diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/60426-h/60426-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60426-h/60426-h.htm | 24402 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 24402 deletions
diff --git a/old/60426-h/60426-h.htm b/old/60426-h/60426-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 51dd362..0000000 --- a/old/60426-h/60426-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,24402 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - History of Greece - Vol. 4/12, by George Grote—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - - body { margin: 0 auto; max-width: 40em; } - p { margin: 0.75em 0 0 0; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.5em; } - - h1, h2 { text-align: center; clear: both; font-weight: normal; } - h1 { line-height: 1.5em; } - h2 { margin: 0.75em 0 1em 0; font-size: 120%; line-height: 130%; } - - h2:first-line { line-height: 2em; font-size: 1.3em; } - h2.nobreak { page-break-before: avoid; } - - .falseh1 { margin: 0 0 1em 0; text-indent: 0; text-align: center; - font-weight: normal; font-size: 175%; clear: both; } - - .lh200 { line-height: 2em; } - - .mt1 { margin-top: 1em; } - .mt2 { margin-top: 2em; } - .mt4 { margin-top: 4em; } - - .pt3 { padding-top: 0; } - - .xs { font-size: x-small; } - .small { font-size: small; } - .medium { font-size: medium; } - .large { font-size: large; } - .xl { font-size: x-large; } - - .ti0 { text-indent: 0; } - - .g1 { letter-spacing: 0.1em; margin-right: -0.1em; } - - hr { clear: both; width: 33%; text-align: center; margin: 3em auto; } - hr.full { width: 100%; border: medium solid silver; margin: 3em 0; } - hr.chap { width: 20%; } - hr.chap0 { width: 20%; } - hr.sep { width: 6%; margin: 1em auto; } - - .front { margin: 3em 0; page-break-before: always; } - .front p { margin: 0; text-indent: 0; text-align: left; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 90%; } - .tit { margin: 3em auto 0 auto; page-break-before: always; } - .tit p { text-indent: 0; text-align: center; } - .chapter { page-break-before: always; margin: 2em 0; } - - .smcap { font-variant: small-caps; } - .gesperrt { letter-spacing: 0.15em; margin-right: -0.15em; font-style: normal; } - .center { text-align: center; text-indent: 0; } - .toright { text-indent: 0; text-align: right; } - sup { font-size: 0.65em; vertical-align: top; } - - .contents { font-size: 90%; } - .contents p { clear: both; padding-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1.5em; } - .contents p.chap { padding-top: 1em; padding-left: 0; text-indent: 0; text-align: center; - font-size: large; letter-spacing: 0.1em; margin-right: -0.1em; - word-spacing: 0.2em; } - .contents p.subchap { margin: 1em 0; padding: 0; text-indent: 0; text-align: center; - word-spacing: 0.1em; } - .contents p.toright { margin: 0; padding: 0; text-indent: 0; text-align: right; } - - .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - right: 90%; - font-size: small; - font-variant: normal; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - letter-spacing: normal; - text-align: right; - color: #B0B0B0; - text-indent: 0; - } - - /* Tables */ - table { margin: 0 auto; } - .tins { border-collapse: collapse; } - - /* Images */ - .figcenter { text-align: center; } - - /* Footnotes */ - .footnotes { margin: 3em 0; border: medium solid #C0C0C0; background-color: white; - page-break-before: always; } - .footnote { margin: 1em 2em; font-size: 90%; } - .footnote p { margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0; text-indent: 1.5em; } - .footnote p.mt1 { margin-top: 0.75em; } - .footnote p.ti0 { text-indent: 0; } - .footnote .label { padding-right: .5em; } - .fnanchor { vertical-align: top; text-decoration: none; font-size: 0.75em; - font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; } - - .poem { text-align: center; } - .poem .stanza { display: inline-block; margin: 0.75em 0 0 0; text-align: left; } - .poem p { text-indent: 0; } - .poem p.ir { text-align: right; margin-top: 0.5em; } - .poem p.i0 { margin-left: 0em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em; } - .poem p.i2 { margin-left: 1em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em; } - - /* Transcriber's notes */ - .transnote { border: thin solid gray; background-color: #f8f8f8; font-family: sans-serif; - font-size: smaller; margin: 3em 0; padding: 1em 2em 1em 0; - page-break-before: always; } - #tnote li { margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify; } - .tnotetit { font-weight: bold; text-align: center; text-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 1em; } - - @media handheld, print - { - p { margin: 0; } - .pt3 { padding-top: 3em; } - - hr { clear: both; width: 34%; margin-left: 33%; } - hr.chap { width: 20%; margin-left: 40%; } - hr.chap0 { display: none; visibility: hidden; } - hr.sep { width: 6%; margin-left: 47%; } - - .gesperrt { font-style: italic; } - .screenonly { display: none; } - .pagenum { display: none; } - .footnotes { border: none; } - .footnote { margin: 1em 0; } - } - - </style> - </head> - <body> - - -<pre> - -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.) - - - - - - -</pre> - - -<div class="front"> - <hr class="full" /> - <p><a href="#tnote">Transcriber's note</a></p> - <p><a href="#ToC">Table of Contents</a></p> -</div> - -<div class="screenonly"> - <hr class="chap" /> - <div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/cover.jpg" - alt="Book cover" /> - </div> - <hr class="chap" /> -</div> - -<div class="tit pt3"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_i">[p. i]</span></p> - <h1 class="g1">HISTORY OF GREECE.</h1> - - <p class="large mt2"><small>BY</small><br /> - <span class="g1">GEORGE GROTE, <span class="smcap">Esq.</span></span></p> - - <p class="large g1 mt2">VOL. IV.</p> - - <p class="xs mt4">REPRINTED FROM THE SECOND LONDON EDITION.</p> - - <p class="medium mt2">NEW YORK:<br /> - <span class="g1">HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS.</span><br /> - <span class="small g1">329 <small>AND</small> 331 <small>PEARL STREET.</small></span><br /> - <span class="large g1">1880.</span></p> -</div> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter" id="ToC"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_iii">[p. iii]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak">CONTENTS.<br /> - <span class="large">VOL. IV.</span></h2> - <hr class="sep" /> - <p class="xl center">PART II.</p> - <p class="large g1 center">CONTINUATION OF HISTORICAL GREECE.</p> - <hr class="sep" /> -</div> - -<div class="contents"> - -<p class="chap">CHAPTER XXV.</p> - -<p class="subchap">ILLYRIANS, MACEDONIANS, PÆONIANS.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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.</p> - -<p class="toright"><i>pages</i> <a href="#Chap_25">1-19</a></p> - - -<p class="chap">CHAPTER XXVI.</p> - -<p class="subchap">THRACIANS AND GREEK COLONIES IN THRACE.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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 <small>B. C.</small> — 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.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_26">20-28</a></p> - - -<p class="chap"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_iv">[p. -iv]</span>CHAPTER XXVII.</p> - -<p class="subchap">KYRENE AND BARKA. — HESPERIDES.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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 <small>B. C.</small> — Constitution -of Demônax not durable.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_27">29-49</a></p> - - -<p class="chap">CHAPTER XXVIII.</p> - -<p class="subchap">PAN-HELLENIC FESTIVALS — OLYMPIC, PYTHIAN, NEMEAN, -AND ISTHMIAN.</p> - -<p class="mt1">Want of grouping and unity in the early period of -Grecian history. — New causes, tending to favor union, begin after -560 <small>B. C.</small> — no general war between 776 -and 560 <small>B. C.</small> 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 -<small>B. C.</small> — 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.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_28">50-73</a></p> - - -<p class="chap"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_v">[p. -v]</span>CHAPTER XXIX.</p> - -<p class="subchap">LYRIC POETRY. — THE SEVEN WISE MEN.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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 <small>B. C.</small> — -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 -<small>B. C.</small> — Importance of Grecian art as a means of -Hellenic union.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_29">73-101</a></p> - - -<p class="chap">CHAPTER XXX.</p> - -<p class="subchap">GRECIAN AFFAIRS DURING THE GOVERNMENT OF -PEISISTRATUS AND HIS SONS AT ATHENS.</p> - -<p class="mt1">Peisistratus and his sons at Athens — -<small>B. C.</small> 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. -<small>B. C.</small> 514. — Strong and lasting sentiment, -coupled with great historical mistake, in the Athenian public. — -Hippias despot alone — 514-510 <small>B. C.</small> — 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.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_30">102-126</a></p> - - -<p class="chap"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_vi">[p. -vi]</span>CHAPTER XXXI.</p> - -<p class="subchap">GRECIAN AFFAIRS AFTER THE EXPULSION OF THE -PEISISTRATIDS. — REVOLUTION OF KLEISTHENES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF -DEMOCRACY AT ATHENS.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_vii">[p. vii]</span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small> — combined with an eager spirit of -personal military exertion and sacrifice. — Diminution of this active -sentiment in the restored democracy after the Thirty Tyrants.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_31">126-181</a></p> - - -<p class="chap">CHAPTER XXXII.</p> - -<p class="subchap">RISE OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE. — CYRUS.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_32">182-208</a></p> - - -<p class="chap">CHAPTER XXXIII.</p> - -<p class="subchap">GROWTH OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_viii">[p. viii]</span> 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.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_33">209-252</a></p> - - -<p class="chap">CHAPTER XXXIV.</p> - -<p class="subchap">DEMOKEDES. — DARIUS INVADES SCYTHIA.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_ix">[p. ix]</span> -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.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_34">252-280</a></p> - - -<p class="chap">CHAPTER XXXV.</p> - -<p class="subchap">IONIC REVOLT.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_35">280-310</a></p> - - -<p class="chap"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_x">[p. -x]</span>CHAPTER XXXVI.</p> - -<p class="subchap">FROM THE IONIC REVOLT TO THE BATTLE OF -MARATHON.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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 <i>medism</i> (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 -<i>medizing</i> 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 <small>B. C.</small> — 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 trai<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xi">[p. -xi]</span>tors 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.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_36">311-378</a></p> - - -<p class="chap">CHAPTER XXXVII.</p> - -<p class="subchap">IONIC PHILOSOPHERS. — PYTHAGORAS. — KROTON AND -SYBARIS.</p> - -<p class="mt1">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.</p> - -<p class="toright"><a href="#Chap_37">378-419</a></p> - -</div> <!-- .contents --> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter" id="Chap_25"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[p. 1]</span></p> - <p class="falseh1 g1">HISTORY OF GREECE.</p> - <hr class="sep" /> - <p class="xl lh200 center"><small>PART II.</small><br /> - CONTINUATION OF HISTORICAL GREECE.</p> - <hr class="sep" /> - <h2 class="nobreak"><span class="g1">CHAPTER XXV.</span><br /> - ILLYRIANS, MACEDONIANS, PÆONIANS.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">Northward</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" -class="fnanchor">[1]</a> The Bulini, accord<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_2">[p. 2]</span>ing to Skylax, were the northernmost -Illyrian tribe: the Amantini, immediately northward of the Epirotic -Chaonians, were the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[p. 3]</span> -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<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" -class="fnanchor">[2]</a> (about 500<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_4">[p. 4]</span> <small>B. C.</small>), 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,<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" -class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_4" -href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> - -<p>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<a id="FNanchor_5" -href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> their bodies and of -offering human sacrifices: moreover, they were always ready to -sell their military service for hire, like the modern Al<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[p. 5]</span>banian 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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,<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" -class="fnanchor">[6]</a> the predecessors of Agrôn and Gentius,—just -as the coast-land of the Thermaic gulf was conquered by inland -Macedonians.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" -class="fnanchor">[7]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>) -that the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[p. 6]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>What is now called Middle Albania, the Illyrian territory -immediately north of Epirus, is much superior to the latter -in productiveness.<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" -class="fnanchor">[8]</a> 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<a -id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> -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,<a id="FNanchor_10" -href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[p. 7]</span> the Romans.<a -id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" -class="fnanchor">[12]</a>—cattle and slaves;<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_8">[p. 8]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p> - -<p>The Macedonians of the fourth century <small>B. C.</small> -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 dis<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[p. 9]</span>arming 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 <small>B. C.</small> 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.<a id="FNanchor_15" -href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_10">[p. 10]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" -class="fnanchor">[17]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_18" -href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[p. 11]</span>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[p. 12]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" -class="fnanchor">[19]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> and to -the other ungifted members of the Hellenic family.</p> - -<p>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 Ely<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[p. -13]</span>miots,—the Lynkêstæ and Eordi, who occupied portions of -territory on the track of the subsequent Egnatian way, between -Lychnidus (Ochrida) and Edessa,—the Pelagonians,<a id="FNanchor_21" -href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> 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 <i>The Macedonians</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_14">[p. 14]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" -class="fnanchor">[22]</a> Beyond the river Axius, at the lower<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[p. 15]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_23" -href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> seemingly during the -early reign of Philip the son of Amyntas, Macedonia and Thrace were -separated by the Strymon.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[p. 16]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_24" -href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" -class="fnanchor">[25]</a> that is, upon the second seats occupied by -the expelled Pierians under Mount Pangæus.</p> - -<p>Such was, as far as we can make it out, the position of the -Macedonians and their immediate neighbors, in the seventh century -<small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[p. 17]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" -class="fnanchor">[26]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_27" -href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a>—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.</p> - -<p>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),<a id="FNanchor_28" -href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> 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<a id="FNanchor_29" -href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> of Corinth; and the -neighbor<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[p. 18]</span>hood 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.</p> - -<p>After the foundation-legend of the Macedonian kingdom, we -have nothing but a long blank until the reign of king Amyntas -(about 520-500 <small>B. C.</small>), and his son -Alexander, (about 480 <small>B. C.</small>) 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.<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" -class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" -class="fnanchor">[31]</a>—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,<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[p. 19]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" -class="fnanchor">[32]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> 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.</p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_26"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[p. 20]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXVI.<br /> - THRACIANS AND GREEK COLONIES IN THRACE.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">That</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 -affec<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[p. 21]</span>tions.<a -id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> -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,<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" -class="fnanchor">[35]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_36" -href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> It appears that -the Thynians and Bithy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[p. -22]</span>nians,<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" -class="fnanchor">[37]</a> 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<a id="FNanchor_38" -href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> describes them is an -apt continuation to that of Herodotus, though coming more than five -centuries after.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The most ancient Grecian colony in these regions seems to<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[p. 23]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>).<a id="FNanchor_39" -href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>; 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 <small>B. C.</small>, though it may be considerably -earlier.</p> - -<p>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 thou<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[p. -24]</span>sand 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.<a -id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p> - -<p>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 -<small>B. C.</small> occupied by petty Thracian townships.<a -id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" -class="fnanchor">[43]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[p. 25]</span>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.<a -id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> -Akanthus and Stageira are said to have been founded in 654 -<small>B. C.</small></p> - -<p>Following the southern coast of Thrace, from the mouth of the -river Strymôn towards the east, we may doubt whether, in the year -560 <small>B. C.</small>, 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<a -id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> had -begun an unsuccessful settlement there as early as the year 651 -<small>B. C.</small>; while Dikæa—the Chian settlement -of Marôneia—and the Lesbian settlement of Ænus at the mouth of the -Hebrus, are of unknown date.<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" -class="fnanchor">[47]</a> The important and valuable territory near -the mouth of the Strymôn, where, after many ruinous failures,<a -id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a>—a -strip of the adjoining mainland cultivated and defended by means of -for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[p. 26]</span>tified 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 <small>B. C.</small>,—“an -ass’s backbone, overspread with wild wood:”<a id="FNanchor_50" -href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> 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<a -id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> formed -one of a body of Parian colonists who planted themselves on it in the -seventh century <small>B. C.</small>, 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 -<small>B. C.</small>, who actively concerned themselves -in the mining districts of Thrace opposite to their island, we cannot -be sur<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[p. 27]</span>prised to -hear that their clear surplus revenue before the Persian conquest, -about 493 <small>B. C.</small>, 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).</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" -class="fnanchor">[52]</a> is spoken of as ancient in date, and the -Megarian colonies, Selymbria and Byzantium, belong to the seventh -century <small>B. C.</small>: the latter of these two is -assigned to the 30th Olympiad (657 <small>B. C.</small>), -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,<a id="FNanchor_53" -href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a></p> - -<p>The Grecian settlements on the inhospitable south-western coast -of the Euxine, south of the Danube, appear never to have<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[p. 28]</span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.<a -id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_27"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[p. 29]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXVII.<br /> - KYRENE AND BARKA. — HESPERIDES.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">It has</span> been already -mentioned, in a former chapter, that Psammetichus king of Egypt, -about the middle of the seventh century <small>B. C.</small>, -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.</p> - -<p>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 -<small>B. C.</small>:<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" -class="fnanchor">[57]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>According to the account of a lost historian, -Meneklês,<a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" -class="fnanchor">[58]</a>—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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[p. 30]</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_59" -href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> 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,<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_31">[p. 31]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" -class="fnanchor">[60]</a></p> - -<p>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 <i>have</i>, 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.”<a id="FNanchor_61" -href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_32">[p. 32]</span> 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<a id="FNanchor_62" href="#Footnote_62" -class="fnanchor">[62]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> -The maritime regions near Kyrênê and Barka,<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_33">[p. 33]</span> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[p. -34]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_64" -href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p> - -<p>But it was not only the properties of the soil which -promoted the prosperity of Kyrênê. Isokratês<a id="FNanchor_65" -href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> 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<a id="FNanchor_66" -href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a>—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 ascen<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[p. 35]</span>dency -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,<a id="FNanchor_67" href="#Footnote_67" -class="fnanchor">[67]</a> they began to be agricultural. -Immediately westward of Egypt were the Adyrmachidæ, bordering upon -Apis and Marea, the Egyptian frontier towns;<a id="FNanchor_68" -href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> 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 -<small>B. C.</small>) In the third century <small>B. C.</small>, -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.<a id="FNanchor_69" -href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> But even in the sixth -century <small>B. C.</small>, Carthage was jealous -of the extension of Grecian colonies along this coast, and aided -the Libyan Makæ<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[p. 36]</span> -(about 510 <small>B. C.</small>) 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<a id="FNanchor_70" href="#Footnote_70" -class="fnanchor">[70]</a> (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.<a -id="FNanchor_71" href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_72" -href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> But the<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[p. 37]</span> 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:<a id="FNanchor_73" href="#Footnote_73" -class="fnanchor">[73]</a> and the same circumstance must have<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[p. 38]</span> 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;<a id="FNanchor_74" href="#Footnote_74" -class="fnanchor">[74]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_75" -href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> 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<a id="FNanchor_76" href="#Footnote_76" -class="fnanchor">[76]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[p. -39]</span> date-harvest,<a id="FNanchor_77" href="#Footnote_77" -class="fnanchor">[77]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_78" href="#Footnote_78" -class="fnanchor">[78]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_79" -href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small><a -id="FNanchor_80" href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_40">[p. 40]</span> of the interior had come to copy -Kyrenæan tastes and customs.<a id="FNanchor_81" href="#Footnote_81" -class="fnanchor">[81]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_82" -href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_83" href="#Footnote_83" -class="fnanchor">[83]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_84" href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a>—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.<a -id="FNanchor_85" href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[p. 41]</span> the œkist (about -630-590 <small>B. C.</small>), and sixteen years of his son -Arkesilaus (about 590-574 <small>B. C.</small>), -a second Battus<a id="FNanchor_86" href="#Footnote_86" -class="fnanchor">[86]</a> 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 -<small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[p. 42]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_87" href="#Footnote_87" -class="fnanchor">[87]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_88" href="#Footnote_88" -class="fnanchor">[88]</a></p> - -<p>New prospects, however, were opened to them during the reign -of Arkesilaus the Second, son of Battus the Prosperous, (about -554-544 <small>B. C.</small>). 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:<a id="FNanchor_89" href="#Footnote_89" -class="fnanchor">[89]</a> at what<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_43">[p. 43]</span> time Hesperides was founded we do not -know, but it existed about 510 <small>B. C.</small><a -id="FNanchor_90" href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> -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,<a id="FNanchor_91" -href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> avenged the crime, by -causing Learchus to be assassinated.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>; the dispossessed -prince retaining both the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[p. -44]</span> landed domains<a id="FNanchor_92" href="#Footnote_92" -class="fnanchor">[92]</a> and the various sacerdotal functions which -had belonged to his predecessors.</p> - -<p>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 <i>known to the -constitution</i>,—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.<a -id="FNanchor_93" href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> The -whole powers<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[p. 45]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_94" href="#Footnote_94" -class="fnanchor">[94]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[p. 46]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_95" href="#Footnote_95" -class="fnanchor">[95]</a> “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 <small>B. C.</small>; 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 -<small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[p. 47]</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_96" -href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_97" href="#Footnote_97" -class="fnanchor">[97]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[p. -48]</span> 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;<a id="FNanchor_98" -href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_49">[p. 49]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_99" -href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a></p> - -<p>Pheretimê accompanied the retreating army to Egypt, where she -died shortly of a loathsome disease, consumed by worms; thus -showing, says Herodotus,<a id="FNanchor_100" href="#Footnote_100" -class="fnanchor">[100]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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 -<small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_28"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[p. 50]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXVIII.<br /> - PAN-HELLENIC FESTIVALS — OLYMPIC, PYTHIAN, NEMEAN, AND ISTHMIAN.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">In the</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[p. 51]</span>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 <small>B. C.</small>; 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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:<a -id="FNanchor_101" href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[p. -52]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_53">[p. 53]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_102" href="#Footnote_102" -class="fnanchor">[102]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[p. 54]</span> present, -but also contending for valuable prizes.<a id="FNanchor_103" -href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> Passing to historical -Greece during the seventh century <small>B. C.</small>, -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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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,<a id="FNanchor_104" -href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a>—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.<a id="FNanchor_105" href="#Footnote_105" -class="fnanchor">[105]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[p. -55]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Very different was the fate of the Olympic festival,—on the -banks of the Alpheius<a id="FNanchor_106" href="#Footnote_106" -class="fnanchor">[106]</a> 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 <small>A. D.</small> 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 <small>B. C.</small> 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,<a id="FNanchor_107" href="#Footnote_107" -class="fnanchor">[107]</a>—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 -<small>B. C.</small>, we trace positive evidences of the -gradual presence of more distant Greeks,—Corinthians, Megarians, -Bœotians, Athenians, and even Smyrnæans from Asia.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[p. 56]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, and was made to -serve by chronological inquirers from the third century -<small>B. C.</small> 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:<a id="FNanchor_108" -href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>), 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 -<small>B. C.</small>), the boxing-match; and another, still more -important, in the 25th (680 <small>B. C.</small>), -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.<a id="FNanchor_109" href="#Footnote_109" -class="fnanchor">[109]</a> The prodigious<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_57">[p. 57]</span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small>),—the pankration, or boxing and -wrestling conjoined,<a id="FNanchor_110" href="#Footnote_110" -class="fnanchor">[110]</a> with the hand unarmed or divested of -that hard leather cestus<a id="FNanchor_111" href="#Footnote_111" -class="fnanchor">[111]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_112" href="#Footnote_112" -class="fnanchor">[112]</a> The 77th Olympiad follows immediately -after the success<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[p. -58]</span>ful 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.</p> - -<p>We are thus enabled partially to trace the steps by which, during -the two centuries succeeding 776 <small>B. C.</small>, -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 -<small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>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 -<small>B. C.</small>), 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,<a id="FNanchor_113" href="#Footnote_113" -class="fnanchor">[113]</a> as tending to divert the attention of -spectators away from the great temple and its wealth.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[p. 59]</span>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,<a id="FNanchor_114" href="#Footnote_114" -class="fnanchor">[114]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[p. -60]</span> its eastern part immediately under the Kirphis, where the -seaport Kirrha was placed.<a id="FNanchor_115" href="#Footnote_115" -class="fnanchor">[115]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_61">[p. 61]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_116" href="#Footnote_116" -class="fnanchor">[116]</a></p> - -<p>Thus stood the case, apparently, about 595 <small>B. C.</small>, -when the Amphiktyonic meeting -interfered—either prompted by the<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_62">[p. 62]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_117" href="#Footnote_117" -class="fnanchor">[117]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_118" href="#Footnote_118" -class="fnanchor">[118]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[p. 63]</span> -to the management of it for themselves,<a id="FNanchor_119" -href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[p. -64]</span> the duty in their names.<a id="FNanchor_120" -href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> At the first Pythian -ceremony (in 586 <small>B. C.</small>), valuable rewards -were given to the different victors; at the second (582 -<small>B. C.</small>), 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.”<a id="FNanchor_121" -href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[p. 65]</span>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.<a id="FNanchor_122" href="#Footnote_122" -class="fnanchor">[122]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small> The -first historical Nemead is presented as belonging to Olympiad 52 -or 53 (572-568 <small>B. C.</small>), 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 <small>B. C.</small>, the Argeians deprived them of that -honor and assumed the honors of administration to themselves.<a -id="FNanchor_123" href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> -The Nemean games had their Hellanodikæ<a id="FNanchor_124" -href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[p. 66]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_125" href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[p. 67]</span>We thus -perceive that the interval between 600-560 <small>B. C.</small> -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.<a id="FNanchor_126" href="#Footnote_126" -class="fnanchor">[126]</a> 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:<a -id="FNanchor_127" href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> -the honors paid to Olympic victors on their return to their -native city were prodigious, even in the sixth century -<small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[p. 68]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_128" -href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_129" -href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a>—victories sometimes -so numerous, as to prove how wide-spread the habit of mutual -frequentation had become;<a id="FNanchor_130" href="#Footnote_130" -class="fnanchor">[130]</a> though we find, even in the third century -<small>B. C.</small>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[p. 69]</span> -Olympic games, by instituting games of their own with the richest -prizes, to be celebrated at the same time,<a id="FNanchor_131" -href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a>—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.<a id="FNanchor_132" -href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a></p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_133" -href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> or Hyakinthia, or -Gymnopædiæ. On the other hand, the Attic Dionysia were gradually -exalted, from their original rude spontaneous outburst of -village<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[p. 70]</span> 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;<a -id="FNanchor_134" href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> -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 -<small>B. C.</small>, we see only those commencements -of innovation which drew upon Thespis<a id="FNanchor_135" -href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>The sacred games and festivals, here alluded to as a class, -took hold of the Greek mind by so great a variety of feelings,<a -id="FNanchor_136" href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> -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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[p. 71]</span> of fair, including much -traffic amid so large a mass of spectators,<a id="FNanchor_137" -href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_138" href="#Footnote_138" -class="fnanchor">[138]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_139" href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> -The great family of the Diagoridæ at Rhodes,<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_72">[p. 72]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_140" href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> -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,<a id="FNanchor_141" -href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_142" -href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> And I may<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[p. 73]</span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_29"> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXIX.<br /> - LYRIC POETRY. — THE SEVEN WISE MEN.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">The</span> interval between -776-560 <small>B. C.</small> 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,”<a -id="FNanchor_143" href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> -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 -<small>B. C.</small>, combined the lyric and choric song<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[p. 74]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_144" -href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a></p> - -<p>Archilochus and Kallinus both appear to fall about the middle of -the seventh century <small>B. C.