, -of Milêtus. From the Æolic towns, Aristagoras of Kymê; from the -Hellespontine Greeks, Daphnis of Abydus, Hippoklus of Lampsakus, -Hêrophantus of Parium, Metrodôrus of Prokonnêsus, Aristagoras of -Kyzikus, and Miltiadês of the Thracian Chersonese. All these are -mentioned, and there were probably more. This large fleet, assembled -at the Bosphorus, was sent forward into the Euxine to the mouth of -the Danube,—with orders to sail up the river two days’ journey, -above the point where its channel begins to divide, and to throw a -bridge of boats over it; while Darius, having liberally recompensed -the architect Mandroklês, crossed the bridge over the Bosphorus, -and began his march through Thrace, receiving the submission of -various Thracian tribes in his way, and subduing others,—especially -the Getæ north of Mount Hæmus, who were compelled to increase still -farther the numbers of his vast army.[484] On arriving at the Danube, -he found the bridge finished and prepared for his passage by the -Ionians: we may remark here, as on so many other occasions, that all -operations requiring intelligence are performed for the Persians -either by Greeks or by Phenicians,—more usually by the former. He -crossed this greatest of all earthly rivers,[485]—for so the Danube -was imagined to be in the fifth century B. C.,—and directed his march -into Scythia. - - [483] Herodot. iv, 97, 137, 138. - - [484] Herodot. iv, 89-93. - - [485] Herod. iv, 48-50. Ἴστρος—μέγιστος ποταμῶν πάντων τῶν ἡμεῖς - ἴδμεν, etc. - -As far as the point now attained, our narrative runs smoothly and -intelligibly: we know that Darius marched his army into Scythia, -and that he came back with ignominy and severe loss. But as to all -which happened between his crossing and recrossing the Danube, -we find nothing approaching to authentic statement,—nothing even -which we can set forth as the probable basis of truth on which -exaggerating fancy has been at work. All is inexplicable mystery. -Ktêsias indeed says that Darius marched for fifteen days into the -Scythian territory,—that he then exchanged bows with the king of -Scythia, and discovered the Scythian bow to be the largest,—and that, -being intimidated by such discovery, he fled back to the bridge by -which he had crossed the Danube, and recrossed the river with the -loss of one-tenth part of his army,[486] being compelled to break -down the bridge before all had passed. The length of march is here -the only thing distinctly stated; about the direction nothing is -said. But the narrative of Ktêsias, defective as it is, is much -less perplexing than that of Herodotus, who conducts the immense -host of Darius as it were through fairy-land,—heedless of distance, -large intervening rivers, want of all cultivation or supplies, -destruction of the country—in so far as it could be destroyed—by -the retreating Scythians, etc. He tells us that the Persian army -consisted chiefly of foot,—that there were no roads nor agriculture; -yet his narrative carries it over about twelve degrees of longitude -from the Danube to the country east of the Tanais, across the rivers -Tyras (Dniester), Hypanis (Bog), Borysthenês (Dnieper), Hypakyris. -Gerrhos, and Tanais.[487] How these rivers could have been passed in -the face of enemies by so vast a host, we are left to conjecture, -since it was not winter time, to convert them into ice: nor does -the historian even allude to them as having been crossed either in -the advance or in the retreat. What is not less remarkable is, that -in respect to the Greek settlement of Olbia, or Borysthenês, and -the agricultural Scythians and Mix-hellenes between the Hypanis and -the Borysthenês, across whose country it would seem that this march -of Darius must have carried him,—Herodotus does not say anything; -though we should have expected that he would have had better means of -informing himself about this part of the march than about any other, -and though the Persians could hardly have failed to plunder or put in -requisition this, the only productive portion of Scythia. - - [486] Ktêsias, Persica. c. 17. Justin (ii, 5—compare also - xxxviii, 7) seems to follow the narrative of Ktêsias. - - Æschylus (Persæ. 864), who presents the deceased Darius as a - glorious contrast with the living Xerxês, talks of the splendid - conquests which he made by means of others,—“without crossing the - Halys himself, nor leaving his home.” We are led to suppose, by - the language which Æschylus puts into the mouth of the Eidôlon of - Darius (v, 720-745), that he had forgotten, or had never heard - of, the bridge thrown across the Bosphorus by order of Darius; - for the latter is made to condemn severely the impious insolence - of Xerxês in bridging over the Hellespont. - - [487] Herodot. iv, 136. ἅτε δὲ τοῦ Περσικοῦ πολλοῦ ἐόντος πεζοῦ - στρατοῦ, καὶ τὰς ὁδοὺς οὐκ ἐπισταμένου, ὥστε οὐ τετμημένων - τῶν ὁδῶν, τοῦ δὲ Σκυθικοῦ, ἱππότεω, καὶ τὰ σύντομα τῆς ὁδοῦ - ἐπισταμένου, etc. Compare c. 128. - - The number and size of the rivers are mentioned by Herodotus as - the principal wonder of Scythia, c. 82—Θωϋμάσια δὲ ἡ χώρη αὐτὴ - οὐκ ἔχει, χωρὶς ἢ ὅτι ποτάμους τε πολλῷ μεγίστους καὶ ἀριθμὸν - πλείστους, etc. He ranks the Borysthenês as the largest of all - rivers except the Nile and the Danube (c. 53). The Hypanis also - (Bog) is ποταμὸς ἐν ὀλίγοισι μέγας (c. 52). - - But he appears to forget the existence of these rivers when he is - describing the Persian march. - -The narrative of Herodotus in regard to the Persian march north of -the Ister seems indeed destitute of all the conditions of reality. -It is rather an imaginative description, illustrating the desperate -and impracticable character of Scythian warfare, and grouping in -the same picture, according to that large sweep of the imagination -which is admissible in epical treatment, the Scythians, with all -their barbarous neighbors from the Carpathian mountains to the river -Wolga. The Agathyrsi, the Neuri, the Androphagi, the Melanchlæni, -the Budini, the Gelôni, the Sarmatians, and the Tauri,—all of them -bordering on that vast quadrangular area of four thousand stadia -for each side, called Scythia, as Herodotus conceives it,[488]—are -brought into deliberation and action in consequence of the Persian -approach. And Herodotus takes that opportunity of communicating -valuable particulars respecting the habits and manners of each. The -kings of these nations discuss whether Darius is justified in his -invasion, and whether it be prudent in them to aid the Scythians. -The latter question is decided in the affirmative by the Sarmatians, -the Budini, and the Gelôni, all eastward of the Tanais,[489]—in the -negative by the rest. The Scythians, removing their wagons with -their wives and children out of the way northward, retreat and draw -Darius after them from the Danube all across Scythia and Sarmatia -to the north-eastern extremity of the territory of the Budini,[490] -several days’ journey eastward of the Tanais. Moreover, they destroy -the wells and ruin the herbage as much as they can, so that during -all this long march, says Herodotus, the Persians “found nothing to -damage, inasmuch as the country was barren;” it is therefore not easy -to see what they could find to live upon. It is in the territory -of the Budini, at this easternmost terminus on the borders of the -desert, that the Persians perform the only positive acts which are -ascribed to them throughout the whole expedition. They burn the -wooden wall before occupied, but now deserted, by the Gelôni, and -they build, or begin to build, eight large fortresses near the river -Oarus. For what purpose these fortresses could have been intended, -Herodotus gives no intimation; but he says that the unfinished work -was yet to be seen even in his day.[491] - - [488] Herodot. iv, 101. - - [489] Herodot. iv, 118, 119. - - [490] Herodot. iv, 120-122. - - [491] Herodot. iv, 123. Ὅσον μὲν δὴ χρόνον οἱ Πέρσαι ἤϊσαν διὰ - τῆς Σκυθικῆς καὶ τῆς Σαυρομάτιδος χώρης, οἳ δὲ εἶχον οὐδὲν - σίνεσθαι, ἅτε τῆς χώρης ἐούσης χέρσου· ἐπεὶ δὲ τε ἐς τὴν τῶν - Βουδίνων χώρην ἐσέβαλον, etc. See Rennell, Geograph. System of - Herodotus, p. 114, about the Oarus. - - The erections, whatever they were, which were supposed to mark - the extreme point of the march of Darius, may be compared to - those evidences of the extreme advance of Dionysus, which the - Macedonian army saw on the north of the Jaxartês—“Liberi patris - terminos.” Quintus Curtius, vii, 9, 15, (vii, 37, 16, Zumpt.) - -Having thus been carried all across Scythia and the other territories -above mentioned in a north-easterly direction, Darius and his army -are next marched back a prodigious distance in a north-westerly -direction, through the territories of the Melanchlæni, the -Androphagi, and the Neuri, all of whom flee affrighted into the -northern desert, having been thus compelled against their will to -share in the consequences of the war. The Agathyrsi peremptorily -require the Scythians to abstain from drawing the Persians -into _their_ territory, on pain of being themselves treated as -enemies:[492] the Scythians in consequence respect the boundaries of -the Agathyrsi, and direct their retreat in such a manner as to draw -the Persians again southward into Scythia. During all this long march -backwards and forwards, there are partial skirmishes and combats of -horse, but the Scythians steadily refuse any general engagement. -And though Darius challenges them formally, by means of a herald, -with taunts of cowardice, the Scythian king Idanthyrsus not only -refuses battle, but explains and defends his policy, and defies the -Persian to come and destroy the tombs of their fathers,—it will then, -he adds, be seen whether the Scythians are cowards or not.[493] -The difficulties of Darius have by this time become serious, when -Idanthyrsus sends to him the menacing presents of a bird, a mouse, a -frog, and five arrows: the Persians are obliged to commence a rapid -retreat towards the Danube, leaving, in order to check and slacken -the Scythian pursuit, the least effective and the sick part of their -army encamped, together with the asses which had been brought with -them,—animals unknown to the Scythians, and causing great alarm by -their braying.[494] However, notwithstanding some delay thus caused, -as well as the anxious haste of Darius to reach the Danube, the -Scythians, far more rapid in their movements, arrive at the river -before him, and open a negotiation with the Ionians left in guard of -the bridge, urging them to break it down and leave the Persian king -to his fate,—inevitable destruction with his whole army.[495] - - [492] Herodot. iv, 125. Hekatæus ranks the Melanchlæni as a - Scythian ἔθνος (Hekat. Fragment. 154, ed. Klausen): he also - mentions several other subdivisions of Scythians, who cannot be - farther authenticated (Fragm. 155-160). - - [493] Herodot. iv, 126, 127. - - [494] Herodot. iv, 128-132. The bird, the mouse, the frog, and - the arrows, are explained to mean: Unless you take to the air - like a bird, to the earth like a mouse, or to the water like a - frog, you will become the victim of the Scythian arrows. - - [495] Herodot. iv, 133. - -Here we reënter the world of reality, at the north bank of the -Danube, the place where we before quitted it. All that is reported -to have passed in the interval, if tried by the tests of historical -matter of fact, can be received as nothing better than a perplexing -dream. It only acquires value when we consider it as an illustrative -fiction, including, doubtless, some unknown matter of fact, but -framed chiefly to exhibit in action those unattackable Nomads, who -formed the north-eastern barbarous world of a Greek, and with whose -manners Herodotus was profoundly struck. “The Scythians[496] (says -he) in regard to one of the greatest of human matters, have struck -out a plan cleverer than any that I know. In other respects I do -not admire them; but they have contrived this great object, that no -invader of their country shall ever escape out of it, or shall ever -be able to find out and overtake them, unless they themselves choose. -For when men have neither walls nor established cities, but are all -house-carriers and horse-bowmen,—living, not from the plough, but -from cattle, and having their dwellings on wagons,—how can they be -otherwise than unattackable and impracticable to meddle with?” The -protracted and unavailing chase ascribed to Darius,—who can neither -overtake his game nor use his arms, and who hardly even escapes in -safety,—embodies in detail this formidable attribute of the Scythian -Nomads. That Darius actually marched into the country, there can be -no doubt. Nothing else is certain, except his ignominious retreat out -of it to the Danube; for of the many different guesses,[497] by which -critics have attempted to cut down the gigantic sketch of Herodotus -into a march with definite limits and direction, not one rests upon -any positive grounds, or carries the least conviction. We can trace -the pervading idea in the mind of the historian, but cannot find out -what were his substantive data. - - [496] Herodot. iv. 46. Τῷ δὲ Σκυθικῷ γένεϊ ἓν μὲν τὸ μέγιστον τῶν - ἀνθρωπηΐων πρηγμάτων σοφώτατα πάντων ἐξεύρηται, τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν· - τὰ μέντοι ἄλλα οὐκ ἄγαμαι. Τὸ δὲ μέγιστον οὕτω σφι ἀνεύρηται, - ὥστε ἀποφυγέειν τε μηδένα ἐπελθόντα ἐπὶ σφέας, μὴ βουλομένους τε - ἐξευρεθῆναι, καταλαβεῖν μὴ οἷον τε εἶναι. Τοῖσι γὰρ μήτε ἄστεα - μήτε τείχεα ᾖ ἐκτισμένα, ἀλλὰ φερέοικοι ἐόντες πάντες, ἔωσι - ἱπποτοξόται, ζῶντες μὴ ἀπ᾽ ἀρότου, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ κτηνέων, οἰκήματα δέ - σφι ᾖ ἐπὶ ζευγέων, κῶς οὐκ ἂν εἴησαν οὗτοι ἄμαχοί τε καὶ ἄποροι - προσμίσγειν; - - Ἐξεύρηται δέ σφι ταῦτα, τῆς τε γῆς ἐούσης ἐπιτηδέης, καὶ τῶν - ποταμῶν ἐόντων σφι συμμάχων, etc. - - Compare this with the oration of the Scythian envoys to Alexander - the Great, as it stands in Quintus Curtius, vii, 8, 22 (vii, 35, - 22, Zumpt). - - [497] The statement of Strabo (vii, p. 305), which restricts the - march of Darius to the country between the Danube and the Tyras - (Dniester) is justly pronounced by Niebuhr (Kleine Schriften, - p. 372) to be a mere supposition suggested by the probabilities - of the case, because it could not be understood how his large - army should cross even the Dniester: it is not to be treated as - an affirmation resting upon any authority. “As Herodotus tells - us what is impossible (adds Niebuhr), we know nothing at all - historically respecting the expedition.” - - So again the conjecture of Palmerius (Exercitationes ad Auctores - Græcos, p. 21) carries on the march somewhat farther than the - Dniester,—to the Hypanis, or _perhaps_ to the Borysthenês. - Rennell, Klaproth, and Reichard, are not afraid to extend the - march on to the Wolga. Dr. Thirlwall stops within the Tanais, - admitting, however, that no correct historical account can be - given of it. Eichwald supposes a long march up the Dniester into - Volhynia and Lithuania. - - Compare Ukert, Skythien, p. 26; Dahlmann, Historische - Forschungen, ii, pp. 159-164; Schaffarik, Slavische Alterthümer, - i, 10, 3, i, 13, 4-5; and Mr. Kenrick, Remarks on the Life and - Writings of Herodotus, prefixed to his Notes on the Second Book - of Herodotus, p. xxi. The latter is among those who cannot swim - the Dniester: he says: “Probably the Dniester (Tyras) was the - real limit of the expedition, and Bessarabia, Moldavia, and the - Bukovina, the scene of it.” - -The adventures which took place at the passage of that river, both on -the out-march and the home-march, wherein the Ionians are concerned, -are far more within the limits of history. Here Herodotus possessed -better means of information, and had less of a dominant idea to -illustrate. That which passed between Darius and the Ionians on his -first crossing is very curious: I have reserved it until the present -moment, because it is particularly connected with the incidents which -happened on his return. - -On reaching the Danube from Thrace, he found the bridge of boats -ready, and when the whole army had passed over, he ordered the -Ionians to break it down, as well as to follow him in his land-march -into Scythia;[498] the ships being left with nothing but the rowers -and seamen essential to navigate them homeward. His order was on the -point of being executed, when, fortunately for him, the Mitylenæan -general Kôês ventured to call in question the prudence of it, having -first asked whether it was the pleasure of the Persian king to listen -to advice. He urged that the march on which they were proceeding -might prove perilous, and retreat possibly unavoidable; because the -Scythians, though certain to be defeated if brought to action, might -perhaps not suffer themselves to be approached or even discovered. -As a precaution against all contingencies, it was prudent to leave -the bridge standing and watched by those who had constructed it. -Far from being offended at the advice, Darius felt grateful for it, -and desired that Kôês would ask him after his return for a suitable -reward,—which we shall hereafter find granted. He then altered his -resolution, took a cord, and tied sixty knots in it. “Take this cord -(said he to the Ionians), untie one of the knots in it each day after -my advance from the Danube into Scythia. Remain here and guard the -bridge until you shall have untied all the knots; but if by that time -I shall not have returned, then depart and sail home.”[499] After -such orders he began his march into the interior. - - [498] Herodot. iv, 97. Δαρεῖος ἐκέλευσε τοὺς Ἴωνας τὴν σχεδίην - λύσαντας ἕπεσθαι κατ᾽ ἤπειρον ἑωϋτῷ, καὶ τὸν ἐκ τῶν νέων στρατόν. - - [499] Herodot. iv, 98. ἢν δὲ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ μὴ παρέω, ἀλλὰ - διέλθωσι ὑμῖν αἱ ἡμέραι τῶν ἁμμάτων, ἀποπλέετε ἐς τὴν ὑμετέρην - αὐτέων· μέχρι δὲ τούτου, ἐπεί τε οὕτω μετέδοξε, φυλάσσετε τὴν - σχεδίην. - -This anecdote is interesting, not only as it discloses the simple -expedients for numeration and counting of time then practised, but -also as it illustrates the geographical ideas prevalent. Darius did -not intend to come back over the Danube, but to march round the -Mæotis, and to return into Persia on the eastern side of the Euxine. -No other explanation can be given of his orders. At first, confident -of success, he orders the bridge to be destroyed forthwith: he -will beat the Scythians, march through their country, and reënter -Media from the eastern side of the Euxine. When he is reminded that -possibly he may not be able to find the Scythians, and may be obliged -to retreat, he still continues persuaded that this must happen within -sixty days, if it happens at all; and that, should he remain absent -more than sixty days, such delay will be a convincing proof that he -will take the other road of return instead of repassing the Danube. -The reader who looks at a map of the Euxine and its surrounding -territories may be startled at so extravagant a conception. But he -should recollect that there was no map of the same or nearly the -same accuracy before Herodotus, much less before the contemporaries -of Darius. The idea of entering Media by the north from Scythia and -Sarmatia over the Caucasus, is familiar to Herodotus in his sketch -of the early marches of the Scythians and Cimmerians: moreover, -he tells us that after the expedition of Darius, there came some -Scythian envoys to Sparta, proposing an offensive alliance against -Persia, and offering on their part to march across the Phasis into -Media from the north,[500] while the Spartans were invited to land -on the shores of Asia Minor, and advance across the country to meet -them from the west. When we recollect that the Macedonians and their -leader, Alexander the Great, having arrived at the river Jaxartês, on -the north of Sogdiana, and on the east of the sea of Aral, supposed -that they had reached the Tanais, and called the river by that -name,[501]—we shall not be astonished at the erroneous estimation of -distance implied in the plan conceived by Darius. - - [500] Herodot. vi, 84. Compare his account of the marches of - the Cimmerians and of the Scythians into Asia Minor and Media - respectively (Herodot. i, 103, 104, iv, 12). - - [501] Arrian, Exp. Al. iii, 6, 15; Plutarch, Alexand. c. 45; - Quint. Curt. vii, 7, 4, vii, 8, 30 (vii, 29, 5, vii, 36, 7, - Zumpt). - -The Ionians had already remained in guard of the bridge beyond the -sixty days commanded, without hearing anything of the Persian army, -when they were surprised by the appearance, not of that army, but -of a body of Scythians, who acquainted them that Darius was in full -retreat and in the greatest distress, and that his safety with the -whole army depended upon that bridge. They endeavored to prevail -upon the Ionians, since the sixty days included in their order to -remain had now elapsed, to break the bridge and retire; assuring -them that, if this were done, the destruction of the Persians was -inevitable,—of course, the Ionians themselves would then be free. At -first, the latter were favorably disposed towards the proposition, -which was warmly espoused by the Athenian Miltiadês, despot, or -governor, of the Thracian Chersonese.[502] Had he prevailed, the -victor of Marathon—for such we shall hereafter find him—would have -thus inflicted a much more vital blow on Persia than even that -celebrated action, and would have brought upon Darius the disastrous -fate of his predecessor Cyrus. But the Ionian princes, though -leaning at first towards his suggestion, were speedily converted -by the representations of Histiæus of Milêtus, who reminded them -that the maintenance of his own ascendency over the Milesians, and -that of each despot in his respective city, was assured by means of -Persian support alone,—the feeling of the population being everywhere -against them: consequently, the ruin of Darius would be their ruin -also. This argument proved conclusive. It was resolved to stay and -maintain the bridge, but to pretend compliance with the Scythians, -and prevail upon them to depart, by affecting to destroy it. The -northern portion of the bridge was accordingly destroyed, for the -length of a bow-shot, and the Scythians departed under the persuasion -that they had succeeded in depriving their enemies of the means of -crossing the river.[503] It appears that they missed the track of the -retreating host, which was thus enabled, after the severest privation -and suffering, to reach the Danube in safety. Arriving during the -darkness of the night, Darius was at first terrified to find the -bridge no longer joining the northern bank: an Egyptian herald, of -stentorian powers of voice, was ordered to call as loudly as possible -the name of Histiæus the Milesian. Answer being speedily made, the -bridge was reëstablished, and the Persian army passed over before the -Scythians returned to the spot.[504] - - [502] Herodot. iv, 133, 136, 137. - - [503] Herodot. iv, 137-139. - - [504] Herodot. iv, 140, 141. - -There can be no doubt that the Ionians here lost an opportunity -eminently favorable, such as never again returned, for emancipating -themselves from the Persian dominion. Their despots, by whom the -determination was made, especially the Milesian Histiæus, were -not induced to preserve the bridge by any honorable reluctance to -betray the trust reposed in them, but simply by selfish regard to -the maintenance of their own unpopular dominion. And we may remark -that the real character of this impelling motive, as well as the -deliberation accompanying it, may be assumed as resting upon very -good evidence, since we are now arrived within the personal knowledge -of the Milesian historian Hekatæus, who took an active part in the -Ionic revolt a few years afterwards, and who may, perhaps, have been -personally engaged in this expedition. He will be found reviewing -with prudence and sobriety the chances of that unfortunate revolt, -and distrusting its success from the beginning; while Histiæus of -Milêtus will appear on the same occasion as the fomenter of it, -in order to procure his release from an honorable detention at -Susa, near the person of Darius. The selfishness of this despot -having deprived his countrymen of that real and favorable chance of -emancipation which the destruction of the bridge would have opened to -them, threw them into perilous revolt a few years afterwards against -the entire and unembarrassed force of the Persian king and empire. - -Extricated from the perils of Scythian warfare, Darius marched -southward from the Danube through Thrace to the Hellespont, where he -crossed from Sestus into Asia. He left, however, a considerable army -in Europe, under the command of Megabazus, to accomplish the conquest -of Thrace. Perinthus on the Propontis made a brave resistance,[505] -but was at length subdued, and it appears that all the Thracian -tribes, and all the Grecian colonies between the Hellespont and -the Strymon, were forced to submit, giving earth and water, and -becoming subject to tribute.[506] Near the lower Strymon, was the -Edonian town of Myrkinus, which Darius ordered to be made over to -Histiæus of Milêtus; for both this Milesian, and Kôês of Mitylênê, -had been desired by the Persian king to name their own reward for -their fidelity to him on the passage over the Danube.[507] Kôês -requested that he might be constituted despot of Mitylênê, which was -accomplished by Persian authority; but Histiæus solicited that the -territory near Myrkinus might be given to him for the foundation of -a colony. As soon as the Persian conquests extended thus far, the -site in question was presented to Histiæus, who entered actively upon -his new scheme. We shall find the territory near Myrkinus eminent -hereafter as the site of Amphipolis. It offered great temptation to -settlers, as fertile, well wooded, convenient for maritime commerce, -and near to auriferous and argentiferous mountains.[508] It seems, -however, that the Persian dominion in Thrace was disturbed by an -invasion of the Scythians, who, in revenge for the aggression of -Darius, overran the country as far as the Thracian Chersonese, and -are even said to have sent envoys to Sparta proposing a simultaneous -invasion of Persia from different sides, by Spartans and Scythians. -The Athenian Miltiadês, who was despot, or governor, of the -Chersonese, was forced to quit it for some time, and Herodotus -ascribes his retirement to the incursion of these Nomads. But we -may be permitted to suspect that the historian has misconceived the -real cause of such retirement. Miltiadês could not remain in the -Chersonese after he had incurred the deadly enmity of Darius by -exhorting the Ionians to destroy the bridge over the Danube.[509] - - [505] Herodot. iv, 143, 144, v, 1, 2. - - [506] Herodot. v, 2. - - [507] Herodot. v, 11. - - [508] Herodot. v, 23. - - [509] Herodot. vi, 40-84. That Miltiadês could have remained - in the Chersonese undisturbed, during the interval between the - Scythian expedition of Darius and the Ionic revolt,—when the - Persians were complete masters of those regions, and when Otanês - was punishing other towns in the neighborhood for evasion of - service under Darius, after he had declared so pointedly against - the Persians on a matter of life and death to the king and - army,—appears to me, as it does to Dr. Thirlwall (History of - Gr. vol. ii, App. ii, p. 486, ch. xiv, pp. 226-249), eminently - improbable. So forcibly does Dr. Thirlwall feel the difficulty, - that he suspects the reported conduct and exhortations of - Miltiadês at the bridge over the Danube to have been a falsehood, - fabricated by Miltiadês himself, twenty years afterwards, for - the purpose of acquiring popularity at Athens during the time - immediately preceding the battle of Marathon. - - I cannot think this hypothesis admissible. It directly - contradicts Herodotus on a matter of fact very conspicuous, and - upon which good means of information seem to have been within his - reach. I have already observed that the historian Hekatæus must - have possessed personal knowledge of all the relations between - the Ionians and Darius, and that he very probably may have been - even present at the bridge: all the information given by Hekatæus - upon these points would be open to the inquiries of Herodotus. - The unbounded gratitude of Darius towards Histiæus shows that - some one or more of the Ionic despots present at the bridge must - have powerfully enforced the expediency of breaking it down. - That the name of the despot who stood forward as prime mover of - this resolution should have been forgotten and not mentioned - at the time, is highly improbable; yet such must have been the - case if a fabrication by Miltiadês twenty years afterwards - could successfully fill up the blank with his own name. The two - most prominent matters talked of, after the retreat of Darius, - in reference to the bridge, would probably be the name of the - leader who urged its destruction, and the name of Histiæus, who - preserved it. Indeed, the mere fact of the mischievous influence - exercised by the latter afterwards would be pretty sure to keep - these points of the case in full view. - - There are means of escaping from the difficulty of the case, - I think, without contradicting Herodotus on any matter of - fact important and conspicuous, or indeed on any matter of - fact whatever. We see by vi, 40, that Miltiadês _did quit the - Chersonese_ between the close of the Scythian expedition of - Darius and the Ionic revolt; Herodotus, indeed, tells us that he - quitted it in consequence of an incursion of the Scythians: but - without denying the fact of such an incursion, we may reasonably - suppose the historian to have been mistaken in assigning it as - the cause of the flight of Miltiadês. The latter was prevented - from living in the Chersonese continuously, during the interval - between the Persian invasion of Scythia and the Ionic revolt, by - fear of Persian enmity. It is not necessary for us to believe - that he was never there at all, but his residence there must have - been interrupted and insecure. The chronological data in Herodot. - vi, 40, are exceedingly obscure and perplexing; but it seems to - me that the supposition which I suggest introduces a plausible - coherence into the series of historical facts, with the slightest - possible contradiction to our capital witness. - - The only achievement of Miltiadês, between the affair on the - Danube and his return to Athens shortly before the battle of - Marathon, is the conquest of Lemnos; and _that_ must have taken - place evidently while the Persians were occupied by the Ionic - revolt, (between 502-494 B. C.) There is nothing in his recorded - deeds inconsistent with the belief, therefore, that between - 515-502 B. C. he may not have resided in the Chersonese at all, - or at least not for very long together: and the statement of - Cornelius Nepos, that he quitted it immediately after the return - from Scythia, from fear of the Persians, may be substantially - true. Dr. Thirlwall observes (p. 487)—“As little would it appear - that when the Scythians invaded the Chersonese, Miltiadês was - conscious of having endeavored to render them an important - service. He flies before them, though he had been so secure while - the Persian arms were in his neighborhood.” He has here put - his finger on what I believe to be the error of Herodotus,—the - supposition that Miltiadês fled from the Chersonese to avoid the - Scythians, whereas he really left it to avoid the Persians. - - The story of Strabo (xiii, p. 591), that Darius caused the Greek - cities on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont to be burnt down, - in order to hinder them from affording means of transport to the - Scythians into Asia, seems to me highly improbable. These towns - appear in their ordinary condition, Abydus among them, at the - time of the Ionic revolt a few years afterwards (Herodot. v, - 117). - -Nor did the conquests of Megabazus stop at the western bank of the -Strymon. He carried his arms across that river, conquering the -Pæonians, and reducing the Macedonians under Amyntas to tribute. A -considerable number of the Pæonians were transported across into -Asia, by express order of Darius; whose fancy had been struck by -seeing at Sardis a beautiful Pæonian woman carrying a vessel on her -head, leading a horse to water, and spinning flax, all at the same -time. This woman had been brought over, we are told, by her two -brothers, Pigrês and Mantyês, for the express purpose of arresting -the attention of the Great King. They hoped by this means to be -constituted despots of their countrymen, and we may presume that -their scheme succeeded, for such part of the Pæonians as Megabazus -could subdue were conveyed across to Asia and planted in some -villages in Phrygia. Such violent transportations of inhabitants were -in the genius of the Persian government.[510] - - [510] Herodot. v, 13-16. Nikolaus Damaskênus (Fragm. p. 36, ed. - Orell.) tells a similar story about the means by which a Mysian - woman attracted the notice of the Lydian king Alyattês. Such - repetition of a striking story, in reference to different people - and times, has many parallels in ancient history. - -From the Pæonian lake Prasias, seven eminent Persians were sent as -envoys into Macedonia, to whom Amyntas readily gave the required -token of submission, inviting them to a splendid banquet. When -exhilarated with wine, they demanded to see the women of the regal -family, who, being accordingly introduced, were rudely dealt with by -the strangers. At length, the son of Amyntas, Alexander, resented the -insult, and exacted for it a signal vengeance. Dismissing the women, -under pretence that they should return after a bath, he brought back -in their place youths in female attire, armed with daggers: the -Persians, proceeding to repeat their caresses, were all put to death. -Their retinue and splendid carriages and equipment which they had -brought with them disappeared at the same time, without any tidings -reaching the Persian army. And when Bubarês, another eminent Persian, -was sent into Macedonia to institute researches, Alexander contrived -to hush up the proceeding by large bribes, and by giving him his -sister Gygæa in marriage.[511] - - [511] Herodot. v, 20, 21. - -Meanwhile Megabazus crossed over into Asia, carrying with him the -Pæonians from the river Strymon. Having been in those regions, he -had become alarmed at the progress of Histiæus with his new city -of Myrkinus, and communicated his apprehensions to Darius; who was -prevailed upon to send for Histiæus, retaining him about his person, -and carrying him to Susa as counsellor and friend, with every mark -of honor, but with the secret intention of never letting him revisit -Asia Minor. The fears of the Persian general were probably not -unreasonable; but this detention of Histiæus at Susa, became in the -sequel an important event.[512] - - [512] Herodot. v, 23, 24. - -On departing for his capital, Darius nominated his brother -Artaphernês satrap of Sardis, and Otanês, general of the forces on -the coast, in place of Megabazus. The new general dealt very severely -with various towns near the Propontis, on the ground that they had -evaded their duty in the late Scythian expedition, and had even -harassed the army of Darius in its retreat. He took Byzantium and -Chalkêdon, as well as Antandrus in the Troad, and Lampônium; and -with the aid of a fleet from Lesbos, he achieved a new conquest,—the -islands of Lemnos and Imbros, at that time occupied by a Pelasgic -population, seemingly without any Greek inhabitants at all. - -These Pelasgi were of cruel and piratical character, if we may judge -by the tenor of the legends respecting them; Lemnian misdeeds being -cited as a proverbial expression for atrocities.[513] They were -distinguished also for ancient worship of Hêphæstus, together with -mystic rites in honor of the Kabeiri, and even human sacrifices to -their Great Goddess. In their two cities,—Hephæstias on the east of -the island, and Myrina on the west,—they held out bravely against -Otanês, nor did they submit until they had undergone long and severe -hardship. Lykarêtus, brother of that Mæandrius whom we have already -noticed as despot of Samos, was named governor of Lemnos; but he -soon after died.[514] It is probable that the Pelasgic population -of the islands was greatly enfeebled during this struggle, and we -even hear that their king Hermon voluntarily emigrated, from fear of -Darius.[515] - - [513] Herodot. vi, 138. Æschyl. Choêphor. 632; Stephan. Byz. v. - Λῆμνος. - - The mystic rites in honor of the Kabeiri at Lemnos and Imbros - are particularly noticed by Pherekydês (ap. Strabo, x, p. 472): - compare Photius, v. Κάβειροι, and the remarkable description of - the periodical Lemnian solemnity in Philostratus (Heroi. p. 740). - - The volcanic mountain Mosychlus, in the north-eastern portion - of the island, was still burning in the fourth century B. C. - (Antimach. Fragment. xviii, p. 103, Düntzer Epicc. Græc. Fragm.) - - Welcker’s Dissertation (Die Æschylische Trilogie, p. 248, - _seqq._) enlarges much upon the Lemnian and Samothracian worship. - - [514] Herodot. v, 26, 27. The twenty-seventh chapter is extremely - perplexing. As the text reads at present, we ought to make - Lykarêtus the subject of certain predications which yet seem - properly referable to Otanês. We must consider the words from - Οἱ μὲν δὴ Λήμνιοι—down to τελευτᾷ—as parenthetical, which is - awkward; but it seems the least difficulty in the case, and the - commentators are driven to adopt it. - - [515] Zenob. Proverb. iii, 85. - -Lemnos and Imbros thus became Persian possessions, held by a -subordinate prince as tributary. A few years afterwards their lot was -again changed,—they passed into the hands of Athens, the Pelasgic -inhabitants were expelled, and fresh Athenian settlers introduced. -They were conquered by Miltiadês from the Thracian Chersonese; from -Elæus at the south of that peninsula to Lemnos being within less -than one day’s sail with a north wind. The Hephæstieans abandoned -their city and evacuated the island with little resistance; but the -inhabitants of Myrina stood a siege,[516] and were not expelled -without difficulty: both of them found abodes in Thrace, on and near -the peninsula of Mount Athos. Both these islands, together with that -of Skyros (which was not taken until after the invasion of Xerxês), -remained connected with Athens in a manner peculiarly intimate. At -the peace of Antalkidas (387 B. C.),—which guaranteed universal -autonomy to every Grecian city, great and small,—they were specially -reserved, and considered as united with Athens.[517] The property -in their soil was held by men who, without losing their Athenian -citizenship, became Lemnian kleruchs, and as such were classified -apart among the military force of the state; while absence in Lemnos -or Imbros seems to have been accepted as an excuse for delay before -the courts of justice, so as to escape the penalties of contumacy, or -departure from the country.[518] It is probable that a considerable -number of poor Athenian citizens were provided with lots of land in -these islands, though we have no direct information of the fact, and -are even obliged to guess the precise time at which Miltiadês made -the conquest. Herodotus, according to his usual manner, connects the -conquest with an ancient oracle, and represents it as the retribution -for ancient legendary crime committed by certain Pelasgi, who, many -centuries before, had been expelled by the Athenians from Attica, -and had retired to Lemnos. Full of this legend, he tells us nothing -about the proximate causes or circumstances of the conquest, which -must probably have been accomplished by the efforts of Athens, -jointly with Miltiadês from the Chersonese, daring the period that -the Persians were occupied in quelling the Ionic revolt, between -502-494 B. C.,—since it is hardly to be supposed that Miltiadês would -have ventured thus to attack a Persian possession during the time -that the satraps had their hands free. The acquisition was probably -facilitated by the fact, that the Pelasgic population of the islands -had been weakened, as well by their former resistance to the Persian -Otanês, as by some years passed under the deputy of a Persian satrap. - - [516] Herodot. vi, 140. Charax ap. Stephan. Byz. v. Ἡφαιστíα. - - [517] Xenophon, Hellen. v, 1, 31. Compare Plato, Menexenus, c. - 17, p. 245, where the words ἡμετέραι ἀποίκιαι doubtless mean - Lemnos, Imbros, and Skyros. - - [518] Thucyd. iv, 23, v, 8, vii, 57; Phylarchus ap. Athenæum, - vi, p. 255; Dêmosthen. Philippic. 1, c. 12, p. 17, R.: compare - the Inscription, No. 1686, in the collection of Boeckh, with his - remarks, p. 297. - - About the stratagems resorted to before the Athenian dikastery, - to procure delay by pretended absence in Lemnos or Skyros, see - Isæus, Or. vi, p. 58 (p. 80, Bek.); Pollux, viii, 7, 81; Hesych. - v. Ἴμβριος; Suidas, v. Λημνία δίκη: compare also Carl Rhode, Res - Lemnicæ, p. 50 (Wratislaw 1829). - - It seems as if εἰς Λῆμνον πλεῖν had come to be a proverbial - expression at Athens for getting out of the way,—evading the - performance of duty: this seems to be the sense of Dêmosthenês, - Philipp. i, c. 9, p. 14. ἀλλ᾽ εἰς μὲν Λῆμνον τὸν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν - ἵππαρχον δεῖ πλεῖν, τῶν δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν τῆς πόλεως κτημάτων - ἀγωνιζομένων Μενέλαον ἱππαρχεῖν. - - From the passage of Isæus above alluded to, which Rhode seems to - me to construe incorrectly, it appears that there was a legal - _connubium_ between Athenian citizens and Lemnian women. - -In mentioning the conquest of Lemnos by the Athenians and Miltiadês, -I have anticipated a little on the course of events, because that -conquest,—though coinciding in point of time with the Ionic revolt -(which will be recounted in the following chapter), and indirectly -caused by it, in so far as it occupied the attention of the -Persians,—lies entirely apart from the operations of the revolted -Ionians. When Miltiadês was driven out of the Chersonese by the -Persians, on the suppression of the Ionic revolt, his fame, derived -from having subdued Lemnos,[519] contributed both to neutralize the -enmity which he had incurred as governor of the Chersonese, and to -procure his election as one of the ten generals for the year of the -Marathonian combat. - - [519] Herodot. vi, 136. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXV. - -IONIC REVOLT. - - -Hitherto, the history of the Asiatic Greeks has flowed in a stream -distinct from that of the European Greeks. The present chapter will -mark the period of confluence between the two. - -At the time when Darius quitted Sardis on his return to Susa, -carrying with him the Milesian Histiæus, he left Artaphernês, his -brother, as satrap of Sardis, invested with the supreme command of -Western Asia Minor. The Grecian cities on the coast, comprehended -under his satrapy, appear to have been chiefly governed by native -despots in each; and Milêtus especially, in the absence of Histiæus, -was ruled by his son-in-law Aristagoras. That city was now in the -height of power and prosperity,—in every respect the leading city of -Ionia. The return of Darius to Susa may be placed seemingly about 512 -B. C., from which time forward the state of things above described -continued, without disturbance, for eight or ten years,—“a respite -from suffering,” to use the significant phrase of the historian.[520] - - [520] Herodot. v, 28. Μετὰ δὲ οὐ πολλὸν χρόνον, ἄνεως κακῶν ἦν—or - ἄνεσις κακῶν—if the conjecture of some critics be adopted. Mr. - Clinton, with Larcher and others (see Fasti Hellen. App. 18, p. - 314), construe this passage as if the comma were to be placed - after μετὰ δὲ, so that the historian would be made to affirm that - the period of repose lasted only a short time. It appears to me - that the comma ought rather to be placed after χρόνον, and that - the “short time” refers to those evils which the historian had - been describing before. There must have been an interval of eight - years at least, if not of ten years, between the events which the - historian had been describing—the evils inflicted by the attacks - of Otanês—and the breaking out of the Ionic revolt; which latter - event no one places earlier than 504 B. C., though some prefer - 502 B. C., others even 500 B. C. - - If, indeed, we admitted with Wesseling (ad Herodot. vi, 40; and - Mr. Clinton seems inclined towards the same opinion, see p. - 314, _ut sup._) that the Scythian expedition is to be placed in - 508-507 B. C., then indeed the interval between the campaign of - Otanês and the Ionic revolt would be contracted into one or two - years. But I have already observed that I cannot think 508 B. C. - a correct date for the Scythian expedition: it seems to me to - belong to about 515 B. C. Nor do I know what reason there is for - determining the date as Wesseling does, except this very phrase - οὐ πολλὸν χρόνον, which is on every supposition exceedingly - vague, and which he appears to me not to have construed in the - best way. - -It was about the year 506 B. C., that the exiled Athenian despot -Hippias, after having been repelled from Sparta by the unanimous -refusal of the Lacedæmonian allies to take part in his cause, -presented himself from Sigeium as a petitioner to Artaphernês at -Sardis. He now, doubtless, found the benefit of the alliance which he -had formed for his daughter with the despot Æantidês of Lampsakus, -whose favor with Darius would stand him in good stead. He made -pressing representations to the satrap, with a view of procuring -restoration to Athens, on condition of holding it under Persian -dominion; and Artaphernês was prepared, if an opportunity offered, -to aid him in his design. So thoroughly had he resolved on espousing -actively the cause of Hippias, that when the Athenians despatched -envoys to Sardis, to set forth the case of the city against its -exiled pretender, he returned to them an answer not merely of denial, -but of menace,—bidding them receive Hippias back again, if they -looked for safety.[521] Such a reply was equivalent to a declaration -of war, and so it was construed at Athens. It leads us to infer that -he was even then revolving in his mind an expedition against Attica, -in conjunction with Hippias; but, fortunately for the Athenians, -other projects and necessities intervened to postpone for several -years the execution of the scheme. - - [521] Herodot. v, 96. Ὁ δὲ Ἀρταφέρνης ἐκέλευέ σφεας εἰ βουλοίατο - σόοι εἶναι, καταδέκεσθαι ὀπίσω τὸν Ἱππίην. - -Of these new projects, the first was that of conquering the island of -Naxos. Here, too, as in the case of Hippias, the instigation arose -from Naxian exiles,—a rich oligarchy which had been expelled by a -rising of the people. This island, like all the rest of the Cyclades, -was as yet independent of the Persians.[522] It was wealthy, -prosperous, possessing a large population both of freemen and slaves, -and defended as well by armed ships as by a force of eight thousand -heavy-armed infantry. The exiles applied for aid to Aristagoras, -who saw that he could turn them into instruments of dominion for -himself in the island, provided he could induce Artaphernês to embark -in the project along with him,—his own force not being adequate by -itself. Accordingly, he went to Sardis, and laid his project before -the satrap, intimating that as soon as the exiles should land with -a powerful support, Naxos would be reduced with little trouble: -that the neighboring islands of Paros, Andros, Tênos, and the other -Cyclades, could not long hold out after the conquest of Naxos, nor -even the large and valuable island of Eubœa. He himself engaged, -if a fleet of one hundred ships were granted to him, to accomplish -all these conquests for the Great King, and to bear the expenses of -the armament besides. Artaphernês warmly entered into the scheme, -loaded him with praise, and promised him in the ensuing spring two -hundred ships instead of one hundred. A messenger despatched to Susa, -having brought back the ready consent of Darius, a large armament was -forthwith equipped, under the command of the Persian Megabatês, to be -placed at the disposal of Aristagoras,—composed both of Persians and -of all the tributaries near the coast.[523] - - [522] Herodot. v, 31. Plutarch says that Lygdamis, established as - despot at Naxos by Peisistratus (Herodot. i, 64), was expelled - from this post by the Lacedæmonians (De Herodot. Malignitat. c. - 21, p. 859). I confess that I do not place much confidence in the - statements of that treatise, as to the many despots expelled by - Sparta: we neither know the source from whence Plutarch borrowed - them, nor any of the circumstances connected with them. - - [523] Herodot. v, 30, 31. - -With this force Aristagoras and the Naxian exiles set sail from -Milêtus, giving out that they were going to the Hellespont. On -reaching Chios, they waited in its western harbor of Kaukasa for -a fair wind to carry them straight across to Naxos. No suspicion -was entertained in that island of its real purpose, nor was any -preparation made for resistance, and the success of Aristagoras -would have been complete, had it not been defeated by an untoward -incident ending in dispute. Megabatês, with a solicitude which we -are surprised to discern in a Persian general, personally made the -tour of his fleet, to see that every ship was under proper watch, -and discovered a ship from Myndus (an Asiatic Dorian city near -Halikarnassus), left without a single man on board. Incensed at this -neglect, he called before him Skylax, the commander of the ship, and -ordered him to be put in chains, with his head projecting outwards -through one of the apertures for oars in the ship’s side. Skylax -was a guest and friend of Aristagoras, who, on hearing of this -punishment, interceded with Megabatês for his release; but finding -the request refused, took upon him to release the prisoner himself. -He even went so far as to treat the remonstrance of Megabatês with -disdain, reminding him that, according to the instructions of -Artaphernês, he was only second and himself (Aristagoras) first. The -pride of Megabatês could not endure such treatment: as soon as night -arrived, he sent a private intimation to Naxos of the coming of the -fleet, warning the islanders to be on their guard. The warning thus -fortunately received was turned by the Naxians to the best account. -They carried in their property, laid up stores, and made every -preparation for a siege, so that when the fleet, probably delayed by -the dispute between its leaders, at length arrived, it was met by a -stout resistance, remained on the shore of the island for four months -in prosecution of an unavailing siege, and was obliged to retire -without accomplishing anything beyond the erection of a fort, as -lodgment for the Naxian exiles. After a large cost incurred, not only -by the Persians, but also by Aristagoras himself, the unsuccessful -armament was brought back to the coast of Ionia.[524] - - [524] Herodot. v, 34, 35. - -The failure of this expedition threatened Aristagoras with entire -ruin. He had incensed Megabatês, deceived Artaphernês, and incurred -an obligation, which he knew not how to discharge, of indemnifying -the latter for the costs of the fleet. He began to revolve in his -mind the scheme of revolting from Persia, when it so happened -that there arrived nearly at the same moment a messenger from his -father-in-law, Histiæus, who was detained at the court of Susa, -secretly instigating him to this very resolution. Not knowing whom -to trust with this dangerous message, Histiæus had caused the -head of a faithful slave to be shaved,—branded upon it the words -necessary,—and then despatched him, so soon as his hair had grown, -to Milêtus, with a verbal intimation to Aristagoras that his head -was to be again shaved and examined.[525] Histiæus sought to provoke -this perilous rising, simply as a means of procuring his own release -from Susa, and in the calculation that Darius would send him down to -the coast to reëstablish order. His message, arriving at so critical -a moment, determined the faltering resolution of Aristagoras, who -convened his principal partisans at Milêtus, and laid before them -the formidable project of revolt. All of them approved it, with one -remarkable exception,—the historian Hekatæus of Milêtus; who opposed -it as altogether ruinous, and contended that the power of Darius -was too vast to leave them any prospect of success. When he found -direct opposition fruitless, he next insisted upon the necessity of -at once seizing the large treasures in the neighboring temple of -Apollo, at Branchidæ, for the purpose of carrying on the revolt. By -this means alone, he said, could the Milesians, too feeble to carry -on the contest with their own force alone, hope to become masters at -sea,—while, if _they_ did not take these treasures, the victorious -enemy surely would. Neither of these recommendations, both of them -indicating sagacity and foresight in the proposer, were listened to. -Probably the seizure of the treasures,—though highly useful for the -impending struggle, and though in the end they fell into the hands -of the enemy, as Hekatæus anticipated,—would have been insupportable -to the pious feelings of the people, and would thus have proved more -injurious than beneficial:[526] perhaps, indeed, Hekatæus himself may -have urged it with the indirect view of stifling the whole project. -We may remark that he seems to have urged the question as if Milêtus -were to stand alone in the revolt; not anticipating, as indeed no -prudent man could then anticipate, that the Ionic cities generally -would follow the example. - - [525] Herodot. v, 35: compare Polyæn. i, 24, and Aulus Gellius, - N. A. xvii, 9. - - [526] Herodot. v, 36. - -Aristagoras and his friends resolved forthwith to revolt, and their -first step was to conciliate popular favor throughout Asiatic -Greece by putting down the despots in all the various cities,—the -instruments not less than the supports of Persian ascendency, as -Histiæus had well urged at the bridge of the Danube. The opportunity -was favorable for striking this blow at once on a considerable scale. -The fleet, recently employed at Naxos, had not yet dispersed, but -was still assembled at Myus, with many of the despots present at -the head of their ships. Iatragoras was despatched from Milêtus, -at once to seize as many of them as he could, and to stir up the -soldiers to revolt. This decisive proceeding was the first manifesto -against Darius. Iatragoras was successful: the fleet went along -with him, and many of the despots fell into his hands,—among them -Histiæus (a second person so named) of Termera, Oliatus of Mylasa -(both Karians),[527] Kôês of Mitylênê, and Aristagoras (also a -second person so named) of Kymê. At the same time the Milesian -Aristagoras himself, while he formally proclaimed revolt against -Darius, and invited the Milesians to follow him, laid down his own -authority, and affected to place the government in the hands of the -people. Throughout most of the towns of Asiatic Greece, insular and -continental, a similar revolution was brought about; the despots -were expelled, and the feelings of the citizens were thus warmly -interested in the revolt. Such of these despots as fell into the -hands of Aristagoras were surrendered into the hands of their former -subjects, by whom they were for the most part quietly dismissed, and -we shall find them hereafter active auxiliaries to the Persians. To -this treatment the only exception mentioned is Kôês, who was stoned -to death by the Mitylenæans.[528] - - [527] Compare Herodotus, v, 121, and vii, 98. Oliatus was son of - Ibanôlis, as was also the Mylasian Herakleidês mentioned in v, - 121. - - [528] Herodot. v, 36, 37; vi, 9. - -By these first successful steps the Ionic revolt was made to assume -an extensive and formidable character; much more so, probably, than -the prudent Hekatæus had anticipated as practicable. The naval force -of the Persians in the Ægean was at once taken away from them, and -passed to their opponents, who were thus completely masters of the -sea; and would in fact have remained so, if a second naval force had -not been brought up against them from Phenicia,—a proceeding never -before resorted to, and perhaps at that time not looked for. - -Having exhorted all the revolted towns to name their generals, and -to put themselves in a state of defence, Aristagoras crossed the -Ægean to obtain assistance from Sparta, then under the government of -king Kleomenês; to whom he addressed himself, “holding in his hand a -brazen tablet, wherein was engraved the circuit of the entire earth, -with the whole sea and all the rivers.” Probably this was the first -map or plan which had ever been seen at Sparta, and so profound was -the impression which it made, that it was remembered there even -in the time of Herodotus.[529] Having emphatically entreated the -Spartans to step forth in aid of their Ionic brethren, now engaged -in a desperate struggle for freedom,—he proceeded to describe the -wealth and abundance (gold, silver, brass, vestments, cattle, -and slaves), together with the ineffective weapons and warfare of -the Asiatics. The latter, he said, could be at once put down, and -the former appropriated, by military training such as that of the -Spartans,—whose long spear, brazen helmet and breastplate, and ample -shield, enabled them to despise the bow, the short javelin, the -light wicker target, the turban and trowsers, of a Persian.[530] He -then traced out on his brazen plan the road from Ephesus to Susa, -indicating the intervening nations, all of them affording a booty -more or less rich; but he magnified especially the vast treasures at -Susa: “Instead of fighting your neighbors, he concluded, Argeians, -Arcadians, and Messenians, from whom you get hard blows and small -reward, why do you not make yourself ruler of all Asia,[531] a prize -not less easy than lucrative?” Kleomenês replied to these seductive -instigations by desiring him to come for an answer on the third day. -When that day arrived, he put to him the simple question, how far it -was from Susa to the sea? To which Aristagoras answered, with more -frankness than dexterity, that it was a three months’ journey; and -he was proceeding to enlarge upon the facilities of the road when -Kleomenês interrupted him: “Quit Sparta before sunset, Milesian -stranger; you are no friend to the Lacedæmonians, if you want to -carry them a three months’ journey from the sea.” In spite of this -peremptory mandate, Aristagoras tried a last resource: he took in -his hand the bough of supplication, and again went to the house of -Kleomenês, who was sitting with his daughter Gorgô, a girl of eight -years old. He requested Kleomenês to send away the child, but this -was refused, and he was desired to proceed; upon which he began to -offer to the Spartan king a bribe for compliance, bidding continually -higher and higher from ten talents up to fifty. At length, the little -girl suddenly exclaimed, “Father, the stranger will corrupt you, if -you do not at once go away.” The exclamation so struck Kleomenês, -that he broke up the interview, and Aristagoras forthwith quitted -Sparta.[532] - - [529] Herodot. v, 49. Τῷ δὴ (Κλεομένεϊ) ἐς λόγους ἤϊε, ~ὡς - Λακεδαιμόνιοι λέγουσι~, ἔχων χάλκεον πίνακα, ἐν τῷ γῆς ἁπάσης - περίοδος ἐνετέτμητο, καὶ θάλασσά τε πᾶσα καὶ ποταμοὶ πάντες. - - The earliest map of which mention is made was prepared by - Anaximander in Ionia, apparently not long before this period: see - Strabo, i, p. 7; Agathemerus, 1, c. 1; Diogen. Laërt. ii, 1. - - Grosskurd, in his note on the above passage of Strabo, as well - as Larcher and other critics, appear to think, that though this - tablet or chart of Anaximander was the earliest which embraced - the whole known earth, there were among the Greeks others still - earlier, which described particular countries. There is no proof - of this, nor can I think it probable: the passage of Apollonius - Rhodius (iv, 279) with the Scholia to it, which is cited as - evidence, appears to me unworthy of attention. - - Among the Roman Agrimensores, it was the ancient practice to - engrave their plans, of land surveyed, upon tablets of brass, - which were deposited in the public archives, and of which copies - were made for private use, though the original was referred - to in case of legal dispute (Siculus Flaccus ap. Rei Agrariæ - Scriptores, p. 16, ed. Goes: compare Giraud, Recherches sur le - Droit de Propriété, p. 116, Aix, 1838). - - [530] Herodot. v, 49. δεικνὺς δὲ ταῦτα ἔλεγε ἐς τὴν τῆς γῆς - περίοδον, τὴν ἐφέρετο ἐν τῷ πίνακι ἐντετμημένην. - - [531] Herodot. v, 49. πάρεχον δὲ τῆς Ἀσίης πάσης ἄρχειν εὐπετέως, - ἄλλο τι αἱρήσεσθε; - - [532] Herodot. v, 49, 50, 51. Compare Plutarch, Apophthegm. - Laconic. p. 240. - - We may remark, both in this instance and throughout all the life - and time of Kleomenês, that the Spartan king has the active - management and direction of foreign affairs,—subject, however, - to trial and punishment by the ephors in case of misbehavior - (Herodot. vi, 82). We shall hereafter find the ephors gradually - taking into their own hands, more and more, the actual management. - -Doubtless Herodotus heard the account of this interview from -Lacedæmonian informants. But we may be permitted to doubt, whether -any such suggestions were really made, or any such hopes held out, -as those which he places in the mouth of Aristagoras,—suggestions -and hopes which might well be conceived in 450-440 B. C., after -a generation of victories over the Persians, but which have no -pertinence in the year 502 B. C. Down even to the battle of Marathon, -the name of the Medes was a terror to the Greeks, and the Athenians -are highly and justly extolled as the first who dared to look them -in the face.[533] To talk about an easy march up to the treasures of -Susa and the empire of all Asia, at the time of the Ionic revolt, -would have been considered as a proof of insanity. Aristagoras may -very probably have represented, that the Spartans were more than a -match for Persians in the field; but even thus much would have been -considered, in 502 B. C., rather as the sanguine hope of a petitioner -than as the estimate of a sober looker-on. - - [533] Herodot. vi, 112. πρῶτοί τε ἀνέσχοντο ἐσθῆτά τε Μηδικὴν - ὁρέοντες, καὶ ἄνδρας ταύτην ἐσθημένους· τέως δὲ ἦν τοῖσι Ἕλλησι - καὶ τὸ οὔνομα τὸ Μήδων φόβος ἀκοῦσαι. - -The Milesian chief had made application to Sparta, as the presiding -power of Hellas,—a character which we thus find more and more -recognized and passing into the habitual feeling of the Greeks. -Fifty years previously to this, the Spartans had been flattered by -the circumstance, that Crœsus singled them out from all other Greeks -to invite as allies: now they accepted such priority as a matter of -course.[534] - - [534] Aristagoras says to the Spartans (v, 49)—τὰ κατήκοντα γάρ - ἐστι ταῦτα· Ἰώνων παῖδας δούλους εἶναι ἀντ᾽ ἐλευθέρων, ὄνειδος - καὶ ἄλγος μέγιστον μὲν αὐτοῖσι ἡμῖν, ἔτι δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ὑμῖν, - ὅσῳ προεστέατε τῆς Ἑλλάδος (Herodotus, v, 49). In reference to - the earlier incident (Herodot. i, 70)—Τουτέων τε ὦν εἵνεκεν οἱ - Λακεδαιμόνιοι τὴν συμμαχίην ἐδέξαντο, καὶ ὅτι ἐκ πάντων σφέας - προκρίνας Ἑλλήνων, αἱρέετο φίλους (Crœsus). - - An interval of rather more than forty years separates the two - events, during which both the feelings of the Spartans, and the - feelings of others towards them, had undergone a material change. - -Rejected at Sparta, Aristagoras proceeded to Athens, now decidedly -the second power in Greece. And here he found an easier task, not -only as it was the metropolis, or mother-city, of Asiatic Ionia, -but also as it had already incurred the pronounced hostility of the -Persian satrap, and might look to be attacked as soon as the project -came to suit his convenience, under the instigation of Hippias: -whereas the Spartans had not only no kindred with Ionia, beyond -that of common Hellenism, but were in no hostile relations with -Persia, and would have been provoking a new enemy by meddling in the -Asiatic war. The promises and representations of Aristagoras were -accordingly received with great favor by the Athenians: who, over and -above the claims of sympathy, had a powerful interest in sustaining -the Ionic revolt as an indirect protection to themselves,—and to -whom the abstraction of the Ionic fleet from the Persians afforded -a conspicuous and important relief. The Athenians at once resolved -to send a fleet of twenty ships, under Melanthius, as an aid to the -revolted Ionians,—ships which are styled by Herodotus, “the beginning -of the mischiefs between Greeks and barbarians,”—as the ships in -which Paris crossed the Ægean had before been called in the Iliad -of Homer. Herodotus farther remarks that it seems easier to deceive -many men together than one,—since Aristagoras, after having failed -with Kleomenês, thus imposed upon the thirty thousand citizens of -Athens.[535] But on this remark two comments suggest themselves. -First, the circumstances of Athens and Sparta were not the same in -regard to the Ionic quarrel,—an observation which Herodotus himself -had made a little while before: the Athenians had a material interest -in the quarrel, political as well as sympathetic, while the Spartans -had none. Secondly, the ultimate result of their interference, -as it stood in the time of Herodotus, though purchased by severe -intermediate hardship, was one eminently gainful and glorifying, not -less to Athens than to Greece.[536] - - [535] Herodot. v, 97. πολλοὺς γὰρ οἶκε εἶναι εὐπετέστερον - διαβάλλειν ἢ ἕνα, εἰ Κλεομένεα μὲν τὸν Λακεδαιμόνιον μοῦνον οὐκ - οἷός τε ἐγένετο διαβαλέειν, τρεῖς δὲ μυριάδας Ἀθηναίων ἐποίησε - τοῦτο. - - [536] Herodot. v, 98; Homer, Iliad, v, 62. The criticism of - Plutarch (De Malignitat. Herodot. p. 861) on this passage, is - rather more pertinent than the criticisms in that ill-tempered - composition generally are. - -When Aristagoras returned, he seems to have found the Persians -engaged in the siege of Milêtus. The twenty Athenian ships soon -crossed the Ægean, and found there five Eretrian ships which had also -come to the succor of the Ionians; the Eretrians generously taking -this opportunity to repay assistance formerly rendered to them by -the Milesians in their ancient war with Chalkis. On the arrival of -these allies, Aristagoras organized an expedition from Ephesus up to -Sardis, under the command of his brother Charopinus, with others. The -ships were left at Korêssus,[537] a mountain and seaport five miles -from Ephesus, while the troops marched up under Ephesian guides, -first, along the river Kayster, next, across the mountain range of -Tmôlus to Sardis. Artaphernês had not troops enough to do more than -hold the strong citadel, so that the assailants possessed themselves -of the town without opposition. But he immediately recalled his -force near Miletus,[538] and summoned Persians and Lydians from -all the neighboring districts, thus becoming more than a match -for Charopinus; who found himself, moreover, obliged to evacuate -Sardis, owing to an accidental conflagration. Most of the houses in -that city were built in great part with reeds or straw, and all of -them had thatched roofs; hence it happened that a spark touching -one of them set the whole city in flame. Obliged to abandon their -dwellings by this accident, the population of the town congregated -in the market-place,—and as reinforcements were hourly crowding -in, the position of the Ionians and Athenians became precarious: -they evacuated the town, took up a position on Mount Tmôlus, and, -when night came, made the best of their way to the sea-coast. The -troops of Artaphernês pursued, overtook them near Ephesus, and -defeated them completely. Eualkidês, the Eretrian general, a man of -eminence and a celebrated victor at the solemn games, perished in the -action, together with a considerable number of troops. After this -unsuccessful commencement, the Athenians betook themselves to their -vessels and sailed home, in spite of pressing instances on the part -of Aristagoras to induce them to stay. They took no farther part in -the struggle;[539] a retirement at once so sudden and so complete, -that they must probably have experienced some glaring desertion on -the part of their Asiatic allies, similar to that which brought so -much danger upon the Spartan general Derkyllidas, in 396 B. C. Unless -such was the case, they seem open to censure rather for having too -soon withdrawn their aid, than for having originally lent it.[540] - - [537] About Korêssus, see Diodor. xiv, 99, and Xenophon, Hellen. - i, 2, 7. - - [538] Charôn of Lampsakus, and Lysanias in his history of - Eretria, seem to have mentioned this first siege of Milêtus, and - the fact of its being raised in consequence of the expedition to - Sardis; see Plutarch, de Herodot. Malignit. p. 861,—though the - citation is given there confusedly, so that we cannot make much - out of it. - - [539] Herodot. v, 102, 103. It is a curious fact that Charôn of - Lampsakus made no mention of this defeat of the united Athenian - and Ionian force: see Plutarch, de Herodot. Malign. _ut sup._ - - [540] About Derkyllidas, see Xenophon, Hellen. iii, 2, 17-19. - -The burning of a place so important as Sardis, however, including -the temples of the local goddess Kybêbê, which perished with -the remaining buildings, produced a powerful effect on both -sides,—encouraging the revolters, as well as incensing the Persians. -Aristagoras despatched ships along the coast, northward as far as -Byzantium, and southward as far as Cyprus. The Greek cities near -the Hellespont and the Propontis were induced, either by force or -by inclination, to take part with him: the Karians embraced his -cause warmly; even the Kaunians, who had not declared themselves -before, joined him as soon as they heard of the capture of Sardis; -while the Greeks in Cyprus, with the single exception of the town of -Amathûs, at once renounced the authority of Darius, and prepared for -a strenuous contest. Onesilus of Salamis, the most considerable city -in the island,—finding the population willing, but his brother, the -despot Gorgus, reluctant,—shut the latter out of the gates, took the -command of the united forces of Salamis and other revolting cities, -and laid siege to Amathûs. These towns of Cyprus were then, and seem -always afterwards to have continued, under the government of despots; -who, however, unlike the despots in Ionia generally, took part along -with their subjects in the revolt against Persia.[541] - - [541] Herodot. v, 103, 104, 108. Compare the proceedings in - Cyprus against Artaxerxês Mnêmon, under the energetic Evagoras of - Salamis (Diodor. xiv, 98, xv, 2), about 386 B. C.: most of the - petty princes of the island became for the time his subjects, - but in 351 B. C. there were nine of them independent (Diodor. - xvi, 42), and seemingly quite as many at the time when Alexander - besieged Tyre (Arrian, ii, 20, 8). - -The rebellion had now assumed a character more serious than ever, and -the Persians were compelled to put forth their strongest efforts to -subdue it. From the number of different nations comprised in their -empire, they were enabled to make use of the antipathies of one -against the other; and the old adverse feeling of Phenicians against -Greeks was now found extremely serviceable. After a year spent in -getting together forces,[542] the Phenician fleet was employed to -transport into Cyprus the Persian general Artybius with a Kilikian -and Egyptian army,[543]—while the force under Artaphernês at Sardis -was so strengthened as to enable him to act at once against all the -coast of Asia Minor, from the Propontis to the Triopian promontory. -On the other side, the common danger had for the moment brought the -Ionians into a state of union foreign to their usual habit, and we -hear now, for the first and the last time, of a tolerably efficient -Pan-Ionic authority.[544] - - [542] Herodot. v, 116. Κύπριοι μὲν δὴ, ἐνιαυτὸν ἐλεύθεροι - γενόμενοι, αὖτις ἐκ νέης κατεδεδούλωντο. - - [543] Herodot. vi, 6. Κίλικες καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι. - - [544] Herodot. v, 109. Ἡμέας δὲ ἀπέπεμψε ~τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἰώνων~ - φυλάξοντας τὴν θάλασσαν, etc.: compare vi, 7. - -Apprized of the coming of Artybius with the Phenician fleet, Onesilus -and his Cyprian supporters solicited the aid of the Ionic fleet, -which arrived shortly after the disembarkation of the Persian force -in the island. Onesilus offered to the Ionians their choice, whether -they would fight the Phenicians at sea or the Persians on land. Their -natural determination was in favor of the seafight, and they engaged -with a degree of courage and unanimity which procured for them a -brilliant victory; the Samians being especially distinguished.[545] -But the combat on land, carried on at the same time, took a different -turn. Onesilus and the Salaminians brought into the field, after -the fashion of Orientals rather than of Greeks, a number of scythed -chariots, destined to break the enemy’s ranks; while on the other -hand the Persian general Artybius was mounted on a horse, trained to -rise on his hind legs and strike out with his fore legs against an -opponent on foot. In the thick of the fight, Onesilus and his Karian -shield-bearer came into personal conflict with this general and his -horse; and by previous concert, when the horse so reared as to get -his fore legs over the shield of Onesilus, the Karian with a scythe -severed the legs from his body, while Onesilus with his own hand -slew Artybius. But the personal bravery of the Cypriots was rendered -useless by treachery in their own ranks. Stêsênor, despot of Kurium, -deserted in the midst of the battle, and even the scythed chariots -of Salamis followed his example. The brave Onesilus, thus weakened, -perished in the total rout of his army, along with Aristokyprus -despot of Soli, on the north coast of the island: this latter being -son of that Philokyprus who had been immortalized more than sixty -years before, in the poems of Solon. No farther hopes now remained -for the revolters, and the victorious Ionian fleet returned home. -Salamis relapsed under the sway of its former despot Gorgus, while -the remaining cities in Cyprus were successively besieged and taken: -not without a resolute defence, however, since Soli alone held out -five months.[546] - - [545] Herodot. v, 112. - - [546] Herodot. v, 112-115. It is not uninteresting to compare, - with this reconquest of Cyprus by the Persians, the conquest of - the same island by the Turks in 1570, when they expelled from it - the Venetians. See the narrative of that conquest (effected in - the reign of Selim the Second by the Seraskier Mustapha-Pasha), - in Von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmannischen Reichs, book xxxvi, - vol. iii, pp. 578-589. Of the two principal towns, Nikosia in - the centre of the island, and Famagusta on the north-eastern - coast, the first, after a long siege, was taken by storm, and the - inhabitants of every sex and age either put to death or carried - into slavery; while the second, after a most gallant defence, was - allowed to capitulate. But the terms of the capitulation were - violated in the most flagitious manner by the Seraskier, who - treated the brave Venetian governor, Bragadino, with frightful - cruelty, cutting off his nose and ears, exposing him to all sorts - of insults, and ultimately causing him to be flayed alive. The - skin of this unfortunate general was conveyed to Constantinople - as a trophy, but in after-times found its way to Venice. - - We read of nothing like this treatment of Bragadino in the - Persian reconquest of Cyprus, though it was a subjugation after - revolt; indeed, nothing like it in all Persian warfare. - - Von Hammer gives a short sketch (not always very accurate as to - ancient times) of the condition of Cyprus under its successive - masters,—Persians, Græco-Egyptians, Romans, Arabians, the dynasty - of Lusignan, Venetians, and Turks,—the last seems decidedly the - worst of all. - - In reference to the above-mentioned piece of cruelty, I may - mention that the Persian king Kambysês caused one of the royal - judges (according to Herodotus v, 25), who had taken a bribe - to render an iniquitous judgment, to be flayed alive, and his - skin to be stretched upon the seat on which his son was placed - to succeed him; as a lesson of justice to the latter. A similar - story is told respecting the Persian king Artaxerxês Mnêmon; and - what is still more remarkable, the same story is also recounted - in the Turkish history, as an act of Mohammed the Second (Von - Hammer, Geschichte des Osmannisch. Reichs, book xvii, vol. ii, p. - 209; Diodorus, xv, 10). Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii, 6) had good - reason to treat the reality of the fact as problematical. - -Meanwhile the principal force of Darius having been assembled -at Sardis,—Daurisês, Hymeas, and other generals who had married -daughters of the Great King, distributed their efforts against -different parts of the western coast. Daurisês attacked the -towns near the Hellespont,[547]—Abydus, Perkôtê, Lampsakus, and -Pæsus,—which made little resistance. He was then ordered southward -into Karia, while Hymeas, who, with another division, had taken Kios -on the Propontis, marched down to the Hellespont and completed the -conquest of the Troad as well as of the Æolic Greeks in the region -of Ida. Artaphernês and Otanês attacked the Ionic and Æolic towns on -the coast,—the former taking Klazomenæ,[548] the latter Kymê. There -remained Karia, which, with Milêtus in its neighborhood, offered -a determined resistance to Daurisês. Forewarned of his approach, -the Karians assembled at a spot called the White Pillars, near the -confluence of the rivers Mæander and Marsyas. Pixodarus, one of their -chiefs, recommended the desperate expedient of fighting with the -river at their back, so that all chance of flight might be cut off; -but most of the chiefs decided in favor of a contrary policy,[549]—to -let the Persians pass the river, in hopes of driving them back into -it and thus rendering their defeat total. Victory, however, after a -sharp contest, declared in favor of Daurisês, chiefly in consequence -of his superior numbers: two thousand Persians, and not less than -ten thousand Karians, are said to have perished in the battle. The -Karian fugitives, reunited after the flight, in the grove of noble -plane-trees consecrated to Zeus Stratius, near Labranda,[550] were -deliberating whether they should now submit to the Persians or -emigrate forever, when the appearance of a Milesian reinforcement -restored their courage. A second battle was fought, and a second -time they were defeated, the loss on this occasion falling chiefly -on the Milesians.[551] The victorious Persians now proceeded to -assault Karian cities, but Herakleidês of Mylasa laid an ambuscade -for them with so much skill and good fortune, that their army was -nearly destroyed, and Daurisês with other Persian generals perished. -This successful effort, following upon two severe defeats, does honor -to the constancy of the Karians, upon whom Greek proverbs generally -fasten a mean reputation. It saved for the time the Karian towns, -which the Persians did not succeed in reducing until after the -capture of Milêtus.[552] - - [547] Herodot. v, 117. - - [548] Herodot. v, 122-124. - - [549] Herodot. v, 118. On the topography of this spot, as - described in Herodotus, see a good note in Weissenborn, Beyträge - zur genaueren Erforschung der alt. Griechischen Geschichte, p. - 116, Jena, 1844. - - He thinks, with much reason, that the river Marsyas here - mentioned cannot be that which flows through Kelænæ, but another - of the same name which flows into the Mæander from the southwest. - - [550] About the village of Labranda and the temple of Zeus - Stratius, see Strabo, xiv, p. 659. Labranda was a village in - the territory of, and seven miles distant from, the inland town - of Mylasa; it was Karian at the time of the Ionic revolt, but - partially Hellenized before the year 350 B. C. About this latter - epoch, three rural tribes of Mylasa—constituting along with the - citizens of the town, the Mylasene community—were, Ταρκόνδαρα, - Ὀτώρκονδα, Λάβρανδα,—see the Inscription in Boeckh’s Collection, - No. 2695, and in Franz, Epigraphicê Græca, No. 73, p. 191. In - the Lydian language, λάβρυς is said to have signified a hatchet - (Plutarch, Quæst. Gr. c. 45, p. 314). - - [551] Herodot. v, 118, 119. - - [552] Herodot. v, 120, 121; vi, 25. - -On land, the revolters were thus everywhere worsted, though at sea -the Ionians still remained masters. But the unwarlike Aristagoras -began to despair of success, and to meditate a mean desertion of -the companions and countrymen whom he had himself betrayed into -danger. Assembling his chief advisers, he represented to them the -unpromising state of affairs, and the necessity of securing some -place of refuge, in case they were expelled from Milêtus. He then put -the question to them, whether the island of Sardinia, or Myrkinus in -Thrace, near the Strymon (which Histiæus had begun some time before -to fortify, as I have mentioned in the preceding chapter), appeared -to them best adapted to the purpose. Among the persons consulted -was Hekatæus the historian, who approved neither the one nor the -other scheme, but suggested the erection of a fortified post in the -neighboring island of Leros; a Milesian colony, wherein a temporary -retirement might be sought, should it prove impossible to hold -Milêtus, but which permitted an easy return to that city, so soon -as opportunity offered.[553] Such an opinion must doubtless have -been founded on the assumption, that they would be able to maintain -superiority at sea. And it is important to note such confident -reliance upon this superiority in the mind of a sagacious man, not -given to sanguine hopes, like Hekatæus,—even under circumstances -very unprosperous on land. Emigration to Myrkinus, as proposed by -Aristagoras, presented no hope of refuge at all; since the Persians, -if they regained their authority in Asia Minor, would not fail again -to extend it to the Strymon. Nevertheless, the consultation ended -by adopting this scheme, since, probably, no Ionians could endure -the immeasurable distance of Sardinia as a new home. Aristagoras -set sail for Myrkinus, taking with him all who chose to bear him -company; but he perished not long after landing, together with nearly -all his company, in the siege of a neighboring Thracian town.[554] -Though making profession to lay down his supreme authority at the -commencement of the revolt, he had still contrived to retain it in -great measure; and on departing for Myrkinus, he devolved it on -Pythagoras, a citizen in high esteem. It appears however that the -Milesians, glad to get rid of a leader who had brought them nothing -but mischief,[555] paid little obedience to his successor, and made -their government from this period popular in reality as well as in -profession. The desertion of Aristagoras, with the citizens whom -he carried away, must have seriously damped the spirits of those -who remained: nevertheless, it seems that the cause of the Ionic -revolters was quite as well conducted without him. - - [553] Herodot. v, 125; Strabo, xiv, p. 635. - - [554] Herodot. v, 126. - - [555] Herodot. vi, 5. Οἱ δὲ Μιλήσιοι, ἄσμενοι ἀπαλλαχθέντες καὶ - Ἀρισταγόρεῳ, οὐδαμῶς ἕτοιμοι ἔσαν ἄλλον τύραννον δέκεσθαι ἐς τὴν - χώρην, οἷά τε ἐλευθερίης γευσάμενοι. - -Not long after his departure, another despot—Histiæus of Milêtus, -his father-in-law, and jointly with him the fomenter of the -revolt—presented himself at the gates of Milêtus for admission. The -outbreak of the revolt had enabled him, as he had calculated, to -procure leave of departure from Darius. That prince had been thrown -into violent indignation by the attack and burning of Sardis, and -by the general revolt of Ionia, headed (so the news reached him) -by the Milesian Aristagoras, but carried into effect by the active -coöperation of the Athenians. “The Athenians (exclaimed Darius), -who are _they_?” On receiving the answer, he asked for his bow, -placed an arrow on the string, and shot as high as he could towards -the heavens, saying: “Grant me, Zeus, to revenge myself on the -Athenians.” He at the same time desired an attendant to remind him -thrice every day at dinner: “Master, remember the Athenians;” for as -to the Ionians, he felt assured that their hour of retribution would -come speedily and easily enough.[556] - - [556] Herodot. v, 105. Ὦ Ζεῦ, ἐκγενέσθαί μοι Ἀθηναίους τίσασθαι. - Compare the Thracian practice of communicating with the gods by - shooting arrows high up into the air (Herodot. iv, 94). - -This Homeric incident deserves notice as illustrating the epical -handling of Herodotus. His theme is, the invasions of Greece by -Persia: he has now arrived at the first eruption, in the bosom of -Darius, of that passion which impelled the Persian forces towards -Marathon and Salamis,—and he marks the beginning of the new phase -by act and word both alike significant. It may be compared to the -libation and prayer addressed by Achilles in the Iliad to Zeus, at -the moment when he is sending forth Patroklus and the Myrmidons to -the rescue of the despairing Greeks. - -At first, Darius had been inclined to ascribe the movement in Ionia -to the secret instigation of Histiæus, whom he called into his -presence and questioned. But the latter found means to satisfy him, -and even to make out that no such mischief would have occurred, if -he, Histiæus, had been at Milêtus instead of being detained at Susa. -“Send me down to the spot, he asseverated, and I engage not merely -to quell the revolt, and put into your hands the traitor who heads -it, but also, not to take off this tunic from my body, before I -shall have added to your empire the great island of Sardinia.” An -expedition to Sardinia, though never realized, appears to have been -among the favorite fancies of the Ionic Greeks of that day.[557] By -such boasts and assurances he obtained his liberty, and went down to -Sardis, promising to return as soon as he should have accomplished -them.[558] - - [557] Herodot. v, 107, vi, 2. Compare the advice of Bias of - Priênê to the Ionians, when the Persian conqueror Cyrus was - approaching, to found a Pan-Ionic colony in Sardinia (Herodot. i, - 170): the idea started by Aristagoras has been alluded to just - above (Herodot. v, 124). - - Pausanias (iv, 23, 2) puts into the mouth of Mantiklus, son of - Aristomenês, a recommendation to the Messenians, when conquered a - second time by the Spartans, to migrate to Sardinia. - - [558] Herodot. v, 106, 107. - -But on reaching Sardis he found the satrap Artaphernês better -informed than the Great King at Susa. Though Histiæus, when -questioned as to the causes which had brought on the outbreak, -affected nothing but ignorance and astonishment, Artaphernês detected -his evasions, and said: “I will tell you how the facts stand, -Histiæus: it is you that have stitched this shoe, and Aristagoras -has put it on.”[559] Such a declaration promised little security -to the suspected Milesian who heard it; and accordingly, as soon -as night arrived, he took to flight, went down to the coast, and -from thence passed over to Chios. Here he found himself seized on -the opposite count, as the confidant of Darius and the enemy of -Ionia: he was released, however, on proclaiming himself not merely a -fugitive escaping from Persian custody, but also as the prime author -of the Ionic revolt. And he farther added, in order to increase -his popularity, that Darius had contemplated the translation of the -Ionian population to Phenicia, as well as that of the Phenician -population to Ionia,—to prevent which translation he, Histiæus, had -instigated the revolt. This allegation, though nothing better than -a pure fabrication, obtained for him the good-will of the Chians, -who carried him back to Milêtus. But before he departed, he avenged -himself on Artaphernês by despatching to Sardis some false letters, -implicating many distinguished Persians in a conspiracy jointly with -himself: these letters were so managed as to fall into the hands -of the satrap himself, who became full of suspicion, and put to -death several of the parties, to the great uneasiness of all around -him.[560] - - [559] Herodot. vi, 1. Οὕτω τοι, Ἱστίαιε, ἔχει κατὰ ταῦτα - τὰ πρήγματα· τοῦτο τὸ ὑπόδημα ἔῤῥαψας μὲν σὺ, ὑπεδήσατο δὲ - Ἀρισταγόρης. - - [560] Herodot. vi, 2-5. - -On arriving at Milêtus, Histiæus found Aristagoras no longer present, -and the citizens altogether adverse to the return of their old -despot. Nevertheless, he tried to force his way by night into the -town, but was repulsed and even wounded in the thigh. He returned -to Chios, but the Chians refused him the aid of any of their ships: -he next passed to Lesbos, from the inhabitants of which island he -obtained eight triremes, and employed them to occupy Byzantium, -pillaging and detaining the Ionian merchant-ships as they passed -into or out of the Euxine.[561] The few remaining piracies of this -worthless traitor, mischievous to his countrymen down to the day of -his death, hardly deserve our notice, amidst the last struggles and -sufferings of the subjugated Ionians, to which we are now hastening. - - [561] Herodot. vi, 5-26. - -A vast Persian force, both military and naval, was gradually -concentrating itself near Milêtus, against which city Artaphernês had -determined to direct his principal efforts. Not only the whole army -of Asia Minor, but also the Kilikian and Egyptian troops fresh from -the conquest of Cyprus, and even the conquered Cypriots themselves, -were brought up as reinforcements; while the entire Phenician fleet, -no less than six hundred ships strong, coöperated on the coast.[562] -To meet such a land-force in the field, being far beyond the strength -of the Ionians, the joint Pan-Ionic council resolved that the -Milesians should be left to defend their own fortifications, while -the entire force of the confederate cities should be mustered on -board the ships. At sea they had as yet no reason to despair, having -been victorious over the Phenicians near Cyprus, and having sustained -no defeat. The combined Ionic fleet, including the Æolic Lesbians, -amounting in all to the number of three hundred and fifty-three -ships, was accordingly mustered at Ladê,—then a little island near -Milêtus, but now joined on to the coast, by the gradual accumulation -of land in the bay at the mouth of the Mæander. Eighty Milesian ships -formed the right wing, one hundred Chian ships the centre, and sixty -Samian ships the left wing; while the space between the Milesians and -the Chians was occupied by twelve ships from Priênê, three from Myus, -and seventeen from Teôs,—the space between the Chians and Samians was -filled by eight ships from Erythræ, three from Phôkæa, and seventy -from Lesbos.[563] - - [562] Herodot. vi, 6-9. - - [563] Herodot. vi, 8. - -The total armament thus made up was hardly inferior in number to that -which, fifteen years afterwards, gained the battle of Salamis against -a far larger Persian fleet than the present. Moreover, the courage of -the Ionians, on ship-board, was equal to that of their contemporaries -on the other side of the Ægean; while in respect of disagreement -among the allies, we shall hereafter find the circumstances preceding -the battle of Salamis still more menacing than those before the -coming battle of Ladê. The chances of success, therefore, were at -least equal between the two; and indeed the anticipations of the -Persians and Phenicians on the present occasion were full of doubt, -so that they thought it necessary to set on foot express means for -disuniting the Ionians,—it was fortunate for the Greeks that Xerxês -at Salamis could not be made to conceive the prudence of aiming at -the same object. There were now in the Persian camp all those various -despots whom Aristagoras, at the beginning of the revolt, had driven -out of their respective cities. At the instigation of Artaphernês, -each of these men despatched secret communications to their citizens -in the allied fleet, endeavoring to detach them severally from -the general body, by promises of gentle treatment in the event of -compliance, and by threats of extreme infliction from the Persians -if they persisted in armed efforts. Though these communications were -sent to each without the knowledge of the rest, yet the answer from -all was one unanimous negative.[564] And the confederates at Ladê -seemed more one, in heart and spirit, than the Athenians, Spartans, -and Corinthians will hereafter prove to be at Salamis. - - [564] Herodot. vi, 9-10. - -But there was one grand difference which turned the scale,—the -superior energy and ability of the Athenian leaders at Salamis, -coupled with the fact that they _were_ Athenians,—that is, in command -of the largest and most important contingent throughout the fleet. - -At Ladê, unfortunately, this was quite otherwise: each separate -contingent had its own commander, but we hear of no joint commander -at all. Nor were the chiefs who came from the larger cities—Milesian, -Chian, Samian, or Lesbian—men like Themistoklês, competent and -willing to stand forward as self-created leaders, and to usurp for -the moment, with the general consent and for the general benefit, a -privilege not intended for them. The only man of sufficient energy -and forwardness to do this, was the Phôkæan Dionysius,—unfortunately, -the captain of the smallest contingent of the fleet, and therefore -enjoying the least respect. For Phôkæa, once the daring explorer of -the western waters, had so dwindled down since the Persian conquest -of Ionia, that she could now furnish no more than three ships; -and her ancient maritime spirit survived only in the bosom of her -captain. When Dionysius saw the Ionians assembled at Ladê, willing, -eager, full of talk and mutual encouragement, but untrained and -taking no thought of discipline, or nautical practice, or coöperation -in the hour of battle,—he saw the risk which they ran for want of -these precautions, and strenuously remonstrated with them: “Our fate -hangs on the razor’s edge, men of Ionia: either to be freemen or -slaves,—and slaves too, caught after running away. Set yourself at -once to work and duty,—you will then have trouble indeed at first, -with certain victory and freedom afterwards. But if you persist -in this carelessness and disorder, there is no hope for you to -escape the king’s revenge for your revolt. Be persuaded and commit -yourself to me; and I pledge myself, if the gods only hold an equal -balance, that your enemies either will not fight, or will be severely -beaten.”[565] - - [565] Herodot. vi, 11. Ἐπὶ ξυροῦ γὰρ ἀκμῆς ἔχεται ἡμῖν τὰ - πρήγματα, ἄνδρες Ἴωνες, ἢ εἶναι ἐλευθέροισι ἢ δούλοισι, καὶ - τούτοισι ὡς δρηπέτῃσι· νῦν ὦν ὑμέες, ἢν μὲν βούλησθε ταλαιπωρίας - ἐνδέκεσθαι, τὸ παραχρῆμα μὲν πόνος ὑμῖν ἔσται, οἷοί τε δὲ ἔσεσθε, - ὑπερβαλλόμενοι τοὺς ἐναντίους, εἶναι ἐλεύθεροι, etc. - -The wisdom of this advice was so apparent, that the Ionians, quitting -their comfortable tents on the shore of Ladê and going on board -their ships, submitted themselves to the continuous nautical labors -and manœuvres imposed upon them by Dionysius. The rowers, and the -hoplites on the deck, were exercised in their separate functions, and -even when they were not so employed, the ships were kept at anchor, -and the crews on board, instead of on shore; so that the work lasted -all day long, under a hot summer’s sun. Such labor, new to the Ionian -crews, was endured for seven successive days, after which they broke -out with one accord into resolute mutiny and refusal: “Which of the -gods have we offended, to bring upon ourselves such a retribution -as this? madmen as we are, to put ourselves into the hands of this -Phôkæan braggart, who has furnished only three ships![566] He has -now got us, and is ruining us without remedy: many of us are already -sick, many others are sickening; we had better make up our minds to -Persian slavery, or any other mischiefs, rather than go on with these -present sufferings. Come, we will not obey this man any longer.” And -they forthwith refused to execute his orders, resuming their tents -on shore, with the enjoyments of shade, rest, and inactive talk, as -before. - - [566] Herodot. vi, 12. Οἱ Ἴωνες, οἷα ἀπαθέες ἐόντες πόνων - τοιούτων, τετρυμένοι τε ταλαιπωρίῃσί τε καὶ ἡελίῳ, ἔλεξαν πρὸς - ἑωϋτοὺς τάδε—Τίνα δαιμόνων παραβάντες, τάδε ἀναπίμπλαμεν, οἵτινες - παραφρονήσαντες, καὶ ἐκπλώσαντες ἐκ τοῦ νόου, ἀνδρὶ Φωκαέει - ἀλαζόνι, παρεχομένῳ νέας τρεῖς, ἐπιτρέψαντες ἡμέας αὐτοὺς ἔχομεν, - etc. - -I have not chosen to divest this instructive scene of the dramatic -liveliness with which it is given in Herodotus,—the more so as it -has all the air of reality, and as Hekatæus, the historian, was -probably present in the island of Ladê, and may have described -what he actually saw and heard. When we see the intolerable -hardship which these nautical manœuvres and labors imposed upon the -Ionians, though men not unaccustomed to ordinary ship-work,—and -when we witness their perfect incapacity to submit themselves to -such a discipline, even with extreme danger staring them in the -face,—we shall be able to appreciate the severe and unremitting toil -whereby the Athenian seaman afterwards purchased that perfection -of nautical discipline which characterized him at the beginning -of the Peloponnesian war. It will appear, as we proceed with this -history, that the full development of the Athenian democracy worked -a revolution in Grecian military marine, chiefly by enforcing upon -the citizen seaman a strict continuous training, such as was only -surpassed by the Lacedæmonian drill on land,—and by thus rendering -practicable a species of nautical manœuvring which was unknown even -at the time of the battle of Salamis. I shall show this more fully -hereafter: at present, I contrast it briefly with the incapacity of -the Ionians at Ladê, in order that it may be understood how painful -such training really was. The reader of Grecian history is usually -taught to associate only ideas of turbulence and anarchy with the -Athenian democracy; but the Athenian navy, the child and champion -of that democracy, will be found to display an indefatigable labor -and obedience nowhere else witnessed in Greece, and of which even -the first lessons, as in the case now before us, prove to others so -irksome as to outweigh the prospect of extreme and imminent peril. -The same impatience of steady toil and discipline, which the Ionians -displayed to their own ruin before the battle of Ladê, will be found -to characterize them fifty years afterwards as allies of Athens, as -I shall have occasion to show when I come to describe the Athenian -empire. - -Ending in this abrupt and mutinous manner, the judicious suggestions -of the Phôkæan leader did more harm than good. Perhaps his manner of -dealing may have been unadvisedly rude, but we are surprised to see -that no one among the leaders of the larger contingents had the good -sense to avail himself of the first readiness of the Ionians, and to -employ his superior influence in securing the continuance of a good -practice once begun. Not one such superior man did this Ionic revolt -throw up. From the day on which the Ionians discarded Dionysius, -their camp became a scene of disunion and mistrust. Some of them -grew so reckless and unmanageable, that the better portion despaired -of maintaining any orderly battle; and the Samians in particular -now repented that they had declined the secret offers made to them -by their expelled despot,[567]—Æakês, son of Sylosôn. They sent -privately to renew the negotiation, received a fresh promise of the -same indulgence, and agreed to desert when the occasion arrived. On -the day of battle, when the two fleets were on the point of coming -to action, the sixty Samian ships all sailed off, except eleven, -whose captains disdained such treachery. Other Ionians followed their -example; yet amidst the reciprocal crimination which Herodotus had -heard, he finds it difficult to determine who was most to blame, -though he names the Lesbians as among the earliest deserters.