</small>, 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[p. 75]</span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[p. 76]</span> -<small>B. C.</small>: 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.<a id="FNanchor_145" -href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[p. 77]</span> defined limits.<a -id="FNanchor_146" href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_147" href="#Footnote_147" -class="fnanchor">[147]</a> though Alkman seems to have been the -latest,—presents a remarkable variety both of new metres and of -new rhythms, superinduced upon the previ<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_78">[p. 78]</span>ous 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_148" -href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> trochaic for<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[p. 79]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_149" href="#Footnote_149" -class="fnanchor">[149]</a> 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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[p. 80]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_150" href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>The iambic metre, built upon the primitive iambus, or coarse -and licentious jesting,<a id="FNanchor_151" href="#Footnote_151" -class="fnanchor">[151]</a> which formed a part of some Grecian<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[p. 81]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_152" href="#Footnote_152" -class="fnanchor">[152]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_153" href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> -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 Hêra<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[p. 82]</span>klês 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.<a id="FNanchor_154" href="#Footnote_154" -class="fnanchor">[154]</a></p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_155" -href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[p. 83]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_156" href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> -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.<a -id="FNanchor_157" href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a></p> - -<p>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 gener<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[p. 84]</span>ally,—a large proportion -of them being actively engaged in it,<a id="FNanchor_158" -href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_159" -href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_160" href="#Footnote_160" -class="fnanchor">[160]</a> while the whole body of Spartans without -exception,—the old,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[p. 85]</span> -the middle-aged, and the youth, the matrons, and the virgins,—were -distributed in various choric companies,<a id="FNanchor_161" -href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> and trained to -harmony both of voice and motion, which was publicly exhibited at the -solemnities of the Gymnopædiæ. The word <i>dancing</i> 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;<a id="FNanchor_162" href="#Footnote_162" -class="fnanchor">[162]</a> cheironomy, or the decorous and expressive -movement of the hands, being especially practised.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_163" href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_86">[p. 86]</span> 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<a -id="FNanchor_164" href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a>) -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.<a -id="FNanchor_165" href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[p. -87]</span> in.<a id="FNanchor_166" href="#Footnote_166" -class="fnanchor">[166]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<a -id="FNanchor_167" href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> -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,<a -id="FNanchor_168" href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_169" -href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[p. 88]</span>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,<a id="FNanchor_170" -href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_171" -href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_172" href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> -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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[p. 89]</span> of spontaneous nature -into the garden of art,<a id="FNanchor_173" href="#Footnote_173" -class="fnanchor">[173]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>The date of Arion seems about 600 <small>B. C.</small>, -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;<a id="FNanchor_174" href="#Footnote_174" -class="fnanchor">[174]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_175" href="#Footnote_175" -class="fnanchor">[175]</a> Indeed, these Pythian games opened a -new<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[p. 90]</span> career to -musical composers just at the time when Sparta began to be closed -against musical novelties.</p> - -<p>Alkæus and Sappho, both natives of Lesbos, appear about -contemporaries with Arion, <small>B. C.</small> 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,<a id="FNanchor_176" -href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> 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;<a -id="FNanchor_177" href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_178" -href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> The love-song seems -to have formed the principal theme of Sappho, who, however, also -composed odes or songs<a id="FNanchor_179" href="#Footnote_179" -class="fnanchor">[179]</a> on a great vari<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_91">[p. 91]</span>ety 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_180" href="#Footnote_180" -class="fnanchor">[180]</a> His only<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_92">[p. 92]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Amidst all the variety of rhythmical and metrical -innovations<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[p. 93]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>) 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.”<a id="FNanchor_181" href="#Footnote_181" -class="fnanchor">[181]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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 <small>B. C.</small>, that the primitive relation -between the instrumental accompaniment and the words was really -reversed,—and loud were the complaints to which it gave rise;<a -id="FNanchor_182" href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> the -performance of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[p. 94]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_183" -href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_184" href="#Footnote_184" -class="fnanchor">[184]</a> 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 cen<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_95">[p. 95]</span>tury 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<a id="FNanchor_185" -href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>) 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.<a id="FNanchor_186" href="#Footnote_186" -class="fnanchor">[186]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_187" -href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a>—of the same turn -of mind as their con<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[p. -96]</span>temporary 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,<a id="FNanchor_188" href="#Footnote_188" -class="fnanchor">[188]</a>—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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[p. 97]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>The interval between Archilochus and Solon (660-580 -<small>B. C.</small>) 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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,<a id="FNanchor_189" -href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> about 510-490 -<small>B. C.</small>,—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.<a id="FNanchor_190" href="#Footnote_190" -class="fnanchor">[190]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_98">[p. 98]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, -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 <small>B. C.</small><a -id="FNanchor_191" href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> -The primitive memorial,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[p. -99]</span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small>), 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.<a id="FNanchor_192" href="#Footnote_192" -class="fnanchor">[192]</a> The pious associations, however, connected -with the old type were so strong, that the<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_100">[p. 100]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>).</p> - -<p>Nor is it until the same interval of time (between 600-550 -<small>B. C.</small>) 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 -<small>B. C.</small>,—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.</p> - -<p>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 -<small>B. C.</small>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[p. 101]</span> 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.</p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_30"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[p. 102]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXX.<br /> - GRECIAN AFFAIRS DURING THE GOVERNMENT OF PEISISTRATUS AND HIS SONS AT ATHENS.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">We now</span> 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.</p> - -<p>It has been already stated that Peisistratus made himself despot -of Athens in 560 <small>B. C.</small>: he died in 527 -<small>B. C.</small>, and was succeeded by his son -Hippias, who was deposed and expelled in 510 <small>B. C.</small>, -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.<a -id="FNanchor_193" href="#Footnote_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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 magis<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_103">[p. 103]</span>trates 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<a id="FNanchor_194" -href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> calls the Athenian -people to their faces, with a freedom which shows that <i>he</i> at -least counted on their good temper. But between 560-510 -<small>B. C.</small> 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,<a id="FNanchor_195" href="#Footnote_195" -class="fnanchor">[195]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, when he caused -the majority of the poorer citizens to be excluded altogether from -the political franchise.<a id="FNanchor_196" href="#Footnote_196" -class="fnanchor">[196]</a></p> - -<p>By the stratagem recounted in a former chapter,<a -id="FNanchor_197" href="#Footnote_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> -Peisistratus<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[p. 104]</span> -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<a id="FNanchor_198" href="#Footnote_198" -class="fnanchor">[198]</a> (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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_105">[p. 105]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_199" -href="#Footnote_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[p. 106]</span>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.<a -id="FNanchor_200" href="#Footnote_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> -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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[p. 107]</span> of a private man. -He lent valuable aid to Lygdamis of Naxos,<a id="FNanchor_201" -href="#Footnote_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_202" href="#Footnote_202" -class="fnanchor">[202]</a></p> - -<p>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:<a -id="FNanchor_203" href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> nor -did he omit to conciliate the favor of the gods by a purification of -the sacred island of Delos:<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[p. -108]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_204" href="#Footnote_204" -class="fnanchor">[204]</a></p> - -<p>This third and last period of the rule of Peisistratus lasted -several years, until his death in 527 <small>B. C.</small>: -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.<a id="FNanchor_205" href="#Footnote_205" -class="fnanchor">[205]</a> This is high praise coming from such an -au<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[p. 109]</span>thority, though -it seems that we ought to make some allowance for the circumstance of -Thucydidês being connected by descent with the Peisistratid family.<a -id="FNanchor_206" href="#Footnote_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_207" -href="#Footnote_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[p. 110]</span> -year: the annual Panathenaic festival, henceforward called the -Lesser, was still continued.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_208" -href="#Footnote_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> in language not -well suited to the sixth century <small>B. C.</small>, -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,<a id="FNanchor_209" href="#Footnote_209" -class="fnanchor">[209]</a>—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.<a id="FNanchor_210" href="#Footnote_210" -class="fnanchor">[210]</a> The statues of Hermês, erected by this -prince or by his personal friends in various parts of Attica,<a -id="FNanchor_211" href="#Footnote_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[p. -111]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_212" href="#Footnote_212" -class="fnanchor">[212]</a> 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<a id="FNanchor_213" href="#Footnote_213" -class="fnanchor">[213]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_214" href="#Footnote_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>Of these two Athenian citizens,<a id="FNanchor_215" -href="#Footnote_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> both belonging to -the ancient<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[p. 112]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_216" -href="#Footnote_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_217" href="#Footnote_217" -class="fnanchor">[217]</a> An insult thus publicly offered<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[p. 113]</span> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[p. 114]</span> -afterwards taken, and perished in the tortures applied to make him -disclose his accomplices.<a id="FNanchor_218" href="#Footnote_218" -class="fnanchor">[218]</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Such is the memorable narrative of Harmodius and Aristogeitôn, -peculiarly valuable inasmuch as it all comes from Thucydidês.<a -id="FNanchor_219" href="#Footnote_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>The conspiracy here detailed happened in 514 -<small>B. C.</small>, during the thirteenth year of the -reign of Hippias,—which lasted four years longer, until 510 -<small>B. C.</small> 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 -gov<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[p. 115]</span>ernment 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.”<a id="FNanchor_220" href="#Footnote_220" -class="fnanchor">[220]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_221" href="#Footnote_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[p. -116]</span> other anecdotes,<a id="FNanchor_222" href="#Footnote_222" -class="fnanchor">[222]</a> not the less eagerly believed because they -could not be authenticated, respecting this eventful period.</p> - -<p>Whatever may have been the moderation of Hippias before, -indignation at the death of his brother, and fear for -his own safety,<a id="FNanchor_223" href="#Footnote_223" -class="fnanchor">[223]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_224" -href="#Footnote_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_225" href="#Footnote_225" -class="fnanchor">[225]</a> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[p. 117]</span>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.<a id="FNanchor_226" -href="#Footnote_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a></p> - -<p>Having reached this peninsula, and having been constituted -despot of the mixed Thracian and Athenian population, he lost<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[p. 118]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_227" href="#Footnote_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_228" href="#Footnote_228" -class="fnanchor">[228]</a></p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>). 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,<a id="FNanchor_229" -href="#Footnote_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a> and placed there his -illegitimate son Hegesistratus as despot. The Mityleneans may<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[p. 119]</span> have been enfeebled -at this time (somewhere between 537-527 <small>B. C.</small>) -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.<a id="FNanchor_230" href="#Footnote_230" -class="fnanchor">[230]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_231" -href="#Footnote_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_232" href="#Footnote_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> It -appears to have been about 515 <small>B. C.</small> that -this second Miltiadês went out to the Chersonese.<a id="FNanchor_233" -href="#Footnote_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, or two or three -years before the battle of Marathon, on which occasion we shall find -him acting commander of the Athenian army.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[p. 120]</span>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.<a id="FNanchor_234" -href="#Footnote_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>By an accident which had occurred in the year 548 -<small>B. C.</small>,<a id="FNanchor_235" href="#Footnote_235" -class="fnanchor">[235]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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),<a id="FNanchor_236" href="#Footnote_236" -class="fnanchor">[236]</a>—a prodigious amount to be collected from -the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[p. 121]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_237" href="#Footnote_237" -class="fnanchor">[237]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_238" -href="#Footnote_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[p. 122]</span> we can -conjecture, about a year or two after the death of Hipparchus,—512 -<small>B. C.</small>,—more than thirty years after the -conflagration.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_239" href="#Footnote_239" -class="fnanchor">[239]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[p. -123]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Thus fell the Peisistratid dynasty in 510 <small>B. C.</small>, -fifty years after the first usurpation of its founder.<a -id="FNanchor_240" href="#Footnote_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> -It was put down through the aid of foreigners,<a id="FNanchor_241" -href="#Footnote_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_242" href="#Footnote_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a></p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_31"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[p. 126]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXXI.<br /> - GRECIAN AFFAIRS AFTER THE EXPULSION OF THE PEISISTRATIDS. — REVOLUTION - OF KLEISTHENES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMOCRACY AT ATHENS.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">With</span> 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 them<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[p. 127]</span>selves, -without any foreign interference to constrain them in their political -arrangements.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”<a id="FNanchor_243" href="#Footnote_243" -class="fnanchor">[243]</a> His partnership with the people gave birth -to the Athenian democracy: it was a real and important revolution.</p> - -<p>The political franchise, or the character of an Athenian citizen, -both before and since Solon, had been confined to the primitive<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[p. 128]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_244" -href="#Footnote_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a> Putting out of -sight the general body of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[p. -129]</span> slaves, and regarding only the free inhabitants, it was -in point of fact a scheme approaching to universal suffrage, both -political and judicial.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_245" -href="#Footnote_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_246" href="#Footnote_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[p. -130]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[p. -131]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_247" -href="#Footnote_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>The ten newly-created tribes, arranged in an established order -of precedence, were called,—Erechthêis, Ægêis, Pandiŏnis,<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[p. 132]</span> Leontis, Akamantis, -Œnêis, Kekrŏpis, Hippothoöntis, Æantis, Antiochis; names -borrowed chiefly from the respected heroes of Attic legend.<a -id="FNanchor_248" href="#Footnote_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a> -This number remained unaltered until the year 305 <small>B. C.</small>, -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 <small>B. C.</small>), -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.<a id="FNanchor_249" href="#Footnote_249" -class="fnanchor">[249]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_133">[p. 133]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_250" href="#Footnote_250" -class="fnanchor">[250]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[p. -134]</span> 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;<a id="FNanchor_251" -href="#Footnote_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<a -id="FNanchor_252" href="#Footnote_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_135">[p. 135]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_253" -href="#Footnote_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> So great was the -local administrative power, however, of these demes, that they are -described as the substitute,<a id="FNanchor_254" href="#Footnote_254" -class="fnanchor">[254]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The new constitution of the tribes, as it led to a change -in the annual senate, so it transformed, no less directly, the -military<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[p. 136]</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_255" href="#Footnote_255" -class="fnanchor">[255]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[p. 137]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_256" -href="#Footnote_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a> as a substitute -for certain persons called Kôlakretæ, who<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_138">[p. 138]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[p. 139]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_257" href="#Footnote_257" -class="fnanchor">[257]</a>—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 <small>B. C.</small> -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 over<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_140">[p. 140]</span>ruled, 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_141">[p. 141]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_258" href="#Footnote_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a> -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 con<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[p. 142]</span>tinued without that -condition, which was not realized before the time of Periklês. Each -of these decuries sitting in judicature was called <i>The Heliæa</i>,—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.<a id="FNanchor_259" -href="#Footnote_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_143">[p. 143]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_260" href="#Footnote_260" -class="fnanchor">[260]</a> Again, choice by lot could<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[p. 144]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_261" href="#Footnote_261" -class="fnanchor">[261]</a> 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<a id="FNanchor_262" -href="#Footnote_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> 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 pow<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[p. -145]</span>erful 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<a -id="FNanchor_263" href="#Footnote_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a> -that the oligarchical,<a id="FNanchor_264" href="#Footnote_264" -class="fnanchor">[264]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[p. 146]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_265" -href="#Footnote_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[p. 147]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_266" href="#Footnote_266" -class="fnanchor">[266]</a></p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_148">[p. 148]</span> 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:<a -id="FNanchor_267" href="#Footnote_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_268" -href="#Footnote_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> 3. It still -excluded<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[p. 149]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[p. -150]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>), 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.</p> - -<p>One other remarkable institution, distinctly ascribed to -Kleisthenês, yet remains to be noticed,—the Ostracism; upon -which I have already made some remarks,<a id="FNanchor_269" -href="#Footnote_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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;<a -id="FNanchor_270" href="#Footnote_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a> -and so it was vividly felt to be, when, about ninety years<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[p. 151]</span> 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),<a id="FNanchor_271" href="#Footnote_271" -class="fnanchor">[271]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[p. -152]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_272" href="#Footnote_272" -class="fnanchor">[272]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[p. 153]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_273" href="#Footnote_273" -class="fnanchor">[273]</a> in the height and peril of his -parliamentary struggle with Themistoklês), they would cast both -Themistoklês and me into the barathrum.”<a id="FNanchor_274" -href="#Footnote_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a> And whoever<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[p. 154]</span> reads the sad narrative -of the Korkyræan sedition, in the third book of Thucydidês, together -with the reflections of the historian upon it,<a id="FNanchor_275" -href="#Footnote_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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 dif<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[p. -155]</span>fusion 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>privilegium</i> (to employ the -Roman phrase, which signifies, not a peculiar<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_156">[p. 156]</span> 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 <i>all</i> Athenian citizens; unless it shall so seem -good to six thousand citizens voting secretly.”<a id="FNanchor_276" -href="#Footnote_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_277" -href="#Footnote_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_278" -href="#Footnote_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a> Ten days were allowed -to him for settling his af<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[p. -157]</span>fairs, after which he was required to depart from Attica -for ten years, but retained his property, and suffered no other -penalty.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[p. 158]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_279" href="#Footnote_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a> -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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[p. 159]</span> —a -perversion, involving all the mischief of the ostracism, without its -protective benefits.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_280" href="#Footnote_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a>—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.<a id="FNanchor_281" -href="#Footnote_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a> To the nascent -democ<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[p. 160]</span>racy, -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;<a id="FNanchor_282" href="#Footnote_282" -class="fnanchor">[282]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_283" -href="#Footnote_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> lastly, Damôn, the -preceptor of Periklês in poetry and music, and eminent for his -acquisitions in philosophy.<a id="FNanchor_284" href="#Footnote_284" -class="fnanchor">[284]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_285" href="#Footnote_285" -class="fnanchor">[285]</a> Miltiadês was not ostracized at all, but -tried and punished for misconduct in his command.</p> - -<p>I should hardly have said so much about this memorable -and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[p. 161]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_286" href="#Footnote_286" -class="fnanchor">[286]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_287" href="#Footnote_287" -class="fnanchor">[287]</a> 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 great<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[p. 162]</span>est 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,<a -id="FNanchor_288" href="#Footnote_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> -“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.</p> - -<p>A process analogous to the ostracism subsisted at Argos,<a -id="FNanchor_289" href="#Footnote_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a> at -Syracuse, and in some other Grecian democracies. Aristotle states -that it was abused for factious purposes: and at Syracuse,<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[p. 163]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_290" href="#Footnote_290" -class="fnanchor">[290]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_164">[p. 164]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_165">[p. 165]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_291" href="#Footnote_291" -class="fnanchor">[291]</a> and executed by the people.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_292" href="#Footnote_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a></p> - -<p>It was at this time that the first connection began between -Athens and the little Bœotian town of Platæa, situated on the<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[p. 166]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_293" href="#Footnote_293" -class="fnanchor">[293]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_294" href="#Footnote_294" -class="fnanchor">[294]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_295" href="#Footnote_295" -class="fnanchor">[295]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[p. 167]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_296" href="#Footnote_296" -class="fnanchor">[296]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">[p. -168]</span> productive only of burden to the one party, yet -insufficient as a protection to the other.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[p. 169]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_297" href="#Footnote_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a></p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_298" href="#Footnote_298" -class="fnanchor">[298]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[p. -170]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_299" -href="#Footnote_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[p. 171]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”<a id="FNanchor_300" href="#Footnote_300" -class="fnanchor">[300]</a> “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)<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[p. 172]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_301" href="#Footnote_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a> -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.<a -id="FNanchor_302" href="#Footnote_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a></p> - -<p>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 hos<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_173">[p. 173]</span>tility 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,<a id="FNanchor_303" href="#Footnote_303" -class="fnanchor">[303]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_304" href="#Footnote_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_305" href="#Footnote_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[p. 174]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_306" href="#Footnote_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a> -already tasted by her immediate neighbors, and menacing to every -state represented in the convocation,—and their anxiety to<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[p. 175]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_307" href="#Footnote_307" -class="fnanchor">[307]</a> 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.”</p> - -<p>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<a id="FNanchor_308" -href="#Footnote_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> “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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[p. 176]</span> departure -back to Sigeium: the Spartans not venturing to espouse his cause -against the determined sentiment of the allies.<a id="FNanchor_309" -href="#Footnote_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_310" -href="#Footnote_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_177">[p. 177]</span> 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.”<a id="FNanchor_311" href="#Footnote_311" -class="fnanchor">[311]</a></p> - -<p>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,<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[p. 178]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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,<a id="FNanchor_312" -href="#Footnote_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a> 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 <i>could</i> do: a reason alone -sufficient to stamp it as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[p. -179]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_313" -href="#Footnote_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_314" href="#Footnote_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_315" href="#Footnote_315" -class="fnanchor">[315]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[p. 180]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_316" href="#Footnote_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[p. 181]</span>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.</p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_32"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[p. 182]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXXII.<br /> - RISE OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE. — CYRUS.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">In the</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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 Phe<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[p. 183]</span>nicia. -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.</p> - -<p>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:<a -id="FNanchor_317" href="#Footnote_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_184">[p. 184]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_318" href="#Footnote_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_185">[p. 185]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_319" href="#Footnote_319" -class="fnanchor">[319]</a> In what points the other three stories -departed from it, we do not hear.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_320" href="#Footnote_320" -class="fnanchor">[320]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[p. -186]</span> wound inflicted on that prince at Kunaxa by his brother -Cyrus the younger,<a id="FNanchor_321" href="#Footnote_321" -class="fnanchor">[321]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_322" -href="#Footnote_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a>—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,<a id="FNanchor_323" -href="#Footnote_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a> which he saw in his -march with the Ten Thousand<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[p. -187]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_324" href="#Footnote_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a>” -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_325" href="#Footnote_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[p. 188]</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_326" href="#Footnote_326" -class="fnanchor">[326]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_327" href="#Footnote_327" -class="fnanchor">[327]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_328" -href="#Footnote_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a> Crœsus was<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[p. 189]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_329" href="#Footnote_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a> -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,<a -id="FNanchor_330" href="#Footnote_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a> -“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[p. 190]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_331" href="#Footnote_331" -class="fnanchor">[331]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”<a id="FNanchor_332" href="#Footnote_332" -class="fnanchor">[332]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_333" href="#Footnote_333" -class="fnanchor">[333]</a> His propositions were fa<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[p. 191]</span>vorably 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_334" href="#Footnote_334" -class="fnanchor">[334]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_335" href="#Footnote_335" -class="fnanchor">[335]</a> Cyrus had foreseen and forestalled the -defensive plan of his enemy. He pushed on with<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_192">[p. 192]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_336" -href="#Footnote_336" class="fnanchor">[336]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_337" href="#Footnote_337" class="fnanchor">[337]</a></p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_193">[p. 193]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_338" href="#Footnote_338" -class="fnanchor">[338]</a> 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:<a id="FNanchor_339" href="#Footnote_339" -class="fnanchor">[339]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_194">[p. 194]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_340" href="#Footnote_340" -class="fnanchor">[340]</a> 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 <i>a great empire</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>This triumphant justification extorted even from Crœsus himself a -full confession, that the sin lay with him, and not with the god.<a -id="FNanchor_341" href="#Footnote_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a> -It certainly illustrates, in a remarkable manner, the theological -ideas of the time; and it shows us how much, in the mind<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[p. 195]</span> 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:<a -id="FNanchor_342" href="#Footnote_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a> -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<a -id="FNanchor_343" href="#Footnote_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a>) 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;<a -id="FNanchor_344" href="#Footnote_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[p. 196]</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_345" href="#Footnote_345" -class="fnanchor">[345]</a> Yet the gods are still extremely pow<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[p. 197]</span>erful, 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,<a id="FNanchor_346" href="#Footnote_346" -class="fnanchor">[346]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[p. 198]</span> historian, common to -him with the philosopher,—to recount and interpret the past, as a -rational aid towards the prevision of the future.