[568] -The hundred ships from Chios, constituting the centre of the -fleet—each ship carrying forty chosen soldiers fully armed—formed -a brilliant exception to the rest; they fought with the greatest -fidelity and resolution, inflicting upon the enemy, and themselves -sustaining, heavy loss. Dionysius, the Phôkæan, also behaved in a -manner worthy of his previous language,—capturing with his three -ships the like number of Phenicians. But these examples of bravery -did not compensate the treachery or cowardice of the rest, and the -defeat of the Ionians at Ladê was complete as well as irrecoverable. -To the faithful Chians, the loss was terrible, both in the battle and -after it. For though some of their vessels escaped from the defeat -safely to Chios, others were so damaged as to be obliged to run -ashore close at hand on the promontory of Mykalê, where the crews -quitted them, with the intention of marching northward, through the -Ephesian territory, to the continent opposite their own island. We -hear with astonishment that, at that critical moment, the Ephesian -women were engaged in solemnizing the Thesmophoria,—a festival -celebrated at night, in the open air, in some uninhabited portion of -the territory, and without the presence of any male person. As the -Chian fugitives entered the Ephesian territory by night, their coming -being neither known nor anticipated,—it was believed that they were -thieves or pirates coming to seize the women, and under this error -they were attacked by the Ephesians and slain.[569] It would seem -from this incident that the Ephesians had taken no part in the Ionic -revolt, nor are they mentioned amidst the various contingents. Nor is -anything said either of Kolophon, or Lebedus, or Eræ.[570] - - [567] Herodot. vi, 13. - - [568] Herodot. vi, 14, 15. - - [569] Herodot. vi, 16. - - [570] Thucyd. viii, 14. - -The Phôkæan Dionysius, perceiving that the defeat of Ladê was the -ruin of the Ionic cause, and that his native city was again doomed -to Persian subjection, did not think it prudent even to return home. -Immediately after the battle he set sail, not for Phôkæa, but for the -Phenician coast, at this moment stripped of its protecting cruisers. -He seized several Phenician merchantmen, out of which considerable -profit was obtained: then setting sail for Sicily, he undertook the -occupation of a privateer against the Carthaginians and Tyrrhenians, -abstaining from injury towards Greeks.[571] Such an employment seems -then to have been perfectly admissible. A considerable body of -Samians also migrated to Sicily, indignant at the treachery of their -admirals in the battle, and yet more indignant at the approaching -restoration of their despot Æakês. How these Samian emigrants became -established in the Sicilian town of Zanklê,[572] I shall mention as a -part of the course of Sicilian events, which will come hereafter. - - [571] Herodot. vi, 17. ληϊστὴς κατεστήκεε Ἑλλήνων μὲν οὐδενὸς, - Καρχηδονίων δὲ καὶ Τυρσηνῶν. - - [572] Herodot. vi, 22-25. - -The victory of Ladê enabled the Persians to attack Milêtus by sea as -well as by land; they prosecuted the siege with the utmost vigor, by -undermining the walls, and by various engines of attack: in which -department their resources seem to have been enlarged since the -days of Harpagus. In no long time the city was taken by storm, and -miserable was the fate reserved to it. The adult male population was -chiefly slain; while such of them as were preserved, together with -the women and children, were sent in a body to Susa, to await the -orders of Darius,—who assigned to them a residence at Ampê, not far -from the mouth of the Tigris. The temple at Branchidæ was burned and -pillaged, as Hekatæus had predicted at the beginning of the revolt: -the large treasures therein contained must have gone far to defray -the costs of the Persian army. The Milesian territory is said to -have been altogether denuded of its former inhabitants,—the Persians -retaining for themselves the city with the plain adjoining to it, -and making over the mountainous portions to the Karians of Pedasa. -Some few of the Milesians found a place among the Samian emigrants -to Sicily.[573] It is certain, however, that new Grecian inhabitants -must have been subsequently admitted into Milêtus; for it appears -ever afterwards as a Grecian town, though with diminished power and -importance. - - [573] Herodot. vi, 18, 19, 20, 22. - - Μίλητος μέν νυν Μιλησίων ἠρήμωτο. - -The capture of Milêtus, in the sixth year from the commencement -of the revolt,[574] carried with it the rapid submission of the -neighboring towns in Karia.[575] During the next summer,—the -Phenician fleet having wintered at Milêtus,—the Persian forces -by sea and land reconquered all the Asiatic Greeks, insular as -well as continental. Chios, Lesbos, and Tenedos,—the towns in the -Chersonese,—Selymbria and Perinthus in Thrace,—Prokonnêsus and Artakê -in the Propontis,—all these towns were taken or sacked by the Persian -and Phenician fleet.[576] The inhabitants of Byzantium and Chalkêdôn -fled for the most part, without even awaiting its arrival, to -Mesembria, and the Athenian Miltiadês only escaped Persian captivity -by a rapid flight from his abode in the Chersonese to Athens. His -pursuers were indeed so close upon him, that one of his ships, with -his son Metiochus on board, fell into their hands. As Miltiadês had -been strenuous in urging the destruction of the bridge over the -Danube, on the occasion of the Scythian expedition, the Phenicians -were particularly anxious to get possession of his person, as the -most acceptable of all Greek prisoners to the Persian king; who, -however, when Metiochus the son of Miltiadês was brought to Susa, not -only did him no harm, but treated him with great kindness, and gave -him a Persian wife with a comfortable maintenance.[577] - - [574] Herodot. vi, 18, αἱρέουσι κατ᾽ ἄκρης, ἐν τῷ ἑκτῷ ἔτεϊ ἀπὸ - τῆς ἀποστάσιος τῆς Ἀρισταγόρεω. This is almost the only distinct - chronological statement which we find in Herodotus respecting the - Ionic revolt. The other evidences of time in his chapters are - more or less equivocal: nor is there sufficient testimony before - us to enable us to arrange the events, between the commencement - of the Ionic revolt, and the battle of Marathon, into the precise - years to which they belong. The battle of Marathon stands fixed - for August or September, 490 B. C.: the siege of Milêtus may - probably have been finished in 496-495 B. C., and the Ionic - revolt may have begun in 502-501 B. C. Such are the dates which, - on the whole, appear to me most probable, though I am far from - considering them as certain. - - Chronological critics differ considerably in their arrangement of - the events here alluded to among particular years. See Appendix, - No. 5, p. 244, in Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici; Professor - Schultz, Beyträge zu genaueren Zeitbestimmungen von der 63n zur - 72n Olympiade, pp. 177-183, in the Kieler Philologische Studien; - and Weissenborn, Beyträge zur genaueren Erforschung der alten - Griechischen Geschichte, Jena, 1844, p. 87, _seqq._: not to - mention Reiz and Larcher. Mr. Clinton reckons only ten years from - the beginning of the Ionic revolt to the battle of Marathon; - which appears to me too short; though, on the other hand, - the fourteen years reckoned by Larcher—much more the sixteen - years reckoned by Reiz—are too long. Mr. Clinton compresses - inconveniently the latter portion of the interval,—that portion - which elapsed between the siege of Milêtus and the battle of - Marathon. And the very improbable supposition to which he is - obliged to resort,—of a confusion in the language of Herodotus - between Attic and Olympic years,—indicates that he is pressing - the text of the historian too closely, when he states, “that - Herodotus specifies a term of three years between the capture of - Milêtus, and the expedition of Datis:” see F. H. ad ann. 499. He - places the capture of Milêtus in 494 B. C.; which I am inclined - to believe a year later—if not two years later—than the reality. - Indeed, as Mr. Clinton places the expedition of Aristagoras - against Naxos (which was _immediately before_ the breaking out of - the revolt, since Aristagoras seized the Ionic despots while that - fleet yet remained congregated immediately at the close of the - expedition) in 501 B. C., and as Herodotus expressly says that - Milêtus was taken in the sixth year after the revolt, it would - follow that this capture ought to belong to 495, and not to 494 - B. C. I incline to place it either in 496, or in 495; and the - Naxian expedition in 502 or 501, leaning towards the earlier of - the two dates: Schultz agrees with Larcher in placing the Naxian - expedition in 504 B. C., yet he assigns the capture of Milêtus - to 496 B. C.,—whereas, Herodotus states that the last of these - two events was in the sixth year after the revolt, which revolt - immediately succeeded on the first of the two, within the same - summer. Weissenborn places the capture of Milêtus in 496 B. C., - and the expedition to Naxos in 499,—suspecting that the text in - Herodotus—ἑκτῷ ἔτεϊ—is incorrect, and that it ought to be τετάρτῳ - ἔτεϊ, the fourth year (p. 125: compare the chronological table - in his work, p. 222). He attempts to show that the particular - incidents composing the Ionic revolt, as Herodotus recounts - it, cannot be made to occupy more than four years; but his - reasoning is, in my judgment, unsatisfactory, and the conjecture - inadmissible. The distinct affirmation of the historian, as to - the entire interval between the two events, is of much more - evidentiary value than our conjectural summing up of the details. - - It is vain, I think, to try to arrange these details according to - precise years: this can only be done very loosely. - - [575] Herodot. vi, 25. - - [576] Herodot. vi, 31-33. It may perhaps be to this burning and - sacking of the cities in the Propontis, and on the Asiatic side - of the Hellespont, that Strabo (xiii, p. 591) makes allusion; - though he ascribes the proceeding to a different cause,—to the - fear of Darius that the Scythians would cross into Asia to avenge - themselves upon him for attacking them, and that the towns on the - coast would furnish them with vessels for the passage. - - [577] Herodot. vi, 41. - -Far otherwise did the Persian generals deal with the reconquered -cities on and near the coast. The threats which had been held out -before the battle of Ladê were realized to the full. The most -beautiful Greek youths and virgins were picked out, to be distributed -among the Persian grandees as eunuchs, or inmates of the harems; the -cities with their edifices, sacred as well as profane, were made -a prey to the flames; and in the case of the islands, Herodotus -even tells us, that a line of Persians was formed from shore to -shore, which swept each territory from north to south, and drove -the inhabitants out of it.[578] That much of this hard treatment is -well founded, there can be no doubt. But it must be exaggerated as -to extent of depopulation and destruction, for these islands and -cities appear ever afterwards as occupied by a Grecian population, -and even as in a tolerable, though reduced, condition. Samos was made -an exception to the rest, and completely spared by the Persians, as -a reward to its captains for setting the example of desertion at the -battle of Ladê; at the same time, Æakês the despot of that island -was reinstated in his government.[579] It appears that several other -despots were also replaced in their respective cities, though we are -not told which. - - [578] Herodot. vi, 31, 32, 33. - - [579] Herodot. vi, 25. - -Amidst the sufferings endured by so many innocent persons, of -every age and of both sexes, the fate of Histiæus excites but -little sympathy. Having learned, while carrying on his piracies at -Byzantium, the surrender of Milêtus, he thought it expedient to sail -with his Lesbian vessels to Chios, where admittance was refused to -him. But the Chians, weakened as they had been by the late battle, -were in little condition to resist, so that he defeated their troops -and despoiled the island. During the present break-up of the Asiatic -Greeks, there were doubtless many who, like the Phôkæan Dionysius, -did not choose to return home to an enslaved city, yet had no fixed -plan for a new abode: of these exiles, a considerable number put -themselves under the temporary command of Histiæus, and accompanied -him to the plunder of Thasos.[580] While besieging that town, he -learned the news that the Phenician fleet had quitted Milêtus to -attack the remaining Ionic towns; and he left his designs on Thasos -unfinished, in order to go and defend Lesbos. But in this latter -island the dearth of provisions was such, that he was forced to cross -over to the continent to reap the standing corn around Atarneus and -in the fertile plain of Mysia near the river Kaïkus. Here he fell -in with a considerable Persian force under Harpagus,—was beaten, -compelled to flee, and taken prisoner. On his being carried to -Sardis, Artaphernês the satrap caused him to be at once crucified: -partly, no doubt, from genuine hatred, but partly also under the -persuasion that, if he were sent up as a prisoner to Susa, he might -again become dangerous,—since Darius would even now spare his life, -under an indelible sentiment of gratitude for the maintenance of -the bridge over the Danube. The head of Histiæus was embalmed and -sent up to Susa, where Darius caused it to be honorably buried, -condemning this precipitate execution of a man who had once been his -preserver.[581] - - [580] Herodot. vi, 26-28. ἄγων Ἰώνων καὶ Αἰολέων συχνούς. - - [581] Herodot. vi, 28, 29, 30. - -We need not wonder that the capture of Milêtus excited the strongest -feeling, of mixed sympathy and consternation, among the Athenians. -In the succeeding year (so at least we are led to think, though -the date cannot be positively determined), it was selected as the -subject of a tragedy,—The Capture of Milêtus,—by the dramatic poet -Phrynichus; which, when performed, so painfully wrung the feelings -of the Athenian audience, that they burst into tears in the theatre, -and the poet was condemned to pay a fine of one thousand drachmæ, as -“having recalled to them their own misfortunes.”[582] The piece was -forbidden to be afterwards acted, and has not come down to us. Some -critics have supposed that Herodotus has not correctly assigned the -real motive which determined the Athenians to impose this fine.[583] -For it is certain that the subjects usually selected for tragedy were -portions of heroic legend, and not matters of recent history; so that -the Athenians might complain of Phrynichus on the double ground,—for -having violated an established canon of propriety, as well as for -touching their sensibilities too deeply. Still, I see no reason -for doubting that the cause assigned by Herodotus is substantially -the true one; but it is very possible that Phrynichus, at an age -when tragic poetry had not yet reached its full development, might -touch this very tender subject with a rough and offensive hand, -before a people who had fair reason to dread the like cruel fate for -themselves. Æschylus, in his Persæ, would naturally carry with him -the full tide of Athenian sympathy, while dwelling on the victories -of Salamis and Platæa. But to interest the audience in Persian -success and Grecian suffering, was a task in which much greater poets -than Phrynichus would have failed,—and which no judicious poet would -have undertaken. The sack of Magdeburg, by Count Tilly, in the Thirty -Years’ war, was not likely to be endured as the subject of dramatic -representation in any Protestant town of Germany. - - [582] Herodot. vi, 21, ὡς ἀναμνήσαντα οἰκηΐα κακὰ: compare vii, - 152; also, Kallisthenês ap. Strabo, xiv, p. 635, and Plutarch, - Præcept. Reipubl. Gerend. p. 814. - - [583] See Welcker Griechische Tragödien, vol. i, p. 25. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVI. - -FROM THE IONIC REVOLT TO THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. - - -In the preceding chapter, I indicated the point of confluence between -the European and Asiatic streams of Grecian history,—the commencement -of a decided Persian intention to conquer Attica; manifested first -in the form of a threat by Artaphernês the satrap, when he enjoined -the Athenians to take back Hippias as the only condition of safety, -and afterwards converted into a passion in the bosom of Darius -in consequence of the burning of Sardis. From this time forward, -therefore, the affairs of Greece and Persia came to be in direct -relation one with the other, and capable of being embodied, much more -than before, into one continuous narrative. - -The reconquest of Ionia being thoroughly completed, Artaphernês -proceeded to organize the future government of it, with a degree of -prudence and forethought not often visible in Persian proceedings. -Convoking deputies from all the different cities, he compelled them -to enter into a permanent convention, for the amicable settlement -of disputes, so as to prevent all employment of force by any one -against the others. Moreover, he caused the territory of each city to -be measured by parasangs (each parasang was equal to thirty stadia, -or about three miles and a half), and arranged the assessments -of tribute according to this measurement, without any material -departure, however, from the sums which had been paid before the -revolt.[584] - - [584] Herodot. vi, 42. - -Unfortunately, Herodotus is unusually brief in his allusion to this -proceeding, which it would have been highly interesting to be able -to comprehend perfectly. We may, however, assume it as certain, -that both the population and the territory of many among the Ionic -cities, if not of all, were materially altered in consequence of the -preceding revolt, and still more in consequence of the cruelties -with which the suppression of the revolt had been accompanied. In -regard to Milêtus, Herodotus tells us that the Persians retained -for themselves the city with its circumjacent plain, but gave -the mountain portion of the Milesian territory to the Karians of -Pêdasa.[585] Such a proceeding would naturally call for a fresh -measurement and assessment of tribute; and there may have been -similar transfers of land elsewhere. I have already observed that -the statements which we find in Herodotus, of utter depopulation and -destruction falling upon the cities, cannot be credited in their -full extent; for these cities are all peopled, and all Hellenic, -afterwards. But there can be no doubt that they are partially true, -and that the miseries of those days, as stated in the work of -Hekatæus, as well as by contemporary informants with whom Herodotus -had probably conversed, must have been extreme. New inhabitants would -probably be admitted in many of them, to supply the loss sustained; -and such infusion of fresh blood would strengthen the necessity for -the organization introduced by Artaphernês, in order to determine -clearly the obligations due from the cities both to the Persian -government and towards each other. Herodotus considers that the -arrangement was extremely beneficial to the Ionians, and so it must -unquestionably have appeared, coming as it did immediately after -so much previous suffering. He farther adds, that the tribute then -fixed remained unaltered until his own day,—a statement requiring -some comment, which I reserve until the time arrives for describing -the condition of the Asiatic Greeks after the repulse of Xerxês from -Greece proper. - - [585] Herodot. vi, 20. - -Meanwhile, the intentions of Darius for the conquest of Greece were -now effectively manifested: Mardonius, invested with the supreme -command, and at the head of a large force, was sent down in the -ensuing spring for the purpose. Having reached Kilikia in the course -of the march, he himself got on ship-board and went by sea to -Ionia, while his army marched across Asia Minor to the Hellespont. -His proceeding in Ionia surprises us, and seems to have appeared -surprising as well to Herodotus himself as to his readers. Mardonius -deposed the despots throughout the various Greek cities,[586] and -left the people of each to govern themselves, subject to the Persian -dominion and tribute. This was a complete reversal of the former -policy of Persia, and must be ascribed to a new conviction, doubtless -wise and well founded, which had recently grown up among the Persian -leaders, that on the whole their unpopularity was aggravated, more -than their strength was increased, by employing these despots as -instruments. The phenomena of the late Ionic revolt were well -calculated to teach such a lesson; but we shall not often find the -Persians profiting by experience, throughout the course of this -history. - - [586] Herodot. vi, 43. In recounting this deposition of the - despots by Mardonius, Herodotus reasons from it as an analogy - for the purpose of vindicating the correctness of another of - his statements, which, he acquaints us, many persons disputed; - namely, the discussion which he reports to have taken place among - the seven conspirators, after the death of the Magian Smerdis, - whether they should establish a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a - democracy,—ἐνθαῦτα μέγιστον θώϋμα ἐρέω τοῖσι μὴ ἀποδεκομένοισι - τῶν Ἑλλήνων, Περσέων τοῖσι ἕπτα Ὀτάνεα γνώμην ἀποδέξασθαι, ὡς - χρέων εἴη δημοκρατέεσθαι Πέρσας· τοὺς γὰρ τυράννους τῶν Ἰώνων - καταπαύσας πάντας ὁ Μαρδόνιος, δημοκρατίας κατίστα ἐς τὰς πόλιας. - Such passages as this let us into the controversies of the time, - and prove that Herodotus found many objectors to his story about - the discussion on theories of government among the seven Persian - conspirators (iii, 80-82). - -Mardonius did not remain long in Ionia, but passed on with his -fleet to the Hellespont, where the land-force had already arrived. -He transported it across into Europe, and began his march through -Thrace; all of which had already been reduced by Megabazus, and -does not seem to have participated in the Ionic revolt. The island -of Thasus surrendered to the fleet without any resistance, and the -land-force was conveyed across the Strymon to the Greek city of -Akanthus, on the western coast of the Strymonic gulf. From hence -his land-force marched into Macedonia, and subdued a considerable -portion of its inhabitants, perhaps some of those not comprised in -the dominion of Amyntas, since that prince had before submitted to -Megabazus. Meanwhile, he sent his fleet to double the promontory of -Mount Athos, and to join the land-force again at the gulf of Therma, -with a view of conquering as much of Greece as he could, and even -of prosecuting the march as far as Athens and Eretria;[587] so that -the expedition afterwards accomplished by Xerxês would have been -tried at least by Mardonius, twelve or thirteen years earlier, had -not a terrible storm completely disabled the fleet. The sea near -Athos was then, and is now, full of peril to navigators. One of the -hurricanes, so frequent in its neighborhood, overtook the Persian -fleet, destroyed three hundred ships, and drowned or cast ashore -not less than twenty thousand men: of those who reached the shore, -many died of cold, or were devoured by the wild beasts on that -inhospitable tongue of land. This disaster checked altogether the -farther progress of Mardonius, who also sustained considerable loss -with his land-army, and was himself wounded, in a night attack made -upon him by the tribe of Thracians called Brygi. Though strong enough -to repel and avenge this attack, and to subdue the Brygi, he was yet -in no condition to advance farther. Both the land-force and the fleet -were conveyed back to the Hellespont, and from thence across to Asia, -with all the shame of failure. Nor was Mardonius again employed by -Darius, though we cannot make out that the fault was imputable to -him.[588] We shall hear of him again under Xerxês. - - [587] Herodot. vi, 43, 44, ἐπορεύοντο δὲ ἐπί τε Ἐρετρίαν καὶ - Ἀθήνας. - - [588] Herodot. vi, 44-94. Charon of Lampsakus had noticed the - storm near Mount Athos, and the destruction of the fleet of - Mardonius (Charonis Fragment. 3, ed. Didot; Athenæ. ix, p. 394). - -The ill-success of Mardonius seems to have inspired the Thasians, -so recently subdued, with the idea of revolting. At least, they -provoked the suspicion of Darius by making active preparations for -defence, building war-ships, and strengthening their fortifications. -The Thasians were at this time in great opulence, chiefly from their -gold and silver mines, both in their island and in their mainland -territory opposite. Their mines at Skaptê Hylê, in Thrace, yielded -to them an annual income of eighty talents; and altogether their -surplus revenue—after defraying all the expenses of government, so -that the inhabitants were entirely untaxed—was two hundred talents -(forty-six thousand pounds, if Attic talents; more, if either Euboic -or Æginæan). With these large means, they were enabled soon to make -preparations which excited notice among their neighbors, many of whom -were doubtless jealous of their prosperity, and perhaps inclined -to dispute with them possession of the profitable mines of Skaptê -Hylê. As in other cases, so in this: the jealousies among subject -neighbors often procured revelations to the superior power: the -proceedings of the Thasians were made known, and they were forced to -raze their fortifications as well as to surrender all their ships to -the Persians at Abdêra.[589] - - [589] Herodot. vi, 46-48. See a similar case of disclosure - arising from jealousy between Tenedos and Lesbos (Thucyd. iii, 2). - -Though dissatisfied with Mardonius, Darius was only the more eagerly -bent on his project of conquering Greece, and Hippias was at his -side to keep alive his wrath against the Athenians.[590] Orders were -despatched to the maritime cities of his empire to equip both ships -of war and horse-transports for a renewed attempt. His intentions -were probably known in Greece itself by this time, from the recent -march of his army to Macedonia; but he thought it advisable to send -heralds round to most of the Grecian cities, in order to require -from each the formal token of submission,—earth and water; and thus -to ascertain what extent of resistance his intended expedition was -likely to experience. The answers received were to a high degree -favorable. Many of the continental Greeks sent their submission, -as well as all those islanders to whom application was made. Among -the former, we are probably to reckon the Thebans and Thessalians, -though Herodotus does not particularize them. Among the latter, -Naxos, Eubœa, and some of the smaller islands, are not included; but -Ægina, at that time the first maritime power of Greece, is expressly -included.[591] - - [590] Herodot. vi, 94. - - [591] Herodot. vi, 48-49; viii, 46. - -Nothing marks so clearly the imminent peril in which the liberties -of Greece were now placed, and the terror inspired by the Persians -after their reconquest of Ionia, as this abasement on the part of -the Æginetans, whose commerce with the Asiatic islands and continent -doubtless impressed them strongly with the melancholy consequences -of unsuccessful resistance to the Great King. But on the present -occasion, their conduct was dictated as much by antipathy to Athens -as by fear, so that Greece was thus threatened with the intrusion -of the Persian arm as ally and arbiter in her internal contests: a -contingency which, if it had occurred now in the dispute between -Ægina and Athens, would have led to the certain enslavement of -Greece,—though when it did occur nearly a century afterwards, -towards the close of the Peloponnesian war, and in consequence of -the prolonged struggle between Lacedæmon and Athens, Greece had -become strong enough in her own force to endure it without the loss -of substantial independence. The war between Thebes and Ægina on -one side, and Athens on the other,—begun several years before, and -growing out of the connection between Athens and Platæa,—had never -yet been terminated. The Æginetans had taken part in that war from -gratuitous feeling, either of friendship for Thebes, or of enmity -to Athens, without any direct ground of quarrel,[592] and they had -begun the war even without the formality of notice. Though a period -apparently not less than fourteen years (from about 506-492 B. C.) -had elapsed since it began, the state of hostility still continued; -and we may well conceive that Hippias, the great instigator of -Persian attack upon Greece, would not fail to enforce upon all the -enemies of Athens the prudence of seconding, or at least of not -opposing, the efforts of the Persian to reinstate him in that city. -It was partly under this feeling, combined with genuine alarm, that -both Thebes and Ægina manifested submissive dispositions towards the -heralds of Darius. - - [592] Herodot. v, 81-89. See above, chapter xxxi. The legendary - story there given as the provocation of Ægina to the war is - evidently not to be treated as a real and historical cause of - war: a state of quarrel causes all such stories to be raked up, - and some probably to be invented. It is like the old alleged - quarrel between the Athenians and the Pelasgi of Lemnos (vi, - 137-140). - -Among these heralds, some had gone both to Athens and to Sparta, -for the same purpose of demanding earth and water. The reception -given to them at both places was angry in the extreme. The Athenians -cast the herald into the pit called the barathrum,[593] into which -they sometimes precipitated public criminals: the Spartans threw -the herald who came to them into a well, desiring the unfortunate -messenger to take earth and water from thence to the king. The -inviolability of heralds was so ancient and undisputed in Greece, -from the Homeric times downward, that nothing short of the fiercest -excitement could have instigated any Grecian community to such -an outrage. But to the Lacedæmonians, now accustomed to regard -themselves as the first of all Grecian states, and to be addressed -always in the character of superiors, the demand appeared so gross an -insult as to banish from their minds for the time all recollection of -established obligations. They came subsequently, however, to repent -of the act as highly criminal, and to look upon it as the cause of -misfortunes which overtook them thirty or forty years afterwards: how -they tried at that time to expiate it, I shall hereafter recount.[594] - - [593] It is to this treatment of the herald that the story in - Plutarch’s Life of Themistoklês must allude, if that story - indeed be true; for the Persian king was not likely to send a - second herald, after such treatment of the first. An interpreter - accompanied the herald, speaking Greek as well as his own native - language. Themistoklês proposed and carried a vote that he should - be put to death, for having employed the Greek language as medium - for barbaric dictation (Plutarch, Themist. c. 6). We should be - glad to know from whom Plutarch copied this story. - - Pausanias states that it was Miltiadês who proposed the putting - to death of the heralds at Athens (iii, 12, 6); and that the - divine judgment fell upon his family in consequence of it. From - whom Pausanias copied this statement I do not know: certainly not - from Herodotus, who does not mention Miltiadês in the case, and - expressly says that he does not know in what manner the divine - judgment overtook the Athenians for the crime, “except (says he) - that their city and country was afterwards laid waste by Xerxês; - but I do not think that this happened on account of the outrage - on the heralds.” (Herodot. vii, 133.) - - The belief that there must have been a divine judgment of - some sort or other, presented a strong stimulus to invent or - twist some historical fact to correspond with it. Herodotus - has sufficient regard for truth to resist this stimulus and to - confess his ignorance; a circumstance which goes, along with - others, to strengthen our confidence in his general authority. - His silence weakens the credibility, but does not refute the - allegation of Pausanias with regard to Miltiadês,—which is - certainly not intrinsically improbable. - - [594] Herodot. vii, 133. - -But if, on the one hand, the wounded dignity of the Spartans hurried -them into the commission of this wrong, it was on the other hand -of signal use to the general liberties of Greece, by rousing them -out of their apathy as to the coming invader, and placing them with -regard to him in the same state of inexpiable hostility as Athens -and Eretria. We see at once the bonds drawn closer between Athens -and Sparta. The Athenians, for the first time, prefer a complaint -at Sparta against the Æginetans for having given earth and water to -Darius,—accusing them of having done this with views of enmity to -Athens, and in order to invade Attica conjointly with the Persian. -This they represented “as treason to Hellas,” calling upon Sparta -as head of Greece to interfere. And in consequence of their appeal, -Kleomenês king of Sparta went over to Ægina, to take measures against -the authors of the late proceeding, “for the general benefit of -Hellas.”[595] - - [595] Herodot. vi, 49. Ποιήσασι δέ σφι (Αἰγιμήταις) ταῦτα, ἰθέως - Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπεκέατο, δοκέοντες ἐπὶ σφίσι ἔχοντας τοὺς Αἰγινήτας - δεδωκέναι (γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ), ὡς ἅμα τῷ Πέρσῃ ἐπὶ σφέας στρατεύωνται. - Καὶ ἄσμενοι προφάσιος ἐπελάβοντο· ~φοιτέοντές τε ἐς τὴν Σπάρτην, - κατηγόρεον τῶν Αἰγινητέων τὰ πεποιήκοιεν, προδόντες τὴν Ἑλλάδα~. - Compare viii, 144, ix, 7. ~τὴν Ἑλλάδα δεινὸν ποιούμενοι - προδοῦναι~—a new and very important phrase. - - vi, 61. Τότε δὲ τὸν Κλεομένεα, ἐόντα ἐν τῇ Αἰγίνῃ, ~καὶ κοινὰ τῇ - Ἑλλάδι ἀγαθὰ προεργαζόμενον~, etc. - -The proceeding now before us is of very great importance in the -progress of Grecian history. It is the first direct and positive -historical manifestation of Hellas as an aggregate body, with Sparta -as its chief, and obligations of a certain sort on the part of its -members, the neglect or violation of which constitutes a species -of treason. I have already pointed out several earlier incidents, -showing how the Greek political mind, beginning from entire severance -of states, became gradually prepared for this idea of a permanent -league with mutual obligations and power of enforcement vested in -a permanent chief,—an idea never fully carried into practice, but -now distinctly manifest and partially operative. First, the great -acquired power and territory of Sparta, her military training, her -undisturbed political traditions, create an unconscious deference -towards her, such as was not felt towards any other state: next, she -is seen in the proceedings against Athens, after the expulsion of -Hippias, as summoning and conducting to war a cluster of self-obliged -Peloponnesian allies, with certain formalities which gave to the -alliance an imposing permanence and solemnity: thirdly, her position -becomes recognized as first power or president of Greece, both -by foreigners who invite alliance (Crœsus), or by Greeks who seek -help, such as the Platæans against Thebes, or the Ionians against -Persia. But Sparta has not been hitherto found willing to take -on herself the performance of this duty of protector-general. -She refused the Ionians and the Samian Mæandrius, as well as the -Platæans, in spite of their entreaties founded on common Hellenic -lineage: the expedition which she undertook against Polykratês of -Samos, was founded upon private motives of displeasure, even in the -estimation of the Lacedæmonians themselves: moreover, even if all -these requests had been granted, she might have seemed to be rather -obeying a generous sympathy than performing a duty incumbent upon -her as superior. But in the case now before us, of Athens against -Ægina, the latter consideration stands distinctly prominent. Athens -is not a member of the cluster of Spartan allies, nor does she claim -the compassion of Sparta, as defenceless against an overpowering -Grecian neighbor. She complains of a Pan-Hellenic obligation as -having been contravened by the Æginetans to her detriment and danger, -and calls upon Sparta to enforce upon the delinquents respect to -these obligations. For the first time in Grecian history, such a call -is made; for the first time in Grecian history, it is effectively -answered. We may reasonably doubt, whether it would have been thus -answered,—considering the tardy, unimpressible, and home-keeping -character of the Spartans, with their general insensibility to -distant dangers,[596]—if the adventure of the Persian herald had not -occurred to gall their pride beyond endurance; to drive them into -unpardonable hostility with the Great King; and to cast them into the -same boat with Athens for keeping off an enemy who threatened the -common liberties of Hellas. - - [596] Thucyd. i, 70-118. ἄοκνοι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (_i. e._ the Spartans) - μελλητὰς καὶ ἀποδημηταὶ πρὸς ἐνδημοτάτους. - -From this time, then, we may consider that there exists a -recognized political union of Greece against the Persians,[597]—or -at least something as near to a political union as Grecian temper -will permit,—with Sparta as its head for the present. To such a -preëminence of Sparta, Grecian history had been gradually tending; -but the final event which placed it beyond dispute, and which humbled -for the time her ancient and only rival—Argos—is now to be noticed. - - [597] Herodot. vii, 145-148. Οἱ συνωμόται Ἑλλήνων ἐπὶ τῷ Πέρσῃ. - -It was about three or four years before the arrival of these Persian -heralds in Greece, and nearly at the time when Milêtus was besieged -by the Persian generals, that a war broke out between Sparta and -Argos,[598]—on what grounds Herodotus does not inform us. Kleomenês, -encouraged by a promise of the oracle that he should take Argos, led -the Lacedæmonian troops to the banks of the Erasinus, the border -river of the Argeian territory. But the sacrifices, without which -no river could be crossed, were so unfavorable, that he altered -his course, extorted some vessels from Ægina and Sikyon,[599] and -carried his troops by sea to Nauplia, the seaport belonging to Argos, -and to the territory of Tiryns. The Argeians having marched their -forces down to resist him, the two armies joined battle at Sêpeia, -near Tiryns: Kleomenês, by a piece of simplicity on the part of his -enemies, which we find it difficult to credit in Herodotus, was -enabled to attack them unprepared, and obtained a decisive victory. -For the Argeians, it is stated, were so afraid of being overreached -by stratagem, in the post which their army occupied over against -the enemy, that they listened for the commands proclaimed aloud by -the Lacedæmonian herald, and performed with their own army the same -order which they thus heard given. This came to the knowledge of -Kleomenês, who communicated private notice to his soldiers, that -when the herald proclaimed orders to go to dinner, they should not -obey, but immediately stand to their arms. We are to presume that the -Argeian camp was sufficiently near to that of the Lacedæmonians to -enable them to hear the voice of the herald, yet not within sight, -from the nature of the ground. Accordingly, so soon as the Argeians -heard the herald in the enemy’s camp proclaim the word to go to -dinner,[600] they went to dinner themselves; and in this disorderly -condition they were easily overthrown by the Spartans. Many of them -perished in the field, while the fugitives took refuge in a thick -grove consecrated to their eponymous hero Argus. Kleomenês pursued -and inclosed them therein; but thinking it safer to employ deceit -rather than force, he ascertained from deserters the names of the -chief Argeians thus shut up, and then invited them out successively -by means of a herald,—pretending that he had received their ransom, -and that they were released. As fast as each man came out, he was -put to death; the fate of these unhappy sufferers being concealed -from their comrades within the grove by the thickness of the foliage, -until some one climbing to the top of a tree detected and proclaimed -the destruction going on,—after about fifty of the victims had -perished. Unable to entice any more of the Argeians from their -consecrated refuge, which they still vainly hoped would protect them, -Kleomenês set fire to the grove, and burnt it to the ground, insomuch -that the persons within it appear to have been destroyed, either by -fire or by sword.[601] After the conflagration had begun, he inquired -for the first time to whom the grove belonged, and learnt that it -belonged to the hero Argus. - - [598] That which marks the siege of Milêtus, and the defeat of - the Argeians by Kleomenês, as contemporaneous, or nearly so, is, - the common oracular dictum delivered in reference to both: in the - same prophecy of the Pythia, one half alludes to the sufferings - of Milêtus, the other half to those of Argos (Herodot. vi, 19-77). - - Χρεωμένοισι γὰρ Ἀργείοισι ἐν Δελφοῖσι περὶ σωτηρίης τῆς πόλιος - τῆς σφετέρης, τὸ μὲν ἐς αὐτοὺς τοὺς Ἀργείους φέρον, τὴν δὲ - παρενθήκην ἔχρησε ἐς Μιλησίους. - - I consider this evidence of date to be better than the statement - of Pausanias. That author places the enterprise against Argos - immediately (αὔτικα—Paus. iii, 4, 1) after the accession of - Kleomenês, who, as he was king when Mæandrius came from Samos - (Herodot. iii, 148), must have come to the throne not later than - 518 or 517 B. C. This would be thirty-seven years prior to 480 B. - C.; a date much too early for the war between Kleomenês and the - Argeians, as we may see by Herodotus (vii, 149). - - [599] Herodot. vi, 92. - - [600] Herodot. vi, 78; compare Xenophon, Rep. Laced. xii, 6. - Orders for evolutions in the field, in the Lacedæmonian military - service, were not proclaimed by the herald, but transmitted - through the various gradations of officers (Thucyd. v, 66). - - [601] Herodot. vi, 79, 80. - -Not less than six thousand citizens, the flower and strength of -Argos, perished in this disastrous battle and retreat. And so -completely was the city prostrated, that Kleomenês might easily have -taken it, had he chosen to march thither forthwith and attack it -with vigor. If we are to believe later historians whom Pausanias, -Polyænus, and Plutarch have copied, he did march thither and attack -it, but was repulsed by the valor of the Argeian women; who, in the -dearth of warriors occasioned by the recent defeat, took arms along -with the slaves, headed by the poetess Telesilla, and gallantly -defended the walls.[602] This is probably a mythe, generated by a -desire to embody in detail the dictum of the oracle a little before, -about “the female conquering the male.”[603] Without meaning to -deny that the Argeian women might have been capable of achieving so -patriotic a deed, if Kleomenês had actually marched to the attack of -their city, we are compelled, by the distinct statement of Herodotus, -to affirm that he never did attack it. Immediately after the burning -of the sacred grove of Argos, he dismissed the bulk of his army to -Sparta, retaining only one thousand choice troops,—with whom he -marched up to the Hêræum, or great temple of Hêrê, between Argos and -Mykênæ, to offer sacrifice. The priest in attendance forbade him -to enter, saying that no stranger was allowed to offer sacrifice -in the temple. But Kleomenês had once already forced his way into -the sanctuary of Athênê, on the Athenian acropolis, in spite of the -priestess and her interdict,—and he now acted still more brutally -towards the Argeian priest, for he directed his helots to drag him -from the altar and scourge him. Having offered sacrifice, Kleomenês -returned with his remaining force to Sparta.[604] - - [602] Pausan. ii, 20, 7; Polyæn. viii, 33; Plutarch, De Virtut. - Mulier, p. 245; Suidas, v. Τελέσιλλα. - - Plutarch cites the historian Sokratês of Argos for this story - about Telesilla; an historian, or perhaps composer of a - περιήγησις Ἄργους, of unknown date: compare Diogen. Laërt. ii, - 5, 47, and Plutarch, Quæstion. Romaic. pp. 270-277. According to - his representation, Kleomenês and Demaratus jointly assaulted - the town of Argos, and Demaratus, after having penetrated into - the town and become master of the Pamphyliakon, was driven out - again by the women. Now Herodotus informs us that Kleomenês and - Demaratus were never employed upon the same expedition, after the - disagreement in their march to Attica (v, 75; vi, 64). - - [603] Herodot. vi, 77. - - Ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν ἡ θηλεῖα τὸν ἄρσενα νικήσασα - Ἐξελάσῃ, καὶ κῦδος ἐν Ἀργείοισιν ἄρηται, etc. - - If this prophecy can be said to have any distinct meaning, it - probably refers to Hêrê, as protectress of Argos, repulsing the - Spartans. - - Pausanias (ii, 20, 7) might well doubt whether Herodotus - understood this oracle in the same sense as he did: it is plain - that Herodotus could not have so understood it. - - [604] Herodot. vi, 80, 81: compare v, 72. - -But the army whom he had sent home returned with a full persuasion -that Argos might easily have been taken,—that the king alone was -to blame for having missed the opportunity. As soon as he himself -returned, his enemies—perhaps his colleague Demaratus—brought him -to trial before the ephors, on a charge of having been bribed, -against which he defended himself as follows: He had invaded the -hostile territory on the faith of an assurance from the oracle that -he should take Argos; but so soon as he had burnt down the sacred -grove of the hero Argus,—without knowing to whom it belonged,—he -became at once sensible that this was all that the god meant by -_taking Argos_, and therefore that the divine promise had been -fully realized. Accordingly, he did not think himself at liberty -to commence any fresh attack, until he had ascertained whether the -gods would approve it and would grant him success. It was with this -view that he sacrificed in the Hêræum. But though his sacrifice was -favorable, he observed that the flame kindled on the altar flashed -back from the bosom of the statue of Hêrê, and not from her head. If -the flame had flashed from her head, he would have known at once that -the gods intended him to take the city by storm;[605] but the flash -from her bosom plainly indicated that the topmost success was out -of his reach, and that he had already reaped all the glories which -they intended for him. We may see that Herodotus, though he refrains -from criticizing this story, suspects it to be a fabrication. Not -so the Spartan ephors: to them it appeared not less true as a story -than triumphant as a defence, insuring to Kleomenês an honorable -acquittal.[606] - - [605] Herodot. vi, 82. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ~ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς~ τοῦ ἀγάλματος - ἐξέλαμψε, αἱρέειν ἂν ~κατ᾽ ἀκρῆς~ τὴν πόλιν· ἐκ τῶν στηθέων δὲ - λάμψαντος, πᾶν οἱ πεποιῆσθαι ὅσον ὁ θεὸς ἤθελε. - - For the expression αἱρέειν κατ᾽ ἀκρῆς, compare Herodot. vi, 21, - and Damm. Lex. Homer. v. ἀκρός. In this expression, as generally - used, the last words κατ᾽ ἀκρῆς have lost their primitive and - special sense, and do little more than intensify the simple - αἱρέειν,—equivalent to something like “de fond en comble:” for - Kleomenês is accused by his enemies,—φάμενοί μιν δωροδοκήσαντα, - οὐκ ἑλέειν τὸ Ἄργος, παρέον εὐπετέως μιν ἑλεῖν. But in the story - recounted by Kleomenês, the words κατ᾽ ἀκρῆς come back to their - primitive meaning, and serve as the foundation for his religious - inference, from type to thing typified: if the light had shone - from the head or _top_ of the statue, this would have intimated - that the gods meant him to take the city “_from top to bottom_.” - - In regard to this very illustrative story,—which there seems no - reason for mistrusting,—the contrast between the point of view - of Herodotus and that of the Spartan ephors deserves notice. The - former, while he affirms distinctly that it was the real story - told by Kleomenês, suspects its truth, and utters as much of - skepticism as his pious fear will permit him; the latter find - it in complete harmony, both with their canon of belief and - with their religious feeling,—Κλεομένης δέ σφι ἔλεξε, οὔτε εἰ - ψευδόμενος οὔτε εἰ ἀληθέα λέγων, ἔχω σαφηνέως εἶπαι· ἔλεξε δ᾽ - ὦν.... Ταῦτα δὲ λέγων, πιστά τε καὶ οἴκοτα ἐδόκεε Σπαρτιήτῃσι - λέγειν, καὶ ἀπέφυγε πολλὸν τοὺς διώκοντας. - - [606] Compare Pausanias, ii, 20, 8. - -Though this Spartan king lost the opportunity of taking Argos, his -victories already gained had inflicted upon her a blow such as she -did not recover for a generation, and put her for a time out of all -condition to dispute the primacy of Greece with Lacedæmon. I have -already mentioned that both in legend and in earliest history, Argos -stands forth as the first power in Greece, with legendary claims to -headship, and decidedly above Lacedæmon; who gradually usurps from -her, first the reality of superior power, next the recognition of -preëminence,—and is now, at the period which we have reached, taking -upon herself both the rights and the duties of a presiding state -over a body of allies who are bound both to her and to each other. -Her title to this honor, however, was never admitted at Argos, and -it is very probable that the war just described grew in some way or -other out of the increasing presidential power which circumstances -were tending to throw into her hands. And the complete temporary -prostration of Argos was an essential condition to the quiet -acquisition of this power by Sparta. Occurring as it did two or three -years before the above-recounted adventure of the heralds, it removed -the only rival at that time both willing and able to compete with -Sparta,—a rival who might well have prevented any effective union -under another chief, though she could no longer have secured any -Pan-Hellenic ascendency for herself,—a rival who would have seconded -Ægina in her submission to the Persians, and would thus have lamed -incurably the defensive force of Greece. The ships which Kleomenês -had obtained from the Æginetans as well as from the Sikyonians, -against their own will, for landing his troops at Nauplia, brought -upon both these cities the enmity of Argos, which the Sikyonians -compromised by paying a sum of money, while the Æginetans refused -to do so.[607] And thus the circumstances of the Kleomenic war had -the effect not only of enfeebling Argos, but of alienating her from -natural allies and supporters, and clearing the ground for undisputed -Spartan primacy. - - [607] Herodot. vi, 92. - -Returning now to the complaint preferred by Athens to the Spartans -against the traitorous submission of Ægina to Darius, we find that -king Kleomenês passed immediately over to that island for the purpose -of inquiry and punishment. He was proceeding to seize and carry away -as prisoners several of the leading Æginetans, when Krius and some -others among them opposed to him a menacing resistance, telling him -that he came without any regular warrant from Sparta and under the -influence of Athenian bribes,—that, in order to carry authority, both -the Spartan kings ought to come together. It was not of their own -accord that the Æginetans ventured to adopt so dangerous a course. -Demaratus, the colleague of Kleomenês in the junior or Prokleid line -of kings, had suggested to them the step and promised to carry them -through it safely.[608] Dissension between the two coördinate kings -was no new phenomenon at Sparta; but in the case of Demaratus and -Kleomenês, it had broken out some years previously on the occasion of -the march against Attica; and Demaratus, hating his colleague more -than ever, entered into the present intrigue with the Æginetans with -the deliberate purpose of frustrating his intervention. He succeeded, -and Kleomenês was compelled to return to Sparta; not without -unequivocal menace against Krius and the other Æginetans who had -repelled him,[609] and not without a thorough determination to depose -Demaratus. - - [608] Herodot. vi, 50. Κρῖος—ἔλεγε δὲ ταῦτα ἐξ ἐπιστολῆς τῆς - Δημαρήτου. Compare Pausan. iii, 4, 3. - - [609] Herodot. vi, 50-61, 64. Δημάρητος—φθόνῳ καὶ ἄγῃ χρεώμενος. - -It appears that suspicions had always attached to the legitimacy of -Demaratus’s birth. His reputed father Aristo had had no offspring -by two successive wives: at last, he became enamored of the wife of -his friend Agêtus,—a woman of surpassing beauty,—and entrapped him -into an agreement, whereby each solemnly bound himself to surrender -anything belonging to him which the other might ask for. That which -Agêtus asked from Aristo was at once given: in return, the latter -demanded to have the wife of Agêtus, who was thunderstruck at the -request, and indignantly complained of having been cheated into a -sacrifice of all others the most painful: nevertheless, the oath was -peremptory, and he was forced to comply. The birth of Demaratus took -place so soon after this change of husbands, that when it was first -made known to Aristo, as he sat upon a bench along with the ephors, -he counted on his fingers the number of months since his marriage, -and exclaimed with an oath, “The child cannot be mine.” He soon, -however, retracted his opinion, and acknowledged the child, who grew -up without any question being publicly raised as to his birth, and -succeeded his father on the throne. But the original words of Aristo -had never been forgotten, and private suspicions were still cherished -that Demaratus was really the son of his mother’s first husband.[610] - - [610] Herodot. vi, 61, 62, 63. - -Of these suspicions, Kleomenês now resolved to avail himself, -exciting Leotychidês, the next heir in the Prokleid line of kings, -to impugn publicly the legitimacy of Demaratus; engaging to second -him with all his influence as next in order for the crown, and -exacting in return a promise that he would support the intervention -against Ægina. Leotychidês was animated not merely by ambition, but -also by private enmity against Demaratus, who had disappointed him -of his intended bride: he warmly entered into the scheme, arraigned -Demaratus as no true Herakleid, and produced evidence to prove -the original doubts expressed by Aristo. A serious dispute was -thus raised at Sparta, and Kleomenês, espousing the pretensions of -Leotychidês, recommended that the question as to the legitimacy of -Demaratus should be decided by reference to the Delphian oracle. -Through the influence of Kobôn, a powerful native of Delphi, he -procured from the Pythian priestess an answer pronouncing that -Demaratus was not the son of Aristo.[611] Leotychidês thus became -king of the Prokleid line, while Demaratus descended into a private -station, and was elected at the ensuing solemnity of the Gymnopædia -to an official function. The new king, unable to repress a burst -of triumphant spite, sent an attendant to ask him, in the public -theatre, how he felt as an officer after having once been a king. -Stung with this insult, Demaratus replied that he himself had tried -them both, and that Leotychidês might in time come to try them both -also: the question, he added, shall bear its fruit,—great evil, or -great good, to Sparta. So saying, he covered his face and retired -home from the theatre,—offered a solemn farewell sacrifice at the -altar of Zeus Herkeios, and solemnly adjured his mother to declare to -him who his real father was,—then at once quitted Sparta for Elis, -under pretence of going to consult the Delphian oracle.[612] - - [611] Herodot. vi, 65, 66. In an analogous case afterwards, - where the succession was disputed between Agesilaus the brother, - and Leotychidês the reputed son of the deceased king Agis, the - Lacedæmonians appear to have taken upon themselves to pronounce - Leotychidês illegitimate; or rather to assume tacitly such - illegitimacy by choosing Agesilaus in preference, without the - aid of the oracle (Xenophon, Hellen. iii, 3, 1-4; Plutarch, - Agesilaus, c. 3). The previous oracle from Delphi, however, - φυλάξασθαι τὴν χωλὴν βασιλείαν, was cited on the occasion, and - the question was, in what manner it should be interpreted. - - [612] Herodot. vi, 68, 69. The answer made by the mother to this - appeal—informing Demaratus that he is the son either of king - Aristo, or of the hero Astrabakus—is extremely interesting as an - evidence of Grecian manners and feeling. - -Demaratus was well known to be a high-spirited and ambitious -man,—noted, among other things, as the only Lacedæmonian king down -to the time of Herodotus who had ever gained a chariot victory at -Olympia; and Kleomenês and Leotychidês became alarmed at the mischief -which he might do them in exile. By the law of Sparta, no Herakleid -was allowed to establish his residence out of the country, on pain of -death: this marks the sentiment of the Lacedæmonians, and Demaratus -was not the less likely to give trouble because they had pronounced -him illegitimate.[613] Accordingly they sent in pursuit of him, and -seized him in the island of Zakynthus. But the Zakynthians would not -consent to surrender him, so that he passed unobstructed into Asia, -where he presented himself to Darius, and was received with abundant -favors and presents.[614] We shall hereafter find him the companion -of Xerxês, giving to that monarch advice such as, if it had been -acted upon, would have proved the ruin of Grecian independence; to -which, however, he would have been even more dangerous, if he had -remained at home as king of Sparta. - - [613] Plutarch, Agis, c. 11. κατὰ δή τινα νόμον παλαιὸν, ὃς - οὐκ ἐᾷ τὸν Ἡρακλείδην ἐκ γυναικὸς ἀλλοδαπῆς τεκνοῦσθαι, τὸν δ᾽ - ἀπελθόντα τῆς Σπάρτης ἐπὶ μετοικισμῷ πρὸς ἑτέρους ἀποθνήσκειν - κελεύει. - - [614] Herodot. vi, 70. - -Meanwhile Kleomenês, having obtained a consentient colleague in -Leotychidês, went with him over to Ægina, eager to revenge himself -for the affront which had been put upon him. To the requisition and -presence of the two kings jointly, the Æginetans did not dare to -oppose any resistance. Kleomenês made choice of ten citizens, eminent -for wealth, station, and influence, among whom were Krius and another -person named Kasambus, the two most powerful men in the island. -Conveying them away to Athens, he deposited them as hostages in the -hands of the Athenians.[615] - - [615] Herodot. vi, 78. - -It was in this state that the affairs of Athens and of Greece -generally were found by the Persian armament which landed at -Marathon, the progress of which we are now about to follow. And the -events just recounted were of material importance, considered in -their indirect bearing upon the success of that armament. Sparta had -now, on the invitation of Athens, assumed to herself for the first -time a formal Pan-Hellenic primacy, her ancient rival Argos being too -much broken to contest it,—her two kings, at this juncture unanimous, -employ their presiding interference in coercing Ægina, and placing -Æginetan hostages in the hands of Athens. The Æginetans would not -have been unwilling to purchase victory over a neighbor and rival at -the cost of submission to Persia, and it was the Spartan interference -only which restrained them from assailing Athens conjointly with the -Persian invaders; thus leaving the hands of the latter free, and her -courage undiminished, for the coming trial. - -Meanwhile, a vast Persian force, brought together in consequence of -the preparation made during the last two years in every part of the -empire, had assembled in the Aleïan plain of Kilikia, near the sea. A -fleet of six hundred armed triremes, together with many transports, -both of men and horses, was brought hither for their embarkation: -the troops were put on board, and sailed along the coast to Samos in -Ionia. The Ionic and Æolic Greeks constituted an important part of -this armament, and the Athenian exile Hippias was on board as guide -and auxiliary in the attack of Attica. The generals were Datis, a -Median,[616]—and Artaphernês, son of the satrap of Sardis, so named, -and nephew of Darius. We may remark that Datis is the first person -of Median lineage who is mentioned as appointed to high command -after the accession of Darius, which had been preceded and marked, -as I have noticed in a former chapter, by an outbreak of hostile -nationality between the Medes and Persians. Their instructions were, -generally, to reduce to subjection and tribute all such Greeks as -had not already given earth and water. But Darius directed them -most particularly to conquer Eretria and Athens, and to bring the -inhabitants as slaves into his presence.[617] These orders were -literally meant, and probably neither the generals nor the soldiers -of this vast armament doubted that they would be literally executed; -and that before the end of the year, the wives, or rather the -widows, of men like Themistoklês and Aristeidês would be seen among -a mournful train of Athenian prisoners, on the road from Sardis to -Susa, thus accomplishing the wish expressed by queen Atossa at the -instance of Dêmokêdês. - - [616] Herodot. vi, 94. Δᾶτίν τε, ἐόντα Μῆδον γένος, etc. - - Cornelius Nepos (Life of Pausanias, c. 1) calls Mardonius a Mede; - which cannot be true, since he was the son of Gobryas, one of the - seven Persian conspirators (Herodot. vi, 43). - - [617] Herodot. vi, 94. ἐντειλάμενος δὲ ἀπέπεμπε, - ἐξανδραποδίσαντας Ἐρετρίαν καὶ Ἀθήνας, ἄγειν ἑωϋτῷ ἐς ὄψιν τὰ - ἀνδράποδα. - - According to the Menexenus of Plato (c. 17, p. 245), Darius - ordered Datis to fulfil this order on peril of his own head; no - such harshness appears in Herodotus. - -The recent terrific storm near Mount Athos deterred the Persians -from following the example of Mardonius, and taking their course by -the Hellespont and Thrace. It was resolved to strike straight across -the Ægean[618] (the mode of attack which intelligent Greeks like -Themistoklês most feared, even after the repulse of Xerxês), from -Samos to Eubœa, attacking the intermediate islands in the way. Among -those islands was Naxos, which ten years before had stood a long -siege, and gallantly repelled the Persian Megabatês with the Milesian -Aristagoras. It was one of the main objects of Datis to efface this -stain on the Persian arms, and to take a signal revenge on the -Naxians.[619] Crossing from Samos to Naxos, he landed his army on the -island, which was found an easier prize than he had expected. The -terrified citizens, abandoning their town, fled with their families -to the highest summits of their mountains; while the Persians, -seizing as slaves a few who had been dilatory in flight, burnt the -undefended town with its edifices sacred and profane. - - [618] Thucyd. i, 93. - - [619] Herodot. vi, 95, 96. ἐπὶ ταύτην (Naxos) γὰρ δὴ πρώτην - ἐπεῖχον στρατεύεσθαι οἱ Πέρσαι, μεμνημένοι τῶν πρότερον. - -Immense, indeed, was the difference in Grecian sentiment towards -the Persians, created by the terror-striking reconquest of Ionia, -and by the exhibition of a large Phenician fleet in the Ægean. The -strength of Naxos was the same now as it had been before the Ionic -revolt, and the successful resistance then made might have been -supposed likely to nerve the courage of its inhabitants. Yet such is -the fear now inspired by a Persian armament, that the eight thousand -Naxian hoplites abandon their town and their gods without striking a -blow,[620] and think of nothing but personal safety for themselves -and their families. A sad augury for Athens and Eretria! - - [620] The historians of Naxos affirmed that Datis had been - repulsed from the island. We find this statement in Plutarch, De - Malign. Herodot. c. 36, p. 869, among his violent and unfounded - contradictions of Herodotus. - -From Naxos, Datis despatched his fleet round the other Cyclades -islands, requiring from each, hostages for fidelity and a contingent -to increase his army. With the sacred island of Delos, however, -he dealt tenderly and respectfully. The Delians had fled before -his approach to Tênos, but Datis sent a herald to invite them back -again, promised to preserve their persons and property inviolate, -and proclaimed that he had received express orders from the Great -King to reverence the island in which Apollo and Artemis were born. -His acts corresponded with this language; for the fleet was not -allowed to touch the island, and he himself, landing with only a -few attendants, offered a magnificent sacrifice at the altar. A -large portion of his armament consisted of Ionic Greeks, and this -pronounced respect to the island of Delos may probably be ascribed -to the desire of satisfying their religious feelings; for in their -days of early freedom, this island had been the scene of their solemn -periodical festivals, as I have already more than once remarked. - -Pursuing his course without resistance along the islands, and -demanding reinforcements as well as hostages from each, Datis at -length touched the southernmost portion of Eubœa,—the town of -Karystus and its territory.[621] The Karystians, though at first -refusing either to give hostages or to furnish any reinforcements -against their friends and neighbors, were speedily compelled to -submission by the aggressive devastation of the invaders. This was -the first taste of resistance which Datis had yet experienced; and -the facility with which it was overcome gave him a promising omen as -to his success against Eretria, whither he soon arrived. - - [621] Herodot. vi, 99. - -The destination of the armament was no secret to the inhabitants of -this fated city, among whom consternation, aggravated by intestine -differences, was the reigning sentiment. They made application to -Athens for aid, which was readily and conveniently afforded to them -by means of those four thousand kleruchs, or out-citizens, whom -the Athenians had planted sixteen years before in the neighboring -territory of Chalkis. Notwithstanding this reinforcement, however, -many of them despaired of defending the city, and thought only of -seeking shelter on the unassailable summits of the island, as the -more numerous and powerful Naxians had already done before them; -while another party, treacherously seeking their own profit out of -the public calamity, lay in wait for an opportunity of betraying the -city to the Persians.[622] Though a public resolution was taken to -defend the city, yet so manifest was the absence of that stoutness -of heart which could alone avail to save it, that a leading Eretrian -named Æschinês was not ashamed to forewarn the four thousand Athenian -allies of the coming treason, and urge them to save themselves before -it was too late. They followed his advice and passed over to Attica -by way of Orôpus; while the Persians disembarked their troops, and -even their horses, in expectation that the Eretrians would come -out and fight, at Tamynæ and other places in the territory. As the -Eretrians did not come out, they proceeded to lay siege to the city, -and for some days met with a brave resistance, so that the loss on -both sides was considerable. At length two of the leading citizens, -Euphorbus and Philagrus, with others, betrayed Eretria to the -besiegers; its temples were burnt, and its inhabitants dragged into -slavery.[623] It is impossible to credit the exaggerated statement -of Plato, which is applied by him to the Persians at Eretria, as it -had been before applied by Herodotus to the Persians at Chios and -Samos,—that they swept the territory clean of inhabitants by joining -hands and forming a line across its whole breadth.[624] Evidently, -this is an idea illustrating the possible effects of numbers and -ruinous conquest, which has been woven into the tissue of historical -statements, like so many other illustrative ideas in the writings -of Greek authors. That a large proportion of the inhabitants were -carried away as prisoners, there can be no doubt. But the traitors -who betrayed the town were spared and rewarded by the Persians,[625] -and we see plainly that either some of the inhabitants must have been -left or new settlers introduced, when we find the Eretrians reckoned -ten years afterwards among the opponents of Xerxês. - - [622] Herodot. vi, 100. Τῶν δὲ Ἐρετριέων ἦν ἄρα οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς - βούλευμα, οἳ μετεπέμποντο μὲν Ἀθηναίους, ἐφρόνεον δὲ διφασίας - ἰδέας· οἳ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐβουλεύοντο ἐκλιπεῖν τὴν πόλιν ἐς τὰ ἄκρα - τῆς Εὐβοίης, ἄλλοι δὲ αὐτῶν ἴδια κέρδεα προσδεκόμενοι παρὰ τοῦ - Πέρσεω οἴσεσθαι προδοσίην ἐσκευάζοντο. - - Allusion to this treason among the Eretrians is to be found in a - saying of Themistoklês (Plutarch, Themist. c. 11). - - The story told by Hêrakleidês Ponticus (ap. Athenæ. xii, p. 536), - of an earlier Persian armament which had assailed Eretria and - failed, cannot be at all understood; it rather looks like a mythe - to explain the origin of the great wealth possessed by the family - of Kallias at Athens,—the Λακκόπλουτος. There is another story, - having the same explanatory object, in Plutarch, Aristeidês, c. 5. - - [623] Herodot. vi, 101, 102. - - [624] Plato, Legg. iii, p. 698, and Menexen. c. 10, p. 240; - Diogen. Laërt. iii, 33; Herodot. vi, 31: compare Strabo, x, p. - 446, who ascribes to Herodotus the statement of Plato about the - σαγήνευσις of Eretria. Plato says nothing about the betrayal of - the city. - - It is to be remarked that, in the passage of the Treatise de - Legibus, Plato mentions this story (about the Persians having - swept the territory of Eretria clean of its inhabitants) - with some doubt as to its truth, and as if it were a rumor - intentionally circulated by Datis with a view to frighten the - Athenians. But in the Menexenus, the story is given as if it were - an authentic historical fact. - - [625] Plutarch, De Garrulitate, c. 15, p. 510. The descendants of - Gongylus the Eretrian, who passed over to the Persians on this - occasion, are found nearly a century afterwards in possession of - a town and district in Mysia, which the Persian king had bestowed - upon their ancestor. Herodotus does not mention Gongylus (Xenoph. - Hellen. iii, 1, 6). - - This surrender to the Persians drew upon the Eretrians bitter - remarks at the time of the battle of Salamis (Plutarch, - Themistoklês, c. 11). - -Datis had thus accomplished with little or no resistance one of the -two express objects commanded by Darius, and his army was elated -with the confident hope of soon completing the other. Alter halting -a few days at Eretria, and depositing in the neighboring islet of -Ægilia the prisoners recently captured, he reëmbarked his army to -cross over to Attica, and landed in the memorable bay of Marathon -on the eastern coast,—the spot indicated by the despot Hippias, who -now landed along with the Persians, twenty years after his expulsion -from the government. Forty-seven years had elapsed since he had -made as a young man this same passage, from Eretria to Marathon, in -conjunction with his father Peisistratus, on the occasion of the -second restoration of the latter. On that previous occasion, the -force accompanying the father had been immeasurably inferior to that -which now seconded the son; yet it had been found amply sufficient -to carry him in triumph to Athens, with feeble opposition from -citizens alike irresolute and disunited. And the march of Hippias -from Marathon to Athens would now have been equally easy, as it was -doubtless conceived to be by himself, both in his waking hopes and -in the dream which Herodotus mentions,—had not the Athenians whom he -found been men radically different from those whom he had left. - -To that great renewal of the Athenian character, under the -democratical institutions which had subsisted since the dispossession -of Hippias, I have already pointed attention in a former chapter. -The modifications introduced by Kleisthenês in the constitution -had now existed eighteen or nineteen years, without any attempt -to overthrow them by violence. The Ten Tribes, each with its -constituent demes, had become a part of the established habits of -the country, and the citizens had become accustomed to exercise a -genuine and self-determined decision in their assemblies, political -as well as judicial; while even the senate of Areopagus, renovated -by the nine annual archons successively chosen who passed into it -after their year of office, had also become identified in feeling -with the constitution of Kleisthenês. Individual citizens, doubtless, -remained partisans in secret, and perhaps correspondents of Hippias; -but the mass of citizens, in every scale of life, could look upon -his return with nothing but terror and aversion. With what degree -of newly-acquired energy the democratical Athenians could act in -defence of their country and institutions, has already been related -in a former chapter; though unfortunately we possess few particulars -of Athenian history during the decade preceding 490 B. C., nor can -we follow in detail the working of the government. The new form, -however, which Athenian politics had assumed becomes partially -manifest, when we observe the three leaders who stand prominent at -this important epoch,—Miltiadês, Themistoklês, and Aristeidês. - -The first of the three had returned to Athens, three or four years -before the approach of Datis, after six or seven years’ absence in -the Chersonesus of Thrace, whither he had been originally sent by -Hippias about the year 517-516 B. C., to inherit the property as -well as the supremacy of his uncle the œkist Miltiadês. As despot -of the Chersonese, and as one of the subjects of Persia, he had -been among the Ionians who accompanied Darius to the Danube in his -Scythian expedition, and he had been the author of that memorable -recommendation which Histiæus and the other despots did not think it -their interest to follow,—of destroying the bridge and leaving the -Persian king to perish. Subsequently, he had been unable to remain -permanently in the Chersonese, for reasons which have before been -noticed; yet he seems to have occupied it during the period of the -Ionic revolt.[626] What part he took in that revolt we do not know. -But he availed himself of the period while the Persian satraps were -employed in suppressing it, and deprived of the mastery of the sea, -to expel, in conjunction with forces from Athens, both the Persian -garrison and Pelasgic inhabitants from the islands of Lemnos and -Imbros. The extinction of the Ionic revolt threatened him with ruin; -so that when the Phenician fleet, in the summer following the capture -of Milêtus, made its conquering appearance in the Hellespont, he -was forced to escape rapidly to Athens with his immediate friends -and property, and with a small squadron of five ships. One of these -ships, commanded by his son Metiochus, was actually captured between -the Chersonese and Imbros; and the Phenicians were most eager to -capture himself,[627]—inasmuch as he was personally odious to Darius -from his strenuous recommendation to destroy the bridge over the -Danube. On arriving at Athens, after his escape from the Phenician -fleet, he was brought to trial before the judicial popular assembly -for alleged misgovernment in the Chersonese, or for what Herodotus -calls “his despotism” there exercised.[628] Nor is it improbable, -that the Athenian citizens settled in that peninsula may have had -good reason to complain of him,—the more so as he had carried out -with him the maxims of government prevalent at Athens under the -Peisistratids, and had in his pay a body of Thracian mercenaries. -However, the people at Athens honorably acquitted him, probably -in part from the reputation which he had obtained as conqueror of -Lemnos;[629] and he was one of the ten annually-elected generals of -the republic, during the year of this Persian expedition,—chosen at -the beginning of the Attic year, shortly after the summer solstice, -at a time when Datis and Hippias had actually sailed, and were known -to be approaching. - - [626] The chapter of Herodotus (vi, 40) relating to the - adventures of Miltiadês is extremely perplexing, as I have - already remarked in a former note: and Wesseling considers that - it involves chronological difficulties which our present MSS. - do not enable us to clear up. Neither Schweighäuser, nor the - explanation cited in Bähr’s note, is satisfactory. - - [627] Herodot. vi, 43-104. - - [628] Herodot. vi, 39-104. - - [629] Herodot. vi, 132. Μιλτιάδης, καὶ πρότερον εὐδοκιμέων—_i. - e._ before the battle of Marathon. How much his reputation had - been heightened by the conquest of Lemnos, see Herodot. vi, 136. - -The character of Miltiadês is one of great bravery and -decision,—qualities preëminently useful to his country on the present -crisis, and the more useful as he was under the strongest motive to -put them forth, from the personal hostility of Darius towards him; -but he does not peculiarly belong to the democracy of Kleisthenês, -like his younger contemporaries Themistoklês and Aristeidês. The -two latter are specimens of a class of men new at Athens since the -expulsion of Hippias, and contrasting forcibly with Peisistratus, -Lykurgus, and Megaklês, the political leaders of the preceding -generation. Themistoklês and Aristeidês, different as they were in -disposition, agree in being politicians of the democratical stamp, -exercising ascendency by and through the people,—devoting their time -to the discharge of public duties, and to the frequent discussions -in the political and judicial meetings of the people,—manifesting -those combined powers of action, comprehension, and persuasive -speech, which gradually accustomed the citizens to look to them -as advisers as well as leaders,—but always subject to criticism -and accusation from unfriendly rivals, and exercising such rivalry -towards each other with an asperity constantly increasing. Instead of -Attica, disunited and torn into armed factions, as it had been forty -years before,—the Diakrii under one man, and the Parali and Pedieis -under others,—we have now Attica one and indivisible; regimented -into a body of orderly hearers in the Pnyx, appointing and holding -to accountability the magistrates, and open to be addressed by -Themistoklês, Aristeidês, or any other citizen who can engage their -attention. - -Neither Themistoklês nor Aristeidês could boast of a lineage of gods -and heroes, like the Æakid Miltiadês:[630] both were of middling -station and circumstances. Aristeidês, son of Lysimachus, was on -both sides of pure Athenian blood. But the wife of Neoklês, father -of Themistoklês, was a foreign woman of Thrace or of Karia: and such -an alliance is the less surprising, since Themistoklês must have -been born during the dynasty of the Peisistratids, when the status -of an Athenian citizen had not yet acquired its political value. -There was a marked contrast between these two eminent men,—those -points which stood most conspicuous in the one, being comparatively -deficient in the other. In the description of Themistoklês, which we -have the advantage of finding briefly sketched by Thucydidês, the -circumstance most emphatically brought out is, his immense force -of spontaneous invention and apprehension, without any previous aid -either from teaching or gradual practice. The might of unassisted -nature[631] was never so strikingly exhibited as in him: he conceived -the complications of a present embarrassment, and divined the chances -of a mysterious future, with equal sagacity and equal quickness: -the right expedient seemed to flash upon his mind extempore, even -in the most perplexing contingencies, without the least necessity -for premeditation. Nor was he less distinguished for daring and -resource in action. When engaged on any joint affairs, his superior -competence marked him out as the leader for others to follow, and -no business, however foreign to his experience, ever took him by -surprise, or came wholly amiss to him. Such is the remarkable picture -which Thucydidês draws of a countryman whose death nearly coincided -in time with his own birth: the untutored readiness and universality -of Themistoklês probably formed in his mind a contrast to the more -elaborate discipline, and careful preliminary study, with which the -statesmen of his own day—and Periklês especially, the greatest of -them—approached the consideration and discussion of public affairs. -Themistoklês had received no teaching from philosophers, sophists, -and rhetors, who were the instructors of well-born youth in the -days of Thucydidês, and whom Aristophanês, the contemporary of the -latter, so unmercifully derides,—treating such instruction as worse -than nothing, and extolling, in comparison with it, the unlettered -courage, with mere gymnastic accomplishments, of the victors at -Marathon.[632] There is no evidence in the mind of Thucydidês of any -such undue contempt towards his own age. Though the same terms of -contrast are tacitly present to his mind, he seems to treat the great -capacity of Themistoklês as the more a matter of wonder, since it -sprung up without that preliminary cultivation which had gone to the -making of Periklês. - - [630] Herodot. vi, 35. - - [631] Thucyd. i, 138. ἦν γὰρ ὁ Θεμιστοκλῆς βεβαιότατα δὴ ~φύσεως - ἰσχὺν~ δηλώσας καὶ διαφερόντως τι ἐς αὐτὸ μᾶλλον ἑτέρων ἄξιος - θαυμάσαι· ~οἰκείᾳ γὰρ συνέσει καὶ οὔτε προμαθὼν ἐς αὐτὴν οὐδὲν - οὔτ᾽ ἐπιμαθὼν~, τῶν τε παραχρῆμα δι᾽ ἐλαχίστης βουλῆς κράτιστος - γνώμων, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τοῦ γενησομένου ἄριστος - εἰκαστής. Καὶ ἃ μὲν μετὰ χεῖρας ἔχοι, καὶ ἐξηγήσασθαι οἷός τε· - ὧν δὲ ἄπειρος εἴη, κρῖναι ἱκανῶς οὐκ ἀπήλλακτο. Τό τε ἄμεινον ἢ - χεῖρον ἐν τῷ ἀφανεῖ ἔτι προεώρα μάλιστα· καὶ τὸ ξύμπαν εἰπεῖν, - ~φύσεως μὲν δυνάμει, μελέτης δὲ βραχύτητι, κράτιστος δὴ οὗτος - αὐτοσχεδιάζειν τὰ δέοντα ἐγένετο~. - - [632] See the contrast of the old and new education, as set forth - in Aristophanês, Nubes, 957-1003; also Ranæ, 1067. - - About the training of Themistoklês, compared with that of the - contemporaries of Periklês, see also Plutarch, Themistokl. c. 2. - -The general character given of Plutarch,[633] though many of his -anecdotes are both trifling and apocryphal, is quite consistent with -the brief sketch just cited from Thucydidês. Themistoklês had an -unbounded passion,—not merely for glory, insomuch that the laurels -of Miltiadês acquired at Marathon deprived him of rest,—but also -for display of every kind. He was eager to vie with men richer -than himself in showy exhibition,—one great source, though not the -only source, of popularity at Athens,—nor was he at all scrupulous -in procuring the means of doing so. Besides being assiduous in -attendance at the ekklesia and the dikastery, he knew most of -the citizens by name, and was always ready with advice to them -in their private affairs. Moreover, he possessed all the tactics -of an expert party-man in conciliating political friends and in -defeating political enemies; and though he was in the early part of -his life sincerely bent upon the upholding and aggrandizement of -his country, and was on some most critical occasions of unspeakable -value to it,—yet on the whole his morality was as reckless as his -intelligence was eminent. He will be found grossly corrupt in the -exercise of power, and employing tortuous means, sometimes indeed -for ends in themselves honorable and patriotic, but sometimes also -merely for enriching himself. He ended a glorious life by years -of deep disgrace, with the forfeiture of all Hellenic esteem and -brotherhood,—a rich man, an exile, a traitor, and a pensioner of -the Great King, pledged to undo his own previous work of liberation -accomplished at the victory of Salamis. - - [633] Plutarch, Themistoklês, c. 3, 4, 5; Cornelius Nepos, - Themist. c. 1. - -Of Aristeidês we possess unfortunately no description from the hand -of Thucydidês; yet his character is so simple and consistent, that we -may safely accept the brief but unqualified encomium of Herodotus and -Plato, expanded as it is in the biography of Plutarch and Cornelius -Nepos,[634] however little the details of the latter can be trusted. -Aristeidês was inferior to Themistoklês in resource, quickness, -flexibility, and power of coping with difficulties; but incomparably -superior to him, as well as to other rivals and contemporaries, in -integrity, public as well as private; inaccessible to pecuniary -temptations, as well as to other seductive influences, and deserving -as well as enjoying the highest measure of personal confidence. He is -described as the peculiar friend of Kleisthenês, the first founder -of the democracy,[635]—as pursuing a straight and single-handed -course in political life, with no solicitude for party ties, and with -little care either to conciliate friends or to offend enemies,—as -unflinching in the exposure of corrupt practices, by whomsoever -committed or upheld,—as earning for himself the lofty surname of the -Just, not less by his judicial decisions in the capacity of archon, -than by his equity in private arbitrations, and even his candor in -political dispute,—and as manifesting throughout a long public life, -full of tempting opportunities, an uprightness without flaw and -beyond all suspicion, recognized equally by his bitter contemporary -the poet Timokreon,[636] and by the allies of Athens, upon whom -he first assessed the tribute. Few of the leading men in any part -of Greece were without some taint on their reputation, deserved -or undeserved, in regard to pecuniary probity; but whoever became -notoriously recognized as possessing this vital quality, acquired -by means of it a firmer hold on the public esteem than even eminent -talents could confer. Thucydidês ranks conspicuous probity among the -first of the many ascendent qualities possessed by Periklês;[637] and -Nikias, equal to him in this respect, though immeasurably inferior in -every other, owed to it a still larger proportion of that exaggerated -confidence which the Athenian people continued so long to repose in -him. The abilities of Aristeidês, though apparently adequate to every -occasion on which he was engaged, and only inferior when we compare -him with so remarkable a man as Themistoklês, were put in the shade -by this incorruptible probity, which procured for him, however, along -with the general esteem, no inconsiderable amount of private enmity -from jobbers whom he exposed, and even some jealousy from persons who -heard it proclaimed with offensive ostentation. - - [634] Herodot. viii, 79; Plato, Gorgias, c. 172. ἄριστον ἄνδρα ἐν - Ἀθήνῃσι καὶ δικαιότατον. - - [635] Plutarch (Aristeidês, c. 1-4; Themistoklês, c. 3; An Seni - sit gerenda respublica, c. 12, p. 790; Præcepta Reip. Gerend. c. - ii, p. 805). - - [636] Timokreon ap. Plutarch, Themistoklês, c. 21. - - [637] Thucyd. ii, 65. - -We are told that a rustic and unlettered citizen gave his ostracizing -vote, and expressed his dislike against Aristeidês,[638] on the -simple ground that he was tired of hearing him always called the -Just. Now the purity of the most honorable man will not bear to be -so boastfully talked of as if he were the only honorable man in the -country: the less it is obtruded, the more deeply and cordially -will it be felt: and the story just alluded to, whether true or -false, illustrates that natural reaction of feeling, produced by -absurd encomiasts, or perhaps by insidious enemies under the mask -of encomiasts, who trumpeted forth Aristeidês as _The_ Just man at -Attica, so as to wound the legitimate dignity of every one else. -Neither indiscreet friends nor artful enemies, however, could rob -him of the lasting esteem of his countrymen; which he enjoyed, with -intervals of their displeasure, to the end of his life. Though he -was ostracized during a part of the period between the battle of -Marathon and Salamis,—at a time when the rivalry between him and -Themistoklês was so violent that both could not remain at Athens -without peril,—yet the dangers of Athens during the invasion of -Xerxês brought him back before the ten years of exile were expired. -His fortune, originally very moderate, was still farther diminished -during the course of his life, so that he died very poor, and the -state was obliged to lend aid to his children. - - [638] Plutarch, Aristeidês, c. 7. - -Such were the characters of Themistoklês and Aristeidês, the two -earliest leaders thrown up by the Athenian democracy. Half a -century before, Themistoklês would have been an active partisan in -the faction of the Parali or the Pedieis, while Aristeidês would -probably have remained an unnoticed citizen. At the present period -of Athenian history, the characters of the soldier, the magistrate, -and the orator, were intimately blended together in a citizen who -stood forward for eminence, though they tended more and more to -divide themselves during the ensuing century and a half. Aristeidês -and Miltiadês were both elected among the ten generals, each for -his respective tribe, in the year of the expedition of Datis across -the Ægean, and probably even after that expedition was known to be -on its voyage. Moreover, we are led to suspect from a passage in -Plutarch, that Themistoklês also was general of his tribe on the -same occasion,[639] though this is doubtful; but it is certain that -he fought at Marathon. The ten generals had jointly the command of -the army, each of them taking his turn to exercise it for a day: in -addition to the ten, moreover, the third archon, or polemarch, was -considered as eleventh in the military council. The polemarch of this -year was Kallimachus of Aphidnæ.[640] Such were the chiefs of the -military force, and to a great degree the administrators of foreign -affairs, at the time when the four thousand Athenian kleruchs, or -settlers planted in Eubœa,—escaping from Eretria, now invested by -the Persians,—brought word to their countrymen at home that the fall -of that city was impending. It was obvious that the Persian host -would proceed from Eretria forthwith against Athens, and a few days -afterwards Hippias disembarked them at Marathon, whither the Athenian -army marched to meet them. - - [639] Plutarch, Aristeidês, c. 5. - - [640] Herodot. vi, 109, 110. - -Of the feeling which now prevailed at Athens we have no details, but -doubtless the alarm was hardly inferior to that which had been felt -at Eretria: dissenting opinions were heard as to the proper steps -to be taken, nor were suspicions of treason wanting. Pheidippidês -the courier was sent to Sparta immediately to solicit assistance; -and such was his prodigious activity, that he performed this journey -of one hundred and fifty miles, on foot, in forty-eight hours.[641] -He revealed to the ephors that Eretria was already enslaved, and -entreated their assistance to avert the same fate from Athens, -the most ancient city in Greece. The Spartan authorities readily -promised their aid, but unfortunately it was now the ninth day of the -moon: ancient law or custom forbade them to march, in this month at -least, during the last quarter before the full moon; but after the -full they engaged to march without delay. Five days’ delay at this -critical moment might prove the utter ruin of the endangered city; -yet the reason assigned seems to have been no pretence on the part -of the Spartans. It was mere blind tenacity of ancient habit, which -we shall find to abate, though never to disappear, as we advance in -their history.[642] Indeed, their delay in marching to rescue Attica -from Mardonius, eleven years afterwards, at the imminent hazard of -alienating Athens and ruining the Hellenic cause, marks the same -selfish dulness. But the reason now given certainly looked very like -a pretence, so that the Athenians could indulge no certain assurance -that the Spartan troops would start even when the full moon arrived. - - [641] Mr. Kinneir remarks that the Persian Cassids, or - foot-messengers, will travel for several days successively at - the rate of sixty or seventy miles a day (Geographical Memoir of - Persia, p. 44). - - [642] Herodot. ix, 7-10. - -In this respect the answer brought by Pheidippidês was mischievous, -as it tended to increase that uncertainty and indecision which -already prevailed among the ten generals, as to the proper steps for -meeting the invaders. Partly, perhaps, in reliance on this expected -Spartan help, five out of the ten generals were decidedly averse to -an immediate engagement with the Persians; while Miltiadês with the -remaining four strenuously urged that not a moment should be lost in -bringing the enemy to action, without leaving time to the timid and -the treacherous to establish correspondence with Hippias, and to take -some active step for paralyzing all united action on the part of the -citizens. This most momentous debate, upon which the fate of Athens -hung, is represented by Herodotus to have occurred at Marathon, after -the army had marched out and taken post there within sight of the -Persians; while Cornelius Nepos describes it as having been raised -before the army quitted the city,—upon the question, whether it was -prudent to meet the enemy at all in the field, or to confine the -defence to the city and the sacred rock. Inaccurate as this latter -author generally is, his statement seems more probable here than that -of Herodotus. For the ten generals would scarcely march out of Athens -to Marathon without having previously resolved to fight: moreover, -the question between fighting in the field or resisting behind the -walls, which had already been raised at Eretria, seems the natural -point on which the five mistrustful generals would take their stand. -And probably indeed Miltiadês himself, if debarred from immediate -action, would have preferred to hold possession of Athens, and -prevent any treacherous movement from breaking out there,—rather than -to remain inactive on the hills, watching the Persians at Marathon, -with the chance of a detachment from their numerous fleet sailing -round to Phalêrum, and thus distracting, by a double attack, both the -city and the camp. - -However this may be, the equal division of opinion among the -ten generals, whether manifested at Marathon or at Athens, is -certain,—so that Miltiadês had to await the casting-vote of the -polemarch Kallimachus. To him he represented emphatically the danger -of delay, and the chance of some traitorous intrigue occurring to -excite disunion and aggravate the alarms of the citizens. Nothing -could prevent such treason from breaking out, with all its terrific -consequences of enslavement to the Persians and to Hippias, except -a bold, decisive, and immediate attack,—the success of which he -(Miltiadês) was prepared to guarantee. Fortunately for Athens, the -polemarch embraced the opinion of Miltiadês, and the seditious -movements which were preparing did not show themselves until after -the battle had been gained. Aristeidês and Themistoklês are both -recorded to have seconded Miltiadês warmly in this proposal,—while -all the other generals agreed in surrendering to Miltiadês their days -of command, so as to make him, as much as they could, the sole leader -of the army. It is said that the latter awaited the day of his own -regular turn before he fought the battle.[643] Yet considering the -eagerness which he displayed to bring on an immediate and decisive -action, we cannot suppose that he would have admitted any serious -postponement upon such a punctilio. - - [643] Herodot. vi, 110. - -While the army were mustered on the ground sacred to Heraklês near -Marathon, with the Persians and their fleet occupying the plain and -shore beneath, and in preparation for immediate action, they were -joined by the whole force of the little town of Platæa, consisting -of about one thousand hoplites, who had marched directly from -their own city to the spot, along the southern range of Kithærôn -and passing through Dekeleia. We are not told that they had been -invited, and very probably the Athenians had never thought of -summoning aid from this unimportant neighbor, in whose behalf they -had taken upon themselves a lasting feud with Thebes and the Bœotian -league.