<a id="FNanchor_347" -href="#Footnote_347" class="fnanchor">[347]</a></p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small><a -id="FNanchor_348" href="#Footnote_348" class="fnanchor">[348]</a> -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:<a id="FNanchor_349" href="#Footnote_349" -class="fnanchor">[349]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[p. 199]</span> -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,<a -id="FNanchor_350" href="#Footnote_350" class="fnanchor">[350]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_351" -href="#Footnote_351" class="fnanchor">[351]</a></p> - -<p>This blank menace of Lakrinês, an insulting provocation to<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[p. 200]</span> 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.”<a id="FNanchor_352" href="#Footnote_352" -class="fnanchor">[352]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_201">[p. 201]</span> 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 -<i>thou</i> help suppliants thyself: and dost thou command the Kymæans -to give up a suppliant?” “Yes, I do command it<a id="FNanchor_353" -href="#Footnote_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a> (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.”</p> - -<p>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 dis<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[p. 202]</span>trict 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.<a id="FNanchor_354" href="#Footnote_354" -class="fnanchor">[354]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_355" href="#Footnote_355" -class="fnanchor">[355]</a></p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_203">[p. 203]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_356" href="#Footnote_356" -class="fnanchor">[356]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_357" -href="#Footnote_357" class="fnanchor">[357]</a> The walls, erected -in part, by this aid, were<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[p. -204]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_358" href="#Footnote_358" class="fnanchor">[358]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[p. 205]</span>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.<a id="FNanchor_359" -href="#Footnote_359" class="fnanchor">[359]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile the smaller but more resolute half of the Phôkæans -executed their voyage to Alalia in Corsica, with their<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_206">[p. 206]</span> wives and children, in -sixty pentekontêrs, or armed ships, and established themselves along -with the previous settlers. They remained there for five years,<a -id="FNanchor_360" href="#Footnote_360" class="fnanchor">[360]</a> -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 <small>B. C.</small>) may be considered as a specimen.<a -id="FNanchor_361" href="#Footnote_361" class="fnanchor">[361]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_362" -href="#Footnote_362" class="fnanchor">[362]</a></p> - -<p>Such was the fate of the Phôkæan exiles, while their -brethren<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">[p. 207]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_363" href="#Footnote_363" class="fnanchor">[363]</a> Had -such been the case, the subsequent history of Carthage, Sicily, and -even Rome, might have been sensibly altered.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_208">[p. 208]</span> 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:<a -id="FNanchor_364" href="#Footnote_364" class="fnanchor">[364]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_365" -href="#Footnote_365" class="fnanchor">[365]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_33"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">[p. 209]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXXIII.<br /> - GROWTH OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">In the</span> 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.”<a -id="FNanchor_366" href="#Footnote_366" class="fnanchor">[366]</a> -He alludes to the Baktrians and the Sakæ,<a id="FNanchor_367" -href="#Footnote_367" class="fnanchor">[367]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>“I shall mention (says Herodotus)<a id="FNanchor_368" -href="#Footnote_368" class="fnanchor">[368]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_210">[p. 210]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_369" href="#Footnote_369" class="fnanchor">[369]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">[p. 211]</span> lower -than the ancient Nineveh or the modern Mosul.<a id="FNanchor_370" -href="#Footnote_370" class="fnanchor">[370]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_371" href="#Footnote_371" class="fnanchor">[371]</a> -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:<a id="FNanchor_372" -href="#Footnote_372" class="fnanchor">[372]</a> instead of which, two -days afterwards,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">[p. 212]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_373" href="#Footnote_373" -class="fnanchor">[373]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<a id="FNanchor_374" href="#Footnote_374" -class="fnanchor">[374]</a> 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, accord<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">[p. 213]</span>ing -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.<a id="FNanchor_375" href="#Footnote_375" -class="fnanchor">[375]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">[p. 214]</span>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">[p. 215]</span>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,<a -id="FNanchor_376" href="#Footnote_376" class="fnanchor">[376]</a>—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.<a id="FNanchor_377" href="#Footnote_377" -class="fnanchor">[377]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_378" -href="#Footnote_378" class="fnanchor">[378]</a> while his memory was -held in profound veneration among the Persians.</p> - -<p>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<a id="FNanchor_379" href="#Footnote_379" -class="fnanchor">[379]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_380" href="#Footnote_380" -class="fnanchor">[380]</a> without difficulty; and the restoration -of their captives was con<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">[p. -216]</span>ceded 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.<a -id="FNanchor_381" href="#Footnote_381" class="fnanchor">[381]</a></p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_382" href="#Footnote_382" -class="fnanchor">[382]</a>—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)<a id="FNanchor_383" href="#Footnote_383" -class="fnanchor">[383]</a> from the region of insupportable heat -to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">[p. 217]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_384" href="#Footnote_384" -class="fnanchor">[384]</a> and be in a situation to furnish -undiminished supplies of soldiers.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_385" -href="#Footnote_385" class="fnanchor">[385]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_386" href="#Footnote_386" class="fnanchor">[386]</a> -They could not thus purchase safety for the family<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_218">[p. 218]</span> hearth, since we find -instances of noble Grecian maidens torn from their parents for -the harem of the satrap.<a id="FNanchor_387" href="#Footnote_387" -class="fnanchor">[387]</a></p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_388" href="#Footnote_388" -class="fnanchor">[388]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_389" href="#Footnote_389" class="fnanchor">[389]</a></p> - -<p>Kambysês summoned the forces of his empire for this new -enterprise, and among them both the Phenicians and the Asiatic<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_219">[p. 219]</span> Greeks, Æolic -as well as Ionic,<a id="FNanchor_390" href="#Footnote_390" -class="fnanchor">[390]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_391" -href="#Footnote_391" class="fnanchor">[391]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">[p. -220]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_392" href="#Footnote_392" -class="fnanchor">[392]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_393" href="#Footnote_393" -class="fnanchor">[393]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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 suc<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_221">[p. 221]</span>cessor 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.<a id="FNanchor_394" -href="#Footnote_394" class="fnanchor">[394]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_395" href="#Footnote_395" -class="fnanchor">[395]</a> That jealousy was aggravated into -alarm and hatred by a dream, portending dominion and conquest to -Smerdis; so that the frantic Kambysês sent to<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_222">[p. 222]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_396" href="#Footnote_396" -class="fnanchor">[396]</a> and keeping the deed concealed from all -except a few of the chiefs at the regal residence.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_397" href="#Footnote_397" class="fnanchor">[397]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_398" href="#Footnote_398" -class="fnanchor">[398]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_223">[p. 223]</span> of a son of Cyrus;<a id="FNanchor_399" -href="#Footnote_399" class="fnanchor">[399]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_400" -href="#Footnote_400" class="fnanchor">[400]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_401" href="#Footnote_401" class="fnanchor">[401]</a> -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;<a id="FNanchor_402" href="#Footnote_402" -class="fnanchor">[402]</a> 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 -con<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">[p. 224]</span>spirators,—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.</p> - -<p>It was thus that the upright tiara, the privileged head-dress -of the Persian kings,<a id="FNanchor_403" href="#Footnote_403" -class="fnanchor">[403]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">[p. -225]</span> tribes.<a id="FNanchor_404" href="#Footnote_404" -class="fnanchor">[404]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_405" -href="#Footnote_405" class="fnanchor">[405]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_406" href="#Footnote_406" -class="fnanchor">[406]</a> The descendants of the Seven maintained a -privileged name and rank,<a id="FNanchor_407" href="#Footnote_407" -class="fnanchor">[407]</a> even down to the extinction of the -monarchy by Alexander the Great.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">[p. 226]</span>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.<a id="FNanchor_408" href="#Footnote_408" -class="fnanchor">[408]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_409" -href="#Footnote_409" class="fnanchor">[409]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_410" href="#Footnote_410" -class="fnanchor">[410]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_411" -href="#Footnote_411" class="fnanchor">[411]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">[p. -227]</span> ascendent condition, though not without the necessity of -suppressing by force a rebellion of the Medes.<a id="FNanchor_412" -href="#Footnote_412" class="fnanchor">[412]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">[p. 228]</span>It has already -been observed that the subjugation of the recusant Medes was not -the only embarrassment of the first years of<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_229">[p. 229]</span> 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.<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_230">[p. 230]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_413" href="#Footnote_413" -class="fnanchor">[413]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_231">[p. 231]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_414" href="#Footnote_414" class="fnanchor">[414]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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,”<a id="FNanchor_415" href="#Footnote_415" -class="fnanchor">[415]</a> 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 -becom<span class="pagenum" id="Page_232">[p. 232]</span>ing -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.<a id="FNanchor_416" href="#Footnote_416" -class="fnanchor">[416]</a></p> - -<p>Thus was the impregnable Babylon a second time reduced,<a -id="FNanchor_417" href="#Footnote_417" class="fnanchor">[417]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_418" href="#Footnote_418" -class="fnanchor">[418]</a> Zopyrus was ap<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_233">[p. 233]</span>pointed 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.<a id="FNanchor_419" href="#Footnote_419" -class="fnanchor">[419]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_420" href="#Footnote_420" class="fnanchor">[420]</a> -In<span class="pagenum" id="Page_234">[p. 234]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_421" href="#Footnote_421" class="fnanchor">[421]</a> -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 -secre<span class="pagenum" id="Page_235">[p. 235]</span>tary -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.<a -id="FNanchor_422" href="#Footnote_422" class="fnanchor">[422]</a> -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,<a id="FNanchor_423" href="#Footnote_423" -class="fnanchor">[423]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_236">[p. -236]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_424" href="#Footnote_424" -class="fnanchor">[424]</a></p> - -<p>To explain how it happened that this one satrapy was charged -with a sum equal to two-fifths of the aggregate charge on the<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_237">[p. 237]</span> 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;<a id="FNanchor_425" -href="#Footnote_425" class="fnanchor">[425]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_238">[p. 238]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_426" href="#Footnote_426" -class="fnanchor">[426]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_427" href="#Footnote_427" -class="fnanchor">[427]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_428" href="#Footnote_428" -class="fnanchor">[428]</a> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_239">[p. 239]</span>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 <small>B. C.</small> 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,<a id="FNanchor_429" href="#Footnote_429" -class="fnanchor">[429]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_430" -href="#Footnote_430" class="fnanchor">[430]</a> 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 oc<span class="pagenum" id="Page_240">[p. -240]</span>casion required.<a id="FNanchor_431" href="#Footnote_431" -class="fnanchor">[431]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_432" href="#Footnote_432" -class="fnanchor">[432]</a></p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>), 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.<a id="FNanchor_433" href="#Footnote_433" -class="fnanchor">[433]</a> 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 con<span class="pagenum" id="Page_241">[p. -241]</span>quered 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.<a id="FNanchor_434" -href="#Footnote_434" class="fnanchor">[434]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_435" href="#Footnote_435" class="fnanchor">[435]</a> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_242">[p. 242]</span>The facts -mentioned by Herodotus rather lead us to believe that it was -Polykratês, who, with characteristic faithlessness, broke off his -friendship with Amasis;<a id="FNanchor_436" href="#Footnote_436" -class="fnanchor">[436]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_437" -href="#Footnote_437" class="fnanchor">[437]</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_243">[p. 243]</span> 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>i. e.</i> the words would have been sufficient without it.<a -id="FNanchor_438" href="#Footnote_438" class="fnanchor">[438]</a> The -aid which they implored was granted.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_439" href="#Footnote_439" -class="fnanchor">[439]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_440" href="#Footnote_440" class="fnanchor">[440]</a> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_244">[p. 244]</span>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.<a id="FNanchor_441" href="#Footnote_441" -class="fnanchor">[441]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_442" -href="#Footnote_442" class="fnanchor">[442]</a></p> - -<p>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:<a id="FNanchor_443" href="#Footnote_443" -class="fnanchor">[443]</a>” and the great works admired by -Herodotus in the island,<a id="FNanchor_444" href="#Footnote_444" -class="fnanchor">[444]</a>—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 -com<span class="pagenum" id="Page_245">[p. 245]</span>pleted, 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.<a id="FNanchor_445" href="#Footnote_445" -class="fnanchor">[445]</a> 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<a id="FNanchor_446" href="#Footnote_446" -class="fnanchor">[446]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_447" -href="#Footnote_447" class="fnanchor">[447]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_448" -href="#Footnote_448" class="fnanchor">[448]</a>—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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_246">[p. 246]</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_449" href="#Footnote_449" -class="fnanchor">[449]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_450" href="#Footnote_450" -class="fnanchor">[450]</a></p> - -<p>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)<a -id="FNanchor_451" href="#Footnote_451" class="fnanchor">[451]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_247">[p. 247]</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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, “<i>You</i> 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.”<a id="FNanchor_452" href="#Footnote_452" -class="fnanchor">[452]</a></p> - -<p>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.”<a -id="FNanchor_453" href="#Footnote_453" class="fnanchor">[453]</a></p> - -<p>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 pros<span class="pagenum" id="Page_248">[p. -248]</span>pects 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,<a id="FNanchor_454" -href="#Footnote_454" class="fnanchor">[454]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_455" href="#Footnote_455" class="fnanchor">[455]</a> -“I cannot<span class="pagenum" id="Page_249">[p. 249]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_456" href="#Footnote_456" class="fnanchor">[456]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_457" -href="#Footnote_457" class="fnanchor">[457]</a></p> - -<p>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 confine<span class="pagenum" id="Page_250">[p. 250]</span>ment. -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.<a id="FNanchor_458" -href="#Footnote_458" class="fnanchor">[458]</a> 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.”<a id="FNanchor_459" href="#Footnote_459" -class="fnanchor">[459]</a></p> - -<p>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 him<span class="pagenum" id="Page_251">[p. 251]</span>self, -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.<a -id="FNanchor_460" href="#Footnote_460" class="fnanchor">[460]</a> -Of Charilaus and the acropolis we hear no farther, perhaps he and -his guards may have escaped by sea. Lykarêtus,<a id="FNanchor_461" -href="#Footnote_461" class="fnanchor">[461]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_462" href="#Footnote_462" -class="fnanchor">[462]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_463" href="#Footnote_463" class="fnanchor">[463]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_464" href="#Footnote_464" class="fnanchor">[464]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_252">[p. 252]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_465" href="#Footnote_465" -class="fnanchor">[465]</a></p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_34"> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXXIV.<br /> - DEMOKEDES. — DARIUS INVADES SCYTHIA.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">Darius</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_466" -href="#Footnote_466" class="fnanchor">[466]</a> Of those children the -eldest was Xerxês, respecting whom more will be said hereafter.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_253">[p. 253]</span> last husband,<a -id="FNanchor_467" href="#Footnote_467" class="fnanchor">[467]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_468" href="#Footnote_468" -class="fnanchor">[468]</a>—that the citizens of the island made a -contract with him to remain there for one year, at a salary of one -talent (about<span class="pagenum" id="Page_254">[p. 254]</span> -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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_255">[p. 255]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_469" href="#Footnote_469" -class="fnanchor">[469]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_470" href="#Footnote_470" -class="fnanchor">[470]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_471" -href="#Footnote_471" class="fnanchor">[471]</a> in all so numerous, -that the slave Skitôn,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_256">[p. -256]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_472" href="#Footnote_472" -class="fnanchor">[472]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_473" href="#Footnote_473" class="fnanchor">[473]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_257">[p. 257]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<a id="FNanchor_474" href="#Footnote_474" -class="fnanchor">[474]</a> of everything worthy of note which they -saw: this Periplûs, if it had been preserved, would have been -inestimable, as an account<span class="pagenum" id="Page_258">[p. -258]</span> of the actual state of the Grecian world about -518 <small>B. C.</small> 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.<a id="FNanchor_475" -href="#Footnote_475" class="fnanchor">[475]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_259">[p. -259]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_476" href="#Footnote_476" -class="fnanchor">[476]</a></p> - -<p>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.”<a id="FNanchor_477" href="#Footnote_477" -class="fnanchor">[477]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_478" href="#Footnote_478" class="fnanchor">[478]</a> and -there detained for the Great King, his court, and harem.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_260">[p. 260]</span> expedition of Darius, with his own -personal command and fresh appetite for conquest, been directed -against Greece instead of against Scythia (between 516-514 <small>B. C.</small>), 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 <small>B. C.</small>; -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 <small>B. C.</small>, -instead of sending Datis in 490 <small>B. C.</small>,—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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_261">[p. 261]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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,<a id="FNanchor_479" -href="#Footnote_479" class="fnanchor">[479]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_480" href="#Footnote_480" -class="fnanchor">[480]</a> Darius<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_262">[p. 262]</span> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_263">[p. 263]</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_481" href="#Footnote_481" -class="fnanchor">[481]</a> A proceeding similar to this is ascribed -afterwards to Xerxês;<a id="FNanchor_482" href="#Footnote_482" -class="fnanchor">[482]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_483" href="#Footnote_483" -class="fnanchor">[483]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_484" href="#Footnote_484" class="fnanchor">[484]</a> 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 for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_264">[p. 264]</span>mer. He -crossed this greatest of all earthly rivers,<a id="FNanchor_485" -href="#Footnote_485" class="fnanchor">[485]</a>—for so the Danube -was imagined to be in the fifth century <small>B. C.</small>,—and -directed his march into Scythia.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_486" -href="#Footnote_486" class="fnanchor">[486]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_265">[p. 265]</span> (Dniester), Hypanis -(Bog), Borysthenês (Dnieper), Hypakyris. Gerrhos, and Tanais.<a -id="FNanchor_487" href="#Footnote_487" class="fnanchor">[487]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_488" href="#Footnote_488" class="fnanchor">[488]</a>—are -brought into deliberation and action in consequence of the Persian -approach. And Herodotus<span class="pagenum" id="Page_266">[p. -266]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_489" -href="#Footnote_489" class="fnanchor">[489]</a>—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,<a id="FNanchor_490" -href="#Footnote_490" class="fnanchor">[490]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_491" href="#Footnote_491" -class="fnanchor">[491]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_267">[p. 267]</span> -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 -<i>their</i> territory, on pain of being themselves treated as enemies:<a -id="FNanchor_492" href="#Footnote_492" class="fnanchor">[492]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_493" href="#Footnote_493" class="fnanchor">[493]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_494" href="#Footnote_494" -class="fnanchor">[494]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_495" href="#Footnote_495" class="fnanchor">[495]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_268">[p. 268]</span>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<a id="FNanchor_496" -href="#Footnote_496" class="fnanchor">[496]</a> (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,<a -id="FNanchor_497" href="#Footnote_497" class="fnanchor">[497]</a> by -which critics<span class="pagenum" id="Page_269">[p. 269]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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;<a id="FNanchor_498" href="#Footnote_498" -class="fnanchor">[498]</a> the ships being left with nothing but -the rowers and seamen essential to navigate them homeward.<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_270">[p. 270]</span> 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.”<a -id="FNanchor_499" href="#Footnote_499" class="fnanchor">[499]</a> -After such orders he began his march into the interior.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_271">[p. 271]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_500" href="#Footnote_500" class="fnanchor">[500]</a> -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,<a id="FNanchor_501" -href="#Footnote_501" class="fnanchor">[501]</a>—we shall not be -astonished at the erroneous estimation of distance implied in the -plan conceived by Darius.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_502" href="#Footnote_502" -class="fnanchor">[502]</a> Had he prevailed, the victor of -Marathon<span class="pagenum" id="Page_272">[p. 272]</span>—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.<a -id="FNanchor_503" href="#Footnote_503" class="fnanchor">[503]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_504" href="#Footnote_504" -class="fnanchor">[504]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_273">[p. -273]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_505" href="#Footnote_505" class="fnanchor">[505]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_506" href="#Footnote_506" -class="fnanchor">[506]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_507" -href="#Footnote_507" class="fnanchor">[507]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_274">[p. 274]</span> -argentiferous mountains.<a id="FNanchor_508" href="#Footnote_508" -class="fnanchor">[508]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_509" href="#Footnote_509" -class="fnanchor">[509]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_275">[p. 275]</span>Nor did the -conquests of Megabazus stop at the western bank of the Strymon. He -carried his arms across that river, conquer<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_276">[p. 276]</span>ing 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.<a id="FNanchor_510" href="#Footnote_510" -class="fnanchor">[510]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_511" href="#Footnote_511" -class="fnanchor">[511]</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile Megabazus crossed over into Asia, carrying with -him the Pæonians from the river Strymon. Having been in<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_277">[p. 277]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_512" href="#Footnote_512" -class="fnanchor">[512]</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_513" href="#Footnote_513" class="fnanchor">[513]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_278">[p. -278]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_514" href="#Footnote_514" -class="fnanchor">[514]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_515" href="#Footnote_515" -class="fnanchor">[515]</a></p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_516" -href="#Footnote_516" class="fnanchor">[516]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>),—which guaranteed -universal autonomy to every Grecian city, great and small,—they -were specially reserved, and considered as united with Athens.<a -id="FNanchor_517" href="#Footnote_517" class="fnanchor">[517]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_279">[p. 279]</span> accepted as an excuse for delay before -the courts of justice, so as to escape the penalties of contumacy, or -departure from the country.<a id="FNanchor_518" href="#Footnote_518" -class="fnanchor">[518]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>,—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.</p> - -<p>In mentioning the conquest of Lemnos by the Athenians and<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_280">[p. 280]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_519" href="#Footnote_519" -class="fnanchor">[519]</a> 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.</p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_35"> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXXV.<br /> - IONIC REVOLT.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">Hitherto</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.<a id="FNanchor_520" href="#Footnote_520" -class="fnanchor">[520]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_281">[p. 281]</span>It was about -the year 506 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.<a id="FNanchor_521" href="#Footnote_521" -class="fnanchor">[521]</a> Such a reply was equivalent to a -declaration of war,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_282">[p. -282]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_522" -href="#Footnote_522" class="fnanchor">[522]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_283">[p. 283]</span> -the disposal of Aristagoras,—composed both of Persians and of all the -tributaries near the coast.<a id="FNanchor_523" href="#Footnote_523" -class="fnanchor">[523]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_284">[p. 284]</span> Aristagoras himself, the unsuccessful -armament was brought back to the coast of Ionia.<a id="FNanchor_524" -href="#Footnote_524" class="fnanchor">[524]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_525" href="#Footnote_525" -class="fnanchor">[525]</a> 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 <i>they</i> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_285">[p. 285]</span> 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:<a id="FNanchor_526" href="#Footnote_526" -class="fnanchor">[526]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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),<a id="FNanchor_527" href="#Footnote_527" -class="fnanchor">[527]</a> 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 auxil<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_286">[p. 286]</span>iaries to the Persians. To this -treatment the only exception mentioned is Kôês, who was stoned to -death by the Mitylenæans.<a id="FNanchor_528" href="#Footnote_528" -class="fnanchor">[528]</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_529" -href="#Footnote_529" class="fnanchor">[529]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_287">[p. -287]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_530" href="#Footnote_530" class="fnanchor">[530]</a> -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,<a -id="FNanchor_531" href="#Footnote_531" class="fnanchor">[531]</a> -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 ex<span class="pagenum" id="Page_288">[p. -288]</span>claimed, “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.<a -id="FNanchor_532" href="#Footnote_532" class="fnanchor">[532]</a></p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, after a generation of victories over the Persians, but -which have no pertinence in the year 502 <small>B. C.</small> 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.<a id="FNanchor_533" -href="#Footnote_533" class="fnanchor">[533]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, -rather as the sanguine hope of a petitioner than as the estimate of a -sober looker-on.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_534" href="#Footnote_534" -class="fnanchor">[534]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_289">[p. 289]</span>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.<a id="FNanchor_535" href="#Footnote_535" -class="fnanchor">[535]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_290">[p. 290]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_536" -href="#Footnote_536" class="fnanchor">[536]</a></p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_537" -href="#Footnote_537" class="fnanchor">[537]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_538" -href="#Footnote_538" class="fnanchor">[538]</a> 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 Athe<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_291">[p. 291]</span>nians 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;<a id="FNanchor_539" href="#Footnote_539" -class="fnanchor">[539]</a> 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 -<small>B. C.</small> Unless such was the case, they seem open to -censure rather for having too soon withdrawn their aid, than for -having originally lent it.<a id="FNanchor_540" href="#Footnote_540" -class="fnanchor">[540]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_292">[p. 292]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_541" -href="#Footnote_541" class="fnanchor">[541]</a></p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_542" -href="#Footnote_542" class="fnanchor">[542]</a> the Phenician -fleet was employed to transport into Cyprus the Persian general -Artybius with a Kilikian and Egyptian army,<a id="FNanchor_543" -href="#Footnote_543" class="fnanchor">[543]</a>—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.<a id="FNanchor_544" -href="#Footnote_544" class="fnanchor">[544]</a></p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_293">[p. 293]</span> which procured for them -a brilliant victory; the Samians being especially distinguished.<a -id="FNanchor_545" href="#Footnote_545" class="fnanchor">[545]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_546" href="#Footnote_546" -class="fnanchor">[546]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_294">[p. 294]</span>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,<a id="FNanchor_547" href="#Footnote_547" -class="fnanchor">[547]</a>—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,<a id="FNanchor_548" -href="#Footnote_548" class="fnanchor">[548]</a> 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;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_295">[p. 295]</span> -but most of the chiefs decided in favor of a contrary policy,<a -id="FNanchor_549" href="#Footnote_549" class="fnanchor">[549]</a>—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,<a -id="FNanchor_550" href="#Footnote_550" class="fnanchor">[550]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_551" href="#Footnote_551" -class="fnanchor">[551]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_552" href="#Footnote_552" -class="fnanchor">[552]</a></p> - -<p>On land, the revolters were thus everywhere worsted, though<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_296">[p. 296]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_553" href="#Footnote_553" -class="fnanchor">[553]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_554" href="#Footnote_554" class="fnanchor">[554]</a> -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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_297">[p. 297]</span> nothing but mischief,<a -id="FNanchor_555" href="#Footnote_555" class="fnanchor">[555]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>they</i>?” 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.<a id="FNanchor_556" -href="#Footnote_556" class="fnanchor">[556]</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_298">[p. 298]</span>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.<a id="FNanchor_557" -href="#Footnote_557" class="fnanchor">[557]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_558" href="#Footnote_558" class="fnanchor">[558]</a></p> - -<p>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.”<a id="FNanchor_559" href="#Footnote_559" -class="fnanchor">[559]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_299">[p. 299]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_560" href="#Footnote_560" class="fnanchor">[560]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_561" href="#Footnote_561" -class="fnanchor">[561]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_562" href="#Footnote_562" class="fnanchor">[562]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_300">[p. -300]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_563" href="#Footnote_563" -class="fnanchor">[563]</a></p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_301">[p. 301]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_564" href="#Footnote_564" class="fnanchor">[564]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>were</i> Athenians,—that is, in command -of the largest and most important contingent throughout the fleet.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_302">[p. 302]</span> 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.”<a -id="FNanchor_565" href="#Footnote_565" class="fnanchor">[565]</a></p> - -<p>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!<a -id="FNanchor_566" href="#Footnote_566" class="fnanchor">[566]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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 -in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_303">[p. 303]</span>tolerable -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.</p> - -<p>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 be<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_304">[p. 304]</span>came 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,<a id="FNanchor_567" -href="#Footnote_567" class="fnanchor">[567]</a>—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.<a id="FNanchor_568" -href="#Footnote_568" class="fnanchor">[568]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_305">[p. 305]</span> error they were attacked by the -Ephesians and slain.<a id="FNanchor_569" href="#Footnote_569" -class="fnanchor">[569]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_570" -href="#Footnote_570" class="fnanchor">[570]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_571" -href="#Footnote_571" class="fnanchor">[571]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_572" -href="#Footnote_572" class="fnanchor">[572]</a> I shall mention as a -part of the course of Sicilian events, which will come hereafter.