[644] Their coming on this important occasion seems to have -been a spontaneous effort of gratitude which ought not to be the -less commended because their interests were really wrapped up in -those of Athens,—since if the latter had been conquered, nothing -could have saved Platæa from being subdued by the Thebans,—yet many -a Grecian town would have disregarded both generous impulse and -rational calculation, in the fear of provoking a new and terrific -enemy. If we summon up to our imaginations all the circumstances -of the case,—which it requires some effort to do, because our -authorities come from the subsequent generations, after Greece had -ceased to fear the Persians,—we shall be sensible that this volunteer -march of the whole Platæan force to Marathon is one of the most -affecting incidents of all Grecian history. Upon Athens generally -it produced an indelible impression, commemorated ever afterwards -in the public prayers of the Athenian herald,[645] and repaid by a -grant to the Platæans of the full civil rights—seemingly without -the political rights—of Athenian citizens. Upon the Athenians then -marshalled at Marathon its effect must have been unspeakably powerful -and encouraging, as a proof that they were not altogether isolated -from Greece, and as an unexpected countervailing stimulus under -circumstances so full of hazard. - - [644] Herodot. vi, 108-112. - - [645] Thucyd. iii, 55. - -Of the two opposing armies at Marathon, we are told that the -Athenians were ten thousand hoplites, either including or besides -the one thousand who came from Platæa.[646] Nor is this statement -in itself improbable, though it does not come from Herodotus, who -is our only really valuable authority on the case, and who mentions -no numerical total. Indeed, the number named seems smaller than we -should have expected, considering that no less than four thousand -kleruchs, or out-settled citizens, had just come over from Eubœa. A -sufficient force of citizens must of course have been left behind -to defend the city. The numbers of the Persians we cannot be said -to know at all, nor is there anything certain except that they were -greatly superior to the Greeks. We hear from Herodotus that their -armament originally consisted of six hundred ships of war, but we -are not told how many separate transports there were; and, moreover, -reinforcements had been procured as they came across the Ægean from -the islands successively conquered. The aggregate crews on board of -all their ships must have been between one hundred and fifty thousand -and two hundred thousand men; but what proportion of these were -fighting men, or how many actually did fight at Marathon, we have -no means of determining.[647] There were a certain proportion of -cavalry, and some transports expressly prepared for the conveyance of -horses: moreover, Herodotus tells us that Hippias selected the plain -of Marathon for a landing place, because it was the most convenient -spot in Attica for cavalry movements,—though it is singular, that in -the battle the cavalry are not mentioned. - - [646] Justin states ten thousand Athenians, besides one thousand - Platæans. Cornelius Nepos, Pausanias, and Plutarch give ten - thousand as the sum total of both. Justin, ii, 9; Corn. Nep. - Miltiad. c. 4; Pausan. iv, 25, 5; x, 20, 2: compare also Suidas, - v. Ἱππίας. - - Heeren (De Fontibus Trogi Pompeii, Dissertat. ii, 7) affirms that - Trogus, or Justin, follows Herodotus in matters concerning the - Persian invasions of Greece. He cannot have compared the two very - attentively; for Justin not only states several matters which are - not to be found in Herodotus, but is at variance with the latter - on some particulars not unimportant. - - [647] Justin (ii, 9) says that the total of the Persian army was - six hundred thousand, and that two hundred thousand perished. - Plato (Menexen. p. 240) and Lysias (Orat. Funebr. c. 7) speak - of the Persian total as five hundred thousand men. Valerius - Maximus (v, 3), Pausanias (iv, 25), and Plutarch (Parallel. Græc. - ad init.), give three hundred thousand men. Cornelius Nepos - (Miltiadês, c. 5) gives the more moderate total of one hundred - and ten thousand men. - - See the observations on the battle of Marathon, made both by - Colonel Leake and by Mr. Finlay, who have examined and described - the locality; Leake, on the Demi of Attica, in Transactions of - the Royal Society of Literature, vol. ii, p. 160, _seq._; and - Finlay, on the Battle of Marathon, in the same Transactions, vol. - iii, pp. 360-380, etc. - - Both have given remarks on the probable numbers of the armies - assembled; but there are really no materials, even for a probable - guess, in respect to the Persians. The silence of Herodotus - (whom we shall find hereafter very circumstantial as to the - numbers of the army under Xerxês) seems to show that he had no - information which he could trust. His account of the battle of - Marathon presents him in honorable contrast with the loose and - boastful assertors who followed him; for though he does not tell - us much, and falls lamentably short of what we should like to - know, yet all that he does say is reasonable and probable as to - the proceedings of both armies and the little which he states - becomes more trustworthy on that very account,—because it _is_ so - little,—showing that he keeps strictly within his authorities. - - There is nothing in the account of Herodotus to make us believe - that he had ever visited the ground of Marathon. - -Marathon, situated near to a bay on the eastern coast of Attica, and -in a direction E.N.E. from Athens, is divided by the high ridge of -Mount Pentelikus from the city, with which it communicated by two -roads, one to the north, another to the south of that mountain. Of -these two roads, the northern, at once the shortest and the most -difficult, is twenty-two miles in length: the southern—longer but -more easy, and the only one practicable for chariots—is twenty-six -miles in length, or about six and a half hours of computed march. -It passed between mounts Pentelikus and Hymettus, through the -ancient demes of Gargêttus and Pallênê, and was the road by which -Peisistratus and Hippias, when they landed at Marathon forty-seven -years before, had marched to Athens. The bay of Marathon, sheltered -by a projecting cape from the northward, affords both deep water and -a shore convenient for landing; while “its plain (says a careful -modern observer[648]) extends in a perfect level along this fine -bay, and is in length about six miles, in breadth never less than -about one mile and a half. Two marshes bound the extremities of the -plain: the southern is not very large, and is almost dry at the -conclusion of the great heats; but the northern, which generally -covers considerably more than a square mile, offers several parts -which are at all seasons impassable. Both, however, leave a broad, -firm, sandy beach between them and the sea. The uninterrupted -flatness of the plain is hardly relieved by a single tree; and an -amphitheatre of rocky hills and rugged mountains separates it from -the rest of Attica, over the lower ridges of which some steep and -difficult paths communicate with the districts of the interior.” - - [648] See Mr. Finlay on the Battle of Marathon, Transactions, - etc., vol. iii, pp. 364, 368, 383, _ut suprà_: compare Hobhouse, - Journey in Albania, i, p. 432. - - Colonel Leake thinks that the ancient town of Marathon was not - on the exact site of the modern Marathon, but at a place called - Vraná, a little to the south of Marathon (Leake, on the Demi of - Attica, in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, - 1829, vol. ii, p. 166). - - “Below these two points,” he observes, “(the tumuli of Vraná and - the hill of Kotróni,) the plain of Marathon expands to the shore - of the bay, which is near two miles distant from the opening of - the valley of Vraná. It is moderately well cultivated with corn, - and is one of the most fertile spots in Attica, though rather - inconveniently subject to inundations from the two torrents - which cross it, particularly that of Marathóna. From Lucian (in - Icaro-Menippo) it appears that the parts about Œnoê were noted - for their fertility, and an Egyptian poet of the fifth century - has celebrated the vines and olives of Marathon. It is natural - to suppose that the vineyards occupied the rising grounds: and - it is probable that the olive-trees were chiefly situated in the - two valleys, where some are still growing: for as to the plain - itself, the circumstances of the battle incline one to believe - that it was anciently as destitute of trees as it is at the - present day.” (Leake, on the Demi of Attica, Trans. of Roy. Soc. - of Literature, vol. ii, p. 162.) - - Colonel Leake farther says, respecting the fitness of the - Marathonian ground for cavalry movements: “As I rode across the - plain of Marathon with a peasant of Vraná, he remarked to me that - it was a fine place for cavalry to fight in. None of the modern - Marathonii were above the rank of laborers: they have heard that - a great battle was once fought there, but that is all they know.” - (Leake, _ut sup._ ii, p. 175.) - -The position occupied by Miltiadês before the battle, identified as -it was to all subsequent Athenians by the sacred grove of Hêraklês -near Marathon, was probably on some portion of the high ground above -this plain, and Cornelius Nepos tells us that he protected it from -the attacks of the Persian cavalry by felled trees obstructing the -approach. The Persians occupied a position on the plain; while their -fleet was ranged along the beach, and Hippias himself marshalled them -for the battle.[649] The native Persians and Sakæ, the best troops in -the whole army, were placed in the centre, which they considered as -the post of honor,[650] and which was occupied by the Persian king -himself, when present at a battle. The right wing was so regarded by -the Greeks, and the polemarch Kallimachus had the command of it; the -hoplites being arranged in the order of their respective tribes from -right to left, and at the extreme left stood the Platæans. It was -necessary for Miltiadês to present a front equal, or nearly equal, -to that of the more numerous Persian host, in order to guard himself -from being taken in flank: and with this view he drew up the central -tribes, including the Leontis and Antiochis, in shallow files, and -occupying a large breadth of ground; while each of the wings was in -stronger and deeper order, so as to make his attack efficient on -both sides. His whole army consisted of hoplites, with some slaves -as unarmed or light-armed attendants, but without either bowmen or -cavalry. Nor could the Persians have been very strong in this latter -force, seeing that their horses had to be transported across the -Ægean. But the elevated position of Miltiadês enabled them to take -some measure of the numbers under his command, and the entire absence -of cavalry among their enemies could not but confirm the confidence -with which a long career of uninterrupted victory had impressed their -generals. - - [649] Herodot. vi, 107. - - [650] Plutarch, Symposiac. i, 3, p. 619; Xenophon, Anabas. i, 8, - 21; Arrian, ii, 8, 18; iii, 11, 16. - - We may compare, with this established battle-array of the Persian - armies, that of the Turkish armies, adopted and constantly - followed ever since the victorious battle of Ikonium, in 1386, - gained by Amurath the First over the Karamanians. The European - troops, or those of Rum, occupy the left wing: the Asiatic - troops, or those of Anatoli, the right wing: the Janissaries are - in the centre. The Sultan, or the Grand Vizir, surrounded by the - national cavalry, or Spahis, is in the central point of all (Von - Hammer, Geschichte des Osmannischen Reichs, book v, vol. i, p. - 199). - - About the honor of occupying the right wing in a Grecian army, - see in particular the animated dispute between the Athenians and - the Tegeates before the battle of Platæa (Herodot. ix, 27): it - is the post assigned to the heroic kings of legendary warfare - (Eurip. Supplices, 657). - -At length the sacrifices in the Greek camp were favorable for battle, -and Miltiadês, who had everything to gain by coming immediately to -close quarters, ordered his army to advance at a running step over -the interval of one mile which separated the two armies. This rapid -forward movement, accompanied by the war-cry, or pæan, which always -animated the charge of the Greek soldier, astounded the Persian -army; who construed it as an act of desperate courage, little short -of insanity, in a body not only small but destitute of cavalry or -archers,—but who, at the same time, felt their conscious superiority -sink within them. It seems to have been long remembered also among -the Greeks as the peculiar characteristic of the battle of Marathon, -and Herodotus tells us that the Athenians were the first Greeks who -ever charged at a run.[651] It doubtless operated beneficially in -rendering the Persian cavalry and archers comparatively innocuous, -but we may reasonably suppose that it also disordered the Athenian -ranks, and that when they reached the Persian front, they were both -out of breath and unsteady in that line of presented spears and -shields which constituted their force. On the two wings, where the -files were deep, this disorder produced no mischievous effect: the -Persians, after a certain resistance, were overborne and driven back. -But in the centre, where the files were shallow, and where, moreover, -the native Persians and other choice troops of the army were posted, -the breathless and disordered Athenian hoplites found themselves in -far greater difficulties. The tribes Leontis and Antiochis, with -Themistoklês and Aristeidês among them, were actually defeated, -broken, driven back, and pursued by the Persians and Sakæ.[652] -Miltiadês seems to have foreseen the possibility of such a check, -when he found himself compelled to diminish so materially the depth -of his centre: for his wings, having routed the enemies opposed to -them, were stayed from pursuit until the centre was extricated, and -the Persians and Sakæ put to flight along with the rest. The pursuit -then became general, and the Persians were chased to their ships -ranged in line along the shore: some of them became involved in the -impassable marsh and there perished.[653] The Athenians tried to -set the ships on fire, but the defence here was both vigorous and -successful,—several of the forward warriors of Athens were slain,—and -only seven ships out of the numerous fleet destroyed.[654] This -part of the battle terminated to the advantage of the Persians. -They repulsed the Athenians from the sea-shore, and secured a safe -reëmbarkation; leaving few or no prisoners, but a rich spoil of tents -and equipments which had been disembarked and could not be carried -away. - - [651] Herodot. vi, 112. Πρῶτοι μὲν γὰρ Ἑλλήνων πάντων τῶν ἡμεῖς - ἴδμεν, δρόμῳ ἐς πολεμίους ἐχρήσαντο. - - The running pace of the charge was obviously one of the most - remarkable events connected with the battle. Colonel Leake and - Mr. Finlay seem disposed to reduce the run to a quick march; - partly on the ground that the troops must have been disordered - and out of breath by running a mile. The probability is, that - they really were so, and that such was the great reason of the - defeat of the centre. It is very probable that a part of the - mile run over consisted of declivity. I accept the account of - Herodotus literally, though whether the distance be exactly - stated, we cannot certainly say: indeed the fact is, that it - required some steadiness of discipline to prevent the step of - hoplites, when charging, from becoming accelerated into a run. - See the narrative of the battle of Kunaxa in Xenoph. Anabas. i, - 8, 18; Diodor. xiv, 23: compare Polyæn. ii, 2, 3. The passage - of Diodorus here referred to contrasts the advantages with the - disadvantages of the running charge. - - Both Colonel Leake and Mr. Finlay try to point out the exact - ground occupied by the two armies: they differ in the spot - chosen, and I cannot think that there is sufficient evidence - to be had in favor of any spot. Leake thinks that the Persian - commanders were encamped in the plain of Tricorythos, separated - from that of Marathon by the great marsh, and communicating with - it only by means of a causeway (Leake, Transact. ii, p. 170). - - [652] Herodot. vi, 113. Κατὰ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ, ἐνίκων οἱ βάρβαροι, - καὶ ῥήξαντες ἐδίωκον ἐς τὴν μεσόγαιαν. - - Herodotus here tells us the whole truth without disguise: - Plutarch (Aristeidês, c. 3) only says that the Persian centre - made a longer resistance, and gave the tribes in the Grecian - centre more trouble to overthrow. - - [653] Pausan. i, 32, 6. - - [654] Herodot. vi, 113-115. - -Herodotus estimates the number of those who fell on the Persian side -in this memorable action at six thousand four hundred men: the number -of Athenian dead is accurately known, since all were collected for -the last solemn obsequies,—they were one hundred and ninety-two. -How many were wounded, we do not hear. The brave Kallimachus the -polemarch, and Stesilaus, one of the ten generals, were among the -slain; together with Kynegeirus son of Euphorion, who, in laying hold -on the poop-staff of one of the vessels, had his hand cut off by an -axe,[655] and died of the wound. He was brother of the poet Æschylus, -himself present at the fight; to whose imagination this battle at -the ships must have emphatically recalled the fifteenth book of the -Iliad. Both these Athenian generals are said to have perished in the -assault of the ships, apparently the hottest part of the combat. The -statement of the Persian loss as given by Herodotus appears moderate -and reasonable,[656] but he does not specify any distinguished -individuals as having fallen. - - [655] Herodot. vi, 114. This is the statement of Herodotus - respecting Kynegeirus. How creditably does his character as an - historian contrast with that of the subsequent romancers! Justin - tells us that Kynegeirus first seized the vessel with his right - hand: that was cut off, and he held the vessel with his left: - when he had lost that also, he seized the ship with his teeth, - “like a wild beast,” (Justin, ii, 9)—Justin seems to have found - this statement in many different authors: “Cynegiri militis - virtus, multis scriptorum laudibus celebrata.” - - [656] For the exaggerated stories of the numbers of Persians - slain, see Xenophon, Anabas. iii, 2, 12; Plutarch, De Malign. - Herodot. c. 26, p. 862; Justin, ii, 9; and Suidas, v. Ποικίλη. - - In the account of Ktêsias, Datis was represented as having been - killed in the battle, and it was farther said that the Athenians - refused to give up his body for interment; which was one of the - grounds whereupon Xerxês afterwards invaded Greece. It is evident - that in the authorities which Ktêsias followed, the alleged - death of Datis at Marathon was rather emphatically dwelt upon. - See Ktêsias, Persica, c. 18-21, with the note of Bähr, who is - inclined to defend the statement, against Herodotus. - -But the Persians, though thus defeated and compelled to abandon -the position of Marathon, were not yet disposed to relinquish -altogether their chances against Attica. Their fleet was observed -to take the direction of Cape Sunium,—a portion being sent to take -up the Eretrian prisoners and the stores which had been left in the -island of Ægilia. At the same time a shield, discernible from its -polished surface afar off, was seen held aloft upon some high point -of Attica,[657]—perhaps on the summit of Mount Pentelikus, as Colonel -Leake supposes with much plausibility. The Athenians doubtless saw -it as well as the Persians; and Miltiadês did not fail to put the -right interpretation upon it, taken in conjunction with the course -of the departing fleet. The shield was a signal put up by partisans -in the country, to invite the Persians round to Athens by sea, while -the Marathonian army was absent. Miltiadês saw through the plot, and -lost not a moment in returning to Athens. On the very day of the -battle, the Athenian army marched back with the utmost speed from the -precinct of Hêraklês at Marathon to the precinct of the same god at -Kynosarges, close to Athens, which they reached before the arrival of -the Persian fleet.[658] Datis soon came off the port of Phalêrum, -but the partisans of Hippias had been dismayed by the rapid return of -the Marathonian army, and he did not therefore find those aids and -facilities which he had anticipated for a fresh disembarkation in the -immediate neighborhood of Athens. Though too late, however, it seems -that he was not much too late: the Marathonian army had only just -completed their forced return-march. A little less quickness on the -part of Miltiadês in deciphering the treasonable signal and giving -the instant order of march,—a little less energy on the part of the -Athenian citizens in superadding a fatiguing march to a no less -fatiguing combat,—and the Persians, with the partisans of Hippias, -might have been found in possession of Athens. As the facts turned -out, Datis, finding at Phalêrum no friendly movement to encourage -him, but, on the contrary, the unexpected presence of the soldiers -who had already vanquished him at Marathon,—made no attempt again to -disembark in Attica, and sailed away, after a short delay, to the -Cyclades. - - [657] Herodot. vi, 124. Ἀνεδέχθη μὲν γὰρ ἄσπις, καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ - ἔστι ἄλλως εἰπεῖν· ἐγένετο γάρ· ὃς μέντοι ἦν ὁ ἀναδέξας οὐκ ἔχω - προσωτέρω εἰπεῖν τουτέων. - - [658] Herodot. vi, 116. Οὗτοι μὲν δὴ περιέπλωον Σούνιον. Ἀθηναῖοι - δὲ, ~ὡς ποδῶν εἶχον, τάχιστα~ ἐβοήθεον ἐς τὸ ἄστυ· καὶ ἔφθησάν τε - ἀπικόμενοι, πρὶν ἢ τοὺς βαρβάρους ἥκειν, καὶ ἐστρατοπεδεύσαντο - ἀπιγμένοι ἐξ Ἡρακληΐου τοῦ ἐν Μαραθῶνι ἐς ἄλλο Ἡρακληΐον το ἐν - Κυνοσάργει. - - Plutarch (Bellone an Pace clariores fuerint Athenienses, c. 8, - p. 350) represents Miltiadês as returning to Athens on the _day - after_ the battle: it must have been on the same afternoon, - according to the account of Herodotus. - -Thus was Athens rescued, for this time at least, from a danger -not less terrible than imminent. Nothing could have rescued her -except that decisive and instantaneous attack which Miltiadês so -emphatically urged. The running step on the field of Marathon might -cause some disorder in the ranks of the hoplites; but extreme haste -in bringing on the combat was the only means of preventing disunion -and distraction in the minds of the citizens. Imperfect as the -account is which Herodotus gives of this most interesting crisis, we -see plainly that the partisans of Hippias had actually organized a -conspiracy, and that it only failed by coming a little too late. The -bright shield uplifted on Mount Pentelikus, apprizing the Persians -that matters were prepared for them at Athens, was intended to have -come to their view before any action had taken place at Marathon, -and while the Athenian army were yet detained there; so that Datis -might have sent a portion of his fleet round to Phalêrum, retaining -the rest for combat with the enemy before him. If it had once become -known to the Marathonian army that a Persian detachment had landed at -Phalêrum,[659]—where there was a good plain for cavalry to act in, -prior to the building of the Phalêric wall, as had been seen in the -defeat of the Spartan Anchimolius by the Thessalian cavalry, in 510 -B. C.,—that it had been joined by timid or treacherous Athenians, -and had perhaps even got possession of the city,—their minds would -have been so distracted by the double danger, and by fears for their -absent wives and children, that they would have been disqualified -for any unanimous execution of military orders, and generals as well -as soldiers would have become incurably divided in opinion,—perhaps -even mistrustful of each other. The citizen-soldier of Greece -generally, and especially of Athens, possessed in a high degree both -personal bravery and attachment to order and discipline; but his -bravery was not of that equal, imperturbable, uninquiring character, -which belonged to the battalions of Wellington or Napoleon,—it was -fitful, exalted or depressed by casual occurrences, and often more -sensitive to dangers absent and unseen, than to enemies immediately -in his front. Hence the advantage, so unspeakable in the case before -us, and so well appreciated by Miltiadês, of having one undivided -Athenian army,—with one hostile army, and only one, to meet in the -field. When we come to the battle of Salamis, ten years later, it -will be seen that the Greeks of that day enjoyed the same advantage: -though the wisest advisers of Xerxês impressed upon him the prudence -of dividing his large force, and of sending detachments to assail -separate Greek states—which would infallibly produce the effect of -breaking up the combined Grecian host, and leaving no central or -coöperating force for the defence of Greece generally. Fortunately -for the Greeks, the childish insolence of Xerxês led him to despise -all such advice, as implying conscious weakness. Not so Datis and -Hippias. Sensible of the prudence of distracting the attention of -the Athenians by a double attack, they laid a scheme, while the main -army was at Marathon, for rallying the partisans of Hippias, with a -force to assist them, in the neighborhood of Athens,—and the signal -was upheld by these partisans as soon as their measures were taken. -But the rapidity of Miltiadês so precipitated the battle, that this -signal came too late, and was only given, “when the Persians were -already in their ships,”[660] after the Marathonian defeat. Even then -it might have proved dangerous, had not the movements of Miltiadês -been as rapid after the victory as before it: but if time had been -allowed for the Persian movement on Athens before the battle of -Marathon had been fought, the triumph of the Athenians might well -have been exchanged for a calamitous servitude. To Miltiadês belongs -the credit of having comprehended the emergency from the beginning, -and overruled the irresolution of his colleagues by his own -single-hearted energy. The chances all turned out in his favor,—for -the unexpected junction of the Platæans in the very encampment -of Marathon must have wrought up the courage of his army to the -highest pitch: and not only did he thus escape all the depressing -and distracting accidents, but he was fortunate enough to find this -extraneous encouragement immediately preceding the battle, from a -source on which he could not have calculated. - - [659] Herodot. v, 62, 63. - - [660] Herodot. vi, 115. Τοῖσι Πέρσῃσι ἀναδέξαι ἀσπίδα, ~ἐοῦσι ἤδη - ἐν τῇσι νηυσί~. - -I have already observed that the phase of Grecian history best -known to us, amidst which the great authors from whom we draw our -information lived, was one of contempt for the Persians in the -field. And it requires some effort of imagination to call back -previous feelings after the circumstances have been altogether -reversed: perhaps even Æschylus the poet, at the time when he -composed his tragedy of the Persæ, to celebrate the disgraceful -flight of the invader Xerxês, may have forgotten the emotions with -which he and his brother Kynegeirus must have marched out from -Athens fifteen years before, on the eve of the battle of Marathon. -It must therefore be again mentioned that, down to the time when -Datis landed in the bay of Marathon, the tide of Persian success had -never yet been interrupted,—and that especially during the ten years -immediately preceding, the high-handed and cruel extinction of the -Ionic revolt had aggravated to the highest pitch the alarm of the -Greeks. To this must be added the successes of Datis himself, and -the calamities of Eretria, coming with all the freshness of novelty -as an apparent sentence of death to Athens. The extreme effort of -courage required in the Athenians, to encounter such invaders, is -attested by the division of opinion among the ten generals. Putting -all the circumstances together, it is without a parallel in Grecian -history, surpassing even the combat of Thermopylæ, as will appear -when I come to describe that memorable event. And the admirable -conduct of the five dissentient generals, when outvoted by the -decision of the polemarch against them, in coöperating heartily for -the success of a policy which they deprecated,—proves how much the -feelings of a constitutional democracy, and that entire acceptance -of the pronounced decision of the majority on which it rests, had -worked themselves into the Athenian mind. The combat of Marathon was -by no means a very decisive defeat, but it was a defeat,—and the -first which the Persians had ever received from Greeks in the field. -If the battle of Salamis, ten years afterwards, could be treated -by Themistoklês as a hair-breadth escape for Greece, much more is -this true of the battle of Marathon;[661] which first afforded -reasonable proof, even to discerning and resolute Greeks, that the -Persians might be effectually repelled, and the independence of -European Greece maintained against them,—a conviction of incalculable -value in reference to the formidable trials destined to follow. -Upon the Athenians themselves, the first to face in the field -successfully the terrific look of a Persian army, the effect of -the victory was yet more stirring and profound.[662] It supplied -them with resolution for the far greater actual sacrifices which -they cheerfully underwent ten years afterwards, at the invasion of -Xerxês, without faltering in their Pan-Hellenic fidelity; and it -strengthened them at home by swelling the tide of common sentiment -and patriotic fraternity in the bosom of every individual citizen. -It was the exploit of Athenians alone, but of all Athenians without -dissent or exception,—the boast of orators, repeated until it almost -degenerated into common-place, though the people seem never to have -become weary of allusions to their single-handed victory over a host -of forty-six nations.[663] It had been purchased without a drop of -intestine bloodshed,—for even the unknown traitors who raised the -signal-shield on Mount Pentelikus, took care not to betray themselves -by want of apparent sympathy with the triumph: lastly, it was the -final guarantee of their democracy, barring all chance of restoration -of Hippias for the future. Themistoklês[664] is said to have been -robbed of his sleep by the trophies of Miltiadês, and this is cited -in proof of his ambitious temperament; but without supposing either -jealousy or personal love of glory, the rapid transit from extreme -danger to unparalleled triumph might well deprive of rest even the -most sober-minded Athenian. - - [661] Herodot. viii, 109. ἡμεῖς δὲ, εὕρημα γὰρ εὑρήκαμεν ἡμέας τε - καὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα, νέφος τοσοῦτον ἀνθρώπων ἀνωσάμενοι. - - [662] Pausanias, i, 14, 4; Thucyd. i, 73. φαμὲν γὰρ Μαραθῶνί τε - ~μόνοι προκινδυνεῦσαι~ τῷ βαρβάρῳ, etc. - - Herodot. vi, 112. πρῶτοι τε ἀνέσχοντο ἐσθῆτά τε Μηδικὴν ὁρέοντες, - καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ταύτην ἐσθημένους· τέως δὲ ἦν τοῖσι Ἕλλησι καὶ τὸ - οὔνομα τὸ Μήδων φόβος ἀκοῦσαι. - - It is not unworthy of remark, that the memorable oath in the - oration of Demosthenês, de Coronâ, wherein he adjures the - warriors of Marathon, copies the phrase of Thucydidês,—οὐ μὰ τοὺς - ἐν Μαραθῶνι ~προκινδυνεύσαντας~ τῶν προγόνων, etc. (Demosthen. de - Coronâ, c. 60.) - - [663] So the computation stands in the language of Athenian - orators (Herodot. ix, 27.) It would be unfair to examine it - critically. - - [664] Plutarch, Themistoklês, c. 3. According to Cicero (Epist. - ad Attic. ix, 10) and Justin (ii, 9) Hippias was killed at - Marathon. Suidas (v. Ἱππίας) says that he died afterwards at - Lemnos. Neither of these statements seems probable. Hippias would - hardly go to Lemnos, which was an Athenian possession; and had - he been slain in the battle, Herodotus would have been likely to - mention it. - -Who it was that raised the treacherous signal-shield to attract -the Persians to Athens was never ascertained: very probably, in -the full exultation of success, no investigation was made. Of -course, however, the public belief would not be satisfied without -singling out some persons as the authors of such a treason; and the -information received by Herodotus (probably about 450-440 B. C., -forty or fifty years after the Marathonian victory) ascribed the deed -to the Alkmæônids; nor does he notice any other reported authors, -though he rejects the allegation against them upon very sufficient -grounds. They were a race religiously tainted, ever since the -Kylonian sacrilege, and were therefore convenient persons to brand -with the odium of an anonymous crime; while party feud, if it did -not originally invent, would at least be active in spreading and -certifying such rumors. At the time when Herodotus knew Athens, the -political enmity between Periklês son of Xanthippus, and Kimon son -of Miltiadês, was at its height: Periklês belonged by his mother’s -side to the Alkmæônid race, and we know that such lineage was made -subservient to political manœuvres against him by his enemies.[665] -Moreover, the enmity between Kimon and Periklês had been inherited by -both from their fathers; for we shall find Xanthippus, not long after -the battle of Marathon, the prominent accuser of Miltiadês. Though -Xanthippus was not an Alkmæônid, his marriage with Agaristê connected -himself indirectly, and his son Periklês directly, with that race. -And we may trace in this standing political feud a probable origin -for the false reports as to the treason of the Alkmæônids, on that -great occasion which founded the glory of Miltiadês; for that -the reports were false, the intrinsic probabilities of the case, -supported by the judgment of Herodotus, afford ample ground for -believing. - - [665] Thucyd. i, 126. - -When the Athenian army made its sudden return-march from Marathon to -Athens, Aristeidês with his tribe was left to guard the field and -the spoil; but the speedy retirement of Datis from Attica left the -Athenians at full liberty to revisit the scene and discharge the -last duties to the dead. A tumulus was erected on the spot[666]—such -distinction was never conferred by Athens except in this case -only—to the one hundred and ninety-two Athenian citizens who had -been slain. Their names were inscribed on ten pillars erected at -the spot, one for each tribe: there was also a second tumulus for -the slain Platæans, a third for the slaves, and a separate funeral -monument to Miltiadês himself. Six hundred years after the battle, -Pausanias saw the tumulus, and could still read on the pillars the -names of the immortalized warriors;[667] and even now a conspicuous -tumulus exists about half a mile from the sea-shore, which Colonel -Leake believes to be the same.[668] The inhabitants of the deme of -Marathon worshipped these slain warriors as heroes, along with their -own eponymus, and with Hêraklês. - - [666] Thucyd. ii, 34. - - [667] Pausan. i, 32, 3. Compare the elegy of Kritias ap. Athenæ. - i, p. 28. - - [668] The tumulus now existing is about thirty feet high, and two - hundred yards in circumference. (Leake, on the Demi of Attica; - Transactions of Royal Soc. of Literat. ii, p. 171.) - -So splendid a victory had not been achieved, in the belief of the -Athenians, without marked supernatural aid. The god Pan had met -the courier Pheidippidês on his hasty route from Athens to Sparta, -and had told him that he was much hurt that the Athenians had as -yet neglected to worship him;[669] in spite of which neglect, -however, he promised them effective aid at Marathon. The promise -was faithfully executed, and the Athenians repaid it by a temple -with annual worship and sacrifice. Moreover, the hero Theseus was -seen strenuously assisting in the battle; and an unknown warrior, -in rustic garb and armed only with a ploughshare, dealt destruction -among the Persian ranks: after the battle he could not be found; -and the Athenians, on asking at Delphi who he was, were directed to -worship the hero Echetlus.[670] Even in the time of Pausanias, this -memorable battle-field was heard to resound every night with the -noise of combatants and the snorting of horses. “It is dangerous -(observes that pious author) to go to the spot with the express -purpose of seeing what is passing; but if a man finds himself there -by accident, without having heard anything about the matter, the gods -will not be angry with him.” The gods, it seems, could not pardon -the inquisitive mortal who deliberately pried into their secrets. -Amidst the ornaments with which Athens was decorated during the -free working of her democracy, the glories of Marathon of course -occupied a conspicuous place. The battle was painted on one of the -compartments of the portico called Pœkilê, wherein, amidst several -figures of gods and heroes,—Athênê, Hêraklês, Theseus, Echetlus, and -the local patron of Marathon,—were seen honored and prominent the -polemarch Kallimachus and the general Miltiadês, while the Platæans -were distinguished by their Bœotian leather casques.[671] And the -sixth of the month Boëdromion, the anniversary of the battle, -was commemorated by an annual ceremony, even down to the time of -Plutarch.[672] - - [669] Herodot. vi, 105; Pausan. i, 28, 4. - - [670] Plutarch, Theseus, c. 24; Pausan. i, 32, 4. - - [671] Pausan. i, 15, 4; Dêmosthen. cont. Neær. c. 25. - - [672] Herodot. vi, 120; Plutarch, Camill. c. 19; De Malignit. - Herodoti, c. 26, p. 862; and De Gloriâ Atheniensium, c. 7. - - Boëdromion was the third month of the Attic year, which year - began near about the summer solstice. The first three Attic - months, Hekatombæon, Metageitnion, Boëdromion, approach (speaking - in a loose manner) nearly to our July, August, September; - probably the month Hekatombæon began usually at some day in the - latter half of June. - - From the fact that the courier Pheidippidês reached Sparta on - the ninth day of the moon, and that the two thousand Spartans - arrived in Attica on the third day after the full moon, during - which interval the battle took place, we see that the sixth day - of Boëdromion could not be the sixth day of the moon. The Attic - months, though professedly lunar months, did not at this time - therefore accurately correspond with the course of the moon. See - Mr. Clinton, Fast. Hellen. ad an. 490 B. C. Plutarch (in the - Treatise De Malign. Herodoti, above referred to) appears to have - no conception of this discrepancy between the Attic month and - the course of the moon. A portion of the censure which he casts - on Herodotus is grounded on the assumption that the two must - coincide. - - M. Boeckh, following Fréret and Larcher, contests the statement - of Plutarch, that the battle was fought on the sixth of the month - Boëdromion, but upon reasons which appear to me insufficient. - His chief argument rests upon another statement of Plutarch - (derived from some lost verses of Æschylus), that the tribe - Æantis had the right wing or post of honor at the battle; and - that the public vote, pursuant to which the army was led out - of Athens, was passed during the prytany of the tribe Æantis. - He assumes, that the reason why this tribe was posted on the - right wing, must have been, that it had drawn by lot the first - prytany in that particular year: if this be granted, then the - vote for drawing out the army must have been passed in the first - prytany, or within the first thirty-five or thirty-six days of - the Attic year, during the space between the first of Hekatombæon - and the fifth or sixth of Metageitnion. But it is certain that - the interval, which took place between the army leaving the - city and the battle, was much less than one month,—we may even - say less than one week. The battle, therefore, must have been - fought between the sixth and tenth of Metageitnion. (Plutarch, - Symposiac. i, 10, 3, and Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, - vol. i, p. 291.) Herodotus (vi, 111) says that the tribes were - arranged in line ὡς ἠριθμέοντο,—“as they were numbered,”—which - is contended to mean necessarily the arrangement between them, - determined by lot for the prytanies of that particular year. “In - acie instruendâ (says Boeckh, Comment. ad Corp. Inscript. p. 299) - Athenienses non constantem, sed variabilem secundum prytanias, - ordinem secatos esse, ita ut tribus ex hoc ordine inde a dextro - cornu disponerentur, docui in Commentatione de pugnâ Marathoniâ.” - Proœmia Lect. Univ. Berolin. æstiv. a. 1816. - - The Proœmia here referred to I have not been able to consult, - and they may therefore contain additional reasons to prove the - point advanced, viz., that the order of the ten tribes in line - of battle, beginning from the right wing, was conformable to - their order in prytanizing, as drawn by lot for the year; but - I think the passages of Herodotus and Plutarch now before us - insufficient to establish this point. From the fact that the - tribe Æantis had the right wing at the battle of Marathon, we - are by no means warranted in inferring that that tribe had drawn - by lot the earliest prytany in the year. Other reasons, in my - judgment equally probable, may be assigned in explanation of the - circumstance: one reason, I think, decidedly _more_ probable. - This reason is, that the battle was fought during the prytany of - the tribe Æantis, which may be concluded from the statement of - Plutarch, that the vote for marching out the army from Athens - was passed during the prytany of that tribe; for the interval, - between the march of the army out of the city and the battle, - must have been only a very few days. Moreover, the deme Marathon - belonged to the tribe Æantis (see Boeckh, ad Inscript. No. 172, - p. 309): the battle being fought in their deme, the Marathonians - may perhaps have claimed on this express ground the post of - honor for their tribe; just as we see that at the first battle - of Mantineia against the Lacedæmonians, the Mantineians were - allowed to occupy the right wing or post of honor, “because - the battle was fought in their territory,” (Thucyd. v, 67.) - Lastly, the deme Aphidnæ also belonged to the tribe Æantis (see - Boeckh, _l. c._): now the polemarch Kallimachus was an Aphidnæan - (Herodot. vi, 109), and Herodotus expressly tells us, “the law - or custom _then_ stood among the Athenians, that the polemarch - should have the right wing,”—ὁ γὰρ νόμος τότε εἶχε οὕτω τοῖσι - Ἀθηναίοισι, τὸν πολέμαρχον ἔχειν κέρας τὸ δέξιον (vi, 111). Where - the polemarch stood, there his tribe would be likely to stand: - and the language of Herodotus indeed seems directly to imply - that he identifies the tribe of the polemarch with the polemarch - himself,—ἡγεομένου δὲ τούτου, ἐξεδέκοντο ὡς ἀριθμέοντο αἱ φυλαὶ, - ἐχόμεναι ἀλλήλων,—meaning that the order of tribes began by that - of the polemarch being in the leading position, and was then - “taken up” by the rest “in numerical sequence,”—_i. e._ in the - order of their prytanizing sequence for the year. - - Here are a concurrence of reasons to explain why the tribe Æantis - had the right wing at the battle of Marathon, even though it may - not have been first in the order of prytanizing tribes for the - year. Boeckh, therefore, is not warranted in inferring the second - of these two facts from the first. - - The concurrence of these three reasons, all in favor of the same - conclusion, and all independent of the reason supposed by Boeckh, - appears to me to have great weight; but I regard the first of the - three, even singly taken, as more probable than his reason. If my - view of the case be correct, the sixth day of Boëdromion, the day - of battle as given by Plutarch, is not to be called in question. - That day comes in the second prytany of the year, which begins - about the sixth of Metageitnion, and ends about the twelfth of - Boëdromion, and which must in this year have fallen to the lot of - the tribe Æantis. On the first or second day of Boëdromion, the - vote for marching out the army may have passed; on the sixth the - battle was fought; both during the prytany of this tribe. - - I am not prepared to carry these reasons farther than the - particular case of the battle of Marathon, and the vindication - of the day of that battle as stated by Plutarch; nor would I - apply them to later periods, such as the Peloponnesian war. It - is certain that the army regulations of Athens were considerably - modified between the battle of Marathon and the Peloponnesian - war, as well in other matters as in what regards the polemarch; - and we have not sufficient information to enable us to determine - whether in that later period the Athenians followed any known - or perpetual rule in the battle-order of the tribes. Military - considerations, connected with the state of the particular army - serving, must have prevented the constant observance of any rule: - thus we can hardly imagine that Nikias, commanding the army - before Syracuse, could have been tied down to any invariable - order of battle among the tribes to which his hoplites belonged. - Moreover, the expedition against Syracuse lasted more than - one Attic year: can it be believed that Nikias, on receiving - information from Athens of the sequence in which the prytanies - of the tribes had been drawn by lot during the second year of - his expedition, would be compelled to marshal his army in a new - battle-order conformably to it? As the military operations of the - Athenians became more extensive, they would find it necessary to - leave such dispositions more and more to the general serving in - every particular campaign. It may well be doubted whether during - the Peloponnesian war _any_ established rule was observed in - marshalling the tribes for battle. - - One great motive which induces critics to maintain that the - battle was fought in the Athenian month Metageitnion, is, that - that month coincides with the Spartan month Karneius, so that - the refusal of the Spartans to march before the full moon, - is construed to apply only to the peculiar sanctity of this - last-mentioned month, instead of being a constant rule for the - whole year. I perfectly agree with these critics, that the - answer, given by the Spartans to the courier Pheidippidês, cannot - be held to prove a regular, invariable Spartan maxim, applicable - throughout the whole year, not to begin a march in the second - quarter of the moon: very possibly, as Boeckh remarks, there may - have been some festival impending during the particular month in - question, upon which the Spartan refusal to march was founded. - But no inference can be deduced from hence to disprove the sixth - of Boëdromion as the day of the battle of Marathon: for though - the months of every Grecian city were professedly lunar, yet they - never coincided with each other exactly or long together, because - the systems of intercalation adopted in different cities were - different: there was great irregularity and confusion (Plutarch, - Aristeidês, c. 19; Aristoxenus, Harmon. ii, p. 30: compare also - K. F. Hermann, Ueber die Griechische Monatskunde, p. 26, 27. - Göttingen, 1844; and Boeckh, ad Corp. Inscript. t. i, p. 734). - - Granting, therefore, that the answer given by the Spartans to - Pheidippidês is to be construed, not as a general rule applicable - to the whole year, but as referring to the particular month in - which it was given,—no inference can be drawn from hence as to - the day of the battle of Marathon, because either one of the two - following suppositions is possible: 1. The Spartans may have had - solemnities on the day of the full moon, or on the day before it, - in _other months_ besides Karneius; 2. Or the full moon of the - Spartan Karneius may actually have fallen, in the year 490 B. C., - on the fifth or sixth of the Attic month Boëdromion. - - Dr. Thirlwall appears to adopt the view of Boeckh, but does not - add anything material to the reasons in its favor (Hist. of Gr. - vol. ii, Append. iii, p. 488). - -Two thousand Spartans, starting from their city, immediately after -the full moon, reached the frontier of Attica, on the third day of -their march,—a surprising effort, when we consider that the total -distance from Sparta to Athens was about one hundred and fifty -miles. They did not arrive, however, until the battle had been -fought, and the Persians departed; but curiosity led them to the -field of Marathon to behold the dead bodies of the Persians, after -which they returned home, bestowing well-merited praise on the -victors. - -Datis and Artaphernês returned across the Ægean with their Eretrian -prisoners to Asia; stopping for a short time at the island of -Mykonos, where discovery was made of a gilt image of Apollo carried -off as booty in a Phenician ship. Datis went himself to restore it -to Dêlos, requesting the Delians to carry it back to the Delium, -or temple of Apollo, on the eastern coast of Bœotia: the Delians, -however, chose to keep the statue until it was reclaimed from them -twenty years afterwards by the Thebans. On reaching Asia, the Persian -generals conducted their prisoners up to the court of Susa, and -into the presence of Darius. Though he had been vehemently incensed -against them, yet when he saw them in his power, his wrath abated, -and he manifested no desire to kill or harm them. They were planted -at a spot called Arderikka, in the Kissian territory, one of the -resting-places on the road from Sardis to Susa, and about twenty-six -miles distant from the latter place: Herodotus seems himself to -have seen their descendants there on his journey between the two -capitals, and to have had the satisfaction of talking to them in -Greek,—which we may well conceive to have made some impression upon -him, at a spot distant by nearly three months’ journey from the coast -of Ionia.[673] - - [673] Herodot. vi, 119. Darius—σφέας τῆς Κισσίης χώρης κατοίκισε - ἐν σταθμῷ ἑωϋτοῦ τῷ οὔνομα ἐστὶ Ἀρδέρικκα—ἐνθαῦτα τοὺς Ἐρετριέας - κατοίκισε Δαρεῖος, οἳ καὶ μέχρι ἐμέο εἶχον τὴν χώρην ταύτην, - φυλάσοντες τὴν ἀρχαίην γλῶσσαν. The meaning of the word σταθμὸς - is explained by Herodot. v, 52. σταθμὸς ἑωϋτοῦ is the same as - σταθμὸς βασιλήϊος: the particulars which Herodotus recounts about - Arderikka, and its remarkable well, or pit of bitumen, salt, and - oil, give every reason to believe that he had himself stopped - there. - - Strabo places the captive Eretrians in Gordyênê, which would be - considerably higher up the Tigris; upon whose authority, we do - not know (Strabo, xv, p. 747). - - The many particulars which are given respecting the descendants - of these Eretrians in Kissia, by Philostratus, in his Life of - Apollonius of Tyana, as they are alleged to have stood even in - the first century of the Christian era, cannot be safely quoted. - With all the fiction there contained, some truth may perhaps - be mingled; but we cannot discriminate it (Philostratus, Vit. - Apollon. i, c. 24-30). - -Happy would it have been for Miltiadês if he had shared the honorable -death of the polemarch Kallimachus,—“animam exhalasset opimam,”—in -seeking to fire the ships of the defeated Persians at Marathon. The -short sequel of his history will be found in melancholy contrast with -the Marathonian heroism. - -His reputation had been great before the battle, and after it -the admiration and confidence of his countrymen knew no bounds: -it appears, indeed, to have reached such a pitch that his head -was turned, and he lost both his patriotism and his prudence. He -proposed to his countrymen to incur the cost of equipping an armament -of seventy ships, with an adequate armed force, and to place it -altogether at his discretion; giving them no intimation whither -he intended to go, but merely assuring them that, if they would -follow him, he would conduct them to a land where gold was abundant, -and thus enrich them. Such a promise, from the lips of the recent -victor of Marathon, was sufficient, and the armament was granted, -no man except Miltiadês knowing what was its destination. He sailed -immediately to the island of Paros, laid siege to the town, and sent -in a herald to require from the inhabitants a contribution of one -hundred talents, on pain of entire destruction. His pretence for -this attack was, that the Parians had furnished a trireme to Datis -for the Persian fleet at Marathon; but his real motive, so Herodotus -assures us,[674] was vindictive animosity against a Parian citizen -named Lysagoras, who had exasperated the Persian general Hydarnês -against him. The Parians amused him at first with evasions, until -they had procured a little delay to repair the defective portions of -their wall, after which they set him at defiance; and Miltiadês in -vain prosecuted hostilities against them for the space of twenty-six -days: he ravaged the island, but his attacks made no impression -upon the town.[675] Beginning to despair of success in his military -operations, he entered into some negotiation—such at least was the -tale of the Parians themselves—with a Parian woman named Timô, -priestess or attendant in the temple of Dêmêtêr, near the town-gates. -This woman, promising to reveal to him a secret which would place -Paros in his power, induced him to visit by night a temple to which -no male person was admissible. He leaped the exterior fence, and -approached the sanctuary; but on coming near, was seized with a -panic terror and ran away, almost out of his senses: on leaping the -same fence to get back, he strained or bruised his thigh badly, and -became utterly disabled. In this melancholy state he was placed on -ship-board; the siege being raised, and the whole armament returning -to Athens. - - [674] Herodot. vi, 133. ἔπλεε ἐπὶ Πάρον, πρόφασιν ἔχων ὡς οἱ - Πάριοι ὕπηρξαν πρότεροι στρατευόμενοι τριήρεϊ ἐς Μαραθῶνα ἅμα τῷ - Πέρσῃ. Τοῦτο μὲν δὴ πρόσχημα τοῦ λόγου ἦν· ἀτάρ τινα καὶ ἔγκοτον - εἶχε τοῖσι Παρίοισι διὰ Λυσαγόρεα τὸν Τισίεω, ἐόντα γένος Πάριον, - διαβαλόντα μιν πρὸς Ὑδάρνεα τὸν Πέρσην. - - [675] Ephorus (Fragm. 107, ed. Didot; ap. Stephan. Byz. v. Πάρος) - gave an account of this expedition in several points different - from Herodotus, which latter I here follow. The authority of - Herodotus is preferable in every respect; the more so, since - Ephorus gives his narrative as a sort of explanation of the - peculiar phrase ἀναπαριάζειν. Explanatory narratives of that sort - are usually little worthy of attention. - -Vehement was the indignation both of the armament and of the -remaining Athenians against Miltiadês on his return;[676] and -Xanthippus, father of the great Periklês, became the spokesman of -this feeling. He impeached Miltiadês before the popular judicature as -having been guilty of deceiving the people, and as having deserved -the penalty of death. The accused himself, disabled by his injured -thigh, which even began to show symptoms of gangrene, was unable -to stand, or to say a word in his own defence: he lay on his couch -before the assembled judges, while his friends made the best case -they could in his behalf. Defence, it appears, there was none; all -they could do, was to appeal to his previous services: they reminded -the people largely and emphatically of the inestimable exploit of -Marathon, coming in addition to his previous conquest of Lemnos. The -assembled dikasts, or jurors, showed their sense of these powerful -appeals by rejecting the proposition of his accuser to condemn him to -death; but they imposed on him the penalty of fifty talents “for his -iniquity.” - - [676] Herodot. vi, 136. Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ ἐκ Πάρου Μιλτιάδεα - ἀπονοστήσαντα ἔσχον ἐν στόμασι, οἵ τε ἄλλοι, καὶ μάλιστα - Ξάνθιππος ὁ Ἀρίφρονος· ὃς θανάτου ὑπαγαγὼν ὑπὸ τὸν δῆμον - Μιλτιάδεα, ἐδίωκε τῆς Ἀθηναίων ἀπάτης εἵνεκεν. Μιλτιάδης δὲ, - αὐτὸς μὲν παρεὼν, οὐκ ἀπελογέετο· ἦν γὰρ ἀδύνατος, ὥστε σηπομένου - τοῦ μηροῦ. Προκειμένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐν κλίνῃ, ὑπεραπελογέοντο - οἱ φίλοι, τῆς μάχης τε τῆς ἐν Μαραθῶνι γενομένης πολλὰ - ἐπιμεμνημένοι, καὶ τὴν Λήμνου αἵρεσιν· ὡς ἑλὼν Λῆμνόν τε καὶ - τισάμενος τοὺς Πελασγοὺς, παρέδωκε Ἀθηναίοισι. Προσγενομένου - δὲ τοῦ δήμου αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν ἀπόλυσιν τοῦ θανάτου, ζημιώσαντος - δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀδικίην πεντήκοντα ταλάντοισι, Μιλτιάδης μὲν μετὰ - ταῦτα, σφακελίσαντός τε τοῦ μηροῦ καὶ σαπέντος, τελευτᾷ· τὰ δὲ - πεντήκοντα τάλαντα ἐξέτισεν ὁ πάϊς αὐτοῦ Κίμων. - - Plato (Gorgias, c. 153, p. 516) says that the Athenians passed a - vote to cast Miltiadês into the barathrum (ἐμβαλεῖν ἐψηφίσαντο), - and that he would have been actually thrown in, if it had not - been for the prytanis, _i. e._ the president, by turn for that - day, of the prytanizing senators and of the ekklesia. The - prytanis may perhaps have been among those who spoke to the - dikastery on behalf of Miltiadês, deprecating the proposition - made by Xanthippus; but that he should have caused a vote once - passed to be actually rescinded, is incredible. The Scholiast - on Aristeidês (cited by Valckenaer ad Herodot. vi, 136) reduces - the exaggeration of Plato to something more reasonable—Ὅτε γὰρ - ἐκρίνετο Μιλτιάδης ἐπὶ τῇ Πάρῳ, ~ἠθέλσαν~ αὐτὸν κατακρημνίσαι· ὁ - δὲ πρύτανις εἰσελθὼν ~ἐξῃτήσατο~ αὐτὸν. - -Cornelius Nepos affirms that these fifty talents represented the -expenses incurred by the state in fitting out the armament; but we -may more probably believe, looking to the practice of the Athenian -dikastery in criminal cases, that fifty talents was the minor -penalty actually proposed by the defenders of Miltiadês themselves, -as a substitute for the punishment of death. In those penal cases at -Athens, where the punishment was not fixed beforehand by the terms of -the law, if the person accused was found guilty, it was customary to -submit to the jurors, subsequently and separately, the question as to -amount of punishment: first, the accuser named the penalty which he -thought suitable; next, the accused person was called upon to name -an amount of penalty for himself, and the jurors were constrained to -take their choice between these two,—no third gradation of penalty -being admissible for consideration.[677] Of course, under such -circumstances, it was the interest of the accused party to name, -even in his own case, some real and serious penalty,—something which -the jurors might be likely to deem not wholly inadequate to his crime -just proved; for if he proposed some penalty only trifling, he drove -them to prefer the heavier sentence recommended by his opponent. -Accordingly, in the case of Miltiadês, his friends, desirous of -inducing the jurors to refuse their assent to the punishment of -death, proposed a fine of fifty talents as the self-assessed penalty -of the defendant; and perhaps they may have stated, as an argument in -the case, that such a sum would suffice to defray the costs of the -expedition. The fine was imposed, but Miltiadês did not live to pay -it; his injured limb mortified, and he died, leaving the fine to be -paid by his son Kimon. - - [677] That this was the habitual course of Attic procedure in - respect to public indictments, wherever a positive amount of - penalty was not previously determined, appears certain. See - Platner, Prozess und Klagen bei den Attikern, Abschn. vi, vol. - i, p. 201; Heffter, Die Athenäische Gerichtsverfassung, p. - 334. Meier and Schömann (Der Attische Prozess, b. iv, p. 725) - maintain that any one of the dikasts might propose a third - measure of penalty, distinct from that proposed by the accuser - as well as the accused. In respect to public indictments, this - opinion appears decidedly incorrect; but where the sentence to - be pronounced involved a compensation for private wrong and an - estimate of damages, we cannot so clearly determine whether there - was not sometimes a greater latitude in originating propositions - for the dikasts to vote upon. It is to be recollected that - these dikasts were several hundred, sometimes even more, in - number,—that there was no discussion or deliberation among - them,—and that it was absolutely necessary for some distinct - proposition to be laid before them to take a vote upon. In regard - to some offences, the law expressly permitted what was called a - προστíμημα; that is, after the dikasts had pronounced the full - penalty demanded by the accuser, any other citizen who thought - the penalty so imposed insufficient, might call for a certain - limited amount of additional penalty, and require the dikasts to - vote upon it,—ay or no. The votes of the dikasts were given, by - depositing pebbles in two casks, under certain arrangements of - detail. - - The ἀγὼν τιμητὸς, δίκη τιμητὸς, or trial including this separate - admeasurement of penalty,—as distinguished from the δίκη - ἀτίμητος, or trial where the penalty was predetermined, and - where was no τίμησις, or vote of admeasurement of penalty,—is - an important line of distinction in the subject-matter of Attic - procedure; and the practice of calling on the accused party, - after having been pronounced guilty, to impose upon himself a - _counter-penalty_ or _under-penalty_ (ἀντιτιμᾶσθαι or ὑποτιμᾶθαι) - in contrast with that named by the accuser, was a convenient - expedient for bringing the question to a substantive vote of the - dikasts. Sometimes accused persons found it convenient to name - very large penalties on themselves, in order to escape a capital - sentence invoked by the accuser (see Dêmosthen. cont. Timokrat. - c. 34, p. 743, R). Nor was there any fear, as Platner imagines, - that in the generality of cases the dikasts would be left under - the necessity of choosing between an extravagant penalty and - something merely nominal; for the interest of the accused party - himself would prevent this from happening. Sometimes we see him - endeavoring by entreaties to prevail upon the accuser voluntarily - to abate something of the penalty which he had at first named; - and the accuser might probably do this, if he saw that the - dikasts were not likely to go along with that first proposition. - - In one particular case, of immortal memory, that which Platner - contemplates actually did happen; and the death of Sokratês was - the effect of it. Sokratês, having been found guilty, only by a - small majority of votes among the dikasts, was called upon to - name a penalty upon himself, in opposition to that of death, - urged by Melêtus. He was in vain entreated by his friends to name - a fine of some tolerable amount, which they would at once have - paid in his behalf; but he would hardly be prevailed upon to name - any penalty at all, affirming that he had deserved honor rather - than punishment: at last, he named a fine so small in amount, as - to be really tantamount to an acquittal. Indeed, Xenophon states - that he would not name any counter-penalty at all; and in the - speech ascribed to him, he contended that he had even merited the - signal honor of a public maintenance in the prytaneium (Plato, - Apol. Sok. c. 27; Xenoph. Apol. Sok. 23; Diogen. Laërt. ii, 41). - Plato and Xenophon do not agree; but taking the two together, it - would seem that he must have named a very small fine. There can - be little doubt that this circumstance, together with the tenor - of his defence, caused the dikasts to vote for the proposition of - Melêtus. - -According to Cornelius Nepos, Diodorus, and Plutarch, he was put -in prison, after having been fined, and there died.[678] But -Herodotus does not mention this imprisonment, and the fact appears -to me improbable: he would hardly have omitted to notice it, had -it come to his knowledge. Immediate imprisonment of a person fined -by the dikastery, until his fine was paid, was not the natural and -ordinary course of Athenian procedure, though there were particular -cases in which such aggravation was added. Usually, a certain -time was allowed for payment,[679] before absolute execution was -resorted to, but the person under sentence became disfranchised and -excluded from all political rights, from the very instant of his -condemnation as a public debtor, until the fine was paid. Now in -the instance of Miltiadês, the lamentable condition of his wounded -thigh rendered escape impossible,—so that there would be no special -motive for departing from the usual practice, and imprisoning him -forthwith: moreover, if he was not imprisoned forthwith, he would -not be imprisoned at all, since he cannot have lived many days -after his trial.[680] To carry away the suffering general in his -couch, incapable of raising himself even to plead for his own life, -from the presence of the dikasts to a prison, would not only have -been a needless severity, but could hardly have failed to imprint -itself on the sympathies and the memory of all the beholders; so -that Herodotus would have been likely to hear and mention it, if it -had really occurred. I incline to believe therefore that Miltiadês -died at home: all accounts concur in stating that he died of the -mortal bodily hurt which already disabled him even at the moment -of his trial, and that his son Kimon paid the fifty talents after -his death. If _he_ could pay them, probably his father could have -paid them also. And this is an additional reason for believing that -there was no imprisonment,—for nothing but non-payment could have -sent him to prison; and to rescue the suffering Miltiadês from being -sent thither, would have been the first and strongest desire of all -sympathizing friends. - - [678] Cornelius Nepos, Miltiadês, c. 7; and Kimon, c. 1; - Plutarch, Kimon, c. 4; Diodorus, Fragment. lib. x. All these - authors probably drew from the same original fountain; perhaps - Ephorus (see Marx, ad Ephori Fragmenta, p. 212); but we have no - means of determining. Respecting the alleged imprisonment of - Kimon, however, they must have copied from different authorities, - for their statements are all different. Diodorus states, that - Kimon put himself voluntarily into prison after his father had - died there, because he was not permitted on any other condition - to obtain the body of his deceased father for burial. Cornelius - Nepos affirms that he was imprisoned, as being legally liable to - the state for the unpaid fine of his father. Lastly, Plutarch - does not represent him as having been put into prison at all. - Many of the Latin writers follow the statement of Diodorus: see - the citations in Bos’s note on the above passage of Cornelius - Nepos. - - There can be no hesitation in adopting the account of Plutarch - as the true one. Kimon neither was, nor could be, in prison, - by the Attic law, for an unpaid fine of his father; but after - his father’s death, he became liable for the fine, in this - sense,—that he remained disfranchised (ἄτιμος) and excluded from - his rights as a citizen, until the fine was paid: see Dêmosthen. - cont. Timokrat. c. 46, p. 762, R. - - [679] See Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, b. iii, ch. 13, p. - 390, Engl. Transl. (vol. i, p. 420, Germ.); Meier und Schömann, - Attisch. Prozess, p. 744. Dr. Thirlwall takes a different view - of this point, with which I cannot concur (Hist. Gr. vol. iii, - Append. ii, p. 488); though his general remarks on the trial of - Miltiadês are just and appropriate (ch. xiv, p. 273). - - Cornelius Nepos (Miltiadês, c. 8; Kimon, c. 3) says that the - misconduct connected with Paros was only a pretence with the - Athenians for punishing Miltiadês; their real motive, he affirms, - was envy and fear, the same feelings which dictated the ostracism - of Kimon. How little there is to justify this fancy, may be seen - even from the nature of the punishment inflicted. Fear would have - prompted them to send away or put to death Miltiadês, not to fine - him. The ostracism, which was dictated by fear, was a temporary - banishment. - - [680] The interval between his trial and his decease is expressed - in Herodotus (vi, 136) by the difference between the present - participle σηπομένου and the past participle σαπέντος τοῦ μηροῦ. - -Thus closed the life of the conqueror of Marathon. The last act -of it produces an impression so mournful, and even shocking,—his -descent from the pinnacle of glory to defeat, mean tampering with a -temple-servant, mortal bodily hurt, undefended ignominy, and death -under a sentence of heavy fine, is so abrupt and unprepared,—that -readers, ancient and modern, have not been satisfied without finding -some one to blame for it: we must except Herodotus, our original -authority, who recounts the transaction without dropping a single -hint of blame against any one. To speak ill of the people, as -Machiavel has long ago observed,[681] is a strain in which every one -at all times, even under a democratical government, indulges with -impunity and without provoking any opponent to reply; and in this -instance, the hard fate of Miltiadês has been imputed to the vices of -the Athenians and their democracy,—it has been cited in proof, partly -of their fickleness, partly of their ingratitude. But however such -blame may serve to lighten the mental sadness arising from a series -of painful facts, it will not be found justified if we apply to those -facts a reasonable criticism. - - [681] Machiavel, Discorsi sopra Tito Livio, cap. 58. “L’ opinione - contro ai popoli nasce, perchè dei popoli ciascun dice male senza - paura, e liberamente ancora mentre che regnano: dei principi si - parla sempre con mille timori e mille rispetti.” - -What is called the fickleness of the Athenians on this occasion is -nothing more than a rapid and decisive change in their estimation of -Miltiadês; unbounded admiration passing at once into extreme wrath. -To censure them for fickleness is here an abuse of terms; such a -change in their opinion was the unavoidable result of his conduct. -His behavior in the expedition of Paros was as reprehensible as at -Marathon it had been meritorious, and the one succeeded immediately -after the other: what else could ensue except an entire revolution in -the Athenian feelings? He had employed his prodigious ascendency over -their minds to induce them to follow him without knowing whither, -in the confidence of an unknown booty: he had exposed their lives -and wasted their substance in wreaking a private grudge: in addition -to the shame of an unprincipled project, comes the constructive -shame of not having succeeded in it. Without doubt, such behavior, -coming from a man whom they admired to excess, must have produced -a violent and painful revulsion in the feelings of his countrymen. -The idea of having lavished praise and confidence upon a person who -forthwith turns it to an unworthy purpose, is one of the greatest -torments of the human bosom; and we may well understand that the -intensity of the subsequent displeasure would be aggravated by this -reactionary sentiment, without accusing the Athenians of fickleness. -If an officer, whose conduct has been such as to merit the highest -encomiums, comes on a sudden to betray his trust, and manifests -cowardice or treachery in a new and important undertaking confided -to him, are we to treat the general in command as fickle, because -his opinion as well as his conduct undergoes an instantaneous -revolution,—which will be all the more vehement in proportion to his -previous esteem? The question to be determined is, whether there be -sufficient ground for such a change; and in the case of Miltiadês, -that question must be answered in the affirmative. - -In regard to the charge of ingratitude against the Athenians, this -last-mentioned point—sufficiency of reason—stands tacitly admitted. -It is conceded that Miltiadês deserved punishment for his conduct in -reference to the Parian expedition, but it is nevertheless maintained -that gratitude for his previous services at Marathon ought to have -exempted him from punishment. But the sentiment upon which, after -all, this exculpation rests, will not bear to be drawn out and stated -in the form of a cogent or justifying reason. For will any one really -contend, that a man who has rendered great services to the public, -is to receive in return a license of unpunished misconduct for the -future? Is the general, who has earned applause by eminent skill -and important victories, to be recompensed by being allowed the -liberty of betraying his trust afterwards, and exposing his country -to peril, without censure or penalty? This is what no one intends -to vindicate deliberately; yet a man must be prepared to vindicate -it, when he blames the Athenians for ingratitude towards Miltiadês. -For if all that be meant is, that gratitude for previous services -ought to pass, not as a receipt in full for subsequent crime, but -as an extenuating circumstance in the measurement of the penalty, -the answer is, that it was so reckoned in the Athenian treatment of -Miltiadês.[682] His friends had nothing whatever to urge, against -the extreme penalty proposed by his accuser, except these previous -services,—which influenced the dikasts sufficiently to induce them to -inflict the lighter punishment instead of the heavier. Now the whole -amount of punishment inflicted consisted in a fine which certainly -was not beyond his reasonable means of paying, or of prevailing -upon friends to pay for him, since his son Kimon actually did pay -it. And those who blame the Athenians for ingratitude,—unless they -are prepared to maintain the doctrine that previous services are to -pass as full acquittal for future crime,—have no other ground left -except to say that the fine was too high; that instead of being fifty -talents, it ought to have been no more than forty, thirty, twenty, -or ten talents. Whether they are right in this, I will not take upon -me to pronounce. If the amount was named on behalf of the accused -party, the dikastery had no legal power of diminishing it; but it -is within such narrow limits that the question actually lies, when -transferred from the province of sentiment to that of reason. It will -be recollected that the death of Miltiadês arose neither from his -trial nor his fine, but from the hurt in his thigh. - - [682] Machiavel will not even admit so much as _this_, in the - clear and forcible statement which he gives of the question here - alluded to: he contends that the man who has rendered services - ought to be recompensed for them, but that he ought to be - punished for subsequent crime just as if the previous services - had not been rendered. He lays down this position in discussing - the conduct of the Romans towards the victorious survivor of - the three Horatii, after the battle with the Curiatii: “Erano - stati i meriti di Orazio grandissimi, avendo con la sua virtù - vinti i Curiazi. Era stato il fallo suo atroce, avendo morto la - sorella. Nondimeno dispiacque tanto tale omicidio ai Romani, - che lo condussero a disputare della vita, non ostante che gli - meriti suoi fussero tanto grandi e si freschi. La qual cosa, a - chi superficialmente la considerasse, parrebbe uno esempio d’ - ingratitudine popolare. Nondimeno chi lo esaminerà meglio, e con - migliore considerazione ricercherà quali debbono essere gli’ - ordini delle republiche, biasimearà quel popolo piuttosto per - averlo assoluto, che per averlo voluto condannare: e la ragione - è questa, che nessuna republica bene ordinata, non mai cancellò - i demeriti con gli meriti dei suoi cittadini: ma avendo ordinati - i premi ad una buona opera, e le pene ad una cattiva, ed avendo - premiato uno per aver bene operato, se quel medesimo opera dipoi - male, lo gastiga senza avere riguardo alcuno alle sue buone - opere. E quando questi ordini sono bene osservati, una città vive - libera molto tempo: altrimenti sempre rovinera presto. _Perchè - se, ad un cittadino che abbia fatto qualche egregia opere per - la città, si aggiunge oltre alla riputazione, che quella cosa - gli arreca, una audacia e confidenza di potere senza temer pena, - far qualche opera non buona, diventerà in breve tempo tanto - insolente, che si risolverà ogni civiltà._”—Machiavel, Discorsi - sop. Tit. Livio, ch. 24. - -The charge of ingratitude against the Athenian popular juries really -amounts to this,—that, in trying a person accused of present crime -or fault, they were apt to confine themselves too strictly and -exclusively to the particular matter of charge, either forgetting, -or making too little account of, past services which he might have -rendered. Whoever imagines that such was the habit of Athenian -dikasts, must have studied the orators to very little purpose. Their -real defect was the very opposite: they were too much disposed to -wander from the special issue before them, and to be affected by -appeals to previous services and conduct.[683] That which an accused -person at Athens usually strives to produce is, an impression in the -minds of the dikasts favorable to his general character and behavior. -Of course, he meets the particular allegation of his accuser as well -as he can, but he never fails also to remind them emphatically, how -well he has performed his general duties of a citizen,—how many times -he has served in military expeditions,—how many trierarchies and -liturgies he has performed, and performed with splendid efficiency. -In fact, the claim of an accused person to acquittal is made to -rest too much on his prior services, and too little upon innocence -or justifying matter as to the particular indictment. When we come -down to the time of the orators, I shall be prepared to show that -such indisposition to confine themselves to a special issue was one -of the most serious defects of the assembled dikasts at Athens. It -is one which we should naturally expect from a body of private, -non-professional citizens assembled for the occasion, and which -belongs more or less to the system of jury-trial everywhere; but it -is the direct reverse of that ingratitude, or habitual insensibility -to prior services, for which they have been so often denounced. - - [683] Machiavel, in the twenty-ninth chapter of his Discorsi - sopra T. Livio, examines the question, “Which of the two is more - open to the charge of being ungrateful,—a popular government, or - a king?” He thinks that the latter is more open to it. Compare - chapter fifty-nine of the same work, where he again supports a - similar opinion. - - M. Sismondi also observes, in speaking of the long attachment of - the city of Pisa to the cause of the emperors and to the Ghibelin - party: “Pise montra dans plus d’une occasion, par sa constance à - supporter la cause des empereurs au milieu des revers, combien la - reconnoissance lie un peuple libre d’une manière plus puissante - et plus durable qu’elle ne sauroit lier le peuple gouverné par un - seul homme.” (Histoire des Républ. Italiennes, ch. xiii, tom. ii, - p. 302.) - -The fate of Miltiadês, then, so far from illustrating either the -fickleness or the ingratitude of his countrymen, attests their just -appreciation of deserts. It also illustrates another moral, of no -small importance to the right comprehension of Grecian affairs; it -teaches us the painful lesson, how perfectly maddening were the -effects of a copious draught of glory on the temperament of an -enterprising and ambitious Greek. There can be no doubt, that the -rapid transition, in the course of about one week, from Athenian -terror before the battle to Athenian exultation after it, must have -produced demonstrations towards Miltiadês such as were never paid -towards any other man in the whole history of the commonwealth. Such -unmeasured admiration unseated his rational judgment, so that his -mind became abandoned to the reckless impulses of insolence, and -antipathy, and rapacity;—that distempered state, for which (according -to Grecian morality) the retributive Nemesis was ever on the watch, -and which, in his case, she visited with a judgment startling in -its rapidity, as well as terrible in its amount. Had Miltiadês -been the same man before the battle of Marathon as he became after -it, the battle might probably have turned out a defeat instead of -a victory. Dêmosthenês, indeed,[684] in speaking of the wealth -and luxury of political leaders in his own time, and the profuse -rewards bestowed upon them by the people, pointed in contrast to -the house of Miltiadês as being noway more splendid than that of a -private man. But though Miltiadês might continue to live in a modest -establishment, he received from his countrymen marks of admiration -and deference such as were never paid to any citizen before or after -him; and, after all, admiration and deference constitute the precious -essence of popular reward. No man except Miltiadês ever dared to -raise his voice in the Athenian assembly, and say: “Give me a fleet -of ships: do not ask what I am going to do with them, but only -follow me, and I will enrich you.” Herein we may read the unmeasured -confidence which the Athenians placed in their victorious general, -and the utter incapacity of a leading Greek to bear it without mental -depravation; while we learn from it to draw the melancholy inference, -that one result of success was to make the successful leader one -of the most dangerous men in the community. We shall presently be -called upon to observe the same tendency in the case of the Spartan -Pausanias, and even in that of the Athenian Themistoklês. It is, -indeed, fortunate that the reckless aspirations of Miltiadês did not -take a turn more noxious to Athens than the comparatively unimportant -enterprise against Paros. For had he sought to acquire dominion and -gratify antipathies against enemies at home, instead of directing -his blow against a Parian enemy, the peace and security of his -country might have been seriously endangered. - - [684] Dêmosthenês, Olynth. iii, c. 9, p. 35, R. - -Of the despots who gained power in Greece, a considerable proportion -began by popular conduct, and by rendering good service to their -fellow-citizens: having first earned public gratitude, they abused -it for purposes of their own ambition. There was far greater danger, -in a Grecian community, of dangerous excess of gratitude towards -a victorious soldier, than of deficiency in that sentiment: hence -the person thus exalted acquired a position such that the community -found it difficult afterwards to shake him off. Now there is a -disposition almost universal among writers and readers to side -with an individual, especially an eminent individual, against the -multitude; and accordingly those who under such circumstances suspect -the probable abuse of an exalted position, are denounced as if they -harbored an unworthy jealousy of superior abilities. But the truth -is, that the largest analogies of the Grecian character justified -that suspicion, and required the community to take precautions -against the corrupting effects of their own enthusiasm. There is -no feature which more largely pervades the impressible Grecian -character, than a liability to be intoxicated and demoralized by -success: there was no fault from which so few eminent Greeks were -free: there was hardly any danger, against which it was at once -so necessary and so difficult for the Grecian governments to take -security,—especially the democracies, where the manifestations of -enthusiasm were always the loudest. Such is the real explanation of -those charges which have been urged against the Grecian democracies, -that they came to hate and ill-treat previous benefactors; and the -history of Miltiadês illustrates it in a manner no less pointed than -painful. - -I have already remarked that the fickleness, which has been so -largely imputed to the Athenian democracy in their dealings with -him, is nothing more than a reasonable change of opinion on the -best grounds. Nor can it be said that fickleness was in any case -an attribute of the Athenian democracy. It is a well-known fact, -that feelings, or opinions, or modes of judging, which have once -obtained footing among a large number of people, are more lasting and -unchangeable than those which belong only to one or a few; insomuch -that the judgments and actions of the many admit of being more -clearly understood as to the past, and more certainly predicted as to -the future. If we are to predicate any attribute of the multitude, -it will rather be that of undue tenacity than undue fickleness; and -there will occur nothing in the course of this history to prove that -the Athenian people changed their opinions on insufficient grounds -more frequently than an unresponsible one or few would have changed. - -But there were two circumstances in the working of the Athenian -democracy which imparted to it an appearance of greater fickleness, -without the reality: First, that the manifestations and changes -of opinion were all open, undisguised, and noisy: the people gave -utterance to their present impression, whatever it was, with perfect -frankness; if their opinions were really changed, they had no shame -or scruple in avowing it. Secondly,—and this is a point of capital -importance in the working of democracy generally,—the _present_ -impression, whatever it might be, was not merely undisguised in its -manifestations, but also had a tendency to be exaggerated in its -intensity. This arose from their habit of treating public affairs -in multitudinous assemblages, the well-known effect of which is, -to inflame sentiment in every man’s bosom by mere contact with a -sympathizing circle of neighbors. Whatever the sentiment might -be,—fear, ambition, cupidity, wrath, compassion, piety, patriotic -devotion, etc,[685]—and whether well-founded or ill-founded, it was -constantly influenced more or less by such intensifying cause. -This is a defect which of course belongs in a certain degree to -all exercise of power by numerous bodies, even though they be -representative bodies,—especially when the character of the people, -instead of being comparatively sedate and slow to move, like the -English, is quick, impressible, and fiery, like Greeks or Italians; -but it operated far more powerfully on the self-acting Dêmos -assembled in the Pnyx. It was in fact the constitutional malady -of the democracy, of which the people were themselves perfectly -sensible,—as I shall show hereafter from the securities which -they tried to provide against it,—but which no securities could -ever wholly eradicate. Frequency of public assemblies, far from -aggravating the evil, had a tendency to lighten it. The people -thus became accustomed to hear and balance many different views -as a preliminary to ultimate judgment; they contracted personal -interest and esteem for a numerous class of dissentient speakers; -and they even acquired a certain practical consciousness of their -own liability to error. Moreover, the diffusion of habits of public -speaking, by means of the sophists and the rhetors, whom it has been -so much the custom to disparage, tended in the same direction,—to -break the unity of sentiment among the listening crowd, to multiply -separate judgments, and to neutralize the contagion of mere -sympathizing impulse. These were important deductions, still farther -assisted by the superior taste and intelligence of the Athenian -people: but still, the inherent malady remained,—excessive and -misleading intensity of present sentiment. It was this which gave -such inestimable value to the ascendency of Periklês, as depicted by -Thucydidês: his hold on the people was so firm, that he could always -speak with effect against excess of the reigning tone of feeling. -“When Periklês (says the historian) saw the people in a state of -unseasonable and insolent confidence, he spoke so as to cow them into -alarm; when again they were in groundless terror, he combated it, and -brought them back to confidence.”[686] We shall find Dêmosthenês, -with far inferior ascendency, employed in the same honorable task: -the Athenian people often stood in need of such correction, but -unfortunately did not always find statesmen, at once friendly and -commanding, to administer it. - - [685] This is the general truth, which ancient authors often - state, both partially, and in exaggerated terms as to degree: - “Hæc est natura multitudinis (says Livy); aut humiliter servit - aut superbe dominatur.” Again, Tacitus: “Nihil in vulgo modicum; - terrere, ni paveant; ubi pertimuerint, impune contemni.” (Annal. - i, 29.) Herodotus, iii, 81. ὠθέει δὲ (ὁ δῆμος) ἐμπεσὼν τὰ - πρήγματα ἄνευ νοῦ, χειμάῤῥῳ ποταμῷ ἴκελος. - - It is remarkable that Aristotle, in his Politica, takes little or - no notice of this attribute belonging to every numerous assembly. - He seems rather to reason as if the aggregate intelligence of - the multitude was represented by the sum total of each man’s - separate intelligence in all the individuals composing it (Polit. - iii, 6, 4, 10, 12); just as the property of the multitude, taken - collectively, would be greater than that of the few rich. He - takes no notice of the difference between a number of individuals - judging jointly and judging separately: I do not, indeed, observe - that such omission leads him into any positive mistake, but it - occurs in some cases calculated to surprise us, and where the - difference here adverted to is important to notice: see Politic. - iii, 10, 5, 6. - - [686] Thucyd. ii, 65. Ὅποτε γοῦν αἴσθοιτό τι αὐτοὺς παρὰ καιρὸν - ὕβρει θαρσοῦντας, λέγων κατέπλησσεν πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ φοβεῖσθαι· καὶ - δεδιότας αὖ ἀλόγως ἀντικαθίστη πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ θαρσεῖν. - -These two attributes, then, belonged to the Athenian democracy; -first, their sentiments of every kind were manifested loudly and -openly; next, their sentiments tended to a pitch of great present -intensity. Of course, therefore, when they changed, the change -of sentiment stood prominent, and forced itself upon every one’s -notice,—being a transition from one strong sentiment past to another -strong sentiment present.[687] And it was because such alterations, -when they did take place, stood out so palpably to remark, that -the Athenian people have drawn upon themselves the imputation of -fickleness: for it is not at all true, I repeat, that changes of -sentiment were more frequently produced in them by frivolous or -insufficient causes, than changes of sentiment in other governments. - - [687] Such swing of the mind, from one intense feeling to - another, is always deprecated by the Greek moralists, from the - earliest to the latest: even Demokritus, in the fifth century B. - C., admonishes against it,—Αἱ ἐκ μεγάλων διαστημάτων κινεόμεναι - τῶν ψυχῶν οὔτε εὐσταθέες εἰσὶν, οὔτε εὔθυμοι. (Democriti - Fragmenta, lib. iii, p. 168, ed. Mullach ap. Stobæum, Florileg. - i, 40.) - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVII. - -IONIC PHILOSOPHERS. — PYTHAGORAS. — KROTON AND SYBARIS. - - -The history of the powerful Grecian cities in Italy and Sicily, -between the accession of Peisistratus and the battle of Marathon, -is for the most part unknown to us. Phalaris, despot of Agrigentum -in Sicily, made for himself an unenviable name during this obscure -interval. His reign seems to coincide in time with the earlier part -of the rule of Peisistratus (about 560-540 B. C.), and the few -and vague statements which we find respecting it,[688] merely show -us that it was a period of extortion and cruelty, even beyond the -ordinary licence of Grecian despots. The reality of the hollow bull -of brass, which Phalaris was accustomed to heat in order to shut up -his victims in it and burn them, appears to be better authenticated -than the nature of the story would lead us to presume: for it is -not only noticed by Pindar, but even the actual instrument of this -torture, the brazen bull itself,[689]—which had been taken away from -Agrigentum as a trophy by the Carthaginians when they captured the -town, was restored by the Romans, on the subjugation of Carthage, to -its original domicile. Phalaris is said to have acquired the supreme -command, by undertaking the task of building a great temple[690] to -Zeus Polieus on the citadel rock; a pretence whereby he was enabled -to assemble and arm a number of workmen and devoted partisans, whom -he employed, at the festival of the Thesmophoria, to put down the -authorities. He afterwards disarmed the citizens by a stratagem, -and committed cruelties which rendered him so abhorred, that a -sudden rising of the people, headed by Têlemachus (ancestor of the -subsequent despot, Thêro), overthrew and slew him. A severe revenge -was taken on his partisans after his fall.[691] - - [688] The letters of Bentley against Boyle, discussing the - pretended Epistles of Phalaris,—full of acuteness and learning, - though beyond measure excursive,—are quite sufficient to teach us - that little can be safely asserted about Phalaris. His date is - very imperfectly ascertained. Compare Bentley, pp. 82, 83, and - Seyfert, Akragas und sein Gebiet, p. 60: the latter assigns the - reign of Phalaris to the years 570-554 B. C. It is surprising - to see Seyfert citing the letters of the pseudo-Phalaris as an - authority, after the exposure of Bentley. - - [689] Pindar. Pyth. 1 _ad fin_, with the Scholia, p. 310, ed. - Boeckh; Polyb. xii, 25; Diodor. xiii, 99; Cicero cont. Verr. - iv, 33. The contradiction of Timæus is noway sufficient to make - us doubt the authenticity of the story. Ebert (Σικελίων, part - ii, pp. 41-84, Königsberg, 1829) collects all the authorities - about the bull of Phalaris. He believes the matter of fact - substantially. Aristotle (Rhetoric, ii, 20) tells a story of the - fable, whereby Stêsichorus the poet dissuaded the inhabitants - of Himera from granting a guard to Phalaris: Conon (Narrat. - 42 ap. Photium) recounts the same story with the name of - Hiero substituted for that of Phalaris. But it is not likely - that either the one or the other could ever have been in such - relations with the citizens of _Himera_. Compare Polybius, vii, - 7, 2. - - [690] Polyæn. v, 1, 1; Cicero de Officiis, ii, 7. - - [691] Plutarch, Philosophand. cum Principibus, c. 3, p. 778. - -During the interval between 540-500 B. C., events of much importance -occurred among the Italian Greeks,—especially at Kroton and -Sybaris,—events, unhappily, very imperfectly handed down. Between -these two periods fall both the war between Sybaris and Kroton, and -the career and ascendency of Pythagoras. In connection with this -latter name, it will be requisite to say a few words respecting the -other Grecian philosophers of the sixth century B. C. - -I have, in a former chapter, noticed and characterized those -distinguished persons called the Seven Wise Men of Greece, whose -celebrity falls in the first half of this century,—men not so much -marked by scientific genius as by practical sagacity and foresight in -the appreciation of worldly affairs, and enjoying a high degree of -political respect from their fellow-citizens. One of them, however, -the Milesian Thalês, claims our notice, not only on this ground, but -also as the earliest known name in the long line of Greek scientific -investigators. His life, nearly contemporary with that of Solon, -belongs seemingly to the interval about 640-550 B. C.: the stories -mentioned in Herodotus—perhaps borrowed in part from the Milesian -Hekatæus—are sufficient to show that his reputation for wisdom, as -well as for science, continued to be very great, even a century after -his death, among his fellow-citizens. And he marks an important -epoch in the progress of the Greek mind, as having been the first -man to depart both in letter and spirit from the Hesiodic Theogony, -introducing the conception of substances with their transformations -and sequences, in place of that string of persons and quasi-human -attributes which had animated the old legendary world. He is the -father of what is called the Ionic philosophy, which is considered -as lasting from his time down to that of Sokratês; and writers, -ancient as well as modern, have professed to trace a succession of -philosophers, each one the pupil of the preceding, between these two -extreme epochs. But the appellation is, in truth, undefined, and -even incorrect, since nothing entitled to the name of a school, or -sect, or succession,—like that of the Pythagoreans, to be noticed -presently,—can be made out. There is, indeed, a certain general -analogy in the philosophical vein of Thalês, Hippo, Anaximenês, and -Diogenês of Apollonia, whereby they all stand distinguished from -Xenophanês of Elea, and his successors, the Eleatic dialecticians, -Parmenidês and Zeno; but there are also material differences between -their respective doctrines,—no two of them holding the same. And if -we look to Anaximander, the person next in order of time to Thalês, -as well as to Herakleitus, we find them departing, in a great degree, -even from that character which all the rest have in common, though -both the one and the other are usually enrolled in the list of Ionic -philosophers. - -Of the old legendary and polytheistic conception of nature, which -Thalês partially discarded, we may remark that it is a state of the -human mind in which the problems suggesting themselves to be solved, -and the machinery for solving them, bear a fair proportion one to -the other. If the problems be vast, indeterminate, confused, and -derived rather from the hopes, fears, love, hatred, astonishment, -etc., of men, than from any genuine desire of knowledge,—so also -does the received belief supply invisible agents in unlimited -number, and with every variety of power and inclination. The means -of explanation are thus multiplied and diversified as readily as the -phenomena to be explained. And though no future events or states can -be predicted on trustworthy grounds, in such manner as to stand the -scrutiny of subsequent verification,—yet there is little difficulty -in rendering a specious and plausible account of matters past, of any -and all things alike; especially as, at such a period, matters of -fact requiring explanation are neither collated nor preserved with -care. And though no event or state, which has not yet occurred, can -be predicted, there is little difficulty in rendering a plausible -account of everything which has occurred in the past. Cosmogony, and -the prior ages of the world, were conceived as a sort of personal -history, with intermarriages, filiation, quarrels, and other -adventures, of these invisible agents; among whom some one or more -were assumed as unbegotten and self-existent,—the latter assumption -being a difficulty common to all systems of cosmogony, and from which -even this flexible and expansive hypothesis is not exempt. - -Now when Thalês disengaged Grecian philosophy from the old mode of -explanation, he did not at the same time disengage it from the old -problems and matters propounded for inquiry. These he retained, -and transmitted to his successors, as vague and vast as they -were at first conceived; and so they remained, though with some -transformations and modifications, together with many new questions -equally insoluble, substantially present to the Greeks throughout -their whole history, as the legitimate problems for philosophical -investigation. But these problems, adapted only to the old elastic -system of polytheistic explanation and omnipresent personal agency, -became utterly disproportioned to any impersonal hypotheses such -as those of Thalês and the philosophers after him,—whether assumed -physical laws, or plausible moral and metaphysical dogmas, open to -argumentative attack, and of course requiring the like defence. To -treat the visible world as a whole, and inquire when and how it -began, as well as into all its past changes,—to discuss the first -origin of men, animals, plants, the sun, the stars, etc.,—to assign -some comprehensive reason why motion or change in general took place -in the universe,—to investigate the destinies of the human race, and -to lay down some systematic relation between them and the gods,—all -these were topics admitting of being conceived in many different -ways, and set forth with eloquent plausibility, but not reducible to -any solution either resting on scientific evidence, or commanding -steady adherence under a free scrutiny.