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_306">[p. 306]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_573" href="#Footnote_573" class="fnanchor">[573]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>The capture of Milêtus, in the sixth year from the commencement -of the revolt,<a id="FNanchor_574" href="#Footnote_574" -class="fnanchor">[574]</a> carried with it the rapid submission -of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_307">[p. 307]</span> the -neighboring towns in Karia.<a id="FNanchor_575" href="#Footnote_575" -class="fnanchor">[575]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_576" href="#Footnote_576" -class="fnanchor">[576]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_308">[p. 308]</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_577" -href="#Footnote_577" class="fnanchor">[577]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_578" href="#Footnote_578" -class="fnanchor">[578]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_579" -href="#Footnote_579" class="fnanchor">[579]</a> It appears that -several other despots were also replaced in their respective cities, -though we are not told which.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_309">[p. 309]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_580" href="#Footnote_580" -class="fnanchor">[580]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_581" -href="#Footnote_581" class="fnanchor">[581]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_310">[p. -310]</span> recalled to them their own misfortunes.”<a -id="FNanchor_582" href="#Footnote_582" class="fnanchor">[582]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_583" href="#Footnote_583" -class="fnanchor">[583]</a> 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.</p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_36"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_311">[p. 311]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXXVI.<br /> - FROM THE IONIC REVOLT TO THE BATTLE OF MARATHON.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">In the</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_584" href="#Footnote_584" -class="fnanchor">[584]</a></p> - -<p>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 conse<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_312">[p. 312]</span>quence 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.<a id="FNanchor_585" -href="#Footnote_585" class="fnanchor">[585]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_586" href="#Footnote_586" class="fnanchor">[586]</a> -and left the people of each<span class="pagenum" id="Page_313">[p. -313]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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;<a -id="FNanchor_587" href="#Footnote_587" class="fnanchor">[587]</a> so -that the expedition afterwards accomplished by Xerxês would<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_314">[p. 314]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_588" href="#Footnote_588" class="fnanchor">[588]</a> We -shall hear of him again under Xerxês.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_315">[p. 315]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_589" href="#Footnote_589" -class="fnanchor">[589]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_590" href="#Footnote_590" class="fnanchor">[590]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_591" href="#Footnote_591" -class="fnanchor">[591]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_316">[p. -316]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_592" href="#Footnote_592" -class="fnanchor">[592]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>) 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_593" href="#Footnote_593" class="fnanchor">[593]</a> -into which they sometimes precipitated public crimi<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_317">[p. 317]</span>nals: 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.<a -id="FNanchor_594" href="#Footnote_594" class="fnanchor">[594]</a></p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_318">[p. 318]</span> 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.”<a id="FNanchor_595" href="#Footnote_595" -class="fnanchor">[595]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_319">[p. -319]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_596" href="#Footnote_596" -class="fnanchor">[596]</a>—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.</p> - -<p>From this time, then, we may consider that there exists a -recognized political union of Greece against the Persians,<a -id="FNanchor_597" href="#Footnote_597" class="fnanchor">[597]</a>—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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_320">[p. 320]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_598" href="#Footnote_598" -class="fnanchor">[598]</a>—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,<a -id="FNanchor_599" href="#Footnote_599" class="fnanchor">[599]</a> 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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_321">[p. -321]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_600" href="#Footnote_600" class="fnanchor">[600]</a> -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.<a -id="FNanchor_601" href="#Footnote_601" class="fnanchor">[601]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_322">[p. 322]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_602" href="#Footnote_602" -class="fnanchor">[602]</a> 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.”<a id="FNanchor_603" -href="#Footnote_603" class="fnanchor">[603]</a> 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.<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_323">[p. 323]</span> Having offered sacrifice, Kleomenês -returned with his remaining force to Sparta.<a id="FNanchor_604" -href="#Footnote_604" class="fnanchor">[604]</a></p> - -<p>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 -<i>taking Argos</i>, 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;<a -id="FNanchor_605" href="#Footnote_605" class="fnanchor">[605]</a> -but the flash from her bosom plainly indicated that the<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_324">[p. 324]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_606" href="#Footnote_606" -class="fnanchor">[606]</a></p> - -<p>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 defen<span class="pagenum" id="Page_325">[p. -325]</span>sive 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.<a -id="FNanchor_607" href="#Footnote_607" class="fnanchor">[607]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_608" href="#Footnote_608" -class="fnanchor">[608]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_609" -href="#Footnote_609" class="fnanchor">[609]</a> and not without a -thorough determination to depose Demaratus.</p> - -<p>It appears that suspicions had always attached to the legiti<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_326">[p. 326]</span>macy 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.<a -id="FNanchor_610" href="#Footnote_610" class="fnanchor">[610]</a></p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_327">[p. 327]</span> that Demaratus was -not the son of Aristo.<a id="FNanchor_611" href="#Footnote_611" -class="fnanchor">[611]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_612" -href="#Footnote_612" class="fnanchor">[612]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_613" href="#Footnote_613" -class="fnanchor">[613]</a> Accordingly they sent in pursuit of him, -and seized<span class="pagenum" id="Page_328">[p. 328]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_614" href="#Footnote_614" -class="fnanchor">[614]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_615" href="#Footnote_615" -class="fnanchor">[615]</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile, a vast Persian force, brought together in consequence -of the preparation made during the last two years in<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_329">[p. 329]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_616" href="#Footnote_616" -class="fnanchor">[616]</a>—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.<a -id="FNanchor_617" href="#Footnote_617" class="fnanchor">[617]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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<a id="FNanchor_618" href="#Footnote_618" -class="fnanchor">[618]</a> (the mode of attack which -intelligent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_330">[p. 330]</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_619" href="#Footnote_619" -class="fnanchor">[619]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_620" href="#Footnote_620" -class="fnanchor">[620]</a> and think of nothing but personal safety -for themselves and their families. A sad augury for Athens and -Eretria!</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_331">[p. 331]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_621" href="#Footnote_621" -class="fnanchor">[621]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_622" href="#Footnote_622" -class="fnanchor">[622]</a> Though a public resolution was taken to -defend<span class="pagenum" id="Page_332">[p. 332]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_623" href="#Footnote_623" class="fnanchor">[623]</a> -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.<a -id="FNanchor_624" href="#Footnote_624" class="fnanchor">[624]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_333">[p. 333]</span> Persians,<a -id="FNanchor_625" href="#Footnote_625" class="fnanchor">[625]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_334">[p. 334]</span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.<a id="FNanchor_626" href="#Footnote_626" -class="fnanchor">[626]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_335">[p. -335]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_627" href="#Footnote_627" -class="fnanchor">[627]</a>—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.<a -id="FNanchor_628" href="#Footnote_628" class="fnanchor">[628]</a> -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;<a id="FNanchor_629" href="#Footnote_629" -class="fnanchor">[629]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_336">[p. 336]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Neither Themistoklês nor Aristeidês could boast of a lineage -of gods and heroes, like the Æakid Miltiadês:<a id="FNanchor_630" -href="#Footnote_630" class="fnanchor">[630]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_337">[p. 337]</span> -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<a -id="FNanchor_631" href="#Footnote_631" class="fnanchor">[631]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_632" href="#Footnote_632" -class="fnanchor">[632]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_338">[p. -338]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The general character given of Plutarch,<a id="FNanchor_633" -href="#Footnote_633" class="fnanchor">[633]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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 biog<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_339">[p. 339]</span>raphy of Plutarch -and Cornelius Nepos,<a id="FNanchor_634" href="#Footnote_634" -class="fnanchor">[634]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_635" href="#Footnote_635" class="fnanchor">[635]</a>—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,<a -id="FNanchor_636" href="#Footnote_636" class="fnanchor">[636]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_637" href="#Footnote_637" -class="fnanchor">[637]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_340">[p. 340]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>We are told that a rustic and unlettered citizen gave his -ostracizing vote, and expressed his dislike against Aristeidês,<a -id="FNanchor_638" href="#Footnote_638" class="fnanchor">[638]</a> -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 <i>The</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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 en<span class="pagenum" id="Page_341">[p. -341]</span>suing 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,<a -id="FNanchor_639" href="#Footnote_639" class="fnanchor">[639]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_640" href="#Footnote_640" -class="fnanchor">[640]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_641" href="#Footnote_641" -class="fnanchor">[641]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_342">[p. 342]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_642" href="#Footnote_642" -class="fnanchor">[642]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_343">[p. 343]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_643" -href="#Footnote_643" class="fnanchor">[643]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_344">[p. 344]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_644" href="#Footnote_644" class="fnanchor">[644]</a> -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,<a id="FNanchor_645" -href="#Footnote_645" class="fnanchor">[645]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_646" -href="#Footnote_646" class="fnanchor">[646]</a> Nor is this -state<span class="pagenum" id="Page_345">[p. 345]</span>ment 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.<a id="FNanchor_647" href="#Footnote_647" -class="fnanchor">[647]</a> There were a<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_346">[p. 346]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<a id="FNanchor_648" href="#Footnote_648" -class="fnanchor">[648]</a>) extends in a perfect level along -this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_347">[p. 347]</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_649" href="#Footnote_649" -class="fnanchor">[649]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_650" -href="#Footnote_650" class="fnanchor">[650]</a><span class="pagenum" -id="Page_348">[p. 348]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_349">[p. 349]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_651" -href="#Footnote_651" class="fnanchor">[651]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_652" href="#Footnote_652" -class="fnanchor">[652]</a> Miltiadês<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_350">[p. 350]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_653" href="#Footnote_653" class="fnanchor">[653]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_654" href="#Footnote_654" -class="fnanchor">[654]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_655" href="#Footnote_655" -class="fnanchor">[655]</a> 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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_351">[p. -351]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_656" href="#Footnote_656" -class="fnanchor">[656]</a> but he does not specify any distinguished -individuals as having fallen.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_657" href="#Footnote_657" -class="fnanchor">[657]</a>—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.<a id="FNanchor_658" -href="#Footnote_658" class="fnanchor">[658]</a> Datis soon came -off the port<span class="pagenum" id="Page_352">[p. 352]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_353">[p. -353]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_659" href="#Footnote_659" -class="fnanchor">[659]</a>—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 <small>B. C.</small>,—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,<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_354">[p. 354]</span>—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,”<a id="FNanchor_660" href="#Footnote_660" -class="fnanchor">[660]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_355">[p. 355]</span> 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;<a id="FNanchor_661" -href="#Footnote_661" class="fnanchor">[661]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_662" -href="#Footnote_662" class="fnanchor">[662]</a> It supplied them with -resolution for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_356">[p. 356]</span> -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.<a -id="FNanchor_663" href="#Footnote_663" class="fnanchor">[663]</a> -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<a id="FNanchor_664" href="#Footnote_664" -class="fnanchor">[664]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_357">[p. 357]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_665" href="#Footnote_665" class="fnanchor">[665]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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<a id="FNanchor_666" href="#Footnote_666" -class="fnanchor">[666]</a>—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;<a -id="FNanchor_667" href="#Footnote_667" class="fnanchor">[667]</a> -and even now a conspicuous tumulus exists about half a mile from the -sea-shore, which Colonel Leake believes to<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_358">[p. 358]</span> be the same.<a id="FNanchor_668" -href="#Footnote_668" class="fnanchor">[668]</a> The inhabitants of -the deme of Marathon worshipped these slain warriors as heroes, along -with their own eponymus, and with Hêraklês.</p> - -<p>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;<a id="FNanchor_669" href="#Footnote_669" -class="fnanchor">[669]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_670" href="#Footnote_670" -class="fnanchor">[670]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_671" -href="#Footnote_671" class="fnanchor">[671]</a> And the sixth of the -month Boëdro<span class="pagenum" id="Page_359">[p. 359]</span>mion, -the anniversary of the battle, was commemorated by an annual -ceremony, even down to the time of Plutarch.<a id="FNanchor_672" -href="#Footnote_672" class="fnanchor">[672]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_360">[p. 360]</span>Two thousand -Spartans, starting from their city, immediately after the full moon, -reached the frontier of Attica, on the third<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_361">[p. 361]</span> day of their march,—a surprising -effort, when we consider that the total distance from Sparta to -Athens was about one hundred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_362">[p. -362]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_363">[p. 363]</span> -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.<a -id="FNanchor_673" href="#Footnote_673" class="fnanchor">[673]</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_364">[p. 364]</span> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_674" href="#Footnote_674" class="fnanchor">[674]</a> -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.<a -id="FNanchor_675" href="#Footnote_675" class="fnanchor">[675]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>Vehement was the indignation both of the armament and of -the remaining Athenians against Miltiadês on his return;<a -id="FNanchor_676" href="#Footnote_676" class="fnanchor">[676]</a> -and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_365">[p. 365]</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_366">[p. 366]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_677" -href="#Footnote_677" class="fnanchor">[677]</a> Of course, under such -circum<span class="pagenum" id="Page_367">[p. 367]</span>stances, 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.</p> - -<p>According to Cornelius Nepos, Diodorus, and Plutarch, he -was put in prison, after having been fined, and there died.<a -id="FNanchor_678" href="#Footnote_678" class="fnanchor">[678]</a> -But<span class="pagenum" id="Page_368">[p. 368]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_679" href="#Footnote_679" -class="fnanchor">[679]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_369">[p. 369]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_680" href="#Footnote_680" class="fnanchor">[680]</a> 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 <i>he</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_681" -href="#Footnote_681" class="fnanchor">[681]</a> is a strain in -which every one at all times, even under a democratical government, -indulges with impunity and without provok<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_370">[p. 370]</span>ing 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_371">[p. 371]</span> case of Miltiadês, that question must -be answered in the affirmative.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_682" href="#Footnote_682" class="fnanchor">[682]</a> His -friends had nothing whatever to urge, against<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_372">[p. 372]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 con<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_373">[p. 373]</span>duct.<a id="FNanchor_683" -href="#Footnote_683" class="fnanchor">[683]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_374">[p. 374]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_684" -href="#Footnote_684" class="fnanchor">[684]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_375">[p. 375]</span> home, instead of directing his blow -against a Parian enemy, the peace and security of his country might -have been seriously endangered.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_376">[p. 376]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>present</i> -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,<a id="FNanchor_685" href="#Footnote_685" -class="fnanchor">[685]</a>—and whether well-founded or ill-founded, -it was constantly<span class="pagenum" id="Page_377">[p. 377]</span> -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.”<a -id="FNanchor_686" href="#Footnote_686" class="fnanchor">[686]</a> -We shall find Dêmosthenês,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_378">[p. -378]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_687" href="#Footnote_687" -class="fnanchor">[687]</a> 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.</p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter pt3" id="Chap_37"> - <h2 class="nobreak">CHAPTER XXXVII.<br /> - IONIC PHILOSOPHERS. — PYTHAGORAS. — KROTON AND SYBARIS.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="mt1"><span class="smcap">The</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>),<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_379">[p. 379]</span> and the few and -vague statements which we find respecting it,<a id="FNanchor_688" -href="#Footnote_688" class="fnanchor">[688]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_689" href="#Footnote_689" -class="fnanchor">[689]</a>—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<a -id="FNanchor_690" href="#Footnote_690" class="fnanchor">[690]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_380">[p. 380]</span> slew him. A severe revenge was -taken on his partisans after his fall.<a id="FNanchor_691" -href="#Footnote_691" class="fnanchor">[691]</a></p> - -<p>During the interval between 540-500 <small>B. C.</small>, 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 -<small>B. C.</small></p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>: 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,<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_381">[p. 381]</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_382">[p. 382]</span>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.<a id="FNanchor_692" -href="#Footnote_692" class="fnanchor">[692]</a></p> - -<p>At the time when the power of scientific investigation was -scanty and helpless, the problems proposed were thus such as -to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_383">[p. 383]</span> 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 <i>quæsita</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_384">[p. 384]</span> philosophers, spoke of him with -similar esteem. To him were traced, by the Grecian inquirers of -the fourth century <small>B. C.</small>, 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),<a -id="FNanchor_693" href="#Footnote_693" class="fnanchor">[693]</a> -with its derivatives <i>physics</i> and <i>physiology</i>, as distinguished -from the <i>theology</i> 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.<a id="FNanchor_694" -href="#Footnote_694" class="fnanchor">[694]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_695" href="#Footnote_695" class="fnanchor">[695]</a> -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,<a -id="FNanchor_696" href="#Footnote_696" class="fnanchor">[696]</a>—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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_385">[p. -385]</span> and causes of changeful manifestation, attached to -the primeval substance:<a id="FNanchor_697" href="#Footnote_697" -class="fnanchor">[697]</a> the universe being assimilated to an -organized body or system.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_698" href="#Footnote_698" class="fnanchor">[698]</a>—we -do not know whether he belonged to the sixth or the fifth century -<small>B. C.</small> 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,<a id="FNanchor_699" href="#Footnote_699" -class="fnanchor">[699]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_700" href="#Footnote_700" -class="fnanchor">[700]</a>—a primeval something, whose essence<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_386">[p. 386]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_701" href="#Footnote_701" -class="fnanchor">[701]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a -id="FNanchor_702" href="#Footnote_702" class="fnanchor">[702]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_387">[p. 387]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>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;<a id="FNanchor_703" href="#Footnote_703" -class="fnanchor">[703]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>Xenophanês of Kolophon, somewhat younger than Anaximander, and -nearly contemporary with Pythagoras (seemingly from about 570-480 -<small>B. C.</small>), migrated from Kolophon<a id="FNanchor_704" -href="#Footnote_704" class="fnanchor">[704]</a> to Zanklê and -Katana in Sicily and Elea in Italy, soon after the time when<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_388">[p. 388]</span> Ionia became subject -to the Persians, (540-530 <small>B. C.</small>) 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 <small>B. C.</small> 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.<a id="FNanchor_705" href="#Footnote_705" -class="fnanchor">[705]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_706" href="#Footnote_706" class="fnanchor">[706]</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_389">[p. 389]</span> men took for such, was the change -in their own feelings and ideas. He thus recognized the permanent -without the variable,<a id="FNanchor_707" href="#Footnote_707" -class="fnanchor">[707]</a>—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.<a -id="FNanchor_708" href="#Footnote_708" class="fnanchor">[708]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_709" href="#Footnote_709" -class="fnanchor">[709]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_390">[p. -390]</span> to the attainability of certain knowledge,<a -id="FNanchor_710" href="#Footnote_710" class="fnanchor">[710]</a> -which the nature of his philosophy was well calculated to suggest, -and in which the sillograph Timon of the third century <small>B. C.</small>, who seems to have spoken of Xenophanês better than of -most of the other philosophers, powerfully sympathized.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_711" href="#Footnote_711" -class="fnanchor">[711]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small> 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 <small>B. C.</small> many interesting -questions were thus brought into discussion, which Solon, who died -about 558 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_712" -href="#Footnote_712" class="fnanchor">[712]</a><span class="pagenum" -id="Page_391">[p. 391]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small> 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<a id="FNanchor_713" href="#Footnote_713" -class="fnanchor">[713]</a>—perhaps also Phenicia—and Babylon, then -Chaldæan and independent. At the time when he saw Egypt, between -560-540 <small>B. C.</small>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_392">[p. 392]</span> Syros.<a -id="FNanchor_714" href="#Footnote_714" class="fnanchor">[714]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a -id="FNanchor_715" href="#Footnote_715" class="fnanchor">[715]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_393">[p. 393]</span>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<a id="FNanchor_716" href="#Footnote_716" -class="fnanchor">[716]</a>) 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,<a -id="FNanchor_717" href="#Footnote_717" class="fnanchor">[717]</a> -being intended<span class="pagenum" id="Page_394">[p. 394]</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_718" -href="#Footnote_718" class="fnanchor">[718]</a> In these lofty -pretensions the Agrigentine Empedoklês seems to have greatly copied -him, though with some varieties, about half a century afterwards.<a -id="FNanchor_719" href="#Footnote_719" class="fnanchor">[719]</a> -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.”<a -id="FNanchor_720" href="#Footnote_720" class="fnanchor">[720]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>Looking at the general type of Pythagoras, as conceived by -witnesses in and nearest to his own age,—Xenophanês, Hêrakleitus, -Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Isokratês,<a id="FNanchor_721" -href="#Footnote_721" class="fnanchor">[721]</a>—we find in -him<span class="pagenum" id="Page_395">[p. 395]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_722" href="#Footnote_722" -class="fnanchor">[722]</a>—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.<a -id="FNanchor_723" href="#Footnote_723" class="fnanchor">[723]</a> -Numbers and lines, studied<span class="pagenum" id="Page_396">[p. -396]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_724" -href="#Footnote_724" class="fnanchor">[724]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_725" href="#Footnote_725" -class="fnanchor">[725]</a> It is certain that there were -peculiar<span class="pagenum" id="Page_397">[p. 397]</span> -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,<a id="FNanchor_726" href="#Footnote_726" -class="fnanchor">[726]</a> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, who had no communion -with wrestlers, and comprised only ascetic, studious men, generally -recluse, though in some cases rising to political distinction.</p> - -<p>The succession of these Pythagoreans, never very numerous, seems -to have continued until about 300 <small>B. C.</small>, 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,<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_398">[p. 398]</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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 -<small>B. C.</small>) 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_399">[p. 399]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_727" href="#Footnote_727" -class="fnanchor">[727]</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_728" href="#Footnote_728" -class="fnanchor">[728]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_400">[p. 400]</span> state -of positive bad health.<a id="FNanchor_729" href="#Footnote_729" -class="fnanchor">[729]</a> Of medical education properly so called, -especially of anatomy, there was then little or nothing.<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_401">[p. 401]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small></p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_402">[p. 402]</span> prytanis, or president, -while his wife and daughter were placed at the head of the religious -processions of females.<a id="FNanchor_730" href="#Footnote_730" -class="fnanchor">[730]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_731" -href="#Footnote_731" class="fnanchor">[731]</a> And we see that -even the disciples of Aristotle, about the year 300 <small>B. C.</small>,—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,<a id="FNanchor_732" href="#Footnote_732" -class="fnanchor">[732]</a> the last members of a declining sect, -among whom<span class="pagenum" id="Page_403">[p. 403]</span> 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 <small>B. C.</small><a -id="FNanchor_733" href="#Footnote_733" class="fnanchor">[733]</a></p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_734" -href="#Footnote_734" class="fnanchor">[734]</a><span class="pagenum" -id="Page_404">[p. 404]</span> 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.<a id="FNanchor_735" href="#Footnote_735" -class="fnanchor">[735]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_736" -href="#Footnote_736" class="fnanchor">[736]</a> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_405">[p. 405]</span>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 <small>B. C.</small> -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.<a -id="FNanchor_737" href="#Footnote_737" class="fnanchor">[737]</a> -Niebuhr<span class="pagenum" id="Page_406">[p. 406]</span> and O. -Müller have even supposed that the select Three Hundred Pythagoreans -constituted a sort of smaller senate at that<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_407">[p. 407]</span> city,<a id="FNanchor_738" -href="#Footnote_738" class="fnanchor">[738]</a>—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,<a id="FNanchor_739" -href="#Footnote_739" class="fnanchor">[739]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_408">[p. 408]</span> 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,<a id="FNanchor_740" -href="#Footnote_740" class="fnanchor">[740]</a>—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.<a id="FNanchor_741" -href="#Footnote_741" class="fnanchor">[741]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_742" href="#Footnote_742" class="fnanchor">[742]</a> -to which, indeed, the orator Æschinês<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_409">[p. 409]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_743" href="#Footnote_743" -class="fnanchor">[743]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_744" -href="#Footnote_744" class="fnanchor">[744]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_410">[p. 410]</span> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_745" href="#Footnote_745" class="fnanchor">[745]</a></p> - -<p>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;<a -id="FNanchor_746" href="#Footnote_746" class="fnanchor">[746]</a> -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.<a id="FNanchor_747" href="#Footnote_747" -class="fnanchor">[747]</a> As an active brotherhood, the -Pythago<span class="pagenum" id="Page_411">[p. 411]</span>reans -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,<a -id="FNanchor_748" href="#Footnote_748" class="fnanchor">[748]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>It has already been stated that the period when Pythagoras -arrived at Kroton may be fixed somewhere between <small>B. C.</small> 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.<a id="FNanchor_749" -href="#Footnote_749" class="fnanchor">[749]</a> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_412">[p. 412]</span>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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.<a id="FNanchor_750" href="#Footnote_750" -class="fnanchor">[750]</a> 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;<a id="FNanchor_751" href="#Footnote_751" -class="fnanchor">[751]</a> 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.<a -id="FNanchor_752" href="#Footnote_752" class="fnanchor">[752]</a> -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<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_413">[p. 413]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_753" href="#Footnote_753" -class="fnanchor">[753]</a> 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.<a id="FNanchor_754" href="#Footnote_754" -class="fnanchor">[754]</a> 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<a -id="FNanchor_755" href="#Footnote_755" class="fnanchor">[755]</a> -in the short space of seventy days. The Sybarites fled in great -part to Laos and Skidros,<a id="FNanchor_756" href="#Footnote_756" -class="fnanchor">[756]</a> 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,<a id="FNanchor_757" -href="#Footnote_757" class="fnanchor">[757]</a> who was among -the settlers in the town of Thurii, afterwards founded, nearly -adjoining.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_414">[p. 414]</span>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.</p> - -<p>The conquest and destruction of the original Sybaris—perhaps in -510 <small>B. C.</small> 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.<a id="FNanchor_758" href="#Footnote_758" -class="fnanchor">[758]</a> 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<span -class="pagenum" id="Page_415">[p. 415]</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_759" href="#Footnote_759" -class="fnanchor">[759]</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_416">[p. 416]</span>-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.<a id="FNanchor_760" -href="#Footnote_760" class="fnanchor">[760]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_417">[p. 417]</span> -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.<a -id="FNanchor_761" href="#Footnote_761" class="fnanchor">[761]</a> -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 <small>B. C.</small></p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, -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 -<small>B. C.</small> He was a citizen of middling station, born -in the Chalkidic colony of Katana in Sicily,<a id="FNanchor_762" -href="#Footnote_762" class="fnanchor">[762]</a> and he framed laws -not only for his own city, but for the other Chalkidic cities -in Sicily<span class="pagenum" id="Page_418">[p. 418]</span> -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,<a id="FNanchor_763" href="#Footnote_763" -class="fnanchor">[763]</a> 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,<a -id="FNanchor_764" href="#Footnote_764" class="fnanchor">[764]</a>—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,<a -id="FNanchor_765" href="#Footnote_765" class="fnanchor">[765]</a> -which we shall find maintained at Athens<span class="pagenum" -id="Page_419">[p. 419]</span> throughout the best-known days of Attic -law—was first enacted by Charondas.</p> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter"> -<div class="footnotes"> - -<h2 class="nobreak">FOOTNOTES</h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_1"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_1">[1]</a></span> Herodot. i, 196; Skylax, c. 19-27; -Appian. Illyric. c. 2, 4, 8.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>col</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_2"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_2">[2]</a></span> Hekatæi Fragm. ed. Klausen, Fr. -66-70; Thucyd. i, 26.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_3"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_3">[3]</a></span> Livy, xliii, 9-18. Mannert -(Geograph. der Griech. und Römer, part vii, ch. 9, p. 386, <i>seq.</i>) -collects the points and shows how little can be ascertained -respecting the localities of these Illyrian tribes.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_4"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_4">[4]</a></span> Strabo, iv, p. 206.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_5"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_5">[5]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_6"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_6">[6]</a></span> Diodor. xv, 13: Polyb. ii, 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_7"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_7">[7]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">“Illyriorum velocitas ad excursiones et impetus subitos.”</p> -<p class="ir">(Livy, xxxi, 35.)</p> -</div></div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_8"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_8">[8]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_9"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_9">[9]</a></span> Skymnus Chius, v, 418-425.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_10"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_10">[10]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_11"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_11">[11]</a></span> 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 <i>commercium</i> and <i>connubium</i> 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 <i>their</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_12"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_12">[12]</a></span> 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. -</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_13"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_13">[13]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_14"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_14">[14]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_15"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_15">[15]</a></span> Herodot. v, 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_16"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_16">[16]</a></span> Aristot. Polit. vii, 2, 6. That -the Macedonians were chiefly village residents, appears from Thucyd. -ii, 100, iv, 124, though this does not exclude <i>some</i> towns.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_17"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_17">[17]</a></span> 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_18"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_18">[18]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>This is probably true of the mountaineers included in the region, -but it is too much generalized.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_19"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_19">[19]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_20"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_20">[20]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>“Macedoniam, quæ tantis barbarorum gentibus attingitur, ut semper -Macedonicis imperatoribus iidem fines imperii fuerint qui gladiorum -atque pilorum.” (Cicero, in Pison. c. xvi.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_21"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_21">[21]</a></span> Strabo, lib. vii, Fragm. 20, ed. -Tafel.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_22"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_22">[22]</a></span> 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 <i>must have been</i> 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 -<i>fraction</i> of them in Bœotia <i>before</i>, from whom the contingent which -went to Troy was furnished (ἀποδασμός, Thucyd. i, 12).</p> - -<p>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 <i>very near</i> to the mouth of -the river, but <i>not quite</i>. 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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_23"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_23">[23]</a></span> Skylax, c. 67. The conquests -of Philip extended the boundary beyond the Strymon to the Nestus -(Strabo, lib. vii, Fragm. 33, ed. Tafel).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_24"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_24">[24]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_25"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_25">[25]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_26"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_26">[26]</a></span> Herodot. viii, 137-138.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_27"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_27">[27]</a></span> Herodot. v, 22. Argeadæ, Strabo, -lib. vii, Fragm. 20, ed. Tafel, which may probably have been -erroneously changed into Ægeadæ (Justin, vii, 1).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_28"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_28">[28]</a></span> Thucyd. iii, 7; Herodot. vi, -34-37: compare the story of Zalmoxis among the Thracians (iv, 94).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_29"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_29">[29]</a></span> Strabo, vii, p. 326.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_30"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_30">[30]</a></span> Herodot. viii, 139. Thucydidês -agrees in the number of kings, but does not give the names (ii, 100). -</p> - -<p>For the divergent lists of the early Macedonian kings, see Mr. -Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii, p. 221.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_31"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_31">[31]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_32"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_32">[32]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>My view of these facts, therefore, differs somewhat from that of -O. Müller (Macedonians, sect. 16).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_33"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_33">[33]</a></span> Herodot. i, 59, v, 94; viii, -136.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_34"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_34">[34]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_35"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_35">[35]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_36"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_36">[36]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_37"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_37">[37]</a></span> Xenoph. Anab. vi, 2, 17; Herodot. -vii, 75.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_38"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_38">[38]</a></span> Tacit. Annal. ii, 66; iv, 46.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_39"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_39">[39]</a></span> Plutarch, Quæst. Græc. p. 293.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_40"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_40">[40]</a></span> Skylax, c. 67.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_41"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_41">[41]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_42"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_42">[42]</a></span> Herodot. vii, 123; Skymnus Chius, -v, 627.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_43"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_43">[43]</a></span> Strabo, x, p. 447; Thucyd. iv, -120-123; Pompon. Mela, ii, 2; Herodot. vii, 123.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_44"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_44">[44]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_45"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_45">[45]</a></span> Thucyd. iv, 84, 103, 109. See Mr. -Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, ad ann. 654 <small>B. C.</small></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_46"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_46">[46]</a></span> Solinus, x, 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_47"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_47">[47]</a></span> Herodot. i, 168; vii, 58-59, 109; -Skymnus Chius, v, 675.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_48"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_48">[48]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_49"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_49">[49]</a></span> Herodot. vii, 108-109; Thucyd. i, -101.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_50"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_50">[50]</a></span></p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">... ἥδε δ᾽ ὥστ᾽ ὄνου ῥαχις</p> -<p class="i0">Ἕστηκεν, ὕλης ἀγρίας ἐπιστεφής.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1 ti0">Archiloch. Fragm. 17-18, ed. Schneidewin.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_51"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_51">[51]</a></span> Archiloch. Fragm. 5, ed. -Schneidewin; Aristophan. Pac. 1298, with the Scholia; Strabo, x, p. -487, xii, p. 549; Thucyd. iv, 104.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_52"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_52">[52]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_53"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_53">[53]</a></span> Aristot. Polit. iv, 4, l.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_54"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_54">[54]</a></span> Polyb. iv, 39, Phylarch. Fragm. -10, ed. Didot.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_55"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_55">[55]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Syncellus, however (p. 213), places the foundation of Istria -considerably earlier, in 651 <small>B. C.</small></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_56"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_56">[56]</a></span> Herodot. viii, 90.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_57"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_57">[57]</a></span> See the discussion of the era -of Kyrênê in Thrige, Historia Cyrênês, chs. 22, 23, 24, where the -different statements are noticed and compared.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_58"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_58">[58]</a></span> Schol. ad Pindar. Pyth. iv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_59"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_59">[59]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 150-154.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_60"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_60">[60]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 155.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_61"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_61">[61]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_62"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_62">[62]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 198.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_63"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_63">[63]</a></span> 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 <i>passim</i>; 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -<p>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 -(<i>ib.</i> 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).</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_64"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_64">[64]</a></span> Theophrast. Hist. Pl. vi, 3, 3; -ix, 1, 7; Skylax, c. 107.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_65"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_65">[65]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_66"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_66">[66]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>Ptolemais, originally the port of Barka, had become autonomous, -and of greater importance than the latter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_67"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_67">[67]</a></span> 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 <i>d.</i> ed. Didot).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_68"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_68">[68]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_69"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_69">[69]</a></span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_70"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_70">[70]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_71"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_71">[71]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_72"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_72">[72]</a></span> ταπεινή τε καὶ ψαμμώδης (Herodot. -iv, 191); Sallust, Bell. Jugurthin. c. 17.</p> - -<p>Captain Beechey points out the mistaken conceptions which have -been entertained of this region:—</p> - -<p>“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>i. e.</i> 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....</p> - -<p>“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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_73"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_73">[73]</a></span> Justin, xiii, 7. “Amœnitatem loci -et fontium ubertatem.” Captain Beechey notices this annual migration -of the Bedouin Arabs:—</p> - -<p>“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.)</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -<p>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, <i>ib.</i> ch. xii, p. 363.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_74"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_74">[74]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 170-171. παραλία -σφόδρα εὐδαίμων. Strabo, ii, p. 131. πολυμήλου καὶ πολυκαρποτάτας -χθονὸς, Pindar. Pyth. ix, 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_75"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_75">[75]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 186, 187, 189, 190. -Νομάδες κρεοφάγοι καὶ γαλακτοπόται. Pindar, Pyth. ix, 127, ἱππευταὶ -Νομάδες. Pompon. Mela, i, 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_76"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_76">[76]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_77"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_77">[77]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_78"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_78">[78]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 175-188.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_79"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_79">[79]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 178, 179, 195, -196.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_80"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_80">[80]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 42.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_81"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_81">[81]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 170. νόμους δὲ τοὺς -πλείστους μιμέεσθαι ἐπιτηδεύουσι τοὺς Κυρηναίων.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_82"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_82">[82]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 161. Θηραίων καὶ τῶν -περιοίκων, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_83"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_83">[83]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_84"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_84">[84]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 155.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_85"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_85">[85]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 164.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_86"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_86">[86]</a></span> Respecting the chronology of the -Battiad princes, see Boeckh, ad Pindar. Pyth. iv, p. 265, and Thirge, -Histor. Cyrenes, p. 127, <i>seq.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_87"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_87">[87]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 159.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_88"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_88">[88]</a></span> Herodot. ii, 180-181.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_89"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_89">[89]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 160; Skylax, c. 107; -Hekatæus, Fragm. 300, ed. Klausen.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_90"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_90">[90]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 204.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_91"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_91">[91]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_92"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_92">[92]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 161. Τῷ βασιλέϊ -Βάττῳ τεμένεα ἐξελὼν καὶ ἱρωσύνας, τὰ ἄλλα πάντα τὰ πρότερον εἶχον οἱ -βασιλεῖς ἐς μέσον τῷ δήμῳ ἔθηκε.</p> - -<p>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. -</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_93"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_93">[93]</a></span> 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 <i>abolish</i> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_94"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_94">[94]</a></span> Hesychius, Τριακάτιοι; Eustath. -ad Hom. Odyss. p. 303; Herakleidês Pontic. De Polit. c. 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_95"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_95">[95]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 163. Ἐπὶ μὲν -τέσσερας Βάττους, καὶ Ἀρκεσιλέως τέσσερας, διδοῖ ὑμῖν Λοξίης -βασιλεύειν Κυρήνης· πλέον μέντοι τούτου οὐδὲ πειρᾶσθαι παραινέει.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_96"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_96">[96]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 163-164.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_97"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_97">[97]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 13; iv, 165-166.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_98"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_98">[98]</a></span> Polyænus (Strateg. vii, 28) gives -a narrative in many respects different from this of Herodotus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_99"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_99">[99]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 203-204.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_100"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_100">[100]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 205.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_101"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_101">[101]</a></span> Thucyd. i, 15.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_102"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_102">[102]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_103"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_103">[103]</a></span> Homer, Iliad, xi, 879, xxiii, -679; Hesiod, Opp. Di. 651.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_104"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_104">[104]</a></span> Homer, Hymn. Apoll. 150; -Thucyd. iii, 104.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_105"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_105">[105]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_106"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_106">[106]</a></span> Strabo, viii, p. 353; Pindar, -Olymp. viii, 2; Xenophon, Hellen. iv, 7, 2; iii, 2, 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_107"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_107">[107]</a></span> See K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der -Griechischen Staats-Alterthümer, sect. 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_108"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_108">[108]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_109"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_109">[109]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_110"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_110">[110]</a></span> Antholog. Palatin. ix, 588; -vol. ii. p. 299, Jacobs.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_111"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_111">[111]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_112"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_112">[112]</a></span> Ἀέθλων πεμπαμέρους -ἁμίλλαις,—Pindar, Olymp. v, 6: compare Schol. ad Pindar. Olymp. iii, -33.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_113"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_113">[113]</a></span> Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 262.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Πημανέει σ᾽ αἰεὶ κτυπὸς ἵππων ὠκειάων,</p> -<p class="i0">Ἀρδόμενοί τ᾽ οὐρῆες ἐμῶν ἱερῶν ἀπὸ πηγέων·</p> -<p class="i0">Ἔνθα τις ἀνθρώπων βουλήσεται εἰσοράασθαι</p> -<p class="i0">Ἅρματά τ᾽ εὐποίητα καὶ ὠκυπόδων κτυπὸν ἵππων,</p> -<p class="i0">Ἢ νηόν τε μέγαν καὶ κτήματα πόλλ᾽ ἐνεόντα.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1 ti0">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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_114"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_114">[114]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_115"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_115">[115]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_116"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_116">[116]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_117"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_117">[117]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_118"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_118">[118]</a></span> Eurip. Ion, 230.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_119"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_119">[119]</a></span> Thucyd. i, 112.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_120"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_120">[120]</a></span> 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.) -</p> - -<p>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. -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_121"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_121">[121]</a></span> Demosthen. Philipp. iii, p. -119.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_122"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_122">[122]</a></span> Pindar, Nem. x, 28-33.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_123"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_123">[123]</a></span> 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, <i>seq.</i></p> - -<p>That the Kleônæans continued without interruption to administer -the Nemean festival down to Olympiad 80 (460 <small>B. C.</small>), -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.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_124"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_124">[124]</a></span> See Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. -1126.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_125"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_125">[125]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>Cypselidas</i> instead of <i>Cypselum</i>, 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_126"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_126">[126]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_127"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_127">[127]</a></span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small>), Xenophan. Fragment. 2, p 357, ed. -Bergk.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_128"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_128">[128]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_129"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_129">[129]</a></span> Simonidês, Fragm. 154-158, ed. -Bergk; Pindar, Nem. x, 45; Olymp. xiii, 107.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_130"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_130">[130]</a></span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_131"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_131">[131]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_132"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_132">[132]</a></span> Herodot. viii, 65. καὶ αὐτῶν ὁ -βουλόμενος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων μυεῖται.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_133"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_133">[133]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>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 <i>some</i> -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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_134"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_134">[134]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_135"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_135">[135]</a></span> Plutarch. Solon, c. 29: see -above, chap. xi. vol. iii. p. 195.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_136"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_136">[136]</a></span> 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 <span class="gesperrt">ἀρχὴν γενέσθαι τοῖς Ἕλλησι τῆς πρὸς -ἀλλήλους φιλίας</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_137"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_137">[137]</a></span> Cicero, Tusc. Quæst. v, 3. -“<i>Mercatum</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Both Velleius Paterculus also (i, 8) and Justin (xiii, 5), call -the Olympic festival by the name <i>mercatus</i>.</p> - -<p>There were booths all round the Altis, or sacred precinct of Zeus -(Schol. Pindar. Olymp. xi, 55), during the time of the games.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_138"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_138">[138]</a></span> Pausan. vi, 23, 5; Diodor. xiv, -109, xv, 7; Lucian, Quomodo Historia sit conscribenda, c. 42. See -Krause, Olympia, sect. 29. pp. 183-186.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_139"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_139">[139]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_140"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_140">[140]</a></span> 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 <i>gravitate</i> dicimus) prope majus et gloriosius, -quam Romæ triumphasse.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_141"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_141">[141]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_142"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_142">[142]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_143"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_143">[143]</a></span> Himerius, Orat. iii, p. 426, -Wernsdorf—ἀγέρωχοι καὶ ὑψαυχένες.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_144"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_144">[144]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>The learned work of Ulrici (Geschichte der Griechischen -Poesie—<i>Lyrik</i>) is still more open to the same remark.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_145"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_145">[145]</a></span> These early innovators in -Grecian music, rhythm, metre, and poetry, belonging to the seventh -century <small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>That Terpander was victor at the Spartan festival of the -Karneia, in 676 <small>B. C.</small>, 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 <i>four</i> Pythian prizes, if the -festival was octennial prior to its reconstitution by the Amphiktyons -(p. 1132). Sakadas gained three Pythian prizes <i>after</i> that period, -when the festival was quadrennial (p. 1134).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_146"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_146">[146]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_147"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_147">[147]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>How very imperfectly the chronology of the poetical names -even of the sixth century <small>B. C.</small>—Sappho, Anakreon, -Hippônax—was known even to writers of the beginning of the Ptolemaic -age (or shortly after 300 <small>B. C.</small>), 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_148"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_148">[148]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_149"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_149">[149]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_150"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_150">[150]</a></span> I employ, however unwillingly, -the word <i>thesis</i> here (arsis and thesis) in the sense in which it -is used by G. Hermann (“Illud tempus, in quo ictus est, <i>arsin</i>; ea -tempora, quæ carent ictu, <i>thesin</i> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_151"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_151">[151]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>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):—</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_152"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_152">[152]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">ὡς ἐμμελὴς τ᾽ ἔγεντο κἀπιδέξιος</p> -<p class="i0">ἐπεά τε ποιεῖν, πρὸς λύραν τ᾽ ἀείδειν</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1 ti0">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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_153"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_153">[153]</a></span> See Meleager, Epigram. cxix, 3; -Horat. Epist. 19, 23, and Epod. vi, 13 with the Scholiast; Ælian. V. -H. x, 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_154"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_154">[154]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_155"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_155">[155]</a></span> Athenæus, xiv, p. 630.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_156"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_156">[156]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_157"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_157">[157]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cicero, Tuscul. Qu. ii, 16. “Spartiatarum quorum procedit Mora ad -tibiam, neque adhibetur ulla sine anapæstis pedibus hortatio.”</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_158"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_158">[158]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_159"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_159">[159]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_160"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_160">[160]</a></span> Xenophon, Agesilaus ii, 17. -οἴκαδε ἀπελθὼν εἰς τὰ Ὑακίνθια, ὅπου ἐτάχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ χοροποιοῦ, τὸν -παιᾶνα τῷ θεῷ συνεπετέλει.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_161"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_161">[161]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Λάκαινα μὲν παρθένων ἀγέλα.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1 ti0">Also, Alkman, Fragm. 13, ed. Bergk; Antigon. -Caryst. Hist. Mirab. c. 27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_162"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_162">[162]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>“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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_163"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_163">[163]</a></span> Aristot. Politic. viii, 4, 6. -Οἱ Λάκωνες—<span class="gesperrt">οὐ μανθάνοντες ὅμως</span> δύνανται -κρίνειν ὀρθῶς, ὥς φασι, τὰ χρηστὰ καὶ τὰ μὴ τῶν μέλων.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_164"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_164">[164]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_165"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_165">[165]</a></span> 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). -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_166"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_166">[166]</a></span> Alkman, Frag. 64, ed. Bergk.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Ὥρας δ᾽ ἐσῆκε τρεῖς, θέρος</p> -<p class="i0">Καὶ χεῖμα κ᾽ ὠπώραν τρίταν·</p> -<p class="i0">Καὶ τέτρατον τὸ ἦρ, ὅκα</p> -<p class="i0">Σάλλει μὲν, ἐσθίειν δ᾽ ἄδαν</p> -<p class="i2">Οὐκ ἐστί.</p> -</div></div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_167"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_167">[167]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_168"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_168">[168]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_169"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_169">[169]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 60. They were -probably a γένος with an heroic progenitor, like the heralds, to whom -the historian compares them.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_170"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_170">[170]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_171"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_171">[171]</a></span> Archiloch. Fragm. 72, ed. -Bergk.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Ὡς Διωνύσου ἄνακτος καλὸν ἐξάρξαι μέλος</p> -<p class="i0">Οἶδα διθύραμβον, οἴνῳ ξυγκεραυνωθεὶς φρένας.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1">The old oracle quoted in Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, -about the Dionysia at Athens, enjoins—Διονύσῳ δημοτελῆ ἱερὰ τελεῖν, -<span class="gesperrt">καὶ κρατῆρα κεράσαι</span>, καὶ χοροὺς -ἱστάναι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_172"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_172">[172]</a></span> Herodot. i, 23; Suidas, v. -Ἀρίων; Pindar, Olymp. xiii, 25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_173"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_173">[173]</a></span> Aristot. Poetic. c. 6, -ἐγέννησαν τὴν ποίησιν ἐκ τῶν αὐτοσχεδιασμάτων; again, to the same -effect, <i>ibid.</i> c. 9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_174"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_174">[174]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_175"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_175">[175]</a></span> Pausanias, vi, 14, 4; x, 7, 3. -Sakadas, as well as Stesichorus, composed an Ἰλίου πέρσις (Athenæus, -xiii, p. 609).</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_176"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_176">[176]</a></span> Horat. Epistol. i, 19, 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_177"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_177">[177]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_178"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_178">[178]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_179"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_179">[179]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small> -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).</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_180"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_180">[180]</a></span> Welcker, Simonidis Amorgini -Iambi qui supersunt, p. 9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_181"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_181">[181]</a></span> Aristophan. Nubes, 536.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Ἀλλ᾽ αὑτῇ καὶ τοῖς ἔπεσιν πιστεύουσ᾽ ἐλήλυθεν.</p> -</div></div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_182"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_182">[182]</a></span> 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 <i>Music</i> (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.</p> - -<p>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, <i>ut sup.</i>): 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_183"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_183">[183]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>Not merely Xenophanês the philosopher (Diogen. Laërt. viii, 36, -ix, 20), but long after him Parmenidês and Empedoklês, composed in -verse.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_184"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_184">[184]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_185"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_185">[185]</a></span> Plato, Protagoras, c. 28, p. -343.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_186"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_186">[186]</a></span> Hippônax, Fragm. 77, 34, ed. -Bergk—καὶ δικάσσασθαι Βίαντος τοῦ Πριηνέος κρείττων.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">... Καὶ Μύσων, ὃν ὡς πολλὼν</p> -<p class="i0">Ἀνεῖπεν ἀνδρῶν σωφρονέστατον πάντων.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1">Simonidês. Fr. 6, ed. Bergk—μωροῦ φωτὸς ἅδε βουλά. -Diogen. Laërt. i, 6, 2.</p> - -<p>Simonidês treats Pittakus with more respect, though questioning an -opinion delivered by him (Fragm. 8, ed. Bergk; Plato, Protagoras, c. -26, p. 339).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_187"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_187">[187]</a></span> Dikæarchus ap. Diogen. Laërt. -i. 40. συνετοὺς καὶ νομοθετικοὺς δεινότητα πολιτικὴν καὶ δραστήριον -σύνεσιν. Plutarch, Themistoklês, c. 2.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_188"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_188">[188]</a></span> Cicero, De Republ. i, 7; -Plutarch, in Delph. p. 385; Bernhardy, Grundriss der Griechischen -Litteratur, vol. i, sect. 66, not. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_189"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_189">[189]</a></span> Pliny, H. N. vii, 57. Suidas v. -Ἑκαταῖος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_190"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_190">[190]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_191"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_191">[191]</a></span> See O. Müller, Archäologie der -Kunst, sect. 61; Sillig. Catalogus Artificium,—under Theodôrus and -Teleklês.</p> - -<p>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 “<i>the</i> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_192"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_192">[192]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_193"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_193">[193]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_194"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_194">[194]</a></span></p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Ἀγροῖκος ὀργὴν, κυαμοτρὼξ, ἀκράχολος</p> -<p class="i0">Δῆμος Πνυκίτης, δύσκολον γερόντιον.</p> -<p class="ir">Aristoph. Equit. 41.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1">I need hardly mention that the Pnyx was the place in -which the Athenian public assemblies were held.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_195"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_195">[195]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_196"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_196">[196]</a></span> Plutarch, Phokion, c. 27, -ἀπεκρίνατο φιλίαν ἔσεσθαι τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις καὶ ξυμμαχίαν, ἐκδοῦσι μὲν -τοὺς περὶ Δημοσθένην καὶ Ὑπερείδην, πολιτευομένοις δὲ τὴν <span -class="gesperrt">πάτριον</span> ἀπὸ τιμήματος πολιτείαν, δεξαμένοις -δὲ φρουρὰν εἰς τὴν Μουνυχίαν, ἔτι δὲ χρήματα τοῦ πολέμου καὶ ζημίαν -προσεκτίσασιν. Compare Diodor. xviii, 18.</p> - -<p>Twelve thousand of the poorer citizens were disfranchised by this -change (Plutarch, Phokion, c. 28).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_197"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_197">[197]</a></span> See the preceding volume, ch. -xi, p. 155.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_198"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_198">[198]</a></span> Solon. Fragm. 10, ed. Bergk.—</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Εἰ δὲ πεπόνθατε λυγρὰ δι᾽ ὑμετέρην κακότητα,</p> -<p class="i2">Μήτι θεοῖς τούτων μοῖραν ἐπαμφέρετε, etc.</p> -</div></div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_199"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_199">[199]</a></span> Herodot. i, 60, καὶ ἐν τῷ -ἄστεϊ πειθόμενοι τὴν γυναῖκα εἶναι <span class="gesperrt">αὐτὴν -τὴν θεὸν</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Istrus (one of the Atthido-graphers of the third century -<small>B. C.</small>) 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_200"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_200">[200]</a></span> Herodot. i, 61. -Peisistratus—ἐμίχθη οἱ οὐ κατὰ νόμον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_201"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_201">[201]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_202"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_202">[202]</a></span> Herodot. i, 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_203"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_203">[203]</a></span> Herodot. i, 64. ἐπικούροισί -τε πολλοῖσι, καὶ χρημάτων συνόδοισι, τῶν μὲν αὐτόθεν, τῶν δὲ ἀπὸ -Στρύμονος ποτάμου προσιόντων.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_204"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_204">[204]</a></span> Isokratês, Or. xvi, De Bigis, -c. 351.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_205"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_205">[205]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_206"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_206">[206]</a></span> 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, <span -class="gesperrt">εἰδὼς</span> μὲν καὶ ἀκοῇ ἀκριβέστερον ἄλλων -ἰσχυρίζομαι (vi, 55).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_207"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_207">[207]</a></span> Aristot. Politic, v, 9, 4; -Dikæarchus, Vita Græciæ, pp. 140-166, ed. Fuhr; Pausan. i, 18, 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_208"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_208">[208]</a></span> Aul. Gell. N. A. vi, 17.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_209"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_209">[209]</a></span> Herodot. vii, 6; Pseudo-Plato, -Hipparchus, p. 229.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_210"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_210">[210]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_211"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_211">[211]</a></span> Philochor. Frag. 69, ed. Didot; -Plato, Hipparch. p. 230.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_212"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_212">[212]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 38-103; Theopomp. -ap. Athenæ. xii, p. 533.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_213"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_213">[213]</a></span> Thucyd. vi, 53; Pseudo-Plato, -Hipparch. p. 230; Pausan. i, 23, 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_214"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_214">[214]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_215"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_215">[215]</a></span> Herodot. v, 55-58. Harmodius -is affirmed by Plutarch to have been of the deme Aphidnæ (Plutarch, -Symposiacon, i, 10, p. 628).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_216"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_216">[216]</a></span> For the terrible effects -produced by this fear of ὕβρις εἰς τὴν ἡλικίαν, see Plutarch, Kimon, -1; Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 17.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_217"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_217">[217]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_218"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_218">[218]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_219"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_219">[219]</a></span> Thucyd. i, 20, vi, 54-59; -Herodot. v, 55, 56, vi, 123; Aristot. Polit. v, 8, 9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_220"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_220">[220]</a></span> See the words of the song:—</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Ὅτι τὸν τύραννον κτανέτην</p> -<p class="i2">Ἰσονόμους τ᾽ Αθήνας ἐποιησάτην—</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1 ti0">ap. Athenæum, xv, p. 691.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_221"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_221">[221]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_222"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_222">[222]</a></span> 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_223"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_223">[223]</a></span> Ἡ γὰρ δειλία φονικώτατόν ἐστιν -ἐν ταῖς τυραννίσιν—observes Plutarch, (Artaxerxês, c. 25).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_224"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_224">[224]</a></span> Pausan. i, 23, 2: Plutarch, De -Garrulitate, p. 897; Polyæn. viii, 45; Athenæus, xiii. p. 596.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_225"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_225">[225]</a></span> We can hardly be mistaken in -putting this interpretation on the words of Thucydidês—Ἀθηναῖος ὢν, -Λαμψακηνῷ ἔδωκε (vi, 59).</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, the author’s means of information will -doubtless render him a better witness.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_226"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_226">[226]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 36-37.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_227"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_227">[227]</a></span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small> (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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_228"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_228">[228]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 38, 39.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_229"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_229">[229]</a></span> Herodot. v, 94. I have already -said that I conceive this as a different war from that in which the -poet Alkæus was engaged.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_230"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_230">[230]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 39.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_231"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_231">[231]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 104, 139, 140.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_232"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_232">[232]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_233"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_233">[233]</a></span> There is nothing that I know to -mark the date except that it was earlier than the death of Hipparchus -in 514 <small>B. C.</small>, and also earlier than the expedition -of Darius against the Scythians, about 516 <small>B. C.</small>, -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 63<sup>sten</sup> bis zur -72<sup>sten</sup> Olympiade, p. 165, in the Kieler Philologische -Studien 1841.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_234"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_234">[234]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_235"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_235">[235]</a></span> Pausan. x, 5, 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_236"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_236">[236]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_237"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_237">[237]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_238"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_238">[238]</a></span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small>, after which period the island fell at -once into a precarious situation, and very soon afterwards into the -greatest calamities.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_239"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_239">[239]</a></span> Herodot. v, 62, 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_240"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_240">[240]</a></span> Herodot. v, 64, 65.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_241"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_241">[241]</a></span> Thucyd. vi, 56, 57.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_242"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_242">[242]</a></span> Thucyd. vi, 55. ὡς ὅ τε βωμὸς -σημαίνει, καὶ ἡ στήλη περὶ τῆς τῶν τυράννων ἀδικίας, ἡ ἐν τῇ Ἀθηναίων -ἀκροπόλει σταθεῖσα.</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>Marathon</i> -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).</p> - -<p>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 <a -href="#Chap_31">following chapter</a>, 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.</p> - -<p>I will add another reason to evince how completely -Andokidês misconceives the history of Athens between 510-480 -<small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>descendants</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Andokidês is a useful authority for the politics of Athens in his -own time (between 420-390 <small>B. C.</small>), but in regard to the -previous history of Athens between 510-480 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_243"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_243">[243]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_244"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_244">[244]</a></span> Aristot. Polit. iii, 1, 10; vi, -2, 11. Κλεισθένης,—πολλοῖς ἐφυλέτευσε ξένους καὶ δούλους μετοίκους. -</p> - -<p>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 <i>freedmen</i> (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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_245"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_245">[245]</a></span> Herodot. v, 69. -Κλεισθένης,—ὑπεριδὼν Ἴωνας, ἵνα μὴ σφισι αἱ αὐταὶ ἔωσι φυλαὶ καὶ -Ἴωσι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_246"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_246">[246]</a></span> Such a disposition seems -evident in Herodot. i, 143.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_247"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_247">[247]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_248"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_248">[248]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_249"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_249">[249]</a></span> Herodot. v, 69. δέκα δὲ καὶ -τοὺς δήμους κατένεμε ἐς τὰς φυλάς.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_250"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_250">[250]</a></span> The deme <i>Melitê</i> belonged to -the tribe Kekropis; <i>Kollytus</i>, to the tribe Ægêis; <i>Kydathenæon</i>, to -the tribe Pandionis; <i>Kerameis</i> or <i>Kerameikus</i>, to the Akamantis; -<i>Skambônidæ</i>, to the Leontis.</p> - -<p>All these five were demes within the city of Athens, and all -belonged to different tribes.</p> - -<p><i>Peiræus</i> belonged to the Hippothoöntis; <i>Phalêrum</i>, to the -Æantis; <i>Xypetê</i>, to the Kekropis; <i>Thymætadæ</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_251"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_251">[251]</a></span> See Boeckh, Corp. Inscriptt. -Nos. 85, 128, 213, etc.: compare Demosthen. cont. Theokrin. c. 4. p. -1326 R.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_252"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_252">[252]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_253"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_253">[253]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_254"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_254">[254]</a></span> Aristot. Fragment. de Republ., -ed. Neumann.—Ἀθην. πολιτ. Fr. 40, p. 88; Schol. ad Aristophan. Ran. -37; Harpokration, v. Δήμαρχος—Ναυκραρικά; Photius, v. Ναυκραρία.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_255"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_255">[255]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 109-111.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_256"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_256">[256]</a></span> Harpokration, v. Ἀποδέκται.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_257"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_257">[257]</a></span> See the valuable treatise of -Schömann, De Comitiis, <i>passim</i>; also his Antiq. Jur. Publ. Gr. ch. -xxxi; Harpokration, v. Κυρία Ἐκκλησία; Pollux, viii, 95.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_258"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_258">[258]</a></span> 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, <i>seqq.</i>; also Heffter, Die Athenäische -Gerichtsverfassung, part ii, ch. 2, p. 51, <i>seqq.</i>; Meier and -Schömann, Der Attische Prozess, pp. 127-135.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<table class="tins" summary="Inscriptions"> - <tr> - <td>Δ.</td><td>Διόδωρος</td><td> </td><td>Ε.</td><td>Δεινίας</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td> </td><td>Φρεάῤῥιος</td><td> </td><td> </td><td>Ἀλαιεύς.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="toright">(Boeckh, Corp. Inscrip. Nos. 207-208.)</p> - -<p class="mt1">Fritzsche (p. 73) considers these to be tickets of -senators, not of dikasts, contrary to all probability.</p> - -<p>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, <i>seqq.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_259"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_259">[259]</a></span> Plutarch, Arist. 7; Herodot. -vi, 109-111.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_260"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_260">[260]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<p>“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. <i>Sortitis autem magistratibus hoc maxime proprium est, -ut promiscue—non ex genere, censu, dignitate—a quolibet capi -possint</i>: 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.”</p> - -<p>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>i. e.</i> had no -place under the constitution of Kleisthenês.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_261"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_261">[261]</a></span> Plutarch, Periklês, c. 9-16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_262"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_262">[262]</a></span> See a passage about such -characters in Plato, Republic, v, p. 475 B.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_263"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_263">[263]</a></span> Plutarch, Arist. 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_264"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_264">[264]</a></span> So at least the supporters of -the constitution of Kleisthenês were called by the contemporaries of -Periklês.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_265"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_265">[265]</a></span> Plutarch, Arist. <i>ut sup.</i> -γράφει ψήφισμα, κοινὴν εἶναι τὴν πολιτείαν, καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἐξ -Ἀθηναίων πάντων αἱρεῖσθαι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_266"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_266">[266]</a></span> 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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_267"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_267">[267]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_268"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_268">[268]</a></span> Herodotus speaks of Kallimachus -the Polemarch, at Marathon, as ὁ τῷ κυάμῳ λαχὼν Πολέμαρχος (vi, 110). -</p> - -<p>I cannot but think that in this case he transfers to the year 490 -<small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>Herodotus seems to have conceived the choice of magistrates by -lot as being of the essence of a democracy (Herodot. iii, 80).</p> - -<p>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 -<i>chosen archon by the people</i>,—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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_269"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_269">[269]</a></span> See above, chap. xi. vol. iii. -p. 145.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_270"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_270">[270]</a></span> Aristeidês Rhetor. Orat. xlvi. -vol ii. p. 317, ed. Dindorf.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_271"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_271">[271]</a></span> Plutarch (Nikias, c. 11; -Alkibiad. c. 13; Aristeid. c. 7): Thucyd. viii, 73. Plato Comicus -said, respecting Hyperbolus—</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Οὐ γὰρ τοιούτων οὕνεκ᾽ ὄστραχ᾽ ηὑρέθη.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1"> 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.</p> - -<p>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 -<i>that</i> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_272"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_272">[272]</a></span> See the discussion of the -ostracism in Aristot. Politic. iii, 8, where he recognizes the -problem as one common to all governments.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_273"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_273">[273]</a></span> Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_274"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_274">[274]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_275"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_275">[275]</a></span> Thucyd. iii, 70, 81, 82.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_276"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_276">[276]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>“Privilegia ne irroganto,” said the law of the Twelve Tables at -Rome (Cicero, Legg. iii, 4-19).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_277"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_277">[277]</a></span> Aristotle and Philochorus, ap. -Photium, App. p. 672 and 675, ed. Porson.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_278"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_278">[278]</a></span> Philochorus, <i>ut supra</i>; -Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 7; Schol. ad Aristophan. Equit. 851; Pollux, -viii, 19.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>For the purpose, so unequivocally pronounced, of the general -law determining the absolute minimum necessary for a <i>privilegium</i>, -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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_279"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_279">[279]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_280"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_280">[280]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_281"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_281">[281]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The last century of the free Athenian democracy realized the -first of these alternatives.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_282"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_282">[282]</a></span> Plutarch, Nikias, c. 11: -Harpokration. v. Ἵππαρχος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_283"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_283">[283]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_284"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_284">[284]</a></span> Plutarch, Periklês. c. 4; -Plutarch. Aristeid. c. 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_285"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_285">[285]</a></span> Ælian, V. H. xiii, 24; -Herakleidês, περὶ Πολιτειῶν, c. 1, ed. Köhler.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_286"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_286">[286]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_287"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_287">[287]</a></span> Thucyd. viii, 73, διὰ δυνάμεως -καὶ ἀξιώματος φόβον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_288"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_288">[288]</a></span> Kratinus ap. Plutarch, -Periklês, 13.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Ὁ σχινοκέφαλος Ζεὺς ὁδὶ προσέρχεται</p> -<p class="i0">Περικλέης, τᾠδεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ κρανíου</p> -<p class="i0">Ἔχων, ἐπειδὴ τοὔστρακον παροίχεται.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1">For the attacks of the comic writers upon Damôn, see -Plutarch, Periklês, c. 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_289"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_289">[289]</a></span> Aristot. Polit. iii, 8, 4; v, -2, 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_290"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_290">[290]</a></span> Diodor. xi, 55-87. This author -describes very imperfectly the Athenian ostracism, transferring to it -apparently the circumstances of the Syracusan Petalism.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_291"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_291">[291]</a></span> Herodot. v, 70-72; compare -Schol. ad Aristophan. Lysistr. 274.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_292"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_292">[292]</a></span> Herodot. v, 73.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_293"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_293">[293]</a></span> See vol. ii, p. 295, part ii, -ch. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_294"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_294">[294]</a></span> Thucyd. iii, 61.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_295"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_295">[295]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_296"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_296">[296]</a></span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, where Mr. Clinton and other chronologers place it.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, but must have happened <i>after</i> the expulsion of Hippias -from Athens in 510 <small>B. C.</small>,—for the following reasons:— -</p> - -<p>1. No mention is made of Hippias, who yet, if the event had -happened in 519 <small>B. C.</small>, 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, <i>he</i> would have -been the person to be propitiated and to determine for or against -assistance.</p> - -<p>2. We know no cause which should have brought Kleomenês with -a Lacedæmonian force near to Platæa in the year 519 <small>B. C.</small>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>4. That Herodotus did not conceive the victory gained by the -Athenians over Thebes as having taken place <i>before</i> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>; 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_297"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_297">[297]</a></span> Herodot. v, 75.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_298"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_298">[298]</a></span> Compare Kortüm, Zur Geschichte -Hellenischer Staats-Verfassungen, p. 35 (Heidelberg, 1821).</p> - -<p>I doubt, however, his interpretation of the words in Herodotus -(v, 63)—εἴτε ἰδίῳ στόλῳ, εἴτε δημοσίῳ χρησόμενοι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_299"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_299">[299]</a></span> Herodot. v, 77; Ælian, V. H. -vi, 1; Pausan. i, 28, 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_300"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_300">[300]</a></span> Herodot. v, 80.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_301"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_301">[301]</a></span> In the expression of Herodotus, -the Æakid heroes are <i>really</i> sent from Ægina, and <i>really</i> sent -back by the Thebans (v, 80-81)—Οἱ δέ σφι αἰτέουσι ἐπικουρίην τοὺς -Αἰακίδας συμπέμπειν ἔφασαν, αὖτις οἱ Θηβαῖοι πέμψαντες, <span -class="gesperrt">τοὺς μὲν Αἰακίδας σφι ἀπεδίδοσαν, τῶν δὲ ἀνδρῶν -ἐδέοντο</span>. Compare again v, 75; viii, 64; and Polyb. vii, 9, 2. -θεῶν τῶν συστρατευομένων.</p> - -<p>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, <i>obtentoque, ut rebantur, quod petebant—haud secus -læti quam si deos ipsos secum avecturi essent</i>—pulvinaria iis in navi -componunt, faustisque profecti ominibus, <i>solatia suis pro auxiliis</i> -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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_302"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_302">[302]</a></span> Herodot. v, 81-82.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_303"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_303">[303]</a></span> Herodot. v, 83-88.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_304"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_304">[304]</a></span> Herodot. v, 81-89. μεγάλως -Ἀθηναίους ἐσινέοντο.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_305"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_305">[305]</a></span> Herodot. v, 90.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_306"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_306">[306]</a></span> Herodot. v, 90, 91.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_307"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_307">[307]</a></span> Herodot. v, 92. ... τυραννίδας -ἐς τὰς πόλις κατάγειν παρασκευάζεσθε, τοῦ οὔτε ἀδικώτερον ἐστὶ οὐδὲν -κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους οὔτε μιαιφονώτερον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_308"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_308">[308]</a></span> Herodot. v, 93. μὴ ποιέειν -μηδὲν νεώτερον περὶ πόλιν Ἑλλάδα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_309"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_309">[309]</a></span> Herodot. v, 93-94.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_310"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_310">[310]</a></span> Thucydid. i, 68-71, 120-124.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_311"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_311">[311]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>(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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_312"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_312">[312]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 80. Πλῆθος δὲ -ἄρχον, <span class="gesperrt">πρῶτα μὲν, οὔνομα πάντων κάλλιστον -ἔχει, ἰσονομίην</span>· δεύτερα δὲ, τούτων τῶν ὁ μόναρχος, ποιέει -οὐδέν· πάλῳ μὲν ἀρχὰς ἄρχει, ὑπεύθυνον δὲ ἀρχὴν ἔχει, βουλεύματα δὲ -πάντα ἐς τὸ κοινὸν ἀναφέρει.</p> - -<p>The democratical speaker at Syracuse, Athenagoras, also puts this -name and promise in the first rank of advantages—(Thucyd. vi, 39)—ἐγὼ -δέ φημι, <span class="gesperrt">πρῶτα μὲν</span>, δῆμον ξύμπαν -ὠνόμασθαι, ὀλιγαρχίαν δὲ, μέρος, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_313"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_313">[313]</a></span> See the preceding chapter -xi, of this History, vol. iii, p. 145, respecting the Solonian -declaration here adverted to.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_314"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_314">[314]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_315"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_315">[315]</a></span> Thucyd. vii, 69. Πατρίδος τε -τῆς ἐλευθερωτάτης ὑπομιμνήσκων καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτῇ ἀνεπιτακτοῦ πᾶσιν ἐς -τὴν δίαιταν ἐξουσίας, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_316"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_316">[316]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_317"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_317">[317]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_318"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_318">[318]</a></span> 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 (<span -class="gesperrt">ἵνα θειοτέρως δοκέῃ τοῖσι Πέρσῃσι περιεῖναί σφι ὁ -παῖς</span>), κατέβαλον φάτιν ὡς ἐκκείμενον Κῦρον κύων ἐξέθρεψε· -ἐνθεῦτεν μὲν ἡ φάτις αὐτὴ κεχωρήκεε.</p> - -<p>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 <i>reality</i> a man <i>named Krius</i>, -who aided their flight,—the winged horse which carried Bellerophon -was a ship <i>named</i> Pegasus, etc.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_319"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_319">[319]</a></span> Herodot. i, 95. Ὡς ὦν Περσέων -<span class="gesperrt">μετεξέτεροι</span> λέγουσιν, οἱ <span -class="gesperrt">μὴ βουλόμενοι σεμνοῦν</span> τὰ περὶ Κῦρον, ἀλλὰ -τὸν ἐόντα λέγειν λόγον, κατὰ ταῦτα γράψω· ἐπιστάμενος περὶ Κύρου καὶ -<span class="gesperrt">τριφασίας ἄλλας</span> λόγων ὁδοὺς φῆναι. His -informants were thus select persons, who differed from the Persians -generally.</p> - -<p>The long narrative respecting the infancy and growth of Cyrus is -contained in Herodot. i, 107-129.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_320"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_320">[320]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_321"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_321">[321]</a></span> Xenophon, Anabas. i, 8, 26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_322"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_322">[322]</a></span> Herodot. i, 71-153; Arrian, v, -4; Strabo, xv, p. 727; Plato, Legg. iii, p. 695.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_323"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_323">[323]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_324"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_324">[324]</a></span> Xenophanês, Fragm. p. 39, ap. -Schneidewin, Delectus Poett. Elegiac. Græc.—</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Πήλικος ἦσθ᾽ ὅθ᾽ ὁ Μῆδος ἀφίκετο;</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1 ti0">compare Theognis, v, 775, and Herodot. i, 163.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_325"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_325">[325]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_326"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_326">[326]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_327"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_327">[327]</a></span> Ktêsias, Persica, c. 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_328"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_328">[328]</a></span> Herodot. i, 153.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_329"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_329">[329]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_330"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_330">[330]</a></span> Herodot. i, 47-50.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_331"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_331">[331]</a></span> Herodot. i, 52-54.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_332"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_332">[332]</a></span> Herodot. i, 55.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_333"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_333">[333]</a></span> Herodot. i, 67-70.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_334"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_334">[334]</a></span> Herodot. i, 77.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_335"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_335">[335]</a></span> Herodot. i, 83.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_336"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_336">[336]</a></span> The story about the successful -employment of the camels appears also in Xenophon, Cyropæd. vii, 1, -47.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_337"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_337">[337]</a></span> Herodot. i, 84.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_338"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_338">[338]</a></span> Compare Herodot. i, 84-87, and -Ktêsias, Persica, c. 4; which latter seems to have been copied by -Polyænus, vii, 6, 10.</p> - -<p>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 <i>fire</i> mentioned. This is deserving of notice, -as illustrating the fact that Ktêsias derived his information from -<i>Persian</i> 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).</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_339"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_339">[339]</a></span> Justin (i, 7) seems to copy -Ktêsias, about the treatment of Crœsus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_340"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_340">[340]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_341"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_341">[341]</a></span> Herodot. i, 91. Ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας -συνέγνω ἑωϋτοῦ εἶναι τὴν ἁμαρτάδα, καὶ οὐ τοῦ θεοῦ.</p> - -<p>Xenophon also, in the Cyropædia (vii, 2, 16-25), brings Crœsus -to the same result of confession and humiliation, though by steps -somewhat different.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_342"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_342">[342]</a></span> Herodot. i, 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_343"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_343">[343]</a></span> See above, chap, xi, vol. iii, -pp. 149-153.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_344"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_344">[344]</a></span> Herodot. vii, 10. οὐ γὰρ ἐᾷ -φρονέειν ἄλλον μέγα ὁ θεὸς ἢ ἑωϋτόν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_345"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_345">[345]</a></span> 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—</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Οὐ δύναται Παλλὰς Δί᾽ Ὀλύμπιον ἐξιλάσασθαι,</p> -<p class="i0">Λισσομένη πολλοῖσι λόγοις καὶ μήτιδι πυκνῇ, etc.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1 ti0">Compare also viii, 109, and ix, 16.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>To the same purpose Klausen expresses himself (Theologumena -Æschyli, pp. 6-69).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In Æschylus, as in Herodotus, Apollo is represented as exercising -persuasive powers over the Mœræ (Eumenid. 724),—Μοίρας ἔπεισας -ἀφθίτους θεῖναι βροτούς.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_346"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_346">[346]</a></span> 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 <i>of their own accord</i>, I procured for you.” (ὅσον δὲ -<span class="gesperrt">ἐνέδωκαν αὗται</span>, ἐχαρίσατό οἱ—i, 91.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_347"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_347">[347]</a></span> Thucyd. i, 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_348"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_348">[348]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, and the reign of Crœsus to have begun -in 571 <small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_349"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_349">[349]</a></span> Herodot. i, 141.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_350"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_350">[350]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_351"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_351">[351]</a></span> Herodot. i, 153. ταῦτα ἐς τοὺς -πάντας Ἕλληνας ἀπέῤῥιψε ὁ Κῦρος τὰ ἔπεα, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_352"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_352">[352]</a></span> Herodot. i, 155.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_353"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_353">[353]</a></span> Herodot. i, 159.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_354"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_354">[354]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_355"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_355">[355]</a></span> Herodot. i, 161-169.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_356"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_356">[356]</a></span> Herodot. i, 168; Skymnus Chius, -Fragm. v, 153; Dionys. Perieg. v, 553.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_357"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_357">[357]</a></span> Herodot. i, 163. Ὁ δὲ -πυθόμενος παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸν Μῆδον ὡς αὔξοιτο, ἐδίδου σφι χρήματα τεῖχος -περιβαλέσθαι τὴν πόλιν.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_358"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_358">[358]</a></span> Herodot. i, 164.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_359"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_359">[359]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_360"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_360">[360]</a></span> Herodot. i, 166.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_361"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_361">[361]</a></span> Aristot. Polit. iii, 5, 11; -Polyb. iii, 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_362"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_362">[362]</a></span> Herodot. i, 167.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_363"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_363">[363]</a></span> Herodot. i, 170. Πυνθάνομαι -γνώμην Βίαντα ἄνδρα Πριηνέα ἀποδέξασθαι Ἴωσι χρησιμωτάτην, τῇ εἰ -ἐπείθοντο, παρεῖχε ἂν σφι εὐδαιμονέειν Ἑλλήνων μάλιστα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_364"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_364">[364]</a></span> Herodot. i, 174.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_365"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_365">[365]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_366"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_366">[366]</a></span> Herodot. i, 177.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_367"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_367">[367]</a></span> Herodot. i, 153.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_368"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_368">[368]</a></span> Herodot. i, 177. τὰ δὲ -οἱ πάρεσχε πόνον τε πλεῖστον, καὶ ἀξιαπηγητότατά ἐστι, τούτων -ἐπιμνήσομαι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_369"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_369">[369]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_370"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_370">[370]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_371"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_371">[371]</a></span> Herodot. i, 190. ἐπεὶ δὲ -ἐγένετο ἐλαύνων ἀγχοῦ τῆς πόλιος, συνέβαλόν τε οἱ Βαβυλώνιοι, καὶ -ἑσσωθέντες τῇ μάχῃ, κατειλήθησαν ἐς τὸ ἄστυ.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_372"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_372">[372]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_373"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_373">[373]</a></span> Xenophon, Cyropæd. iii, 3, 26, -about the πολυχειρία of the barbaric kings.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_374"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_374">[374]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_375"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_375">[375]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_376"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_376">[376]</a></span> Arrian, vi, 24, 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_377"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_377">[377]</a></span> Herodot. i, 205-214; Arrian, v, -4, 14; Justin, i, 8; Strabo, xi, p. 512.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_378"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_378">[378]</a></span> Strabo, xv, pp. 730, 731; -Arrian, vi, 29.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_379"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_379">[379]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_380"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_380">[380]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 19.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_381"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_381">[381]</a></span> Herodot. i, 188; Plutarch, -Artaxerxês, c. 3; Diodor. xvii, 71.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_382"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_382">[382]</a></span> Xenophon, Anabas. i, 1, 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_383"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_383">[383]</a></span> Xenophon, Anabas. i, 7, 6; -Cyropæd. viii, 6, 19.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_384"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_384">[384]</a></span> Herodot. ix, 122.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_385"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_385">[385]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_386"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_386">[386]</a></span> About the attributes of the -Persian character, see Herodot. i, 131-140: compare i, 153.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_387"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_387">[387]</a></span> Herodot. ix, 76; Plutarch, -Artaxerx. c. 26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_388"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_388">[388]</a></span> Herodot. i, 210; iii, 159.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_389"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_389">[389]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 1-4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_390"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_390">[390]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 1, 19, 44.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_391"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_391">[391]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_392"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_392">[392]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 10-16. About the -Arabians, between Judæa and Egypt, see iii, c. 5, 88-91.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_393"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_393">[393]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 19.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_394"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_394">[394]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 29.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_395"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_395">[395]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_396"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_396">[396]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 30-62.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_397"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_397">[397]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 61-63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_398"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_398">[398]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_399"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_399">[399]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 64-66.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_400"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_400">[400]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 67.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_401"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_401">[401]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 68-69.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_402"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_402">[402]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 69-73. ἀρχόμεθα -μὲν ἐόντες Πέρσαι, ὑπὸ Μήδου ἀνδρὸς μάγου, καὶ τούτου ὦτα οὐκ -ἔχοντος.</p> - -<p>Compare the description of the insupportable repugnance of the -Greeks of Kyrênê to be governed by the <i>lame</i> Battus (Herodot. iv, -161).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_403"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_403">[403]</a></span> 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. -<i>l. c.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_404"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_404">[404]</a></span> Herodot. i, 101-120.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_405"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_405">[405]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_406"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_406">[406]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_407"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_407">[407]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_408"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_408">[408]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 127. Δαρεῖος—ἅτε -οἰδεόντων οἱ ἔτι τῶν πρηγμάτων, etc.,—mention of the ταραχή (iii, -126, 150).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_409"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_409">[409]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 126. Μετὰ γὰρ τὸν -Καμβύσεω θάνατον, καὶ τῶν Μάγων τὴν βασιληΐην, μένων ἐν τῇσι Σάρδισι -Ὀροίτης, ὠφέλει μὲν οὐδὲν Πέρσας, <span class="gesperrt">ὑπὸ Μήδων -ἀπαραιρημένους τὴν ἀρχήν</span>· ὁ δὲ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ταραχῇ κατὰ μὲν -ἔκτεινε Μιτροβάτεα ... ἄλλα τε ἐξύβρισε παντοῖα, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_410"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_410">[410]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 166. Ὁ δὲ Ἀρυάνδης -ἦν οὗτος τῆς Αἰγύπτου ὕπαρχος ὑπὸ Καμβύσεω κατεστεώς· ὃς ὑστέρῳ χρόνῳ -παρισεύμενος Δαρείῳ διεφθάρη.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_411"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_411">[411]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 67-150.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_412"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_412">[412]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>2. The deposition of Astyagês took place in 559 <small>B. C.</small>; the beginning of the reign of Darius occurred in 520 -<small>B. C.</small>; 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 <small>B. C.</small>, and the -revolt mentioned by Xenophon against Darius Nothus in 408 <small>B. C.</small>, the interval is more than one hundred and fifty years. -To ascribe a revolt which took place in 408 <small>B. C.</small>, -to repentance for something which had occurred one hundred and -fifty years before, is unnatural and far-fetched, if not positively -inadmissible.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The supposed mention, in Herodotus, of a fact so late as 408 -<small>B. C.</small>, 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 <small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>, -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 <i>more than fifty years before</i>.” 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 <i>grandson</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small> (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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small>,—will not readily admit the hypothesis of additions made -to the history during the reign of the latter, or so late as 408 -<small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>The sentiment too which Herodotus places in the mouth of -Demaratus respecting the Spartans (vii, 104) appears to have been -written <i>before</i> the capture of the Spartans in Sphakteria, in 425 -<small>B. C.</small>, rather than <i>after</i> it: compare Thucyd. iv, 40. -</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small> But none -of the chronological indications which they adduce appear to me -trustworthy.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_413"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_413">[413]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 127, 128.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_414"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_414">[414]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 150.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_415"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_415">[415]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 155. δεινόν -τι ποιεύμενος, Ἀσσυρίους Πέρσῃσι καταγελᾷν. Compare the speech of -Mardonius, vii, 9.</p> - -<p>The horror of Darius, at the first sight of Zopyrus in this -condition, is strongly dramatized by Herodotus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_416"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_416">[416]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 154-158.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_417"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_417">[417]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>This seems inconsistent with the fact, that Megabyzus was general -of the Persian army in Egypt in the war with the Athenians, about -460 <small>B. C.</small> (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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_418"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_418">[418]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 159, 160. “From -the women thus introduced (says Herodotus) the present Babylonians -are sprung.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_419"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_419">[419]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 92.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_420"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_420">[420]</a></span> 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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_421"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_421">[421]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_422"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_422">[422]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 15.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_423"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_423">[423]</a></span> Respecting the administration -of the modern Persian empire, see Kinneir, Geograph. Memoir of -Persia, pp. 29, 43, 47.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_424"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_424">[424]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>The modern Persian empire contains not so much as the eastern -half of the ancient, which covered all Asiatic Turkey and Egypt -besides.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_425"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_425">[425]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_426"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_426">[426]</a></span> Thucyd. i, 138.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_427"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_427">[427]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 117.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_428"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_428">[428]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_429"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_429">[429]</a></span> Plato, Legg. iii, 12, p. -695.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_430"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_430">[430]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 166; Plutarch, -Kimon, 10.</p> - -<p>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<i>s.</i> 3<i>d.</i> 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 -<small>B. C.</small> Mr. Hussey calculates the golden Daric as equal -to £1, 1<i>s.</i> 3<i>d.</i> English (Hussey, Essay on the Ancient Weights and -Money, Oxford, 1836, ch. iv, s. 8, p. 68; ch. vii, s. 3, p. 103).</p> - -<p>I cannot think, with Mr. Hussey, that there is any reason for -believing either the name or the coin <i>Daric</i> to be older than Darius -son of Hystaspês. Compare Boeckh, Metrologie, ix, 5, p. 129.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_431"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_431">[431]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 96.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_432"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_432">[432]</a></span> 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.)</p> - -<p>The description of Herodotus contrasts favorably with the picture -here given by Mr. Kinneir.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_433"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_433">[433]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 120.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_434"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_434">[434]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 39; Thucyd. i, -13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_435"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_435">[435]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 40-42. ... -ἤν δὲ μὴ ἐναλλὰξ ἤδη τὠπὸ τούτου αἱ εὐτυχίαι τοι τοιαύταισι -πάθαισι προσπίπτωσι, τρόπῳ τῷ ἐξ ἐμεῦ ὑποκειμένῳ <span -class="gesperrt">ἀκέο</span>: compare vii, 203, and i, 32.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_436"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_436">[436]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 44.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_437"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_437">[437]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 44.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_438"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_438">[438]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 46. τῷ θυλάκῳ -περιείργασθαι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_439"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_439">[439]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 47, 48, 52.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_440"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_440">[440]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 54-56.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_441"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_441">[441]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 57. νησιωτέων -μάλιστα ἐπλούτεον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_442"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_442">[442]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 58, 59.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_443"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_443">[443]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 139. πολίων -πασέων πρώτην Ἑλληνίδων καὶ βαρβάρων.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_444"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_444">[444]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 60.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_445"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_445">[445]</a></span> Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 4. τῶν -περὶ Σάμον ἔργα Πολυκράτεια· πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα δύναται ταὐτὸν, ἀσχολίαν -καὶ πενίαν τῶν ἀρχομένων.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_446"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_446">[446]</a></span> Thucyd. i, 14; iii, 104.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_447"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_447">[447]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 120.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_448"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_448">[448]</a></span> Compare the trick of Hannibal -at Gortyn in Krete,—Cornelius Nepos (Hannibal, c. 9).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_449"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_449">[449]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 124, 125.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_450"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_450">[450]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 126. Ὀροίτεα -Πολυκράτεος τίσιες μετῆλθον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_451"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_451">[451]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 142. τῷ -δικαιοτάτῳ ἀνδρῶν βουλομένῳ γενέσθαι, οὐκ ἐξεγένετο. Compare his -remark on Kadmus, who voluntarily resigned the despotism at Kôs (vii, -164).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_452"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_452">[452]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_453"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_453">[453]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 143. οὐ γὰρ δὴ, -ὡς οἴκασι, ἐβουλέατο εἶναι ἐλεύθεροι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_454"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_454">[454]</a></span> Herodot. v, 78, and iii, 142, -143.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_455"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_455">[455]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 139. Ὁ δὲ -Συλοσῶν, ὁρέων τὸν Δαρεῖον μεγάλως ἐπιθυμέοντα τῆς χλάνιδος, θείῃ -τύχῃ χρεώμενος, λέγει, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_456"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_456">[456]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 140. ἠπίστατό οἱ -τοῦτο ἀπολωλέναι δι᾽ εὐηθίην.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_457"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_457">[457]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 141-144.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_458"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_458">[458]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 146. τῶν Περσέων -τοὺς διφροφορευμένους καὶ λόγου πλείστου ἀξίους.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_459"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_459">[459]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>The highly dramatic manner of Herodotus cannot be melted down -into smooth historical recital.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_460"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_460">[460]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 149. ἔρημον -ἐοῦσαν ἀνδρῶν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_461"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_461">[461]</a></span> Herodot. v, 27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_462"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_462">[462]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 148.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_463"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_463">[463]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 149.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_464"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_464">[464]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_465"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_465">[465]</a></span> Strabo, xiv, p. 638. He gives a -proverbial phrase about the depopulation of the island—</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Ἕκητι Συλοσῶντος εὐρυχορίη,</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1 ti0">which is perfectly consistent with the narrative -of Herodotus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_466"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_466">[466]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 88; vii, 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_467"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_467">[467]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_468"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_468">[468]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_469"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_469">[469]</a></span> About the Persian habit of -sending to Egypt for surgeons, compare Herodot. iii, 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_470"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_470">[470]</a></span> Herodot iii, 129. τὸν δὲ ὡς -ἐξεῦρον ἐν τοῖσι Ὀροίτεω ἀνδραπόδοισι ὅκου δὴ ἀπημελημένον, παρῆγον -ἐς μέσον, πέδας τε ἕλκοντα καὶ ῥάκεσιν ἐσθημένον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_471"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_471">[471]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 130. The golden -stater was equal to about 1<i>l.</i> 1<i>s.</i> 3<i>d.</i> English money (Hussey, -Ancient Weights, vii, 3, p. 103).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_472"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_472">[472]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_473"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_473">[473]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 134.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_474"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_474">[474]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 136. προσίσχοντες -δὲ αὐτῆς τὰ παραθαλάσσια ἐθήσαντο καὶ ἀπεγράφοντο.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_475"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_475">[475]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 137, 138.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_476"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_476">[476]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_477"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_477">[477]</a></span> Herodot. iii, 138.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_478"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_478">[478]</a></span> Xenophon, Memorab. iv, 2, 33. -Ἄλλους δὲ πόσους οἴει (says Sokratês) διὰ σοφίαν ἀναρπάστους πρὸς -βασιλέα γεγονέναι, καὶ ἐκεῖ δουλεύειν;</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_479"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_479">[479]</a></span> Æschyl. Pers. 435-845, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_480"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_480">[480]</a></span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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 <small>B. C.</small> -There is reason for supposing it to have been before 514 <small>B. C.</small>, 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 <i>before</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Professor Schultz (Beiträge zu genaueren Zeitbestimmungen der -Hellen. Geschicht. von der 63<sup>n</sup> bis zur 72<sup>n</sup> -Olympiade, p. 168, in the Kieler Philolog. Studien) places the -expedition in 513 <small>B. C.</small>; but I think a year or two -earlier is more probable. Larcher, Wesseling, and Bähr (ad Herodot. -iv, 145) place it in 508 <small>B. C.</small>, which is later -than the truth; indeed, Larcher himself places the reduction of -Lemnos and Imbros by Otanês in 511 <small>B. C.</small>, though -that event decidedly came after the Scythian expedition (Herodot. -v, 27; Larcher, Table Chronologique, Trad. d’Hérodot. t. vii, pp. -633-635).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_481"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_481">[481]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 84.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_482"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_482">[482]</a></span> Herodot. vii, 39.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_483"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_483">[483]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 97, 137, 138.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_484"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_484">[484]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 89-93.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_485"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_485">[485]</a></span> Herod. iv, 48-50. -Ἴστρος—μέγιστος ποταμῶν πάντων τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_486"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_486">[486]</a></span> Ktêsias, Persica. c. 17. Justin -(ii, 5—compare also xxxviii, 7) seems to follow the narrative of -Ktêsias.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_487"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_487">[487]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>But he appears to forget the existence of these rivers when he is -describing the Persian march.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_488"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_488">[488]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 101.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_489"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_489">[489]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 118, 119.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_490"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_490">[490]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 120-122.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_491"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_491">[491]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_492"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_492">[492]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_493"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_493">[493]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 126, 127.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_494"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_494">[494]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_495"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_495">[495]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 133.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_496"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_496">[496]</a></span> 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;</p> - -<p>Ἐξεύρηται δέ σφι ταῦτα, τῆς τε γῆς ἐούσης ἐπιτηδέης, καὶ τῶν -ποταμῶν ἐόντων σφι συμμάχων, etc.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_497"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_497">[497]</a></span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i>perhaps</i> 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. -</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_498"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_498">[498]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 97. Δαρεῖος -ἐκέλευσε τοὺς Ἴωνας τὴν σχεδίην λύσαντας ἕπεσθαι κατ᾽ ἤπειρον ἑωϋτῷ, -καὶ τὸν ἐκ τῶν νέων στρατόν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_499"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_499">[499]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_500"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_500">[500]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_501"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_501">[501]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_502"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_502">[502]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 133, 136, 137.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_503"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_503">[503]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 137-139.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_504"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_504">[504]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 140, 141.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_505"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_505">[505]</a></span> Herodot. iv, 143, 144, v, 1, -2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_506"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_506">[506]</a></span> Herodot. v, 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_507"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_507">[507]</a></span> Herodot. v, 11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_508"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_508">[508]</a></span> Herodot. v, 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_509"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_509">[509]</a></span> 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. -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>did quit the Chersonese</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>that</i> must have taken -place evidently while the Persians were occupied by the Ionic -revolt, (between 502-494 <small>B. C.</small>) There is nothing in -his recorded deeds inconsistent with the belief, therefore, that -between 515-502 <small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_510"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_510">[510]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_511"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_511">[511]</a></span> Herodot. v, 20, 21.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_512"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_512">[512]</a></span> Herodot. v, 23, 24.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_513"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_513">[513]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 138. Æschyl. -Choêphor. 632; Stephan. Byz. v. Λῆμνος.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>The volcanic mountain Mosychlus, in the north-eastern portion -of the island, was still burning in the fourth century <small>B. C.</small> (Antimach. Fragment. xviii, p. 103, Düntzer Epicc. Græc. -Fragm.)</p> - -<p>Welcker’s Dissertation (Die Æschylische Trilogie, p. 248, -<i>seqq.</i>) enlarges much upon the Lemnian and Samothracian worship.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_514"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_514">[514]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_515"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_515">[515]</a></span> Zenob. Proverb. iii, 85.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_516"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_516">[516]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 140. Charax ap. -Stephan. Byz. v. Ἡφαιστíα.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_517"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_517">[517]</a></span> Xenophon, Hellen. v, 1, 31. -Compare Plato, Menexenus, c. 17, p. 245, where the words ἡμετέραι -ἀποίκιαι doubtless mean Lemnos, Imbros, and Skyros.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_518"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_518">[518]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>From the passage of Isæus above alluded to, which Rhode seems -to me to construe incorrectly, it appears that there was a legal -<i>connubium</i> between Athenian citizens and Lemnian women.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_519"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_519">[519]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 136.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_520"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_520">[520]</a></span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, though some -prefer 502 <small>B. C.</small>, others even 500 <small>B. C.</small> -</p> - -<p>If, indeed, we admitted with Wesseling (ad Herodot. vi, 40; and -Mr. Clinton seems inclined towards the same opinion, see p. 314, -<i>ut sup.</i>) that the Scythian expedition is to be placed in 508-507 -<small>B. C.</small>, 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 <small>B. C.</small> a correct date for the Scythian expedition: it seems to me -to belong to about 515 <small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_521"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_521">[521]</a></span> Herodot. v, 96. Ὁ δὲ Ἀρταφέρνης -ἐκέλευέ σφεας εἰ βουλοίατο σόοι εἶναι, καταδέκεσθαι ὀπίσω τὸν -Ἱππίην.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_522"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_522">[522]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_523"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_523">[523]</a></span> Herodot. v, 30, 31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_524"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_524">[524]</a></span> Herodot. v, 34, 35.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_525"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_525">[525]</a></span> Herodot. v, 35: compare Polyæn. -i, 24, and Aulus Gellius, N. A. xvii, 9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_526"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_526">[526]</a></span> Herodot. v, 36.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_527"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_527">[527]</a></span> Compare Herodotus, v, 121, -and vii, 98. Oliatus was son of Ibanôlis, as was also the Mylasian -Herakleidês mentioned in v, 121.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_528"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_528">[528]</a></span> Herodot. v, 36, 37; vi, 9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_529"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_529">[529]</a></span> Herodot. v, 49. Τῷ δὴ -(Κλεομένεϊ) ἐς λόγους ἤϊε, <span class="gesperrt">ὡς Λακεδαιμόνιοι -λέγουσι</span>, ἔχων χάλκεον πίνακα, ἐν τῷ γῆς ἁπάσης περίοδος -ἐνετέτμητο, καὶ θάλασσά τε πᾶσα καὶ ποταμοὶ πάντες.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_530"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_530">[530]</a></span> Herodot. v, 49. δεικνὺς δὲ -ταῦτα ἔλεγε ἐς τὴν τῆς γῆς περίοδον, τὴν ἐφέρετο ἐν τῷ πίνακι -ἐντετμημένην.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_531"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_531">[531]</a></span> Herodot. v, 49. πάρεχον δὲ τῆς -Ἀσίης πάσης ἄρχειν εὐπετέως, ἄλλο τι αἱρήσεσθε;</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_532"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_532">[532]</a></span> Herodot. v, 49, 50, 51. Compare -Plutarch, Apophthegm. Laconic. p. 240.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_533"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_533">[533]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_534"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_534">[534]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_535"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_535">[535]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_536"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_536">[536]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_537"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_537">[537]</a></span> About Korêssus, see Diodor. -xiv, 99, and Xenophon, Hellen. i, 2, 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_538"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_538">[538]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_539"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_539">[539]</a></span> 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. <i>ut sup.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_540"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_540">[540]</a></span> About Derkyllidas, see -Xenophon, Hellen. iii, 2, 17-19.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_541"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_541">[541]</a></span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small>: most of the petty princes of the island became -for the time his subjects, but in 351 <small>B. C.</small> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_542"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_542">[542]</a></span> Herodot. v, 116. Κύπριοι μὲν -δὴ, ἐνιαυτὸν ἐλεύθεροι γενόμενοι, αὖτις ἐκ νέης κατεδεδούλωντο.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_543"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_543">[543]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 6. Κίλικες καὶ -Αἰγύπτιοι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_544"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_544">[544]</a></span> Herodot. v, 109. Ἡμέας δὲ -ἀπέπεμψε <span class="gesperrt">τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἰώνων</span> φυλάξοντας -τὴν θάλασσαν, etc.: compare vi, 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_545"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_545">[545]</a></span> Herodot. v, 112.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_546"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_546">[546]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_547"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_547">[547]</a></span> Herodot. v, 117.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_548"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_548">[548]</a></span> Herodot. v, 122-124.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_549"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_549">[549]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_550"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_550">[550]</a></span> 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 <small>B. C.</small> -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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_551"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_551">[551]</a></span> Herodot. v, 118, 119.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_552"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_552">[552]</a></span> Herodot. v, 120, 121; vi, -25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_553"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_553">[553]</a></span> Herodot. v, 125; Strabo, xiv, -p. 635.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_554"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_554">[554]</a></span> Herodot. v, 126.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_555"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_555">[555]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 5. Οἱ δὲ Μιλήσιοι, -ἄσμενοι ἀπαλλαχθέντες καὶ Ἀρισταγόρεῳ, οὐδαμῶς ἕτοιμοι ἔσαν ἄλλον -τύραννον δέκεσθαι ἐς τὴν χώρην, οἷά τε ἐλευθερίης γευσάμενοι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_556"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_556">[556]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_557"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_557">[557]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_558"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_558">[558]</a></span> Herodot. v, 106, 107.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_559"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_559">[559]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 1. Οὕτω τοι, -Ἱστίαιε, ἔχει κατὰ ταῦτα τὰ πρήγματα· τοῦτο τὸ ὑπόδημα ἔῤῥαψας μὲν -σὺ, ὑπεδήσατο δὲ Ἀρισταγόρης.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_560"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_560">[560]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 2-5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_561"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_561">[561]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 5-26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_562"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_562">[562]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 6-9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_563"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_563">[563]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_564"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_564">[564]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 9-10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_565"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_565">[565]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_566"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_566">[566]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_567"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_567">[567]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_568"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_568">[568]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 14, 15.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_569"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_569">[569]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_570"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_570">[570]</a></span> Thucyd. viii, 14.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_571"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_571">[571]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 17. ληϊστὴς -κατεστήκεε Ἑλλήνων μὲν οὐδενὸς, Καρχηδονίων δὲ καὶ Τυρσηνῶν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_572"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_572">[572]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 22-25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_573"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_573">[573]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 18, 19, 20, 22. -</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Μίλητος μέν νυν Μιλησίων ἠρήμωτο.</p> -</div></div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_574"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_574">[574]</a></span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>: the siege -of Milêtus may probably have been finished in 496-495 <small>B. C.</small>, and the Ionic revolt may have begun in 502-501 <small>B. C.</small> Such are the dates which, on the whole, appear to me most -probable, though I am far from considering them as certain.</p> - -<p>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 63<sup>n</sup> zur -72<sup>n</sup> Olympiade, pp. 177-183, in the Kieler Philologische -Studien; and Weissenborn, Beyträge zur genaueren Erforschung der -alten Griechischen Geschichte, Jena, 1844, p. 87, <i>seqq.</i>: 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 <small>B. C.</small>; 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 <i>immediately before</i> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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 <small>B. C.</small> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, yet he assigns the capture of -Milêtus to 496 <small>B. C.</small>,—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 -<small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -<p>It is vain, I think, to try to arrange these details according to -precise years: this can only be done very loosely.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_575"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_575">[575]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_576"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_576">[576]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_577"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_577">[577]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 41.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_578"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_578">[578]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 31, 32, 33.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_579"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_579">[579]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_580"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_580">[580]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 26-28. ἄγων Ἰώνων -καὶ Αἰολέων συχνούς.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_581"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_581">[581]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 28, 29, 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_582"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_582">[582]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 21, ὡς ἀναμνήσαντα -οἰκηΐα κακὰ: compare vii, 152; also, Kallisthenês ap. Strabo, xiv, p. -635, and Plutarch, Præcept. Reipubl. Gerend. p. 814.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_583"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_583">[583]</a></span> See Welcker Griechische -Tragödien, vol. i, p. 25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_584"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_584">[584]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 42.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_585"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_585">[585]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 20.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_586"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_586">[586]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_587"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_587">[587]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 43, 44, ἐπορεύοντο -δὲ ἐπί τε Ἐρετρίαν καὶ Ἀθήνας.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_588"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_588">[588]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_589"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_589">[589]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 46-48. See a -similar case of disclosure arising from jealousy between Tenedos and -Lesbos (Thucyd. iii, 2).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_590"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_590">[590]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 94.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_591"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_591">[591]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 48-49; viii, -46.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_592"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_592">[592]</a></span> Herodot. v, 81-89. See above, -<a href="#Chap_31">chapter xxxi</a>. 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_593"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_593">[593]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_594"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_594">[594]</a></span> Herodot. vii, 133.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_595"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_595">[595]</a></span> 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· -<span class="gesperrt">φοιτέοντές τε ἐς τὴν Σπάρτην, κατηγόρεον τῶν -Αἰγινητέων τὰ πεποιήκοιεν, προδόντες τὴν Ἑλλάδα</span>. Compare viii, -144, ix, 7. <span class="gesperrt">τὴν Ἑλλάδα δεινὸν ποιούμενοι -προδοῦναι</span>—a new and very important phrase.</p> - -<p>vi, 61. Τότε δὲ τὸν Κλεομένεα, ἐόντα ἐν τῇ Αἰγίνῃ, <span -class="gesperrt">καὶ κοινὰ τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἀγαθὰ προεργαζόμενον</span>, -etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_596"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_596">[596]</a></span> Thucyd. i, 70-118. ἄοκνοι -πρὸς ὑμᾶς (<i>i. e.</i> the Spartans) μελλητὰς καὶ ἀποδημηταὶ πρὸς -ἐνδημοτάτους.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_597"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_597">[597]</a></span> Herodot. vii, 145-148. Οἱ -συνωμόται Ἑλλήνων ἐπὶ τῷ Πέρσῃ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_598"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_598">[598]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>Χρεωμένοισι γὰρ Ἀργείοισι ἐν Δελφοῖσι περὶ σωτηρίης τῆς πόλιος -τῆς σφετέρης, τὸ μὲν ἐς αὐτοὺς τοὺς Ἀργείους φέρον, τὴν δὲ παρενθήκην -ἔχρησε ἐς Μιλησίους.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small> This would be thirty-seven years prior to -480 <small>B. C.</small>; a date much too early for the war between -Kleomenês and the Argeians, as we may see by Herodotus (vii, 149).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_599"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_599">[599]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 92.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_600"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_600">[600]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_601"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_601">[601]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 79, 80.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_602"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_602">[602]</a></span> Pausan. ii, 20, 7; Polyæn. -viii, 33; Plutarch, De Virtut. Mulier, p. 245; Suidas, v. Τελέσιλλα. -</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_603"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_603">[603]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 77.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν ἡ θηλεῖα τὸν ἄρσενα νικήσασα</p> -<p class="i0">Ἐξελάσῃ, καὶ κῦδος ἐν Ἀργείοισιν ἄρηται, etc.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1">If this prophecy can be said to have any distinct -meaning, it probably refers to Hêrê, as protectress of Argos, -repulsing the Spartans.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_604"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_604">[604]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 80, 81: compare v, -72.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_605"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_605">[605]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 82. εἰ μὲν γὰρ -<span class="gesperrt">ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς</span> τοῦ ἀγάλματος ἐξέλαμψε, -αἱρέειν ἂν <span class="gesperrt">κατ᾽ ἀκρῆς</span> τὴν πόλιν· ἐκ τῶν -στηθέων δὲ λάμψαντος, πᾶν οἱ πεποιῆσθαι ὅσον ὁ θεὸς ἤθελε.</p> - -<p>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 <i>top</i> of the statue, this would have intimated that the -gods meant him to take the city “<i>from top to bottom</i>.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_606"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_606">[606]</a></span> Compare Pausanias, ii, 20, -8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_607"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_607">[607]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 92.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_608"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_608">[608]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 50. Κρῖος—ἔλεγε δὲ -ταῦτα ἐξ ἐπιστολῆς τῆς Δημαρήτου. Compare Pausan. iii, 4, 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_609"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_609">[609]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 50-61, 64. -Δημάρητος—φθόνῳ καὶ ἄγῃ χρεώμενος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_610"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_610">[610]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 61, 62, 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_611"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_611">[611]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_612"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_612">[612]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_613"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_613">[613]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_614"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_614">[614]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 70.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_615"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_615">[615]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 78.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_616"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_616">[616]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 94. Δᾶτίν τε, -ἐόντα Μῆδον γένος, etc.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_617"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_617">[617]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 94. ἐντειλάμενος -δὲ ἀπέπεμπε, ἐξανδραποδίσαντας Ἐρετρίαν καὶ Ἀθήνας, ἄγειν ἑωϋτῷ ἐς -ὄψιν τὰ ἀνδράποδα.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_618"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_618">[618]</a></span> Thucyd. i, 93.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_619"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_619">[619]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 95, 96. ἐπὶ ταύτην -(Naxos) γὰρ δὴ πρώτην ἐπεῖχον στρατεύεσθαι οἱ Πέρσαι, μεμνημένοι τῶν -πρότερον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_620"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_620">[620]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_621"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_621">[621]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 99.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_622"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_622">[622]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>Allusion to this treason among the Eretrians is to be found in a -saying of Themistoklês (Plutarch, Themist. c. 11).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_623"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_623">[623]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 101, 102.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_624"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_624">[624]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_625"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_625">[625]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<p>This surrender to the Persians drew upon the Eretrians bitter -remarks at the time of the battle of Salamis (Plutarch, Themistoklês, -c. 11).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_626"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_626">[626]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_627"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_627">[627]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 43-104.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_628"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_628">[628]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 39-104.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_629"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_629">[629]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 132. Μιλτιάδης, -καὶ πρότερον εὐδοκιμέων—<i>i. e.</i> before the battle of Marathon. How -much his reputation had been heightened by the conquest of Lemnos, -see Herodot. vi, 136.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_630"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_630">[630]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 35.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_631"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_631">[631]</a></span> Thucyd. i, 138. ἦν γὰρ ὁ -Θεμιστοκλῆς βεβαιότατα δὴ <span class="gesperrt">φύσεως ἰσχὺν</span> -δηλώσας καὶ διαφερόντως τι ἐς αὐτὸ μᾶλλον ἑτέρων ἄξιος θαυμάσαι· -<span class="gesperrt">οἰκείᾳ γὰρ συνέσει καὶ οὔτε προμαθὼν ἐς αὐτὴν -οὐδὲν οὔτ᾽ ἐπιμαθὼν</span>, 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, <span -class="gesperrt">φύσεως μὲν δυνάμει, μελέτης δὲ βραχύτητι, κράτιστος -δὴ οὗτος αὐτοσχεδιάζειν τὰ δέοντα ἐγένετο</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_632"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_632">[632]</a></span> See the contrast of the old and -new education, as set forth in Aristophanês, Nubes, 957-1003; also -Ranæ, 1067.</p> - -<p>About the training of Themistoklês, compared with that of the -contemporaries of Periklês, see also Plutarch, Themistokl. c. 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_633"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_633">[633]</a></span> Plutarch, Themistoklês, c. 3, -4, 5; Cornelius Nepos, Themist. c. 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_634"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_634">[634]</a></span> Herodot. viii, 79; Plato, -Gorgias, c. 172. ἄριστον ἄνδρα ἐν Ἀθήνῃσι καὶ δικαιότατον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_635"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_635">[635]</a></span> Plutarch (Aristeidês, c. 1-4; -Themistoklês, c. 3; An Seni sit gerenda respublica, c. 12, p. 790; -Præcepta Reip. Gerend. c. ii, p. 805).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_636"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_636">[636]</a></span> Timokreon ap. Plutarch, -Themistoklês, c. 21.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_637"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_637">[637]</a></span> Thucyd. ii, 65.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_638"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_638">[638]</a></span> Plutarch, Aristeidês, c. 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_639"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_639">[639]</a></span> Plutarch, Aristeidês, c. 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_640"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_640">[640]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 109, 110.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_641"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_641">[641]</a></span> 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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_642"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_642">[642]</a></span> Herodot. ix, 7-10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_643"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_643">[643]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 110.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_644"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_644">[644]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 108-112.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_645"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_645">[645]</a></span> Thucyd. iii, 55.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_646"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_646">[646]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_647"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_647">[647]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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, <i>seq.</i>; and Finlay, on the -Battle of Marathon, in the same Transactions, vol. iii, pp. 360-380, -etc.</p> - -<p>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 <i>is</i> so little,—showing that he keeps strictly -within his authorities.</p> - -<p>There is nothing in the account of Herodotus to make us believe -that he had ever visited the ground of Marathon.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_648"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_648">[648]</a></span> See Mr. Finlay on the Battle -of Marathon, Transactions, etc., vol. iii, pp. 364, 368, 383, <i>ut -suprà</i>: compare Hobhouse, Journey in Albania, i, p. 432.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>“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.)</p> - -<p>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, <i>ut sup.</i> -ii, p. 175.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_649"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_649">[649]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 107.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_650"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_650">[650]</a></span> Plutarch, Symposiac. i, 3, p. -619; Xenophon, Anabas. i, 8, 21; Arrian, ii, 8, 18; iii, 11, 16.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_651"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_651">[651]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 112. Πρῶτοι μὲν -γὰρ Ἑλλήνων πάντων τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν, δρόμῳ ἐς πολεμίους ἐχρήσαντο.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_652"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_652">[652]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 113. Κατὰ τοῦτο -μὲν δὴ, ἐνίκων οἱ βάρβαροι, καὶ ῥήξαντες ἐδίωκον ἐς τὴν μεσόγαιαν. -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_653"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_653">[653]</a></span> Pausan. i, 32, 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_654"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_654">[654]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 113-115.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_655"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_655">[655]</a></span> 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_656"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_656">[656]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_657"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_657">[657]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_658"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_658">[658]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 116. Οὗτοι μὲν -δὴ περιέπλωον Σούνιον. Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ, <span class="gesperrt">ὡς ποδῶν -εἶχον, τάχιστα</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Plutarch (Bellone an Pace clariores fuerint Athenienses, c. 8, p. -350) represents Miltiadês as returning to Athens on the <i>day after</i> -the battle: it must have been on the same afternoon, according to the -account of Herodotus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_659"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_659">[659]</a></span> Herodot. v, 62, 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_660"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_660">[660]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 115. Τοῖσι -Πέρσῃσι ἀναδέξαι ἀσπίδα, <span class="gesperrt">ἐοῦσι ἤδη ἐν τῇσι -νηυσί</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_661"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_661">[661]</a></span> Herodot. viii, 109. ἡμεῖς δὲ, -εὕρημα γὰρ εὑρήκαμεν ἡμέας τε καὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα, νέφος τοσοῦτον ἀνθρώπων -ἀνωσάμενοι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_662"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_662">[662]</a></span> Pausanias, i, 14, 4; -Thucyd. i, 73. φαμὲν γὰρ Μαραθῶνί τε <span class="gesperrt">μόνοι -προκινδυνεῦσαι</span> τῷ βαρβάρῳ, etc.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 -<span class="gesperrt">προκινδυνεύσαντας</span> τῶν προγόνων, etc. -(Demosthen. de Coronâ, c. 60.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_663"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_663">[663]</a></span> So the computation stands in -the language of Athenian orators (Herodot. ix, 27.) It would be -unfair to examine it critically.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_664"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_664">[664]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_665"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_665">[665]</a></span> Thucyd. i, 126.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_666"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_666">[666]</a></span> Thucyd. ii, 34.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_667"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_667">[667]</a></span> Pausan. i, 32, 3. Compare the -elegy of Kritias ap. Athenæ. i, p. 28.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_668"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_668">[668]</a></span> 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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_669"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_669">[669]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 105; Pausan. i, -28, 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_670"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_670">[670]</a></span> Plutarch, Theseus, c. 24; -Pausan. i, 32, 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_671"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_671">[671]</a></span> Pausan. i, 15, 4; Dêmosthen. -cont. Neær. c. 25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_672"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_672">[672]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 120; Plutarch, -Camill. c. 19; De Malignit. Herodoti, c. 26, p. 862; and De Gloriâ -Atheniensium, c. 7.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 -<i>more</i> 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, <i>l. c.</i>): now the polemarch Kallimachus -was an Aphidnæan (Herodot. vi, 109), and Herodotus expressly tells -us, “the law or custom <i>then</i> 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>i. e.</i> in the order of their -prytanizing sequence for the year.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>any</i> established rule was observed in marshalling -the tribes for battle.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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 <i>other months</i> -besides Karneius; 2. Or the full moon of the Spartan Karneius may -actually have fallen, in the year 490 <small>B. C.</small>, on the -fifth or sixth of the Attic month Boëdromion.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_673"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_673">[673]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_674"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_674">[674]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_675"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_675">[675]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_676"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_676">[676]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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>i. e.</i> 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, <span -class="gesperrt">ἠθέλσαν</span> αὐτὸν κατακρημνίσαι· ὁ δὲ πρύτανις -εἰσελθὼν <span class="gesperrt">ἐξῃτήσατο</span> αὐτὸν.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_677"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_677">[677]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>counter-penalty</i> or -<i>under-penalty</i> (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. -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_678"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_678">[678]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_679"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_679">[679]</a></span> 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). -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_680"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_680">[680]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_681"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_681">[681]</a></span> 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_682"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_682">[682]</a></span> Machiavel will not even admit -so much as <i>this</i>, 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. -<i>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.</i>”—Machiavel, Discorsi sop. Tit. Livio, -ch. 24.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_683"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_683">[683]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_684"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_684">[684]</a></span> Dêmosthenês, Olynth. iii, c. 9, -p. 35, R.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_685"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_685">[685]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_686"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_686">[686]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_687"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_687">[687]</a></span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>, 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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_688"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_688">[688]</a></span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small> It is surprising to see Seyfert citing the -letters of the pseudo-Phalaris as an authority, after the exposure of -Bentley.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_689"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_689">[689]</a></span> Pindar. Pyth. 1 <i>ad fin</i>, -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 -<i>Himera</i>. Compare Polybius, vii, 7, 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_690"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_690">[690]</a></span> Polyæn. v, 1, 1; Cicero de -Officiis, ii, 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_691"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_691">[691]</a></span> Plutarch, Philosophand. cum -Principibus, c. 3, p. 778.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_692"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_692">[692]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Ὄλβιος ὅστις τῆς ἱστορίας</p> -<p class="i0">Ἔσχε μάθησιν, μήτε πολιτῶν</p> -<p class="i0">Ἐπὶ πημοσύνῃ, μήτ᾽ εἰς ἀδίκους</p> -<p class="i0">Πράξεις ὁρμῶν·</p> -<p class="i0">Ἀλλ᾽ ἀθανάτου καθορῶν φύσεως</p> -<p class="i0">Κόσμον ἀγήρω, πῆ τε συνέστη</p> -<p class="i0">Καὶ ὅπη καὶ ὅπως.</p> -<p class="i0">Τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις οὐδέποτ᾽ αἰσχρῶν</p> -<p class="i0">Ἔργων μελέτημα προσίζει.</p> -</div></div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_693"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_693">[693]</a></span> Vol. i, ch. xvi.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_694"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_694">[694]</a></span> Diogen. Laërt. i, 23; Herodot. -i, 75; Apuleius, Florid. iv, p. 144, Bip.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_695"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_695">[695]</a></span> Aristotel. Metaphys. i, 3; -Plutarch, Placit. Philos. i, 3, p. 875. ὃς ἐξ ὔδατος φησὶ πάντα -εἶναι, καὶ εἰς ὕδωρ πάντα ἀναλύεσθαι.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_696"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_696">[696]</a></span> Aristotel. <i>ut supra</i>, and De -Cœlo, ii, 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_697"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_697">[697]</a></span> Aristotel. De Animâ, i, 2-5; -Cicero, De Legg. ii, 11; Diogen. Laërt. i, 24.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_698"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_698">[698]</a></span> Aristotel. De Animâ, i, 2; -Alexander Aphrodis. in Aristotel. Metaphys. 1, 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_699"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_699">[699]</a></span> Apollodorus, in the second -century <small>B. C.</small>, 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_700"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_700">[700]</a></span> 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.)</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_701"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_701">[701]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_702"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_702">[702]</a></span> Simplicius in Aristotel. -Physic. fol. 6, 32. πρῶτος αὐτὸς Ἀρχὴν ὀνομάσας τὸ ὑποκείμενον.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_703"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_703">[703]</a></span> 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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_704"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_704">[704]</a></span> Diogen. Laërt. ix, 18.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_705"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_705">[705]</a></span> Diogen. Laërt. ix, 22; Stobæus, -Eclog. Phys. i, p. 294.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_706"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_706">[706]</a></span> Sextus Empiricus, adv. Mathem. -ix, 193.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_707"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_707">[707]</a></span> Aristot. Metaphys. -i, 5, p. 986, Bek. Ξενοφάνης δὲ πρῶτος τούτων <span -class="gesperrt">ἑνίσας</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>One may reasonably doubt whether all the arguments ascribed to -Xenophanês, in the short but obscure treatise last quoted, really -belong to him.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_708"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_708">[708]</a></span> Clemens Alexand. Stromat. v, p. -601, vii, p. 711.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_709"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_709">[709]</a></span> Aristot. Metaphysic. i, 5, p. -986, Bek. μικρὸν ἀγροικότερος.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_710"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_710">[710]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_711"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_711">[711]</a></span> See Brandis, Handbuch der -Griech. Röm. Philosophie, ch. xxii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_712"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_712">[712]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <small>B. C.</small> Ovid follows this -story without hesitation: see Metamorph. xv, 60, with Burmann’s -note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_713"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_713">[713]</a></span> 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, <i>seqq.</i> -</p> - -<p>The same extensive journeys are ascribed to Demokritus, Diogen. -Laërt. ix, 35.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_714"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_714">[714]</a></span> The connection of Pythagoras -with Pherekydês is noticed by Aristoxenus ap. Diogen. Laërt. i, 118, -viii, 2; Cicero de Divinat. i, 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_715"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_715">[715]</a></span> 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).</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Καί ποτέ μιν στυφελιζομένου σκύλακος παριόντα</p> -<p class="i2">Φασὶν ἐποικτεῖραι, καὶ τόδε φάσθαι ἔπος—</p> -<p class="i0">Παῦσαι, μηδὲ ῥάπιζ᾽· ἐπείη φίλου ἄνερός ἐστι</p> -<p class="i2">Ψυχὴ, τὴν ἔγνων φθεγξαμένης ἀΐων.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1 ti0">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.</p> - -<p>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 <span -class="gesperrt">σοφίην, πολυμαθείην, κακοτεχνίην</span>. Again, -Πολυμαθίη νόον οὐ διδάσκει· Ἡσίοδον γὰρ ἂν ἐδίδαξε καὶ Πυθαγόρην, -αὖθις δὲ Ξενοφάνεά τε καὶ Ἑκαταῖον.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_716"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_716">[716]</a></span> 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.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_717"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_717">[717]</a></span> See Lobeck’s learned and -valuable treatise, Aglaophamus, Orphica, lib. ii, pp. 247, 698, 900; -also Plato, Legg. vi, 782, and Euripid. Hippol. 946.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_718"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_718">[718]</a></span> 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. -</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_719"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_719">[719]</a></span> Brandis, Handbuch der -Geschichte der Griechisch. Rom. Philosophie, part i, sect. xlvii, p. -191.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_720"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_720">[720]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">Πυθαγόρην τε γόητος ἀποκλίναντ᾽ ἐπὶ δόξαν</p> -<p class="i0">Θήρῃ ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων, σεμνηγορίης ὀαριστὴν.</p> -</div></div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_721"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_721">[721]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>Compare Aristotel. Magn. Moralia, i, 1, about Pythagoras as an -ethical teacher. Dêmokritus, born about 460 <small>B. C.</small>, -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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_722"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_722">[722]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_723"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_723">[723]</a></span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_724"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_724">[724]</a></span> Plutarch, De Isid. et Osirid. -p. 384, ad fin. Quintilian, Instit. Oratt. ix, 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_725"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_725">[725]</a></span> 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.”</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<p class="i0">ἤδη γάρ ποτ᾽ ἐγὼ γενόμην κοῦρός τε κόρη τε,</p> -<p class="i0">θάμνος τ᾽, οἴωνός τε καὶ ἐξ ἁλὸς ἔμπυρος ἰχθύς.</p> -</div></div> - -<p class="mt1 ti0">(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.</p> - -<p>The abstinence from animal food was an Orphic precept as well as a -Pythagorean (Aristophan. Ran. 1032).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_726"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_726">[726]</a></span> Strabo, vi, p. 263; Diogen. L. -viii, 40.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_727"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_727">[727]</a></span> Diogen. Laërt. ix, 18.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_728"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_728">[728]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_729"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_729">[729]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<p>“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 <i>entraineurs</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>See also the remarks of Plato respecting Herodikus, De Republicâ, -iii, p. 406; Aristotel. Politic. iii, 11, 6; iv, 1, 1; viii, 4, 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_730"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_730">[730]</a></span> Valerius Maxim. viii, 15, xv, -1; Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 45; Timæus, Fragm. 78, ed. Didot.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_731"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_731">[731]</a></span> Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. c. -21-54; Jamblich. 33-35, 166.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_732"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_732">[732]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>Meiners, in his Geschichte der Wissenschaften (vol. i, b. iii, -p. 191, <i>seq.</i>), 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 <i>not right to disbelieve any story</i> recounted respecting the -gods, and wherein the divine agency was introduced: no one could tell -but what it <i>might be true</i>: 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, -<span class="gesperrt">ὡς οὐδὲν ἀπιστοῦντες ὅτι ἂν εἰς τὸ θεῖον -ἀναγηται</span>. 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_733"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_733">[733]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_734"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_734">[734]</a></span> Thucyd. viii, 54. τὰς -ξυνωμοσίας, αἵπερ ἐτύγχανον πρότερον οὖσαι ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐπὶ δίκαις καὶ -ἀρχαῖς, ἁπάσας ἐπελθὼν, etc.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_735"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_735">[735]</a></span> 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.”</p> - -<p>Compare Diogen. Laërt. viii, 3; Apollonius ap. Jamblich. c. 254; -Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. c. 33.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_736"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_736">[736]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_737"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_737">[737]</a></span> 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.” -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_738"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_738">[738]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_739"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_739">[739]</a></span> Varro ap. Augustin. de Ordine, -ii, 30; Krische, p. 77.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_740"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_740">[740]</a></span> Apollonius ap. Jamblichum, -V. P. c. 254, 255, 256, 257. ἡγεμόνες δὲ ἐγένοντο τῆς διαφορᾶς οἱ -ταῖς συγγενείαις καὶ ταῖς <span class="gesperrt">οἰκειότησιν</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_741"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_741">[741]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_742"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_742">[742]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_743"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_743">[743]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_744"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_744">[744]</a></span> Jamblichus, c, 255-259; -Porphyry, c. 54-57; Diogen. Laërt. viii, 39; Diodor. x, Fragm. vol. -iv, p. 56, Wess.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_745"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_745">[745]</a></span> 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, <i>seq.</i>) and -Brandis (Handbuch der Gesch. Philos. ch. lxxiii, p. 432) try to -reconcile these discrepancies.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_746"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_746">[746]</a></span> “Pythagoras Samius suspicione -dominatûs injustâ vivus in fano concrematus est.” (Arnobius adv. -Gentes, lib. i, p. 23, ed. Elmenhorst.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_747"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_747">[747]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_748"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_748">[748]</a></span> Aristotel. de Cœlo, ii, 13. -οἱ περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν, καλούμενοι δὲ Πυθαγορεῖοι. “Italici philosophi -quondam nominati.” (Cicero, De Senect. c. 21.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_749"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_749">[749]</a></span> Heyne places the date of the -battle of Sagra about 560 <small>B. C.</small>; 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_750"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_750">[750]</a></span> See above, vol. iii, chap. -xxii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_751"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_751">[751]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_752"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_752">[752]</a></span> Herodot. v, 47.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_753"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_753">[753]</a></span> Diodor. xii, 9; Strabo, vi, p. -263; Jamblichus, Vit. Pythag. c. 260; Skymn. Chi. v, 340.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_754"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_754">[754]</a></span> Herodot. v, 44.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_755"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_755">[755]</a></span> Diodor. xii, 9, 10; Strabo, vi, -p. 263.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_756"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_756">[756]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 21; Strabo, vi, p. -253.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_757"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_757">[757]</a></span> 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 <span class="gesperrt">παρὰ τὸν -ξηρὸν</span> Κρᾶθιν. It was natural that the old deserted bed of the -river should be called “<i>the dry Krathis</i>:” 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 <i>siccus</i>, 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_758"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_758">[758]</a></span> Herodot. vi, 21.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_759"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_759">[759]</a></span> Herodot. v, 45.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_760"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_760">[760]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_761"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_761">[761]</a></span> 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 -<small>B. C.</small></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_762"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_762">[762]</a></span> 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 <small>B. C.</small>: but I do not know that any more -precise mark of time can be found.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_763"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_763">[763]</a></span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_764"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_764">[764]</a></span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p id="Footnote_765"><span class="label"><a -href="#FNanchor_765">[765]</a></span> Πρῶτος γὰρ ἐποίησε τὴν <span -class="gesperrt">ἐπίσκηψιν</span> (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. <i>l. c.</i>)</p> - -</div> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap0" /> - - -<div class="chapter" id="tnote"> -<div class="transnote"> - <p class="tnotetit">Transcriber's note</p> - <ul> - <li>The book cover image was created by the transcriber and is - placed in the public domain.</li> - - <li>Footnotes have been renumbered and moved to the end of the - book.</li> - - <li>Blank pages have been skipped.</li> - - <li>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.</li> - - <li>Original spelling, hyphenation and punctuation have been kept, - but variant spellings were made consistent when a predominant usage - was found.</li> - - <li>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.</li> - </ul> -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -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-h.htm or 60426-h.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. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> |