[692] - - [692] The less these problems are adapted for rational solution, - the more nobly do they present themselves in the language of a - great poem; see as a specimen, Euripidês, Fragment. 101, ed. - Dindorf. - - Ὄλβιος ὅστις τῆς ἱστορίας - Ἔσχε μάθησιν, μήτε πολιτῶν - Ἐπὶ πημοσύνῃ, μήτ᾽ εἰς ἀδίκους - Πράξεις ὁρμῶν· - Ἀλλ᾽ ἀθανάτου καθορῶν φύσεως - Κόσμον ἀγήρω, πῆ τε συνέστη - Καὶ ὅπη καὶ ὅπως. - Τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις οὐδέποτ᾽ αἰσχρῶν - Ἔργων μελέτημα προσίζει. - -At the time when the power of scientific investigation was scanty -and helpless, the problems proposed were thus such as to lie out -of the reach of science in its largest compass. Gradually, indeed, -subjects more special and limited, and upon which experience, or -deductions from experience, could be brought to bear, were added -to the list of _quæsita_, and examined with great profit and -instruction: but the old problems, with new ones, alike unfathomable, -were never eliminated, and always occupied a prominent place in -the philosophical world. Now it was this disproportion, between -questions to be solved and means of solution, which gave rise -to that conspicuous characteristic of Grecian philosophy,—the -antagonist force of suspensive skepticism, passing in some minds -into a broad negation of the attainability of general truth,—which -it nourished from its beginning to its end; commencing as early -as Xenophanês, continuing to manifest itself seven centuries -afterwards in Ænesidêmus and Sextus Empiricus, and including in -the interval between these two extremes some of the most powerful -intellects in Greece. The present is not the time for considering -these Skeptics, who bear an unpopular name, and have not often been -fairly appreciated; the more so, as it often suited the purpose of -men, themselves essentially skeptical, like Sokratês and Plato, to -denounce professed skepticism with indignation. But it is essential -to bring them into notice at the first spring of Grecian philosophy -under Thalês, because the circumstances were then laid which so soon -afterwards developed them. - -Though the celebrity of Thalês in antiquity was great and universal, -scarcely any distinct facts were known respecting him: it is certain -that he left nothing in writing. Extensive travels in Egypt and -Asia are ascribed to him, and as a general fact these travels are -doubtless true, since no other means of acquiring knowledge were -then open. At a time when the brother of the Lesbian Alkæus was -serving in the Babylonian army, we may easily conceive that an -inquisitive Milesian would make his way to that wonderful city -wherein stood the temple-observatory of the Chaldæan priesthood; -nor is it impossible that he may have seen the still greater city -of Ninus, or Nineveh, before its capture and destruction by the -Medes. How great his reputation was in his lifetime, the admiration -expressed by his younger contemporary, Xenophanês, assures us; and -Herakleitus, in the next generation, a severe judge of all other -philosophers, spoke of him with similar esteem. To him were traced, -by the Grecian inquirers of the fourth century B. C., the first -beginnings of geometry, astronomy, and physiology in its large and -really appropriate sense, the scientific study of nature: for the -Greek word denoting nature (φύσις), first comes into comprehensive -use about this time (as I have remarked in an earlier chapter),[693] -with its derivatives _physics_ and _physiology_, as distinguished -from the _theology_ of the old poets. Little stress can be laid on -those elementary propositions in geometry which are specified as -discovered, or as first demonstrated, by Thalês,—still less upon the -solar eclipse respecting which, according to Herodotus, he determined -beforehand the year of occurrence.[694] But the main doctrine of his -physiology,—using that word in its larger Greek sense,—is distinctly -attested. He stripped Oceanus and Tethys, primeval parents of the -gods in the Homeric theogony, of their personality,—and laid down -water, or fluid substance, as the single original element from -which everything came, and into which everything returned.[695] The -doctrine of one eternal element, remaining always the same in its -essence, but indefinitely variable in its manifestations to sense, -was thus first introduced to the discussion of the Grecian public. -We have no means of knowing the reasons by which Thalês supported -this opinion, nor could even Aristotle do more than conjecture -what they might have been; but one of the statements urged on -behalf of it,—that the earth itself rested on water,[696]—we may -safely refer to the Milesian himself, for it would hardly have been -advanced at a later age. Moreover, Thalês is reported to have held, -that everything was living and full of gods; and that the magnet, -especially, was a living thing. Thus the gods, as far as we can -pretend to follow opinions so very faintly transmitted, are conceived -as active powers, and causes of changeful manifestation, attached -to the primeval substance:[697] the universe being assimilated to an -organized body or system. - - [693] Vol. i, ch. xvi. - - [694] Diogen. Laërt. i, 23; Herodot. i, 75; Apuleius, Florid. iv, - p. 144, Bip. - - Proclus, in his Commentary on Euclid, specifies several - propositions said to have been discovered by Thalês (Brandis, - Handbuch der Gr. Philos. ch. xxviii, p. 110). - - [695] Aristotel. Metaphys. i, 3; Plutarch, Placit. Philos. i, - 3, p. 875. ὃς ἐξ ὔδατος φησὶ πάντα εἶναι, καὶ εἰς ὕδωρ πάντα - ἀναλύεσθαι. - - [696] Aristotel. _ut supra_, and De Cœlo, ii, 13. - - [697] Aristotel. De Animâ, i, 2-5; Cicero, De Legg. ii, 11; - Diogen. Laërt. i, 24. - -Respecting Hippo,—who reproduced the theory of Thalês under a more -generalized form of expression, substituting, in place of water, -moisture, or something common to air and water,[698]—we do not know -whether he belonged to the sixth or the fifth century B. C. But -Anaximander, Xenophanês, and Pherekydês belong to the latter half of -the sixth century. Anaximander, the son of Praxiadês, was a native -of Milêtus,—Xenophanês, a native of Kolophon; the former, among the -earliest expositors of doctrine in prose,[699] while the latter -committed his opinions to the old medium of verse. Anaximander seems -to have taken up the philosophical problem, while he materially -altered the hypothesis of his predecessor Thalês. Instead of the -primeval fluid of the latter, he supposed a primeval principle, -without any actual determining qualities whatever, but including all -qualities potentially, and manifesting them in an infinite variety -from its continually self-changing nature,—a principle, which was -nothing in itself, yet had the capacity of producing any and all -manifestations, however contrary to each other,[700]—a primeval -something, whose essence it was to be eternally productive of -different phenomena,—a sort of mathematical point, which counts for -nothing in itself, but is vigorous in generating lines to any extent -that may be desired. In this manner, Anaximander professed to give -a comprehensive explanation of change in general, or generation, -or destruction,—how it happened that one sensible thing began and -another ceased to exist,—according to the vague problems which these -early inquirers were in the habit of setting to themselves.[701] He -avoided that which the first philosophers especially dreaded, the -affirmation that generation could take place out of Nothing; yet the -primeval Something, which he supposed was only distinguished from -nothing by possessing this very power of generation. - - [698] Aristotel. De Animâ, i, 2; Alexander Aphrodis. in - Aristotel. Metaphys. 1, 3. - - [699] Apollodorus, in the second century B. C., had before him - some brief expository treatises of Anaximander (Diogen. Laërt. - ii, 2): Περὶ Φύσεως, Γῆς Περίοδον, Περὶ τῶν Ἀπλανῶν καὶ Σφαῖραν - καὶ ἄλλα τινά. Suidas, v. Ἀναξίμανδρος. Themistius. Orat. xxv, - p. 317: ἐθάῤῥησε πρῶτος ὦν ἴσμεν Ἐλλήνων λόγον ἐξενεγκεῖν περὶ - Φύσεως συγγεγραμμένον. - - [700] Irenæus, ii, 19, (14) ap. Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte - der Griech. Röm. Philos. ch. xxxv, p. 133: “Anaximander hoc - quod immensum est, omnium initium subjecit, seminaliter habens - in semetipso omnium genesin, ex quo immensos mundos constare - ait.” Aristotel. Physic. Auscult. iii, 4, p. 203, Bek. οὔτε γὰρ - μάτην αὐτὸ οἶόν τε εἶναι (τὸ ἄπειρον), οὔτε ἄλλην ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ - δύναμιν, πλὴν ὡς ἀρχήν. Aristotle subjects this ἄπειρον to an - elaborate discussion, in which he says very little more about - Anaximander, who appears to have assumed it without anticipating - discussion or objections. Whether Anaximander called his - ἄπειρον divine, or god, as Tennemann (Gesch. Philos. i, 2, p. - 67) and Panzerbieter affirm (ad Diogenis Apolloniat. Fragment. - c. 13, p. 16,) I think doubtful: this is rather an inference - which Aristotle elicits from his language. Yet in another - passage, which is difficult to reconcile, Aristotle ascribes - to Anaximander the water-doctrine of Thalês, (Aristotel. de - Xenophane, p. 975. Bek.) - - Anaximander seems to have followed speculations analogous to - those of Thalês, in explaining the first production of the human - race (Plutarch Placit. Philos. v, 19, p. 908), and in other - matters (ibid. iii, 16, p. 896). - - [701] Aristotel. De Generat. et Destruct. c. 3, p. 317, Bek. ὃ - μάλιστα φοβούμενοι διετέλεσαν οἱ πρῶτοι φιλοσοφήσαντες, τὸ ἐκ - μηδενὸς γίνεσθαι προϋπάρχοντος· compare Physic. Auscultat. i, 4, - p. 187, Bek. - -In his theory, he passed from the province of physics into that -of metaphysics. He first introduced into Grecian philosophy that -important word which signifies a beginning or a principle,[702] and -first opened that metaphysical discussion, which was carried on in -various ways throughout the whole period of Grecian philosophy, as -to the one and the many—the continuous and the variable—that which -exists eternally, as distinguished from that which comes and passes -away in ever-changing manifestations. His physiology, or explanation -of nature, thus conducted the mind into a different route from that -suggested by the hypothesis of Thalês, which was built upon physical -considerations, and was therefore calculated to suggest and stimulate -observations of physical phenomena for the purpose of verifying or -confuting it,—while the hypothesis of Anaximander admitted only of -being discussed dialectically, or by reasonings expressed in general -language; reasonings sometimes, indeed, referring to experience for -the purpose of illustration, but seldom resting on it, and never -looking out for it as a necessary support. The physical explanation -of nature, however, once introduced by Thalês, although deserted by -Anaximander, was taken up by Anaximenês and others afterwards, and -reproduced with many divergences of doctrine,—yet always more or -less entangled and perplexed with metaphysical additions, since the -two departments were never clearly parted throughout all Grecian -philosophy. Of these subsequent physical philosophers I shall speak -hereafter: at present, I confine myself to the thinkers of the sixth -century B. C., among whom Anaximander stands prominent, not as the -follower of Thalês, but as the author of an hypothesis both new and -tending in a different direction. - - [702] Simplicius in Aristotel. Physic. fol. 6, 32. πρῶτος αὐτὸς - Ἀρχὴν ὀνομάσας τὸ ὑποκείμενον. - -It was not merely as the author of this hypothesis, however, that -Anaximander enlarged the Greek mind and roused the powers of thought: -we find him also mentioned as distinguished in astronomy and -geometry. He is said to have been the first to establish a sun-dial -in Greece, to construct a sphere, and to explain the obliquity of -the ecliptic;[703] how far such alleged authorship really belongs -to him, we cannot be certain,—but there is one step of immense -importance which he is clearly affirmed to have made. He was the -first to compose a treatise on the geography of the land and sea -within his cognizance, and to construct a chart or map founded -thereupon,—seemingly a tablet of brass. Such a novelty, wondrous even -to the rude and ignorant, was calculated to stimulate powerfully -inquisitive minds, and from it may be dated the commencement of -Grecian rational geography,—not the least valuable among the -contributions of this people to the stock of human knowledge. - - [703] Diogen. Laërt. ii, 81, 2. He agreed with Thalês in - maintaining that the earth was stationary, (Aristotel. de Cœlo, - ii, 13, p. 295, ed. Bekk.) - -Xenophanês of Kolophon, somewhat younger than Anaximander, and -nearly contemporary with Pythagoras (seemingly from about 570-480 -B. C.), migrated from Kolophon[704] to Zanklê and Katana in Sicily -and Elea in Italy, soon after the time when Ionia became subject -to the Persians, (540-530 B. C.) He was the founder of what is -called the Eleatic school of philosophers,—a real school, since it -appears that Parmenidês, Zeno, and Melissus, pursued and developed, -in a great degree, the train of speculation which had been begun by -Xenophanês,—doubtless with additions and variations of their own, -but especially with a dialectic power which belongs to the age of -Periklês, and is unknown in the sixth century B. C. He was the author -of more than one poem of considerable length, one on the foundation -of Kolophon and another on that of Elea; besides his poem on Nature, -wherein his philosophical doctrines were set forth.[705] His manner -appears to have been controversial and full of asperity towards -antagonists; but what is most remarkable is the plain-spoken manner -in which he declared himself against the popular religion, and in -which he denounced as abominable the descriptions of the gods given -by Homer and Hesiod.[706] - - [704] Diogen. Laërt. ix, 18. - - [705] Diogen. Laërt. ix, 22; Stobæus, Eclog. Phys. i, p. 294. - - [706] Sextus Empiricus, adv. Mathem. ix, 193. - -He is said to have controverted the doctrines both of Thalês and -Pythagoras: this is probable enough; but he seems to have taken his -start from the philosophy of Anaximander,—not, however, to adopt it, -but to reverse it,—and to set forth an opinion which we may call its -contrary. Nature, in the conception of Anaximander, consisted of a -Something having no other attribute except the unlimited power of -generating and cancelling phenomenal changes: in this doctrine, the -something or substratum existed only in and for those changes, and -could not be said to exist at all in any other sense: the permanent -was thus merged and lost in the variable,—the one in the many. -Xenophanês laid down the exact opposite: he conceived Nature as one -unchangeable and indivisible whole, spherical, animated, endued with -reason, and penetrated by or indeed identical with God: he denied -the objective reality of all change, or generation, or destruction, -which he seems to have considered as only changes or modifications in -the percipient, and perhaps different in one percipient and another. -That which exists, he maintained, could not have been generated, nor -could it ever be destroyed: there was neither real generation nor -real destruction of anything; but that which men took for such, -was the change in their own feelings and ideas. He thus recognized -the permanent without the variable,[707]—the one without the many. -And his treatment of the received religious creed was in harmony -with such physical or metaphysical hypothesis; for while he held -the whole of Nature to be God, without parts or change, he at the -same time pronounced the popular gods to be entities of subjective -fancy, imagined by men after their own model: if oxen or lions were -to become religious, he added, they would in like manner provide for -themselves gods after their respective shapes and characters.[708] -This hypothesis, which seemed to set aside altogether the study of -the sensible world as a source of knowledge, was expounded briefly, -and as it should seem, obscurely and rudely, by Xenophanês; at -least we may infer thus much from the slighting epithet applied to -him by Aristotle.[709] But his successors, Parmenidês and Zeno, -in the succeeding century, expanded it considerably, supported it -with extraordinary acuteness of dialectics, and even superadded a -second part, in which the phenomena of sense—though considered only -as appearances, not partaking in the reality of the one Ens—were -yet explained by a new physical hypothesis; so that they will be -found to exercise great influence over the speculations both of -Plato and Aristotle. We discover in Xenophanês, moreover, a vein -of skepticism, and a mournful despair as to the attainability of -certain knowledge,[710] which the nature of his philosophy was well -calculated to suggest, and in which the sillograph Timon of the third -century B. C., who seems to have spoken of Xenophanês better than of -most of the other philosophers, powerfully sympathized. - - [707] Aristot. Metaphys. i, 5, p. 986, Bek. Ξενοφάνης δὲ πρῶτος - τούτων ~ἑνίσας~, οὐθὲν διεσαφήνισεν, οὐδὲ τῆς φύσεως τούτων - (τοῦ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὕλην) οὐδετέρας ἔοικε - θιγεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν ἀποβλέψας τὸ ἓν εἶναί φησι τὸν - θεόν. - - Plutarch. ap. Eusebium Præparat. Evangel. i, 8. Ξενοφάνης δὲ ὁ - Κολοφώνιος ἰδίαν μέν τινα ὁδὸν πεπορευμένος καὶ παρηλλαχυῖαν - πάντας τοὺς προειρημένους, οὔτε γένεσιν οὔτε φθορὰν ἀπολείπει, - ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι λέγει τὸ πᾶν ἀεὶ ὅμοιον. Compare Timon ap. Sext. - Empiric. Pyrrh. Hypotyp. i, 224, 225. ἐδογμάτιζε δὲ ὁ Ξενοφάνης - παρὰ τὰς τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων προλήψεις, ἓν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν, καὶ - τὸν θεὸν συμφυῆ τοῖς πᾶσιν· εἶναι δὲ σφαιροειδὴ καὶ ἀπαθῆ καὶ - ἀμετάβλητον καὶ λογικόν, (Airstot. de Xenoph. c. 3, p. 977, - Bek.). Ἀδύνατόν φησιν (ὁ Ξενοφάνης) εἶναι, εἴ τι ἐστὶν, γενέσθαι, - etc. - - One may reasonably doubt whether all the arguments ascribed to - Xenophanês, in the short but obscure treatise last quoted, really - belong to him. - - [708] Clemens Alexand. Stromat. v, p. 601, vii, p. 711. - - [709] Aristot. Metaphysic. i, 5, p. 986, Bek. μικρὸν ἀγροικότερος. - - [710] Xenophanês, Fr. xiv, ed. Mullach; Sextus Empiric. adv. - Mathematicos, vii, 49-110; and Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. i, 224; Plutarch - adv. Colôtên, p. 1114; compare Karsten ad Parmenidis Fragmenta, - p. 146. - -The cosmogony of Pherekydês of Syrus, contemporary of Anaximander -and among the teachers of Pythagoras, seems, according to the -fragments preserved, a combination of the old legendary fancies -with Orphic mysticism,[711] and probably exercised little influence -over the subsequent course of Grecian philosophy. By what has been -said of Thalês, Anaximander, and Xenophanês, it will be seen that -the sixth century B. C. witnessed the opening of several of those -roads of intellectual speculation which the later philosophers -pursued farther, or at least from which they branched off. Before -the year 500 B. C. many interesting questions were thus brought -into discussion, which Solon, who died about 558 B. C., had never -heard of,—just as he may probably never have seen the map of -Anaximander. But neither of these two distinguished men—Anaximander -or Xenophanês—was anything more than a speculative inquirer. The -third eminent name of this century, of whom I am now about to -speak,—Pythagoras, combined in his character disparate elements which -require rather a longer development. - - [711] See Brandis, Handbuch der Griech. Röm. Philosophie, ch. - xxii. - -Pythagoras was founder of a brotherhood, originally brought together -by a religious influence, and with observances approaching to -monastic peculiarity,—working in a direction at once religious, -political, and scientific, and exercising for some time a real -political ascendency,—but afterwards banished from government and -state affairs into a sectarian privacy with scientific pursuits, -not without, however, still producing some statesmen individually -distinguished. Amidst the multitude of false and apocryphal -statements which circulated in antiquity respecting this celebrated -man, we find a few important facts reasonably attested and deserving -credence. He was a native of Samos,[712] son of an opulent merchant -named Mnêsarchus,—or, according to some of his later and more fervent -admirers, of Apollo; born, as far as we can make out, about the 50th -Olympiad, or 580 B. C. On the many marvels recounted respecting -his youth, it is unnecessary to dwell. Among them may be numbered -his wide-reaching travels, said to have been prolonged for nearly -thirty years, to visit the Arabians, the Syrians, the Phenicians, -the Chaldæans, the Indians, and the Gallic Druids. But there is -reason to believe that he really visited Egypt[713]—perhaps also -Phenicia—and Babylon, then Chaldæan and independent. At the time -when he saw Egypt, between 560-540 B. C., about one century earlier -than Herodotus, it was under Amasis, the last of its own kings, with -its peculiar native character yet unimpaired by foreign conquest, -and only slightly modified by the admission during the preceding -century of Grecian mercenary troops and traders. The spectacle of -Egyptian habits, the conversation of the priests, and the initiation -into various mysteries or secret rites and stories not accessible -to the general public, may very naturally have impressed the mind -of Pythagoras, and given him that turn for mystic observance, -asceticism, and peculiarity of diet and clothing,—which manifested -itself from the same cause among several of his contemporaries, but -which was not a common phenomenon in the primitive Greek religion. -Besides visiting Egypt, Pythagoras is also said to have profited -by the teaching of Thalês, of Anaximander, and of Pherekydês of -Syros.[714] Amidst the towns of Ionia, he would, moreover, have an -opportunity of conversing with many Greek navigators who had visited -foreign countries, especially Italy and Sicily. His mind seems to -have been acted upon and impelled by this combined stimulus,—partly -towards an imaginative and religious vein of speculation, with a life -of mystic observance,—partly towards that active exercise, both of -mind and body, which the genius of an Hellenic community so naturally -tended to suggest. - - [712] Herodot. iv, 95. The place of his nativity is certain - from Herodotus, but even this fact was differently stated by - other authors, who called him a Tyrrhenian of Lemnos or Imbros - (Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. c. 1-10), a Syrian, a Phliasian, etc. - - Cicero (De Repub. ii, 15: compare Livy, i, 18) censures the - chronological blunder of those who made Pythagoras the preceptor - of Numa; which certainly is a remarkable illustration how much - confusion prevailed among literary men of antiquity about the - dates of events even of the sixth century B. C. Ovid follows this - story without hesitation: see Metamorph. xv, 60, with Burmann’s - note. - - [713] Cicero de Fin. v, 29; Diogen. Laërt. viii, 3; Strabo, xiv, - p. 638; Alexander Polyhistor ap. Cyrill. cont. Julian. iv, p. - 128, ed. Spanh. For the vast reach of his supposed travels, see - Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. 11; Jamblic 14, _seqq._ - - The same extensive journeys are ascribed to Demokritus, Diogen. - Laërt. ix, 35. - - [714] The connection of Pythagoras with Pherekydês is noticed - by Aristoxenus ap. Diogen. Laërt. i, 118, viii, 2; Cicero de - Divinat. i, 13. - -Of the personal doctrines or opinions of Pythagoras, whom we must -distinguish from Philolaus and the subsequent Pythagoreans, we have -little certain knowledge, though doubtless the first germ of their -geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, etc. must have proceeded from him. -But that he believed in the metempsychosis or transmigration of the -souls of deceased men into other men, as well as into animals, we -know, not only by other evidence, but also by the testimony of his -contemporary, the philosopher Xenophanês of Elea. Pythagoras, seeing -a dog beaten, and hearing him howl, desired the striker to desist, -saying: “It is the soul of a friend of mine, whom I recognized by his -voice.” This—together with the general testimony of Hêrakleitus, that -Pythagoras was a man of extensive research and acquired instruction, -but artful for mischief and destitute of sound judgment—is all that -we know about him from contemporaries. Herodotus, two generations -afterwards, while he conceives the Pythagoreans as a peculiar -religious order, intimates that both Orpheus and Pythagoras had -derived the doctrine of the metempsychosis from Egypt, but had -pretended to it as their own without acknowledgment.[715] - - [715] Xenophanês, Fragm. 7, ed. Schneidewin; Diogen. Laërt. viii, - 36: compare Aulus Gellius, iv, 11 (we must remark that this or a - like doctrine is not peculiar to Pythagoreans, but believed by - the poet Pindar, Olymp. ii, 68, and Fragment, Thren. x, as well - as by the philosopher Pherekydês, Porphyrius de Antro Nympharum, - c. 31). - - Καί ποτέ μιν στυφελιζομένου σκύλακος παριόντα - Φασὶν ἐποικτεῖραι, καὶ τόδε φάσθαι ἔπος— - Παῦσαι, μηδὲ ῥάπιζ᾽· ἐπείη φίλου ἄνερός ἐστι - Ψυχὴ, τὴν ἔγνων φθεγξαμένης ἀΐων. - - Consult also Sextus Empiricus, viii, 286, as to the κοινωνία - between gods, men and animals, believed both by Pythagoras and - Empedoklês. That Herodotus (ii, 123) alludes to Orpheus and - Pythagoras, though refraining designedly from mentioning names, - there can hardly be any doubt: compare ii, 81; also Aristotle, De - Animâ, i, 3, 23. - - The testimony of Hêrakleitus is contained in Diogenes Laërtius, - viii, 6; ix, 1. Ἡρακλεῖτος γοῦν ὁ φυσικὸς μονονουχὶ κέκραγε καί - φησι· Πυθαγόρης Μνησάρχου ἱστορίην ἤσκησεν ἀνθρώπων μάλιστα - πάντων, καὶ ἐκλεξάμενος ταύτας τὰς συγγραφὰς, ἐποιήσατο ἑαυτοῦ - ~σοφίην, πολυμαθείην, κακοτεχνίην~. Again, Πολυμαθίη νόον - οὐ διδάσκει· Ἡσίοδον γὰρ ἂν ἐδίδαξε καὶ Πυθαγόρην, αὖθις δὲ - Ξενοφάνεά τε καὶ Ἑκαταῖον. - - Dr. Thirlwall conceives Xenophanês as having intended in the - passage above cited to treat the doctrine of the metempsychosis - “with deserved ridicule.” (Hist. of Greece, ch. xii, vol. ii, p. - 162.) Religious opinions are so apt to appear ridiculous to those - who do not believe them, that such a suspicion is not unnatural; - yet I think, if Xenophanês had been so disposed, he would have - found more ridiculous examples among the many which this doctrine - might suggest. Indeed, it seems hardly possible to present the - metempsychosis in a more touching or respectable point of view - than that which the lines of his poem set forth. The particular - animal selected is that one between whom and man the sympathy is - most marked and reciprocal, while the doctrine is made to enforce - a practical lesson against cruelty. - -Pythagoras combines the character of a sophist (a man of large -observation, and clever, ascendent, inventive mind,—the original -sense of the word Sophist, prior to the polemics of the Platonic -school, and the only sense known to Herodotus[716]) with that of -an inspired teacher, prophet, and worker of miracles,—approaching -to and sometimes even confounded with the gods,—and employing all -these gifts to found a new special order of brethren, bound together -by religious rites and observances peculiar to themselves. In his -prominent vocation, analogous to that of Epimenidês, Orpheus, or -Melampus, he appears as the revealer of a mode of life calculated -to raise his disciples above the level of mankind, and to recommend -them to the favor of the gods; the Pythagorean life, like the -Orphic life,[717] being intended as the exclusive prerogative -of the brotherhood,—approached only by probation and initiatory -ceremonies which were adapted to select enthusiasts rather than to -an indiscriminate crowd,—and exacting entire mental devotion to the -master.[718] In these lofty pretensions the Agrigentine Empedoklês -seems to have greatly copied him, though with some varieties, about -half a century afterwards.[719] While Aristotle tells us that the -Krotoniates identified Pythagoras with the Hyperborean Apollo, the -satirical Timon pronounced him to have been “a juggler of solemn -speech, engaged in fishing for men.”[720] This is the same character, -looked at from the different points of view of the believer and the -unbeliever. There is, however, no reason for regarding Pythagoras as -an impostor, because experience seems to show, that while in certain -ages it is not difficult for a man to persuade others that he is -inspired, it is still less difficult for him to contract the same -belief himself. - - [716] Herodot. i, 29; ii, 49; iv, 95. Ἑλλήνων οὐ τῷ ἀσθενεστάτῳ - σοφιστῇ Πυθαγόρῃ. Hippokratês distinguishes the σοφιστὴς from - the ἰητρὸς, though both of them had handled the subject of - medicine,—the general from the special habits of investigation. - (Hippokratês, Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰητρικῆς, c. 20, vol. i, p. 620, - Littré.) - - [717] See Lobeck’s learned and valuable treatise, Aglaophamus, - Orphica, lib. ii, pp. 247, 698, 900; also Plato, Legg. vi, 782, - and Euripid. Hippol. 946. - - [718] Plato’s conception of Pythagoras (Republ. x, p. 600) - depicts him as something not unlike St. Benedict, or St. Francis, - (or St. Elias, as some Carmelites have tried to make out: see - Kuster ad Jamblich. c. 3)—Ἀλλὰ δὴ, εἰ μὴ δημοσίᾳ, ἰδίᾳ τισὶν - ἡγεμὼν παιδείας αὐτὸς ζῶν λέγεται Ὅμηρος γενέσθαι, οἱ ἐκεῖνον - ἠγάπων ἐπὶ συνουσίᾳ καὶ τοῖς ὑστέροις ὁδόν τινα βίου παρέδοσαν - Ὁμηρικήν· ὥσπερ Πυθαγόρας αὐτός τε διαφερόντως ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἠγαπήθη, - καὶ οἱ ὕστερον ἔτι καὶ νῦν Πυθαγορεῖον τροπὸν ἐπονομάζοντες τοῦ - βίου διαφανεῖς πῃ δοκοῦσιν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις. - - The description of Melampus, given in Herodot. ii, 49, very much - fills up the idea of Pythagoras, as derived from ii, 81-123, - and iv, 95. Pythagoras, as well as Melampus, was said to have - pretended to divination and prophecy (Cicero, Divinat. i, 3, - 46; Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. c. 29: compare Krische, De Societate a - Pythagorâ in urbe Crotoniatarum conditâ Commentatio, ch. v, p. - 72, Göttingen, 1831). - - [719] Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte der Griechisch. Rom. - Philosophie, part i, sect. xlvii, p. 191. - - [720] Ælian. V. H. ii, 26; Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 31, 140; - Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. c. 20; Diodorus, Fragm. lib. x, vol. iv, p. - 56, Wess.: Timon ap. Diogen. Laërt. viii, 36; and Plutarch, Numa, - c. 8. - - Πυθαγόρην τε γόητος ἀποκλίναντ᾽ ἐπὶ δόξαν - Θήρῃ ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων, σεμνηγορίης ὀαριστὴν. - -Looking at the general type of Pythagoras, as conceived by witnesses -in and nearest to his own age,—Xenophanês, Hêrakleitus, Herodotus, -Plato, Aristotle, Isokratês,[721]—we find in him chiefly the -religious missionary and schoolmaster, with little of the politician. -His efficiency in the latter character, originally subordinate, -first becomes prominent in those glowing fancies which the later -Pythagoreans communicated to Aristoxenus and Dikæarchus. The -primitive Pythagoras inspired by the gods to reveal a new mode of -life,[722]—the Pythagorean life,—and to promise divine favor to a -select and docile few, as the recompense of strict ritual obedience, -of austere self-control, and of laborious training, bodily as well -as mental. To speak with confidence of the details of his training, -ethical or scientific, and of the doctrines which he promulgated, -is impossible; for neither he himself nor any of his disciples -anterior to Philolaus—who was separated from him by about one -intervening generation—left any memorials in writing.[723] Numbers -and lines, studied partly in their own mutual relations, partly -under various symbolizing fancies, presented themselves to him as -the primary constituent elements of the universe, and as a sort -of magical key to phenomena, physical as well as moral. And these -mathematical tendencies in his teaching, expanded by Pythagoreans, -his successors, and coinciding partly also, as has been before -stated, with the studies of Anaximander and Thalês, acquired more -and more development, so as to become one of the most glorious and -profitable manifestations of Grecian intellect. Living as Pythagoras -did at a time when the stock of experience was scanty, the license -of hypothesis unbounded, and the process of deduction without rule -or verifying test,—he was thus fortunate enough to strike into -that track of geometry and arithmetic, in which, from data of -experience few, simple, and obvious, an immense field of deductive -and verifiable investigation may be travelled over. We must at the -same time remark, however, that in his mind this track, which now -seems so straightforward and well defined, was clouded by strange -fancies which it is not easy to understand, and from which it was but -partially cleared by his successors. Of his spiritual training much -is said, though not upon very good authority. We hear of his memorial -discipline, his monastic self-scrutiny, his employment of music to -soothe disorderly passions,[724] his long novitiate of silence, -his knowledge of physiognomy, which enabled him to detect even -without trial unworthy subjects, his peculiar diet, and his rigid -care for sobriety as well as for bodily vigor. He is also said to -have inculcated abstinence from animal food, and this feeling is so -naturally connected with the doctrine of the metempsychosis, that we -may well believe him to have entertained it, as Empedoklês also did -after him.[725] It is certain that there were peculiar observances, -and probably a certain measure of self-denial embodied in the -Pythagorean life; but on the other hand, it seems equally certain -that the members of the order cannot have been all subjected to the -same diet, or training, or studies. For Milo the Krotoniate was among -them,[726] the strongest man and the unparalleled wrestler of his -age,—who cannot possibly have dispensed with animal food and ample -diet (even setting aside the tales about his voracious appetite), -and is not likely to have bent his attention on speculative study. -Probably Pythagoras did not enforce the same bodily or mental -discipline on all, or at least knew when to grant dispensations. The -order, as it first stood under him, consisted of men different both -in temperament and aptitude, but bound together by common religious -observances and hopes, common reverence for the master, and mutual -attachment as well as pride in each other’s success; and it must -thus be distinguished from the Pythagoreans of the fourth century B. -C., who had no communion with wrestlers, and comprised only ascetic, -studious men, generally recluse, though in some cases rising to -political distinction. - - [721] Isokratês, Busiris, p. 402, ed. Auger. Πυθαγόρας ὁ Σάμιος, - ἀφικόμενος εἰς Αἴγυπτον, καὶ μαθητὴς τῶν ἱερέων γενόμενος, τήν τε - ἄλλην φιλοσοφίαν πρῶτος εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐκόμισε, καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς - θυσίας καὶ τὰς ἁγιστείας ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἐπιφανέστερον τῶν ἄλλων - ἐσπούδασε. - - Compare Aristotel. Magn. Moralia, i, 1, about Pythagoras as - an ethical teacher. Dêmokritus, born about 460 B. C., wrote - a treatise (now lost) respecting Pythagoras, whom he greatly - admired: as far as we can judge, it would seem that he too must - have considered Pythagoras as an ethical teacher (Diogen. Laërt. - xi, 38; Mullach, Democriti Fragmenta, lib. ii, p. 113; Cicero de - Orator. iii, 15). - - [722] Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 64, 115, 151, 199: see also the - idea ascribed to Pythagoras, of divine inspirations coming on men - (ἐπίπνοια παρὰ τοῦ δαιμονίου). Aristoxenus apud Stobæum, Eclog. - Physic. p. 206; Diogen. Laërt. viii, 32. - - Meiners establishes it as probable that the stories respecting - the miraculous powers and properties of Pythagoras got into - circulation either during his lifetime, or at least not long - after his death (Geschichte der Wissenschaften, b. iii, vol. i, - pp. 504, 505). - - [723] Respecting Philolaus, see the valuable collection of - his fragments, and commentary on them, by Boeckh (Philolaus - des Pythagoreers Leben, Berlin, 1819). That Philolaus was the - first who composed a work on Pythagorean science, and thus made - it known beyond the limits of the brotherhood—among others to - Plato—appears well established (Boeckh, Philolaus, p. 22; Diogen. - Laërt. viii, 15-55; Jamblichus, c. 119). Simmias and Kebês, - fellow-disciples of Plato under Sokratês, had held intercourse - with Philolaus at Thebes (Plato, Phædon, p. 61), perhaps about - 420 B. C. The Pythagorean brotherhood had then been dispersed in - various parts of Greece, though the attachment of its members to - each other seems to have continued long afterwards. - - [724] Plutarch, De Isid. et Osirid. p. 384, ad fin. Quintilian, - Instit. Oratt. ix, 4. - - [725] Empedoklês, ap. Aristot. Rhetoric. i, 14, 2; Sextus - Empiric. ix, 127; Plutarch, De Esu Carnium, pp. 993, 996, 997; - where he puts Pythagoras and Empedoklês together, as having both - held the doctrine of the metempsychosis, and both prohibited the - eating of animal food. Empedoklês supposed that plants had souls, - and that the souls of human beings passed after death into plants - as well as into animals. “I have been myself heretofore (said he) - a boy, a girl, a shrub, a bird, and a fish of the sea.” - - ἤδη γάρ ποτ᾽ ἐγὼ γενόμην κοῦρός τε κόρη τε, - θάμνος τ᾽, οἴωνός τε καὶ ἐξ ἁλὸς ἔμπυρος ἰχθύς. - - (Diogen. L. viii, 77; Sturz. ad Empedokl. Frag. p. 466.) - Pythagoras is said to have affirmed that he had been not only - Euphorbus in the Grecian army before Troy, but also a tradesman, - a courtezan, etc., and various other human characters, before - his actual existence; he did not, however, extend the same - intercommunion to plants, in any case. - - The abstinence from animal food was an Orphic precept as well as - a Pythagorean (Aristophan. Ran. 1032). - - [726] Strabo, vi, p. 263; Diogen. L. viii, 40. - -The succession of these Pythagoreans, never very numerous, seems -to have continued until about 300 B. C., and then nearly died out; -being superseded by other schemes of philosophy more suited to -cultivated Greeks of the age after Sokratês. But during the time of -Cicero, two centuries afterwards, the orientalizing tendency—then -beginning to spread over the Grecian and Roman world, and becoming -gradually stronger and stronger—caused the Pythagorean philosophy -to be again revived. It was revived too, with little or none of its -scientific tendencies, but with more than its primitive religious and -imaginative fanaticism,—Apollonius of Tyana constituting himself a -living copy of Pythagoras. And thus, while the scientific elements -developed by the disciples of Pythagoras had become disjoined from -all peculiarity of sect, and passed into the general studious -world,—the original vein of mystic and ascetic fancy belonging to -the master, without any of that practical efficiency of body and -mind which had marked his first followers, was taken up anew into -the pagan world, along with the disfigured doctrines of Plato. -Neo-Pythagorism, passing gradually into Neo-Platonism, outlasted -the other more positive and masculine systems of pagan philosophy, -as the contemporary and rival of Christianity. A large proportion -of the false statements concerning Pythagoras come from these -Neo-Pythagoreans, who were not deterred by the want of memorials from -illustrating, with ample latitude of fancy, the ideal character of -the master. - -That an inquisitive man like Pythagoras, at a time when there were -hardly any books to study, would visit foreign countries, and -converse with all the Grecian philosophical inquirers within his -reach, is a matter which we should presume, even if no one attested -it; and our witnesses carry us very little beyond this general -presumption. What doctrines he borrowed, or from whom, we are unable -to discover. But, in fact, his whole life and proceedings bear the -stamp of an original mind, and not of a borrower,—a mind impressed -both with Hellenic and with non-Hellenic habits and religion, yet -capable of combining the two in a manner peculiar to himself; and -above all, endued with those talents for religion and personal -ascendency over others, which told for much more than the intrinsic -merit of his ideas. We are informed that after extensive travels and -inquiries he returned to Samos, at the age of about forty: he then -found his native island under the despotism of Polykratês, which -rendered it an unsuitable place either for free sentiments or for -marked individuals. Unable to attract hearers, or found any school -or brotherhood, in his native island, he determined to expatriate. -And we may presume that at this period (about 535-530 B. C.) the -recent subjugation of Ionia by the Persians was not without influence -on his determination. The trade between the Asiatic and the Italian -Greeks,—and even the intimacy between Milêtus and Knidus on the one -side, and Sybaris and Tarentum on the other,—had been great and of -long standing, so that there was more than one motive to determine -him to the coast of Italy; in which direction also his contemporary -Xenophanês, the founder of the Eleatic school of philosophy, -emigrated, seemingly, about the same time,—from Kolophon to Zanklê, -Katana, and Elea.[727] - - [727] Diogen. Laërt. ix, 18. - -Kroton and Sybaris were at this time in their fullest -prosperity,—among the first and most prosperous cities of the -Hellenic name. To the former of the two Pythagoras directed his -course. A council of one thousand persons, taken from among the -heirs and representatives of the principal proprietors at its first -foundation, was here invested with the supreme authority: in what -manner the executive offices were filled, we have no information. -Besides a great extent of power, and a numerous population, the large -mass of whom had no share in the political franchise, Kroton stood -at this time distinguished for two things,—the general excellence of -the bodily habit of the citizens, attested, in part, by the number of -conquerors furnished to the Olympic games,—and the superiority of its -physicians, or surgeons.[728] These two points were, in fact, greatly -connected with each other. For the therapeutics of the day consisted -not so much of active remedies as of careful diet and regimen; while -the trainer, who dictated the life of an athlete during his long and -fatiguing preparation for an Olympic contest, and the professional -superintendent of the youths who frequented the public gymnasia, -followed out the same general views, and acted upon the same basis of -knowledge, as the physician who prescribed for a state of positive -bad health.[729] Of medical education properly so called, especially -of anatomy, there was then little or nothing. The physician acquired -his knowledge from observation of men sick as well as healthy, and -from a careful notice of the way in which the human body was acted -upon by surrounding agents and circumstances: and this same knowledge -was not less necessary for the trainer; so that the same place -which contained the best men in the latter class was also likely -to be distinguished in the former. It is not improbable that this -celebrity of Kroton may have been one of the reasons which determined -Pythagoras to go thither; for among the precepts ascribed to him, -precise rules as to diet and bodily regulation occupy a prominent -place. The medical or surgical celebrity of Dêmokêdês (son-in-law of -the Pythagorean Milo), to whom allusion has been made in a former -chapter, is contemporaneous with the presence of Pythagoras at -Kroton; and the medical men of Magna Græcia maintained themselves in -credit, as rivals of the schools of the Asklepiads at Kôs and Knidus, -throughout all the fifth and fourth centuries B. C. - - [728] Herodot. iii, 131; Strabo, vi, p. 261: Menander de - Encomiis, p. 96, ed. Heeren. Ἀθηναίους ἐπὶ ἀγαλματοποιΐα τε καὶ - ζωγραφικῇ, καὶ Κροτωνιάτας ἐπὶ ἰατρικῇ, μέγα φρονῆσαι, etc. - - The Krotoniate Alkmæon, a younger contemporary of Pythagoras - (Aristotel. Metaph. i, 5), is among the earliest names mentioned - as philosophizing upon physical and medical subjects. See - Brandis, Handbuch der Geschicht. der Philos. sect. lxxxiii, p. - 508, and Aristotel. De Generat. Animal. iii, 2, p. 752, Bekker. - - The medical art in Egypt, at the time when Pythagoras visited - that country, was sufficiently far advanced to excite the - attention of an inquisitive traveller,—the branches of it - minutely subdivided and strict rules laid down for practice - (Herodot. ii, 84; Aristotel. Politic, iii, 10, 4). - - [729] See the analogy of the two strikingly brought out in the - treatise of Hippokratês Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰητρικῆς, c. 3, 4, 7, vol. - i, p. 580-584, ed. Littré. - - Ἔτι γοῦν καὶ νῦν οἱ τῶν γυμνασίων τε καὶ ἀσκησίων ἐπιμελόμενοι - αἰεί τι προσεξευρίσκουσι, καὶ τὴν αὐτέην ὁδὸν ζητέοντες ὅ,τι ἔδων - καὶ πίνων ἐπικρατήσει τε αὐτέων μάλιστα, καὶ ἰσχυρότερος αὐτὸς - ἑωϋτοῦ ἔσται (p. 580); again, p. 584: Τί οὖν φαίνεται ἑτεροῖον - διανοηθεὶς ὁ καλεύμενος ἰητρὸς καὶ ὁμολογεομένως χειροτέχνης, ὃς - ἐξεῦρε τὴν ἀμφὶ τοὺς κάμνοντας δίαιτάν καὶ τροφὴν, ἢ κεῖνος ὁ ἀπ᾽ - ἀρχῆς τοῖσι πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποισι τροφὴν, ᾗ νῦν χρεόμεθα, ἐξ ἐκείνης - τῆς ἀγρίης τε καὶ θηριώδεος εὑρών τε καὶ παρασκευάσας διαίτης: - compare another passage, not less illustrative, in the treatise - of Hippokratês Περὶ διαίτης ὀξέων, c. 3, vol. ii, p. 245, ed. - Littré. - - Following the same general idea, that the theory and practice of - the physician is a farther development and variety of that of - the gymnastic trainer, I transcribe some observations from the - excellent Remarques Rétrospectives of M. Littré, at the end of - the fourth volume of his edition of Hippokratês (p. 662). - - After having observed (p. 659) that physiology may be considered - as divided into two parts,—one relating to the mechanism of the - functions; the other, to the effects produced upon the human - body by the different influences which act upon it and the media - by which it is surrounded; and after having observed that on - the first of these two branches the ancients could never make - progress from their ignorance of anatomy,—he goes on to state, - that respecting the second branch they acquired a large amount of - knowledge:— - - “Sur la physiologie des influences extérieures, la Grèce du - temps d’Hippocrate et après lui fut le théâtre d’expériences en - grand, les plus importantes et les plus instructives. Toute la - population (la population libre, s’entend) étoit soumise à un - système régulier d’éducation physique (N. B. this is a little too - strongly stated): dans quelques cités, à Lacédémone par exemple, - les femmes n’en étoient pas exemptées. Ce système se composoit - d’exercices et d’une alimentation, que combinèrent l’empirisme - d’abord, puis une théorie plus savante: il concernoit (comme - dit Hippocrate lui-même, en ne parlant, il est vrai, que de la - partie alimentaire), il concernoit et les malades pour leur - rétablissement, et les gens bien portans pour la conservation de - leur santé, et les personnes livrées aux exercices gymnastiques - pour l’accroissement de leurs forces. On savoit au juste ce - qu’il falloit pour conserver seulement le corps en bon état ou - pour traiter un malade—pour former un militaire ou pour faire un - athlète—et en particulier, un lutteur, un coureur, un sauteur, - un pugiliste. Une classe d’hommes, les maîtres des gymnases, - étoient exclusivement adonnés à la culture de cet art, auquel - les médecins participoient dans les limites de leur profession, - et Hippocrate, qui dans les Aphorismes, invoque l’exemple des - athlètes, nous parle dans le Traité des Articulations des - personnes maigres, qui n’ayant pas été amaigris par un procédé - régulier de l’art, ont les chairs muqueuses. Les anciens - médecins savoient, comme on le voit, procurer l’amaigrissement - conformément à l’art, et reconnoitre à ses effets un - amaigrissement irrégulier: toutes choses auxquelles nos médecins - sont étrangers, et dont on ne retrouve l’analogue que parmi les - _entraineurs_ Anglois. Au reste cet ensemble de connoissances - empiriques et théoriques doit être mis au rang des pertes - fâcheuses qui ont accompagné la longue et turbulente transition - du monde ancien an monde moderne. Les admirables institutions - destinées dans l’antiquité à développer et affermir le corps, - ont disparu: l’hygiène publique est déstituée à cet égard de - toute direction scientifique et générale, et demeure abandonnée - complètement au hasard.” - - See also the remarks of Plato respecting Herodikus, De Republicâ, - iii, p. 406; Aristotel. Politic. iii, 11, 6; iv, 1, 1; viii, 4, 1. - -The biographers of Pythagoras tell us that his arrival there, his -preaching, and his conduct, produced an effect almost electric -upon the minds of the people, with an extensive reform, public as -well as private. Political discontent was repressed, incontinence -disappeared, luxury became discredited, and the women, hastened to -exchange their golden ornaments for the simplest attire. No less -than two thousand persons were converted at his first preaching; -and so effective were his discourses to the youth, that the Supreme -Council of One Thousand invited him into their assembly, solicited -his advice, and even offered to constitute him their prytanis, or -president, while his wife and daughter were placed at the head of -the religious processions of females.[730] Nor was his influence -confined to Kroton. Other towns in Italy and Sicily,—Sybaris, -Metapontum, Rhêgium, Katana, Himera, etc., all felt the benefit of -his exhortations, which extricated some of them even from slavery. -Such are the tales of which the biographers of Pythagoras are -full.[731] And we see that even the disciples of Aristotle, about -the year 300 B. C.,—Aristoxenus, Dikæarchus, Herakleidês of Pontus, -etc., are hardly less charged with them than the Neo-Pythagoreans of -three or four centuries later: they doubtless heard them from their -contemporary Pythagoreans,[732] the last members of a declining -sect, among whom the attributes of the primitive founder passed for -godlike, but who had no memorials, no historical judgment, and no -means of forming a true conception of Kroton as it stood in 530 B. -C.[733] - - [730] Valerius Maxim. viii, 15, xv, 1; Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. - 45; Timæus, Fragm. 78, ed. Didot. - - [731] Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. c. 21-54; Jamblich. 33-35, 166. - - [732] The compilations of Porphyry and Jamblichus on the life - of Pythagoras, copied from a great variety of authors, will - doubtless contain some truth amidst their confused heap of - statements, many incredible, and nearly all unauthenticated. But - it is very difficult to single out what these portions of truth - really are. Even Aristoxenus and Dikæarchus, the best authors - from whom these biographers quote, lived near two centuries - after the death of Pythagoras, and do not appear to have had - any early memorials to consult, nor any better informants than - the contemporary Pythagoreans,—the last of an expiring sect, - and probably among the least eminent for intellect, since the - philosophers of the Sokratic school in its various branches - carried off the acute and aspiring young men of that time. - - Meiners, in his Geschichte der Wissenschaften (vol. i, b. iii, p. - 191, _seq._), has given a careful analysis of the various authors - from whom the two biographers have borrowed, and a comparative - estimate of their trustworthiness. It is an excellent piece of - historical criticism, though the author exaggerates both the - merits and the influence of the first Pythagoreans: Kiessling, in - the notes to his edition of Jamblichus, has given some extracts - from it, but by no means enough to dispense with the perusal - of the original. I think Meiners allows too much credit, on - the whole, to Aristoxenus (see p. 214), and makes too little - deduction for the various stories, difficult to be believed, of - which Aristoxenus is given as the source: of course the latter - could not furnish better matter than he heard from his own - witnesses. Where Meiners’s judgment is more severe, it is also - better borne out, especially respecting Porphyry himself, and his - scholar Jamblichus. These later Pythagorean philosophers seem to - have set up as a formal canon of credibility, that which many - religious men of antiquity acted upon from a mere unconscious - sentiment and fear of giving offence to the gods,—That it was - _not right to disbelieve any story_ recounted respecting the - gods, and wherein the divine agency was introduced: no one could - tell but what it _might be true_: to deny its truth, was to - set bounds to the divine omnipotence. Accordingly, they made - no difficulty in believing what was recounted about Aristæus, - Abaris, and other eminent subjects of mythes (Jamblichus, Vit. - Pyth. c. 138-148)—καὶ τοῦτό γε πάντες οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι ὅμως ἔχουσι - πιστευτικῶς, οἶον περὶ Ἀρισταίου καὶ Ἀβάριδος τὰ μυθολογούμενα - καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα λέγεται ... τῶν τοιούτων δὲ τῶν δοκούντων - μυθικῶν ἀπομνημονεύουσιν, ~ὡς οὐδὲν ἀπιστοῦντες ὅτι ἂν εἰς τὸ - θεῖον ἀναγηται~. Also, not less formally laid down in Jamblichus, - Adhortatio ad Philosophiam, as the fourth Symbolum, p. 324, ed. - Kiessling. Περὶ θεῶν μηδὲν θαυμαστὸν ἀπιστεῖ, μηδὲ περὶ θείων - δογμάτων. Reasoning from their principles, this was a consistent - corollary to lay down; but it helps us to estimate their value as - selectors and discriminators of accounts respecting Pythagoras. - The extravagant compliments paid by the emperor Julian in his - letters to Jamblichus will not suffice to establish the authority - of the latter as a critic and witness: see the Epistolæ 34, 40, - 41, in Heyler’s edit. of Julian’s letters. - - [733] Aulus Gell. N. A. iv, 11. Apollonius (ap. Jamblich. c. 262) - alludes to τὰ ὑπομνήματα τῶν Κροτωνιατῶν: what the date of these - may be, we do not know, but there is no reason to believe them - anterior to Aristoxenus. - -To trace these tales to a true foundation is impossible: but we -may entertain reasonable belief that the success of Pythagoras, -as a person favored by the gods and patentee of divine secrets, -was very great,—that he procured to himself both the reverence of -the multitude and the peculiar attachment and obedience of many -devoted adherents, chiefly belonging to the wealthy and powerful -classes,—that a select body of these adherents, three hundred in -number, bound themselves by a sort of vow both to Pythagoras and to -each other, and adopted a peculiar diet, ritual, and observances, -as a token of union,—though without anything like community of -property, which some have ascribed to them. Such a band of men, -standing high in the city for wealth and station, and bound together -by this intimate tie, came by almost unconscious tendency to mingle -political ambition with religious and scientific pursuits. Political -clubs with sworn members, under one form or another, were a constant -phenomenon in the Grecian cities,[734] and the Pythagorean order at -its first formation was the most efficient of all clubs; since it -presented an intimacy of attachment among its members, as well as a -feeling of haughty exclusiveness against the public without, such -as no other fraternity could parallel.[735] The devoted attachment -of Pythagoreans towards each other is not less emphatically set -forth than their contempt for every one else. In fact, these two -attributes of the order seem the best ascertained, as well as the -most permanent of all: moreover, we may be sure that the peculiar -observances of the order passed for exemplary virtues in the eyes -of its members, and exalted ambition into a duty, by making them -sincerely believe that they were the only persons fit to govern. -It is no matter of surprise, then, to learn that the Pythagoreans -gradually drew to themselves great ascendency in the government of -Kroton. And as similar clubs, not less influential, were formed at -Metapontum and other places, so the Pythagorean order spread its net -and dictated the course of affairs over a large portion of Magna -Græcia. Such ascendency of the Pythagoreans must have procured for -the master himself some real, and still more supposed, influence over -the march of government at Kroton and elsewhere, of a nature not -then possessed by any of his contemporaries throughout Greece.[736] -But his influence was probably exercised in the background, through -the medium of the brotherhood who reverenced him: for it is hardly -conformable to Greek manners that a stranger of his character should -guide personally and avowedly the political affairs of any Grecian -city. - - [734] Thucyd. viii, 54. τὰς ξυνωμοσίας, αἵπερ ἐτύγχανον πρότερον - οὖσαι ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐπὶ δίκαις καὶ ἀρχαῖς, ἁπάσας ἐπελθὼν, etc. - - On this important passage, in which Thucydidês notes the - political clubs of Athens as sworn societies,—numerous, - notorious, and efficient,—I shall speak farther in a future stage - of the history. Dr. Arnold has a good note on the passage. - - [735] Justin, xx, 4. “Sed trecenti ex juvenibus cum sodalitii - juris sacramento quodam nexi, separatam a ceteris civibus vitam - exercerent, quasi cœtum clandestinæ conjurationis haberent, - civitatem in se converterunt.” - - Compare Diogen. Laërt. viii, 3; Apollonius ap. Jamblich. c. 254; - Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. c. 33. - - The story of the devoted attachments of the two Pythagoreans - Damon and Phintias appears to be very well attested: Aristoxenus - heard it from the lips of the younger Dionysius the despot, whose - sentence had elicited such manifestation of friendship (Porphyry, - Vit. Pyth. c. 59-62, Cicero, De Officiis, iii, 10; and Davis ad - Cicero, Tusc. Disp. v, 22). - - [736] Plutarch, Philosoph. cum Principib. c. i, p. 777. ἂν - δ᾽ ἄρχοντος ἀνδρὸς καὶ πολιτικοῦ καὶ πρακτικοῦ καθάψηται (ὁ - φιλόσοφος) καὶ τοῦτον ἀναπλήσῃ καλοκᾳγαθίας, πολλοὺς δι᾽ - ἑνὸς ὠφέλησεν, ὡς Πυθαγόρας τοῖς πρωτεύουσι τῶν Ἰταλιωτῶν - συγγενόμενος. - -Nor are we to believe that Pythagoras came originally to Kroton with -the express design of creating for himself an ascendent political -position,—still less that he came for the purpose of realizing a -great preconceived political idea, and transforming Kroton into a -model-city of pure Dorism, as has been supposed by some eminent -modern authors. Such schemes might indeed be ascribed to him by -Pythagoreans of the Platonic age, when large ideas of political -amelioration were rife in the minds of speculative men,—by men -disposed to forego the authorship of their own opinions, and -preferring to accredit them as traditions handed down from a founder -who had left no memorials; but it requires better evidence than -theirs to make us believe that any real Greek born in 580 B. C. -actually conceived such plans. We cannot construe the scheme of -Pythagoras as going farther than the formation of a private, select -order of brethren, embracing his religious fancies, ethical tone, -and germs of scientific idea,—and manifesting adhesion by those -observances which Herodotus and Plato call the Pythagorean orgies -and mode of life. And his private order became politically powerful, -because he was skilful or fortunate enough to enlist a sufficient -number of wealthy Krotoniates, possessing individual influence -which they strengthened immensely by thus regimenting themselves in -intimate union. The Pythagorean orgies or religious ceremonies were -not inconsistent with public activity, bodily as well as mental: -probably the rich men of the order may have been rendered even more -active, by being fortified against the temptations of a life of -indulgence. The character of the order as it first stood, different -from that to which it was afterwards reduced, was indeed religious -and exclusive, but also active and domineering; not despising any -of those bodily accomplishments which increased the efficiency of -the Grecian citizen, and which so particularly harmonized with the -preëxisting tendencies of Kroton.[737] Niebuhr and O. Müller have -even supposed that the select Three Hundred Pythagoreans constituted -a sort of smaller senate at that city,[738]—an hypothesis no way -probable; we may rather conceive them as a powerful private club, -exercising ascendency in the interior of the senate, and governing -through the medium of the constituted authorities. Nor can we -receive without great allowance the assertion of Varro,[739] who, -assimilating Pythagoras to Plato, tells us that he confined his -instructions on matters of government to chosen disciples, who had -gone through a complete training, and had reached the perfection -of wisdom and virtue. It seems more probable that the political -Pythagoreans were those who were most qualified for action, and -least for speculation. And we may reasonably suppose in the general -of the order that skill in turning to account the aptitudes of -individuals, which two centuries ago was so conspicuous in the -Jesuits; to whom, in various ways, the Pythagoreans bear considerable -resemblance. All that we can be said to know about their political -principles is, that they were exclusive and aristocratical, adverse -to the control and interference of the people; a circumstance no -way disadvantageous to them, since they coincided in this respect -with the existing government of the city,—had not their own conduct -brought additional odium on the old aristocracy, and raised up an -aggravated democratical opposition, carried to the most deplorable -lengths of violence. - - [737] I transcribe here the summary given by Krische, at the - close of his Dissertation on the Pythagorean order, p. 101: - “Societatis scopus fuit mere politicus, ut lapsam optimatium - potestatem non modo in pristinum restitueret, sed firmaret - amplificaretque: cum summo hoc scopo duo conjuncti fuerunt; - moralis alter, alter ad literas spectans. Discipulos suos bonos - probosque homines reddere voluit Pythagoras, et ut civitatem - moderantes potestate suâ non abuterentur ad plebem opprimendam; - et ut plebs, intelligens suis commodis consuli, conditione suâ - contenta esset. Quoniam vero bonum sapiensque moderamen nisi - a prudente literisque exculto viro exspectari (non) licet, - philosophiæ studium necessarium duxit Samius iis, qui ad - civitatis clavum tenendum se accingerent.” - - This is the general view (coinciding substantially with that - of O. Müller,—Dorians, iii, 9, 16) given by an author who has - gone through the evidences with care and learning. It differs - on some important points from the idea which I conceive of the - primitive master and his contemporary brethren. It leaves out - the religious ascendency, which I imagine to have stood first - among the means as well as among the premeditated purposes - of Pythagoras, and sets forth a reformatory political scheme - as directly contemplated by him, of which there is no proof. - Though the political ascendency of the early Pythagoreans is - the most prominent feature in their early history, it is not to - be considered as the manifestation of any peculiar or settled - political idea,—it is rather a result of their position and means - of union. Ritter observes, in my opinion more justly: “We must - not believe that the mysteries of the Pythagorean order were of - a simply political character: the most probable accounts warrant - us in considering that its central point was a mystic religious - teaching,” (Geschicht. der Philosophie, b. iv, ch. i, vol. i, pp. - 365-368:) compare Hoeck. Kreta, vol. iii, p. 223. - - Krische (p. 32) as well as Boeckh (Philolaus, pp. 39-42) and O. - Müller assimilate the Pythagorean life to the Dorian or Spartan - habits, and call the Pythagorean philosophy the expression - of Grecian Dorism, as opposed to the Ionians and the Ionic - philosophy. I confess that I perceive no analogy between the two, - either in action or speculation. The Spartans stand completely - distinct from other Dorians; and even the Spartan habits of - life, though they present some points of resemblance with the - bodily training of the Pythagoreans, exhibit still more important - points of difference, in respect to religious peculiarity and - mysticism, as well as to scientific element embodied with it. The - Pythagorean philosophy, and the Eleatic philosophy, were both - equally opposed to the Ionic; yet neither of them is in any way - connected with Dorian tendencies. Neither Elea nor Kroton were - Doric cities; moreover, Xenophanês as well as Pythagoras were - both Ionians. - - The general assertions respecting Ionic mobility and inconstancy, - contrasted with Doric constancy and steadiness, will not be found - borne out by a study of facts. The Dorism of Pythagoras appears - to me a complete fancy. O. Müller even turns Kroton into a Dorian - city, contrary to all evidence. - - [738] Niebuhr, Römisch. Gesch. i, p. 165, 2nd edit.; O. Müller, - Hist of Dorians, iii, 9, 16: Krische is opposed to this idea, - sect. v, p. 84. - - [739] Varro ap. Augustin. de Ordine, ii, 30; Krische, p. 77. - -All the information which we possess, apocryphal as it is, respecting -this memorable club, is derived from its warm admirers; yet even -their statements are enough to explain how it came to provoke deadly -and extensive enmity. A stranger coming to teach new religious -dogmas and observances, with a tincture of science and some new -ethical ideas and phrases, though he would obtain some zealous -votaries, would also bring upon himself a certain measure of -antipathy. Extreme strictness of observances, combined with the art -of touching skilfully the springs of religious terror in others, -would indeed do much both to fortify and to exalt him. But when -it was discovered that science, philosophy, and even the mystic -revelations of religion, whatever they were, remained confined to the -private talk and practice of the disciples, and were thus thrown -into the background, while all that was seen and felt without, was -the political predominance of an ambitious fraternity,—we need not -wonder that Pythagorism in all its parts became odious to a large -portion of the community. Moreover, we find the order represented not -merely as constituting a devoted and exclusive political party, but -also as manifesting an ostentatious self-conceit throughout their -personal demeanor,[740]—refusing the hand of fellowship to all except -the brethren, and disgusting especially their own familiar friends -and kinsmen. So far as we know Grecian philosophy, this is the only -instance in which it was distinctly abused for political and party -objects: the early days of the Pythagorean order stand distinguished -for such perversion, which, fortunately for the progress of -philosophy, never presented itself afterwards in Greece.[741] Even -at Athens, however, we shall hereafter see that Sokratês, though -standing really aloof from all party intrigue, incurred much of his -unpopularity from supposed political conjunction with Kritias and -Alkibiadês,[742] to which, indeed, the orator Æschinês distinctly -ascribes his condemnation, speaking about sixty years after the -event. Had Sokratês been known as the founder of a band holding -together intimately for ambitious purposes, the result would have -been eminently pernicious to philosophy, and probably much sooner -pernicious to himself. - - [740] Apollonius ap. Jamblichum, V. P. c. 254, 255, 256, 257. - ἡγεμόνες δὲ ἐγένοντο τῆς διαφορᾶς οἱ ταῖς συγγενείαις καὶ ταῖς - ~οἰκειότησιν~ ἐγγύτατα καθεστηκότες τῶν Πυθαγορείων. Αἴτιον δ᾽ - ἦν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν πολλὰ αὐτοὺς ἐλύπει τῶν πραττομένων, etc.: compare - also the lines descriptive of Pythagoras, c. 259. Τοὺς μὲν - ἑταίρους ἧγεν ἴσους μακάρεσσι θεοῖσι. Τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους ἡγεῖτ᾽ οὔτ᾽ - ἐν λόγῳ, ἐν ἀριθμῷ. - - That this Apollonius, cited both by Jamblichus and by Porphyry, - is Apollonius of Tyana, has been rendered probable by Meiners - (Gesch. der Wissensch. v. i, pp. 239-245): compare Welcker, - Prolegomena ad Theognid. pp. xlv, xlvi. - - When we read the life of Apollonius by Philostratus, we see that - the former was himself extremely communicative: he might be the - rather disposed therefore to think that the seclusion and reserve - of Pythagoras was a defect, and to ascribe to it much of the - mischief which afterwards overtook the order. - - [741] Schleiermacher observes, that “Philosophy among the - Pythagoreans was connected with political objects, and their - school with a practical brotherly partnership, such as was never - on any other occasion seen in Greece.” (Introduction to his - Translation of Plato, p. 12.) See also Theopompus, Fr. 68, ed. - Didot, apud Athenæum, v, p. 213, and Euripidês, Mêdêa, 294. - - [742] Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 12; Æschines, cont. Timarch. c. - 34. ὑμεῖς, ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι, Σωκράτην μὲν τὸν σοφιστὴν ἀπεκτείνατε, ὅτι - Κριτίαν ἐφάνη πεπαιδευκὼς, ἕνα τῶν τριάκοντα. - -It was this cause which brought about the complete and violent -destruction of the Pythagorean order. Their ascendency had provoked -such wide-spread discontent, that their enemies became emboldened -to employ extreme force against them. Kylon and Ninon—the former -of whom is said to have sought admittance into the order, but to -have been rejected on account of his bad character—took the lead -in pronounced opposition to the Pythagoreans; and the odium which -the latter had incurred extended itself farther to the Senate of -One Thousand, through the medium of which their ascendency had been -exercised. Propositions were made for rendering the government more -democratical, and for constituting a new senate, taken by lot from -all the people, before which the magistrates should go through their -trial of accountability after office; an opportunity being chosen -in which the Senate of One Thousand had given signal offence by -refusing to divide among the people the recently conquered territory -of Sybaris.[743] In spite of the opposition of the Pythagoreans, -this change of government was carried through. Ninon and Kylon, -their principal enemies, made use of it to exasperate the people -still farther against the order, until they provoked actual popular -violence against it. The Pythagoreans were attacked when assembled -in their meeting-house near the temple of Apollo, or, as some said, -in the house of Milo: the building was set on fire, and many of -the members perished;[744] none but the younger and more vigorous -escaping. Similar disturbances, and the like violent suppression -of the order, with destruction of several among the leading -citizens, are said to have taken place in other cities of Magna -Græcia,—Tarentum, Metapontum, Kaulonia. And we are told that these -cities remained for some time in a state of great disquietude and -commotion from which they were only rescued by the friendly mediation -of the Peloponnesian Achæans, the original founders of Sybaris and -Kroton,—assisted, indeed, by mediators from other parts of Greece. -The cities were at length pacified, and induced to adopt an amicable -congress, with common religious festivals at a temple founded -expressly for the purpose, and dedicated to Zeus Homarius.[745] - - [743] This is stated in Jamblichus, c. 255; yet it is difficult - to believe; for if the fact had been so, the destruction of the - Pythagoreans would naturally have produced an allotment and - permanent occupation of the Sybaritan territory,—which certainly - did not take place, for Sybaris remained without resident - possessors until the foundation of Thurii. - - [744] Jamblichus, c, 255-259; Porphyry, c. 54-57; Diogen. Laërt. - viii, 39; Diodor. x, Fragm. vol. iv, p. 56, Wess. - - [745] Polyb. ii, 39; Plutarch, De Genio Socratis, c. 13, p. 583; - Aristoxenus, ap. Jamblich. c. 250. That the enemies of the order - attacked it by setting fire to the house in which the members - were assembled, is the circumstance in which all accounts agree. - On all other points there is great discrepancy, especially - respecting the names and dates of the Pythagoreans who escaped: - Boeckh (Philolaus, p. 9, _seq._) and Brandis (Handbuch der Gesch. - Philos. ch. lxxiii, p. 432) try to reconcile these discrepancies. - - Aristophanês introduces Strepsiadês, at the close of the Nubes, - as setting fire to the meeting-house (φροντιστήριον) of Sokratês - and his disciples possibly the Pythagorean conflagration may have - suggested this. - -Thus perished the original Pythagorean order. Respecting Pythagoras -himself, there were conflicting accounts; some representing that he -was burnt in the temple with his disciples;[746] others, that he -had died a short time previously; others again affirmed that he was -alive at the time, but absent, and that he died not long afterwards -in exile, after forty days of voluntary abstinence from food. His -tomb was still shown at Metapontum in the days of Cicero.[747] As -an active brotherhood, the Pythagoreans never revived; but the -dispersed members came together as a sect, for common religious -observances and common pursuit of science. They were readmitted, -after some interval, into the cities of Magna Græcia,[748] from which -they had been originally expelled, but to which the sect is always -considered as particularly belonging,—though individual members of it -are found besides at Thebes and other cities of Greece. Indeed, some -of these later Pythagoreans sometimes even acquired great political -influence, as we see in the case of the Tarentine Archytas, the -contemporary of Plato. - - [746] “Pythagoras Samius suspicione dominatûs injustâ vivus in - fano concrematus est.” (Arnobius adv. Gentes, lib. i, p. 23, ed. - Elmenhorst.) - - [747] Cicero, De Finib. v, 2 (who seems to have copied from - Dikæarchus: see Fuhr. ad Dikæarchi Fragment. p. 55); Justin, xx, - 4; Diogen. Laërt. viii, 40; Jamblichus, V. P. c. 249. - - O. Müller says (Dorians, iii, 9, 16), that “the influence of - the Pythagorean league upon the administration of the Italian - states was of the most beneficial kind, which continued for many - generations after the dissolution of the league itself.” - - The first of these two assertions cannot be made out, and depends - only on the statements of later encomiasts, who even supply - materials to contradict their own general view. The judgment - of Welcker respecting the influence of the Pythagoreans, much - less favorable, is at the same time more probable. (Præfat. ad - Theognid. p. xlv.) - - The second of the two assertions appears to me quite incorrect; - the influence of the Pythagorean order on the government of - Magna Græcia ceased altogether, as far as we are able to judge. - An individual Pythagorean like Archytas might obtain influence, - but this is not the influence of the order. Nor ought O. Müller - to talk about the Italian Greeks giving up the Doric customs and - adopting an Achæan government. There is nothing to prove that - Kroton ever had Doric customs. - - [748] Aristotel. de Cœlo, ii, 13. οἱ περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν, καλούμενοι - δὲ Πυθαγορεῖοι. “Italici philosophi quondam nominati.” (Cicero, - De Senect. c. 21.) - -It has already been stated that the period when Pythagoras arrived -at Kroton may be fixed somewhere between B. C. 540-530; and his -arrival is said to have occurred at a time of great depression in -the minds of the Krotoniates. They had recently been defeated by -the united Lokrians and Rhegians, vastly inferior to themselves in -number, at the river Sagra; and the humiliation thus brought upon -them is said to have rendered them docile to the training of the -Samian missionary.[749] As the birth of the Pythagorean order is thus -connected with the defeat of the Krotoniates at the Sagra, so its -extinction is also connected with their victory over the Sybarites at -the river Traeis, or Trionto, about twenty years afterwards. - - [749] Heyne places the date of the battle of Sagra about 560 - B. C.; but this is very uncertain. See his Opuscula, vol. ii, - Prolus. ii, pp. 53, and Prolus. x, p. 184. See also Justin, xx, - 3, and Strabo, vi, pp. 261-263. It will be seen that the latter - conceives the battle of the Sagra as having happened after the - destruction of Sybaris by the Krotoniates; for he states twice - that the Krotoniates lost so many citizens at the Sagra, that - the city did not long survive so terrible a blow: he cannot, - therefore, have supposed that the complete triumph of the - Krotoniates over the great Sybaris was gained afterwards. - -Of the history of these two great Achæan cities we unfortunately -know very little. Though both were powerful, yet down to the period -of 510 B. C., Sybaris seems to have been decidedly the greatest: of -its dominion as well as of its much-denounced luxury I have spoken -in a former chapter.[750] It was at that time that the war broke -out between them which ended in the destruction of Sybaris. It is -certain that the Sybaritans were aggressors in the war; but by what -causes it had been preceded in their own town, or what provocation -they had received, we make out very indistinctly. There had been -a political revolution at Sybaris, we are told, not long before, -in which a popular leader named Têlys had headed a rising against -the oligarchical government, and induced the people to banish five -hundred of the leading rich men, as well as to confiscate their -properties. He had acquired the sovereignty and become despot of -Sybaris;[751] and it appears that he, or his rule at Sybaris, was -much abhorred at Kroton,—since the Krotoniate Philippus, a man of -splendid muscular form and an Olympic victor, was exiled for having -engaged himself to marry the daughter of Têlys.[752] According to -the narrative given by the later Pythagoreans, those exiles, whom -Têlys had driven from Sybaris, took refuge at Kroton, and cast -themselves as suppliants on the altars for protection. It may well -be, indeed, that they were in part Pythagoreans of Sybaris. A body -of powerful exiles, harbored in a town so close at hand, naturally -inspired alarm, and Têlys demanded that they should be delivered up, -threatening war in case of refusal. This demand excited consternation -at Kroton, since the military strength of Sybaris was decidedly -superior. The surrender of the exiles was much debated, and almost -decreed, by the Krotoniates, until at length the persuasion of -Pythagoras himself is said to have determined them to risk any hazard -sooner than incur the dishonor of betraying suppliants. - - [750] See above, vol. iii, chap. xxii. - - [751] Diodor. xii, 9. Herodotus calls Têlys in one place βασιλῆα, - in another τύραννον of Sybaris (v, 44): this is not at variance - with the story of Diodorus. - - The story given by Athenæus, out of Herakleidês Ponticus, - respecting the subversion of the dominion of Têlys, cannot be - reconciled either with Herodotus or Diodorus (Athenæus, xii, - p. 522). Dr. Thirlwall supposes the deposition of Têlys to - have occurred between the defeat at the Traeis and the capture - of Sybaris; but this is inconsistent with the statement of - Herakleidês, and not countenanced by any other evidence. - - [752] Herodot. v, 47. - -On the demand of the Sybarites being refused, Têlys marched against -Kroton, at the head of a force which is reckoned at three hundred -thousand men.[753] He marched, too, in defiance of the strongest -religious warnings against the enterprise,—for the sacrifices, -offered on his behalf by the Iamid prophet Kallias of Elis, were -decisively unfavorable, and the prophet himself fled in terror -to Kroton.[754] Near the river Traeis, or Trionto, he was met by -the forces of Kroton, consisting, we are informed, of one hundred -thousand men, and commanded by the great athlete and Pythagorean -Milo; who was clothed, we are told, in the costume and armed with -the club of Hêraklês. They were farther reinforced, however, by -a valuable ally, the Spartan Dorieus, younger brother of king -Kleomenês, then coasting along the gulf of Tarentum with a body -of colonists, intending to found a settlement in Sicily. A bloody -battle was fought, in which the Sybarites were totally worsted, with -prodigious slaughter; while the victors, fiercely provoked and giving -no quarter, followed up the pursuit so warmly that they took the -city, dispersed its inhabitants, and crushed its whole power[755] in -the short space of seventy days. The Sybarites fled in great part to -Laos and Skidros,[756] their settlements planted on the Mediterranean -coast, across the Calabrian peninsula. And so eager were the -Krotoniates to render the site of Sybaris untenable, that they turned -the course of the river Krathis so as to overwhelm and destroy it: -the dry bed in which the river had originally flowed was still -visible in the time of Herodotus,[757] who was among the settlers in -the town of Thurii, afterwards founded, nearly adjoining. - - [753] Diodor. xii, 9; Strabo, vi, p. 263; Jamblichus, Vit. - Pythag. c. 260; Skymn. Chi. v, 340. - - [754] Herodot. v, 44. - - [755] Diodor. xii, 9, 10; Strabo, vi, p. 263. - - [756] Herodot. vi, 21; Strabo, vi, p. 253. - - [757] Herodot. v, 45; Diodor. xii, 9, 10; Strabo, vi, p. 263. - Strabo mentions expressly the turning of the river for the - purpose of overwhelming the city,—ἐλόντες γὰρ τὴν πόλιν ἐπήγαγον - τὸν ποταμὸν καὶ κατέκλυσαν. It is to this change in the channel - of the river that I refer the expression in Herodotus,—τέμενός - τε καὶ νηὸν ἐόντα ~παρὰ τὸν ξηρὸν~ Κρᾶθιν. It was natural - that the old deserted bed of the river should be called “_the - dry Krathis_:” whereas, if we suppose that there was only one - channel, the expression has no appropriate meaning. For I do not - think that any one can be well satisfied with the explanation - of Bähr “Vocatur Crathis hoc loco ξηρὸς _siccus_, ut qui hieme - fluit, æstatis vero tempore exsiccatus est: quod adhuc in multis - Italiæ inferioris fluviis observant.” I doubt whether this be - true, as a matter of fact, respecting the river Krathis (see my - preceding volume, ch. xxii), but even if the fact were true, the - epithet in Bähr’s sense has no especial significance for the - purpose contemplated by Herodotus, who merely wishes to describe - the site of the temple erected by Dorieus. “Near the Krathis,” or - “near the dry Krathis,” would be equivalent expressions, if we - adopted Bähr’s construction; whereas to say, “near the deserted - channel of the Krathis,” would be a good local designation. - -It appears, however, that the Krotoniates for a long time kept the -site of Sybaris deserted, refusing even to allot the territory among -the body of their own citizens: from which circumstances, as has -been before noticed, the commotion against the Pythagorean order -is said to have arisen. They may perhaps have been afraid of the -name and recollections of the city; wherein no large or permanent -establishment was ever formed, until Thurii was established by -Athens about sixty-five years afterwards. Nevertheless, the name -of the Sybarites did not perish. Having maintained themselves at -Laos, Skidros, and elsewhere, they afterwards formed the privileged -Old-citizens among the colonists of Thurii; but misbehaved themselves -in that capacity, and were mostly either slain or expelled. Even -after that, however, the name of Sybaris still remained on a reduced -scale in some portion of the territory. Herodotus recounts what he -was told by the Sybarites, and we find subsequent indications of them -even as late as Theokritus. - -The conquest and destruction of the original Sybaris—perhaps in 510 -B. C. the greatest of all Grecian cities—appears to have excited a -strong sympathy in the Hellenic world. In Milêtus, especially, with -which it had maintained intimate union, the grief was so vehement, -that all the Milesians shaved their heads in token of mourning.[758] -The event happened just at the time of the expulsion of Hippias from -Athens, and must have made a sensible revolution in the relations of -the Greek cities on the Italian coast with the rustic population of -the interior. The Krotoniates might destroy Sybaris, and disperse -its inhabitants, but they could not succeed to its wide dominion -over dependent territory; and the extinction of this great aggregate -power, stretching across the peninsula from sea to sea, lessened the -means of resistance against the Oscan movements from the inland. -From this time forward, the cities of Magna Græcia, as well as those -of Ionia, tend to decline in consequence, while Athens, on the -other hand, becomes both more conspicuous and more powerful. At the -invasion of Greece by Xerxês, thirty years after this conquest of -Sybaris, Sparta and Athens send to ask for aid both from Sicily and -Korkyra,—but not from Magna Græcia. - - [758] Herodot. vi, 21. - -It is much to be regretted that we do not possess fuller information -respecting these important changes among the Greco-Italian cities, -but we may remark that even Herodotus,—himself a citizen of Thurii, -and dwelling on the spot not more than eighty years after the -capture of Sybaris,—evidently found no written memorials to consult; -and could obtain from verbal conversation nothing better than -statements both meagre and contradictory. The material circumstance, -for example, of the aid rendered by the Spartan Dorieus and his -colonists, though positively asserted by the Sybarites, was as -positively denied by the Krotoniates, who alleged that they had -accomplished the conquest by themselves, and with their own unaided -forces. There can be little hesitation in crediting the affirmative -assertion of the Sybarites, who showed to Herodotus a temple and -precinct erected by the Spartan prince in testimony of his share -in the victory, on the banks of the dry, deserted channel, out of -which the Krathis had been turned, and in honor of the Krathian -Athênê.[759] This of itself forms a proof, coupled with the positive -assertion of the Sybarites, sufficient for the case. But they -produced another indirect argument to confirm it, which deserves -notice. Dorieus had attacked Sybaris while he was passing along the -coast of Italy to go and found a colony in Sicily, under the express -mandate and encouragement of the oracle; and after tarrying awhile -at Sybaris, he pursued his journey to the south-western portion of -Sicily, where he and nearly all his companions perished in a battle -with the Carthaginians and Egestæans,—though the oracle had promised -him that he should acquire and occupy permanently the neighboring -territory near Mount Eryx. Now the Sybarites deduced from this -fatal disaster of Dorieus and his expedition, combined with the -favorable promise of the oracle beforehand, a confident proof of the -correctness of their own statement that he had fought at Sybaris. For -if he had gone straight to the territory marked out by the oracle, -they argued, without turning aside for any other object, the prophecy -on which his hopes were founded would have been unquestionably -realized, and he would have succeeded; but the ruinous disappointment -which actually overtook him was at once explained, and the truth of -prophecy vindicated, when it was recollected that he had turned aside -to help the Krotoniates against Sybaris, and thus set at nought the -conditions prescribed to him. Upon this argument, Herodotus tells us, -the Sybarites of his day especially insisted.[760] And while we note -their pious and literal faith in the communications of an inspired -prophet, we must at the same time observe how perfectly that faith -supplied the place of historical premises,—how scanty their stock was -of such legitimate evidence,—and how little they had yet learned to -appreciate its value. - - [759] Herodot. v, 45. - - [760] Herodot. v, 45. Τοῦτο δὲ, αὐτοῦ Δωριέος τὸν θάνατον - μαρτύριον μέγιστον ποιεῦνται (Συβαρῖται), ὅτι παρὰ τὰ - μεμαντευμένα ποιέων διεφθάρῃ. Εἰ γὰρ δὴ μὴ παρέπρηξε μηδὲν, ἐπ᾽ - ᾧ δὲ ἐστάλη ἐποίεε, εἷλε ἂν τὴν Ἐρυκίνην χώρην καὶ ἑλὼν κάτεσχε, - οὐδ᾽ ἂν αὐτός τε καὶ ἡ στρατιὴ διεφθάρῃ. - -It is to be remarked, that Herodotus, in his brief mention of the -fatal war between Sybaris and Kroton, does not make the least -allusion to Pythagoras or his brotherhood. The least which we can -infer from such silence is, that the part which they played in -reference to the war, and their general ascendency in Magna Græcia, -was in reality less conspicuous and overruling than the Pythagorean -historians set forth. Even making such allowance, however, the -absence of all allusion in Herodotus, to the commotions which -accompanied the subversion of the Pythagoreans, is a surprising -circumstance. Nor can I pass over a perplexing statement in -Polybius, which seems to show that he too must have conceived -the history of Sybaris in a way different from that in which it -is commonly represented. He tells us that after much suffering in -Magna Græcia, from the troubles which followed the expulsion of the -Pythagoreans, the cities were induced by Achæan mediation to come to -an accommodation, and even to establish something like a permanent -league, with a common temple and sacrifices. Now the three cities -which he specifies as having been the first to do this, are Kroton, -Sybaris, and Kaulonia.[761] But according to the sequence of events -and the fatal war, just described, between Kroton and Sybaris, the -latter city must have been at that time in ruins; little, if at all, -inhabited. I cannot but infer from this statement of Polybius, that -he followed different authorities respecting the early history of -Magna Græcia in the beginning of the fifth century B. C. - - [761] Polyb. ii, 39. Heyne thinks that the agreement here - mentioned by Polybius took place Olymp. 80, 3; or, indeed, after - the repopulation of the Sybaritan territory by the foundation - of Thurii (Opuscula, vol. ii; Prolus. x, p. 189). But there - seems great difficulty in imagining that the state of violent - commotion—which, according to Polybius, was only appeased by this - agreement—can possibly have lasted so long as half a century; the - received date of the overthrow of the Pythagoreans being about - 504 B. C. - -Indeed, the early history of these cities gives us little more -than a few isolated facts and names. With regard to their -legislators, Zaleukus and Charondas, nothing is made out except -their existence,—and even that fact some ancient critics contested. -Of Zaleukus, whom chronologists place in 664 B. C., I have already -spoken; the date of Charondas cannot be assigned, but we may perhaps -presume that it was at some time between 600-500 B. C. He was a -citizen of middling station, born in the Chalkidic colony of Katana -in Sicily,[762] and he framed laws not only for his own city, but for -the other Chalkidic cities in Sicily and Italy,—Leontini, Naxos, -Zanklê, and Rhêgium. The laws and the solemn preamble ascribed to -him by Diodorus and Stobæus, belong to a later day,[763] and we are -obliged to content ourselves with collecting the brief hints of -Aristotle, who tells us that the laws of Charondas descended to great -minuteness of distinction and specification, especially in graduating -the fine for offences according to the property of the guilty person -fined,[764]—but that there was nothing in his laws strictly original -and peculiar, except that he was the first to introduce the solemn -indictment against perjured witnesses before justice. The perjured -witness, in Grecian ideas, was looked upon as having committed -a crime half religious, half civil; and the indictment raised -against him, known by a peculiar name, partook of both characters, -approaching in some respects to the procedure against a murderer. -Such distinct form of indictment against perjured testimony—with its -appropriate name,[765] which we shall find maintained at Athens -throughout the best-known days of Attic law—was first enacted by -Charondas. - - [762] Aristot. Politic. ii, 9, 6; iv, 9, 10. Heyne puts Charondas - much earlier than the foundation of Thurii, in which, I think, - he is undoubtedly right: but without determining the date more - exactly (Opuscul. vol. ii; Prolus. ix, p. 160), Charondas must - certainly have been earlier than Anaxilas of Rhêgium and the - great Sicilian despots; which will place him higher than 500 B. - C.: but I do not know that any more precise mark of time can be - found. - - [763] Diodorus, xii, 35; Stobæus, Serm. xliv, 20-40; Cicero - de Legg. ii, 6. See K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech. - Staatsalterthümer, ch. 89; Heyne, Opuscul. vol. ii, pp. 72-164. - Brandis (Geschichte der Röm. Philosophie, ch. xxvi, p. 102) seems - to conceive these prologues as genuine. - - The mistakes and confusion made by ancient writers respecting - these lawgivers—even by writers earlier than Aristotle (Politic. - ii, 9, 5)—are such as we have no means of clearing up. - - Seneca (Epist. 90) calls both Zaleukus and Charondas disciples - of Pythagoras. That the former was so, is not to be believed; - but it is not wholly impossible that the latter may have been - so,—or at least that he may have been a companion of the earliest - Pythagoreans. - - [764] Aristotel. Politic. ii, 9, 8. Χαρώνδου δ᾽ ἴδιον μὲν οὐδέν - ἐστι πλὴν αἱ δίκαι τῶν ψευδομαρτύρων· πρῶτος γὰρ ἐποίησε τὴν - ἐπίσκηψιν· τῇ δ᾽ ἀκριβείᾳ τῶν νόμων ἐστὶ γλαφυρώτερος καὶ τῶν νῦν - νομοθετῶν. To the fulness and precision predicated respecting - Charondas in the latter part of this passage, I refer the other - passage in Politic. iv, 10, 6, which is not to be construed as - if it meant that Charondas had graduated fines on the rich and - poor with a distinct view to that political trick (of indirectly - eliminating the poor from public duties) which Aristotle had been - just adverting to,—but merely means that Charondas had been nice - and minute in graduating pecuniary penalties generally, having - reference to the wealth or poverty of the person sentenced. - - [765] Πρῶτος γὰρ ἐποίησε τὴν ~ἐπίσκηψιν~ (Aristot. Politic. ii, - 9, 8). See Harpokration, v. Ἐπεσκήψατο, and Pollux, viii, 33; - Demosthenês cont. Stephanum, ii, c. 5; cont. Euerg. et Mnêsibul. - c. 1. The word ἐπίσκηψις carries with it the solemnity of meaning - adverted to it in the text, and seems to have been used specially - with reference to an action or indictment against perjured - witnesses: which indictment was permitted to be brought with a - less degree of risk or cost to the accuser than most others in - the Attic dikasteries, (Dêmosth. cont. Euerg. et Mn. _l. c._) - - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of History of Greece, Volume 04 (of 12), by -George Grote - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF GREECE, VOLUME 04 *** - -***** This file should be named 60426-0.txt or 60426-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/0/4/2/60426/ - -Produced by Henry Flower, Adrian Mastronardi, Ramon Pajares -Box and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at -http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images -generously made available by The Internet Archive/American -Libraries.) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |