Skip to main content

Full text of "Greece: I. Legendary Greece.: II. Grecian History to the Reign of ..."

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at jhttp : //books . qooqle . com/ 

1KB 73 oy 




daw of 1887 
of Florence, Italy 



Frontispiece^ Greece \ vol. two. 






George Grote, Esq. 










vol. n. 

■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ m 




auoumi stouts or lboxxdabt geebob. — period op imwmuumM 


Section L— Return of the Herakl <Js into Pdoponntw*. 

f&xile and low condition of the Herakleids. — Their reappearance as a pow 
erful force along with the Dorians. — Mythical account of this alliance, at 
well as of the three tribes of Dorians.—- T&nenus, Kresphontea, and 
Aristodemus, invade Peloponnesus across the gulf of Corinth. — The 
prophet Earns slain by Hippotes. — Oxylus chosen as guide. — Division 
of the lands of Peloponnesus among the invaders. — Explanatory value 
of these legendary events. — Mythical title of the Dorians to Peloponne- 
sus. — Plato makes out a different title for the same purpose. — Other 
legends respecting the Achssans and Tisamenus. — Occupation of Argos, 
Sparta, ana Messenia, by the Dorians. — Dorians at Corinth — Aletes. — 
Oxylus and the JEtolians at Elis. — Rights of the Eleians to superintend 
the Olympic games. — Family of Temenus and Kresphontes lowest in 
the aeries of subjects for the heroic drama. — Pretence of the historical 
Spartan kings to Achajan origin. — Emigrations from Peloponnesus con- 
sequent on the Dorian occupation. — Bpeians, Pyleans, Achseans, Ionian*. 
— lonians in the north of Peloponnesus — not recognised by Homer. — 
Date assigned by Thucydides to the return of the Herakleids. .page* 1-14 

Section IL — Migration of ThestaUan* and Boeotian*. 

\ move from Thespr6tis into Thessaly. --Non-Hellenic character 
of the Theasalians. — Boeotians— their migration from Thessaly into 
Bosotia. — Discrepant legends about the Boeotians.— Affinities between 
Bcsotia and Thessaly. — Transition from mythical to historical Bo- 
oth 14-19 


SboticM III — Enigixitions from Greece to A$ia and the Idandi of lib 


1. JEolic Emigration. 

Secession of the mythical races of Greece. — JEolic migration under the 
Pelopids 19-11 

2. Ionic Emigration. 

Ionic emigration — branches off from the legendary history of Athens. — 
Theseus and Menestheus. — Restoration of the sons of Theseus to theii 
father's kingdom. — They are displaced by the Neleids. — Melanthus and 
Kodrus. — Devotion and death of Kodrus. — No more kings at Athens. 
— Quarrel of the sons of Kodrus, and emigration of Neileus. — Different 
races who furnished the emigrants to Ionia 21-35 

3. Doric Emigrations. 

Dorian colonies in Asia. — Thera. — Legend of the Miny® from Lemnos. 
— MinysB in Triphylia. — Migrations of Dorians to Krete. — Story of 
Andron. — Althamenes, founder of Rhodes. — Kos, Knidus, and Karpa- 
thus 25-31 

Intervening blank between legend and history. — Difficulty of explaining 
that blank, on the hypothesis of continuous tradition. — Such an interval 
essentially connected with the genesis of legend 31-34 



Different schemes of chronology proposed for the mythical events. — The data 
essential to chronological determination are here wanting. — Modern chro- 
nologists take up the same problem as ancient, but with a different canon 
if belief. — Mr. Clinton's opinion on the computations of the date of the 
Trojan war. — Value of the chronological computations depends on the 
trustworthiness of the genealogies. — Mr. Clinton's vindication of the 
genealogies — his proofs. — 1. Inscriptions — none of proved antiquity.— 
Genealogies — numerous, and of unascertainable date. — 2. Early poets. 
•—Mr. Clinton's separation of the genealogical persons into real and fabu- 
lous: principles on which it is founded. — Remarks on his opinion.— 
His concessions are partial and inconsistent, yet sufficient to render the 
genealogies inapplicable for chronology. — Mr. Clinton's positions respect- 
ing historical evidence. — To what extent presumption may stand ia 


frvor of the early poets. —Plausible fiction satisfies the conditions laid 
down by Mr. Clinton — not distinguishable from truth without the aid of 
evidence. — Kadmus, Danaus, Hyllus, etc., all eponyms, and falling undef 
Mr. Clinton's definition of fictitious persons. — What is real in the geneal- 
ogies cannot be distinguished from what is fictitious. — At what time did 
the poets begin to produce continuous genealogies, from the mythical to 
the real world ? — Evidence of mental progress when men methodize the 
past, even on fictitious principles 34-67 



Legendary poems of Greece valuable pictures of real manners, though 

Sving no historical facts. — They are memorials of the first state of 
redan society — the starting-point of Grecian history. — Comparison 
of legendary with historical Greece — government of the latter — of 
the former. — The king — in legendary Greece. — His overruling per- 
sonal ascendency. — Difficulty which Aristotle found in explaining to 
himself the voluntary obedience paid to the early kings. — The boufe — 
the agora: their limited intervention and subordination to the king. — 
The agora— * a medium for promulgation of the intentions of the king.— 
Agora summoned by Telemachus in Ithaka. — Agora in the second book 
of the Iliad — picture of submission which it presents. — Conduct of 
Odysseus to the people and the chiefs. — Justice administered in the agora 
by the king or chiefs. — Complaints made by Hesiod of unjust judgment 
in his own case. — The king among men is analogous to Zeus among 
gods. — The Council* and Assembly originally media through which the 
Eing acted, become, in historical Greece, the paramount depositaries of 
power. — Spartan kings an exception to the general rule — their limited 
powers. — Employment of public speaking as an engine of government — 
coeval with the earliest times. — Its effects in stimulating intellectual 
development. — Moral and social feeling in legendary Greece. — Omnipo 
tence of personal feeling towards the gods, the king, or individuals.— 
Effect of special ceremonies. — Contrast with the feelings in historical 
Athens. — Force of the familv*tie. — Marriage — respect paid to the wife. 
— Brothers, and kinsmen. — hospitality. — deception of the stranger and 
the suppliant — Personal sympathies the earliest form of sociality.— 
Ferocious and aggressive passions unrestrained. — Picture given by 
Hesiod still darker. — Contrast between heroic and historical Greece. — 
Orphans. — Mutilation of dead bodies. — Mode of dealing with homicide. 

— Appeased by valuable compensation (rroivi)) to the Kinsman of the 
murdered man. — Punished in historical Greece as a crime against society. 

— Condition, occupations, and professions of the Homenc Greeks. — 
Slaves. — Hi&es. — Limited commerce and navigation of the Homeric 
Greeks. — Eretans, Taphians, Phoenicians.— Nature of Phcenician-frade as 
indicated by Homer. — Weapons and mode of fighting of the Homeric 
Greeks. — Contrast with the military array oft historical Greece. — Analo- 
gous change — in military array and in civil society. — Fortification of 
towns. — Earliest residences of the Greeks — hill- villages lofty and diffi- 
cult of access. — Homeric society recognizes walled towns, individia) 


property, and strong local attachment*. — Means of defence superior t* 
those of attack. — Habitual piracy. — B xtended geographical knowledge 
in the Hesiodic poems, as compared with Homer. — Astronomy and 
physics. — Coined money, writing, arts. — Epic poetry. — Its great and 
permanent influence on the Qreek mind 57-1 18 



Two classes of epic poetry — Homeric — Hesiodic. — Didactic and mystie 
Hexameter poetry — later as a genus than the epic. — Lost epic poems. 

— Epic poets and their probable dates. — Epic cycle. — What the epic 
cycle was — an arrangement of the poems according to continuity of nar- 
rative. — Relation of the epic cycle to Homer. — What poems were in- 
cluded In the cycle. — The Iliad and Odyssey are the only poems of the 
cycle preserved. — Curiosity which these two poems pro vote — no data 
to satisfy it — Different poems ascribed to Homer. — Nothing known, 
and endless diversity of opinion, respecting the person and date of Ho- 
mer. — Poetical gens of the Homends. — Homer, the superhuman epony- 
mus and father of this gens. — What may be the dates of the Iliad and 
Odyssey. — Date assigned by Herodotus the most probable. — Probable 
date of the Iliad and Odyssey between 850 and 776 b. c. — Epic poems 
recited to assembled companies, not read by individuals apart — Lyric 
and choric poetry, intended for the car. — Importance of the class of 
rhapsodes, singers, and reciters. — Rhapsodes condemned by the Socratic 
philosophers — undeservedly. — Variations in the mode of reciting the 
ajagfcmt epic. — At what time the Homeric poems began to be written. — 
Prolegomena of Wolf — raised new questions respecting the Homeric 
text — connected unity of authorship with poems written from the be- 
ginning. — The two questions not necessarily connected, though com- 
monly discussed together. — Few traces of writing, long after the Homeric 
age. — Bards or rhapsodes of adequate memory, less inconsistent with the 
conditions of the age than long MSS. — Blind bards. — Possibility of 
preserving the poems by memory, as accurately as in fact they were pre- 
served. — Argument from the lost letter Digamma. — When did the Ho- 
meric poems begin to be written? — Reasons for presuming that they 
were first written about the middle of the seventh century b. c. — Con- 
dition of the Iliad and Odyssey down to the reign of Peisistratus. — 
Theory of Wolf. — Authorities quoted in its favor. — Objections against 
it — Other long epic poems besides the Iliad and Odyssey. — Catalogue 
in the Iliad — essentially a part of a long poem — its early authority. — 
Iliad and Odyssey were entire poems long anterior to Peisistratus, whether 
they were originally composed as entire or not — No traces in the Ho- 
meric poems, of ideas or customs belonging to the age of Peisistratus. — 
Homeric poems. 1. Whether by one author or several. 2. Whether of 
one date and scheme. — Question raised by Wolf — Sagen-poesie. — New 
standard applied to the Homeric poems. — Homeric unity — generally re- 
jected by German critics in the last generation — now again partially 
revived. — Scanty evidence — difficulty of forming any conclusive opiniom. 

— Method of studying the question of Homeric unity. — Odyssey to to 
studied first as of more simple and intelligible structure than the Iliad — 


Odyssey — tridences of one design throughout iU structure. — Exhibits 
Yery few marks of incoherence or contradiction. — Chronological reckon- 
ing in the Odyssey, inaccurate in one case. — Inference erroneously drawn 
from hence, that the parts of the poem were originally separate. — Double 
start and double stream of events, ultimately brought into confluence ia 
the Odyssey. — Skill displayed in this point by the poet. — Difficulty of 
imagining the Odyssey broken up into many existing poems or songs. — 
Structure of the Odyssey — essentially one — cannot have been pieced 
together out of preexisting epics — Analogy of the Odyssey shows that 
long and premeditated epical composition consists with the capacities of 
the early Greek mind — Iliad — much less coherent and uniform thai 
the Odyssey. — Incoherence prevails only in parts of the poem — mani- 
fest coherence in other parts. — Wolffian theory explains the former, but 
not the latter. — Theory of Welcker, Lange, and Nitzsch. — Age of the 
Epos preparatory to that of the Epopee. — IKad essentially an organized 
poem — but the original scheme docs not comprehend the whole poem.— 
Iliad — originally an Achiileis built upon a narrower plan, then enlarged. 
— Parts which constitute the primitive Achiileis exhibit a coherent se- 
quence of eveats. — Disablement of Agamemnon, Odysseus, and Diome- 
oes, all in the battle of the eleventh book. — The first book concentrates 
attention upon Achilles, and upon the distress which the Greeks are to 
incur in consequence of the iujury dene to him. — Nothing done to realize 
tats expectation until the eighth book. — Primitive AehiUSis includes books 
i, viii, xi, to xxii. — Ninth l>ook an unsuitable addition. — Transition front 
the Achill&s into the Iliad, in the beginning of the second book. — Transi- 
tion from the Clad back into the Achiileis at the end of the seventh book 
—Fortification of the Grecian camp. — Zeas in the fourth book, or Iliad, 
different from Zeus in the first and eighth, or Achillea. — Continuous 
Achiileis — from the eleventh book onward. — Supposition of an enlarged 
Achiileis is the most consonant to all the parts of the poem as it stands.-^ 
Question of one or many authors —difficult to decide. — Odyssey all by 
one author, Iliad probably not. — Difference of style in the last six books 
— may be explained without supposing difference of authorship. — Last 
two books — probably not parts of tho original Achilldis. — Books ii. to 
ru. inclusive. — Book x. — Odyssey — probably by a different author from 
the Iliad — but perhaps of the same age. — Ileal character of the Ho- 
meric poems — essentially popular. — Add'-essed to unlettered minds, bat 
*- u 7 those feeliags which all men hsre in common. — No didactat 
> in Homer US-*» 






Northern boundary of Greece — Olympus. — Scardns and Pindns — then 
extension and dissemination through southern Greece and Peloponnesus. 
— -Ossa and Pelion — ■ to the CycTades. — Geological featnres. — Irregn 
larity of the Grecian waters — rivers dry in summer. — Frequent marshef 
and lakes. — Subterranean course of rivers, out of land-locked basins. — 
Difficulty of land communication and transport in Greece. — Indentations 
in the line of coast — universal accessibility by sea. — Sea communica- 
tion essential for the islands and colonies. — Views of the ancient philoso 
pliers on the influence of maritime habits and commerce. — Difference 
between the land-states and the sea-states in Greece. — Effects of the con- 
figuration of Greece upon the political relations of the inhabitants. — 
Effects upon their intellectual development — Limits of Greece. — Its 
chief productions. — Climate — better and more healthy in ancient times 
than it is now. — Great difference between one part of Greece and 
another. — Epirots, Macedonians, etc. — Islands in the Mgean. — Greeks 
on the coast of Asia Minor 211-231 



The Hellens generally. — Barbarians — the word used as antithesis to Hel- 
lens. — Hellenic aggregate — how held together. 1 . Fellowship of blood 
2. Common language. — Greek language essentially one with a variety 
of dialects. 3. Common religious sentiments, localities, and sacrifices.— 
Olympic and other sacred games. — Habit of common sacrifice an early 
feature of the Hellenic mind — began on a small scale. — Amphiktyonies 
— exclusive religious partnerships. — Their beneficial influence in creating 
sympathies. — What was called the Amphiktyonic Council. — Its twelve 
constituent members and their mutual position. — Antiquity of the Coun- 
cil — simplicity of the old oath. — Amphiktyonic meeting originallv at 
Thermopylae. — Valuable influence of these Amphiktyonies and festivals 
in promoting Hellenic union. — Amphiktyons had the superintendence of 
the temple of Delphi. — But their interference in Grecian affairs is only 
rare ana occasional. — Many Hellenic states had no participation in it — 
Temple of Delphi. — Oracles generally — habit of the Greek mind to 
consult them. — General analogy of manners an ong the Greeks. — Polit- 


ical sovereignty attached to each separate city — essential t > the Hellenic 
mind. — Each city stood to the rest in an international relation. — But city 
government is essential — village residence is looked upon as an inferior 
scale of living. — Village residents — numerous in early Greece — many 
of them coalesced into cities. — Sparta retained its old village trim even 
at the height of its power. — Hellenic aggregate accepted as a primary 
fact — its preexisting elements untraceable. — Ancient Pelasgians not 
knowable. — Historical Pelasgians — spoke a barbarous language. — His- 
torical Leleges — barbarians in language also. — Statements of good wit- 
nesses regarding the historical Pelasgians and Leleges are to be admitted, 
— whether they fit the legendary Pelasgians and Leleges or not — Alleged 
ante- Hellenic colonies from Phoenicia and Egypt — neither verifiable nor 
probable. — Most ancient Hellas — Graeci 236-269 



Amphiktyonic races. — Non- Amphiktyonic races. — First period of Grecian 
history — from 776-560 B.C. — Second period — from 560-300 B.C. — 
Important differences between the two — the first period preparatory and 
very little known. — Extra- Peloponnesian Greeks (north of Attiea) not 
known at all during- the first period. — General sketch of them. — Greeks 
north of Thermopylae — Thessalians and their dependents. — Thessalian 
character. — Condition of the population of Thessaly — a villein race — 
the Penestas. — Who the Penestae were — doubtful — Quadruple division 
of Thessaly. — Disorderly confederacy of the Thessalian cities. — Great 
power of Thessaly, when in a state of unanimity. — Achaeans, PerrhsBbi, 
Magnates, Malians, Dolopes, etc., all tributaries of the Thessalians, but 
all Amphiktyonic races.— Asiatic Magnates. — The Malians. —The (Etai. 
— The jEnianes. — Lokrians, Phocians, Dorians. — The Phocians. — Do- 
ris — Dryopis. — Historical Dryopes. — The ^Etolians. — The Akarna- 
flians. — Ozolian Lokrians, JBtolians, and Akarnanians, were the rudest 
of all Greeks. — The Bcsotians. — Orchomenus. — Cities of Boeotia. — 
Confederation of Boeotia. — Early legislation of Thebes. — Philolaus and 
Diokles 269-298 



Distribution of Peloponnesus about 450 b. c. — Continuous Dorian states. — 
Western Peloponnesus. — Northern Peloponnesns — Achaia. — Centra] 
region — Arcadia. — Difference between this distribution and that of 776 
b. c. — Portions of the population which were believed to be indigenous 
Arcadians, Kynurians, Achseans. — Emigrant portions — Dorians, JEtolo 
Eleians, Dryopes, Triphylians. — Legendary account of the Dorian em 
*gration. — Alexandrine chronology from the return of the Herakleids t» 
the first Olympiad. — Spartan kings. — Herakleid kings of Corinth.-* 


Aim and the neighboring Dorians greater than Sparta in 776 B.C.- 
Eftrly settlements of the Dorians at Ar^tw nnd Corinth — Temenion-* 
Hill of SojygetM. — Dorian settlers arrived by sea. — Early Dorians in 
Krete. — Tne Dryopians — their settlements formed by sea. — Dorian set- 
tlements in Argos quite distinct from those in Sparta and in Messenia. — 
Early position of A^o^OS — metropolis of the neighboring Dorian cities.— 
Pheiddn the Tameniu — king of Argo*. — His claims and projects as 
representative of t T^T*Ue«. — He claims the riirht of presiding at the 
Olympic game*. — "Relations of Pisa with Phcidon, and of Sparta with 
Ehs. — Conflict between Pheiddn and the Spartan*, at or about the 8th 
Olympiad, 747 b. c. — Pheiddn the earliest Greek who coined money and 
determined a scale of weight. — Coincidence of the yEpineean scale with 
the Babylonian. — Argos at this time the first state in Peloponnesus. — 
Her subsequent decline, from the relaxation of her confederacy of cities. - 
Dorians in the Argolic peninsula — their early commerce with the Dorian 
islands in the <A5gean. — From hence arose the coinage of money, etc by 
Pheiddn. — Pheidonian coinage and statical scale — belong originally to 
Argos, not to JEgina 298-399 



JBtolian emigration into Peloponnesus. — Dorians of Sparta and Steny 
klerns — accompanying or following them across the Corinthian gulf. — 
Settlement at Sparta made by marching along the valleys of the Alphetu 
and Earotas. — Causes which favored the settlement — Settlements con- 
fined at first to Sparta and Stenyklerus. — First view of historical Sparta. 
— Messenian kings. — Analogous representations in regard to the early 
proceedings both of Spartans and Mcsscnians. — The kings of Steny- 
klerns did not possess all Messenia. — Olympic festival — the early point 
of union of Spartans, Messenians, and Elcians. — Previous inhabitants of 
southern Peloponnesus — how far different from the Dorians. — Doric and 
JBolic dialect 325-33) 



Lykurgus — authorities of Plutarch respecting him. — Uncertainties about 
his genealogy. — Probable date of Lykurgus. — Opinion of O. Miiller 
(that Sparta is the perfect type of Dorian character and tendencies) is 
incorrect. — Peculiarity of Sparta. — Early date of Lykurgus. — View 
taken of Lykurgus by Herodotus. — Little said about Lykunrus in the 
earlier authors. — Copious details of Plutarch. — Regency of Lykurgus — 
his long absence from Sparta. — He is sent by the Delphian oracle to 
reform the state. — His institutions ascribed to him — senate and popular 
assembly — ephors. — Constitution ascribed to Lykurgus agrees with that 
Which we find in Homer. — Pair of kings at Sparta — their constant dis- 
sensions — a security to the state against despotism. — idea of Kleomcnes 
the Third respecting the first appointment of the ephors. — Popular origin 
if the board of ephors — oath interchanged between them and the king* 


— Subordination of the kings, and supremacy of the ephors, during the 
historical times. - Position and privileges of ihe kings. — Power of the 
ephora. —Public assembly. — The Senate. — Spartan constitution — a 
close oligarchy.—- Long duration of the constitution without formal change 
—one cause of the respect in Greece and pride in the Spartans themselves. 
—Dorians divided into three tribes, — Hylleis, Pamphyli, and Dymaoea. 
—Local distinctions known among the Spartans. — Population of Laco- 
aia— 1. Spartans. — 2. Perioaki. — Special meaning of the word PerioBsi 
fa Laeonia. — Statement of Isokrates as to the origin of the Periceki. — 
Statement of Ephorus — different from Isokrates, yet not wholly irrecon- 
cilable. — Spartans and Perioaki — no distinction or race known between 
them in historical times. — 3. Helots —essentially villagers. — They were 
seris — adscripti glebe — their condition and treatment — Bravery and 
energy of the Helots — fear and cruelty of the Spartans. — Evidence of 
the character of the Spartan government — The Krypteia. — Manumitted 
Helots. — Economical and social regulations ascribed to Lykurgus.— 
Partition of lands. — Sysskia, or public mess.— Public training or disci* 
pline. — Manners and training of the Spartan women — opinion of Aris- 
totle. — Statement of Xenophon and Plutarch. — Number of rich women 
m the time of Aristotle — they had probably procured exemption from 
the general training. — Earnest and lofty patriotism of the Spartan women. 
—Lykurgus is the trainer of a military brotherhood, more than the framer 
of a political constitution. — His end exclusively warlike — his means ex- 
clusively severe. — Statements of Plutarch about Lykurgus — much ro- 
mance in them. — New partition of lands — no such measure ascribed to 
Lykurgus by earlier authors down to Aristotle. — The idea of Lykurgus 
as an equal partitioner of lands belongs to the century of Agis and Eleo- 
menes. — Circumstances of Sparta down to the reign of Agis. — Dimin- 
ished number of citizens and degradation of Sparta in the reign of Agis. 

— His ardent wish to restore the dignity of the state. — Historic fancy of 
Lykurgus as an equal partitioner of lands grew out of this feeling. — Par- 
tition proposed by Agis. — Opinion that Lykurgus proposed some agra- 
rian interference, but not an entire repartition, gratuitous and improbable. 

— The statement of Plutarch is best explained by supposing it a fiction 
of the time of Agis. — Acknowledged difficulty of understanding by what 
means the fixed number and integrity of the lots was maintained. — Plu- 
tarch's story about the ephor Epitadeus. — Landed property was always 
unequally divided at Sparta. — Nor were there any laws which tended to 
equalize it — Opinions of Aristotle. — Erroneous suppositions with regard 
to the Spartan law and practice of succession. — Xykmjgean system — 
originally applied only to Sparta — introduced equal severity of discipline, 
not equality of property. — Original Dorian allotment of land in Sparta 
unknown — probably not equal. — Gradual conquest of Laeonia, the result 
of the new force imparted by the Lykurgean discipline. — Conquest of 
Amvklsa, Pharis, and Gerontnrse, by king Teleklus. — Helus conquered 
by Alkamenes. — Progressive increase of Sparta 887-4)1 



Asmorities for the history of the Messenian wars.— Chiefly belong to tot 
time after the foundation of Messen* by Epameinondas. — Absence of real 
or ancient traditions concerning these wan : coiKradictioos ahent the Mas* 


senian hero Aristomente. — Dates of the first wars — B.C. 743-724.— 
Causes alleged by the Spartans. — Spartan king Teleklns slain by thi 
Messenians at the temple of Artemis Limnatis. — First Messenian war. 

— Messenian kings, Euphaes and Aristodgm Jo. — Messenians concentrate 
themselves on Mount Ithdme — after a long siege they are completely 
conquered. — Harsh treatment and Helotism of the conquered Messen 
under Sparta. — Revolt of the Messenians against Sparta — second 
senian war — Aristomene's. — His chivalrous exploits and narrow esc 

— end of the second war. — The Messenians again conquered. — Narra- 
tive of Pausanias, borrowed from the poet Rhianus, is undeserving of 
credit — The poet TyrtsBus, the ally of Sparta — his great efficiency and 
influence over the Spartan mind. — Musical susceptibilities of the Spartans. 

— Powerful ethical effect of the old Grecian music — Sufferings of the 
Spartans in the second Messenian war. — Date of the second war, b. c. 
648-631. — Punishment of the traitor Aristokrates, king of the Arcadian 
Orchomenus. — Spartans acquire the cemtrv west of Taygetus. — The 
Messenian Dorians had no considerable fortified places — lived in small 
townships and villages. — Relations of Pisa and Elis. — Struggles of the 
Pisat® and Triphylians for autonomy — the latter in after times sustained 
by the political interests of Sparta 421-440 



of Arcadia. — Tegea and Mantineia the most powerful Arcadian towns, 
before the building of Megalopolis. — Encroachments of Sparta upon the 
southern boundary of Arcadia. — Unsuccessful attempts of the Spartans 
•gainst Tegea. — They are directed by the oracle to bring to Sparta the 
bones of the hero Orestes. — Their operations against Tegea become more 
successful ; nevertheless, Tegea maintains her independence. — Bounda- 
ries of Sparta towards Argos — conquest of Thyreatis by Sparta. — Battle 
of the three hundred select champions, between Sparta and Argos, to decide 
the possession of the Thyreatis — valor of Othryades. — Thryeatis comes 
into possession of Sparta — efforts of the Argeians to recover it. — Altera- 
tion of Grecian opinion, as to the practice of deciding disputes bv select 
champions. — Kynurians in Argolis, said to be of Ionic race, but Dorizcd. 

— Full acquisition of the southern portion of Peloponnesus, from sea to 
sea, by the Spartans before 540 b. c. — Great comparative power of Sparta 
at that early time. — Careful personal training of the Spartans at a time 
when other states had no training at all. — Mflitary institutions of Spart*. 

— Peculiar and minute military subdivisions, distinct from the civil EnO- 
moties, etc — Careful drilling of the Endmotics. —In other Grecian cities 
there were no peculiar military divisions distinct from the civil. — Recog- 
nized superiority of Sparta — a part of early Grecian sentiment — coinci- 
dent with the growing tendency to increased communion. — Homeric mode 
of fighting — probably belonged to Asia, not to Greece. — Argos — her 
struggles to recover the headship of Greece. — Her conquest of Mycenaa, 
TIryns, and Kleonse. — Nemean games. — Achaia — twelve autonomous 
towns, perhaps more — little known , 441-461 



Frontispiece — Apollo Belvedere 

Argonautic Expedition 

Theatre of Dionysius at Athens 

Reconstruction of the Altar on the Acropolis Pergamon , 







In one of the preceding chapters, we have traced the descending 
series of the two most distinguished mythical families in Pelopon- 
nesus, — the Perseids and the Pelopids: we have followed the 
former down to Heraklgs and his son Hyllus, and the latter down 
to Orestes son of Agamemndn, who is left in possession of that 
ascendancy in the peninsula which had procured for his father 
the chief command in the Trojan war. The Herakleids, or sons 
of Heraklte, on the other hand, are expelled fugitives, dependent 
upon foreign aid or protection: Hyllus had perished in single 
combat with Echemus of Tegea, (connected with the Pelopids by 
marriage with Timandra sister of Klytaemn&stra, 1 ) and a solemn 
. compact had been made, as the preliminary condition of this duel, 
that no similar attempt at an invasion of the peninsula should be 
undertaken by his family for the space of one hundred years. At 
the end of the stipulated period the attempt was renewed, and 
with complf/te success ; but its success was owing, not so much tt 

1 Heaiod, Eoi&i, Fragm. 68, p. 48, ed. Dtatsen 1 loe. 


the valor of the invaders as to a powerful body of new allies. The 
Herakleids reappear as leaders and companions of the Dorians, — 
a northerly section of th" Greek name, who now first come into 
importance, — poor, indeed, in mythical renown, since they are 
never noticed in the Iliad, and only once casually mentioned in 
the Odyssey, as a fraction among the many-tongued inhabitant* 
of Krete, — but destined to form one of the grand and predomi- 
nant elements throughout all the career of historical Hellas. 

The son of Hyllus — Kleodaeus — as well as his grandson 
Aristomachus, were now dead, and the lineage of Herakles was 
represented by the three sons of the latter, — Temenus, Kres- 
phontes, and Aristodemus, and under their conduct the Dorians 
penetrated into the peninsula. The mythical account traced back 
this intimate union between the Herakleids and the Dorians to a 
prior war, in which Herakles himself had rendered inestimable 
aid to the Dorian king iEgimius, when the latter was hard pressed 
in a contest with the Lapithae. Herakles defeated the Lapithae, 
and slew their king Koronus; in return for which ^Egimius 
assigned to his deliverer one third part of his whole territory, and 
adopted Hyllus as his son. Herakles desired that the territory 
thus made over might be held in reserve until a time should come 
when his descendants might stand in need of it ; and that time did 
come, after the death of Hyllus, (sec Chap. V.) Some of the 
Herakleids then found shelter at Trikory thus in Attica, but the 
remainder, turning their steps towards jEgimius, solicited from 
him the allotment of land which had been promised to their val- 
iant progenitor. -dEgimius received them according to his engage- 
ment, and assigned to them the stipulated third portion of hte 
territory :' and from this moment the Herakleids and Dorians 

1 Diodor. iv. 37-60 ; Apollodor. ii. 7, 7 ; Ephorus ap Stcph. Byz. Avpuv, 
Fragm. 10, ed. Marx. 

The Doric institutions are called by Pindar Te&pol Alyi/ilov Aupucoi (Pyth. 
i. 124). 

There existed an ancient epic poem, now lost, bat cited on some few occa 
lions by authors still preserved, under the title Alyifitog] the authorship being 
sometimes ascribed to Hesiod, sometimes to Kerkops (Athens, xi. p. 503) 
The few fragments which remain do not enable us to make out the schemt 
of it, inasmuch as they embrace different mythical incidents lying very wide 
•f each other, — 16, the Argonauts, Pfileus, aid Thetis, etc But the nam 


Jccttne intimately united together into one social communion. 
Pamphylus and Dymas, sons of ^Egimius, accompanied Temenus 
and hit two brothers in their invasion of Peloponnesus. 

Such is the mythical incident which professes to explain the 
a:igin of those three tribes into which all the Dorian communities 
were usually divided, — the Hylleis, the Phamphyli, and the 
Dymanes, — the first of the three including certain particular fam- 
ilies, such as that of the kings of Sparta, who bore the special 
name of Herakleids. Hyllus, Pamphylus, and Dymas are the 
eponymous heroes of the three Dorian tribes. 

Temenus and his two brothers resolved to attack Peloponnesus, 
ot by a land-march along the Isthmus, such as that in which 
Jyllus had been previously slain, but by sea, across the narrow 
inlet between the promontories of Rhium and Antirrhium, with 
which the Gulf of Corinth commences. According to one story, 
indeed, — which, however, does not seem to have been known to 
Herodotus, — they are said to have selected this line of march by 
the express direction of the Delphian god, who vouchsafed to 
expound to them an oracle which had been delivered to Hyllus 
in the ordinary equivocal phraseology. Both the Ozolian Lo- 
krians, and the Italians, inhabitants of the northern coast of the 
Gulf of Corinth, were favorable to the enterprise, and the former 
granted to them a port for building their ships, from which memo- 
rable circumstance the port ever afterwards bore the name of 
Naupaktus. Aristodemus was here struck with lightning and 
died, leaving twin sons, Eurysthenes and Prokles ; but his remain- 
ing brothers continued to press the expedition with alacrity. 

At this juncture, an Akarnanian prophet named Karnus pre- 
sented himself in the camp 1 under the inspiration of Apollo, and 

which it boars seems to imply that the war of ^Egimius against the Lapithss, 
and the aid given to him by Herakles, was one of its chief topics. Both O. 
Mailer (History of the Dorians, vol. i. b. 1, c. 8) and Welcker (Der Epische 
Kyklus, p. 263) appear to me to go beyond the very scanty evidence which 
we possess, in their determination of this last poem ; compare MarktschcfFel, 
Prssfat. Hesiod. Fragm. cap. 5, p. 159. 

1 Bespecting this prophet, compare (Enomaus ap. Eusebinm, Praparat 
EvangeL ▼. p. 211. According to that statement, both Kleodasus (here called 
Aridam) son of Hyllus, and Aristomachus son of Kleodsras, had made sep- 
arate and successive attempts at the head of the Herakleids to penetrate into 
Peloponnesus through the Isthmus : both had fatted and perished, having 


altered various predictions : he was, however, so much susptctoft 
of treacherous collusion with the Peloponnesians, that Hippotea, 
great-grandson of Herakl^s through Phylas and Antiochus, slew 
him. His death drew upon the army the wrath of Apollo, who 
destroyed their vessels and punished them with famine. Tfcme- 
nu8, in his distress, again applying to the Delphian god for succor 
and counsel, was made acquainted with the cause of so much" 
suffering, and was directed to banish Hippot€s for ten years, to 
offer expiatory sacrifice for the death of Kara us, and to seek as 
the guide of the army a man with three eyes. 1 On coming back 
to Naupaktus, he met the iEtolian Oxylus, son of Andrsemdn, re- 
turning to his country, after a temporary exile in Elis, incurred 
for homicide : Oxylus had lost one eye, but as he was seated on 
a horse, the man and the horse together made up the three eyes 
required, and he was adopted as the guide prescribed by the 
oracle. 3 Conducted by him, they refitted their ships, landed on 
the opposite coast of Achaia, and marched to attack Tisamenus 
son of Orest&s, then the great potentate of the peninsula. A 
decisive battle was fought, in which the latter was vanquished 
and slain, and in which Pamphylus and Dymas also perished. 
This battle made the Dorians so completely masters of the Pelo- 
ponnesus, that they proceeded to distribute the territory among 
themselves. The fertile land of Elis had been by previous stip- 
ulation reserved for Oxylu<, as a recompense for his services as 
conductor : and it was agreed that the three Herakleids, — T§- 
menus, Kresphontes, and the infant sons of Aristodemus, — should 
draw lots for Argos, Sparta, and MessSne. Argos fell to Teme- 
nus, Sparta to the sons of Aristodemus, and MessSne* to Kres- 
phontes; the latter having secured for himself this prize, the 
most fertile territory of the three, by the fraud of putting into the 

misunderstood the admonition of the Delphian oracle. CEnomaus could 
have known nothing of the pledge given by Hyllus, as the condition of the 
■ingle combat between Hyllus and Echemus (according to Herodotus), that 
the Herakleids should make no fresh trial for one hundred years ; if it had 
been understood that they had given and then violated such a pledge, snch 
violation would probably have been adduced to account for their failure. 

1 Apollodor. ii. 8, 3: Paasan. iii. 13 3. 

* Apolloddr. ii. 8, 3. According to the account of Pansanias, the baa* 
upon which Oxylus rode was a mole, and had lost one eye (Pais. v. 3, ft V 


vetael out of which the lots were drawn, a lump of day instead 
of a stone, whereby the lots of his brothers were drawn out while 
his own remained inside. Solemn sacrifices were offered by each 
upon this partition : but as they proceeded to the ceremony, a 
miraculous sign was seen upon the altar of each of the brothers, 
— a toad corresponding to Argos, a serpent to Sparta, and a fox 
to Messfeng. The prophets, on being consulted, delivered the 
import of these mysterious indications : the toad, as an animal 
•low and stationary, was an evidence that the possessor of Argos 
would not succeed in enterprises beyond the limits of his own 
city; the serpent denoted the aggressive and formidable future 
reserved to Sparta ; the fox prognosticated a career of wile and 
deceit to the Messenian. 

Such is the brief account given by Apolloddrus of the Return 
of the Herakleids, at which point we pass, as if touched by the 
wand of a magician, from mythical to historical Greece. The 
story bears on the face of it the stamp, not of history, but of 
legend, — abridged from one or more of the genealogical poets,* 
and presenting such an account as they thought satisfactory, of 
the first formation of the great Dorian establishments in Pelo- 
ponnesus, as well as of the semi-iEtolian Elis. Its incidents are 
so conceived as to have an explanatory bearing on Dorian insti- 
tutions, — upon the triple division of tribes, characteristic of the 
Dorians, — upon the origin of the great festival of the Karneia 
at Sparta, alleged to be celebrated in expiation of the murder of 
Karnus, — upon the different temper and character of the Dorian 
states among themselves, — upon the early alliance of the Dorians 
with Elis, which contributed to give ascendency and vogue to the 
Olympic games, — upon the reverential dependence of Dorians 
towards the Delphian oracle, — and, lastly, upon the etymology 
of the name Naupaktus. If we possessed the narrative more in 
detail, we should probably find many more examples of color 

1 Herodotus observes, in reference to the Lacedaemonian account of their 
flrtt two kings in Peloponnesus, (Eurysthenes and Prokles, the twin sons of 
Aristodemus,) that the Lacedaemonians gays a story not in harmony with cms, 
if the poets, — Aaitedatpovtoi /dp, dpoXoyiovrec oidevl iroiyrf) 

JHyoveiv abrbv 'Apiord&ijfiov PaoiXefovra byayeiv ojfac if rw^rsjv 

*v* X«W rv* *0" fcrfaro*, 6XK 9 oh rodf 'Apiondqftov waldac (Herodot 4 


ing of the legendary past suitable to the circumstances of the 
historical present. 

Above all, this legend makes out in favor of the Dorians and 
their kings a mythical title to their Peloponnesian establishments; 
Argos, Sparta, and Messenfc are presented as rightfully belong- 
ing, and restored by just retribution, to the children of H§rakles. 
It was to them that Zeus had specially given the territory of 
Sparta ; the Dorians came in as their subjects and auxiliaries. 1 
Plato gives a very different version of the legend, but we find 
that he, too, turns the story in such a manner as to embody a 
claim of right on the part of the conquerors. According to him, 
the Achseans, who returned from the capture of Troy, found 
among their fellow-citizens at home — the race which had grown 
Dp during their absence — an aversion to readmit them: after 
a fruitless endeavor to make good their rights, they were at last 
expelled, but not without much contest and bloodshed. A leader 
named Dorieus, collected all these exiles into one body, and from 
him they received the name of Dorians instead of Achaeans ; then 
marching back, under the conduct of the Herakleids into Pelo- 
ponnesus, they recovered by force the possessions from which they 
had been shut out, and constituted the three Dorian establish- 
ments under the separate Herakleid brothers, at Argos, Sparta, 
and Mess&n£. These three fraternal dynasties were founded upon 
a scheme of intimate union and sworn alliance one with the other, 
for the purpose of resisting any attack which might be made upon 
them from Asia, 9 either by the remaining Trojans or by their allies. 
Such is the story as Plato believed it ; materially different in 

1 Tyrtttus, Fragm. — 

kbrbc y&p Kpoviuv, KaXXi<7Te<pavov irouif "Hoof, 

Zei>f 'HpaKXeidacg TTfvde dedoice noTuv • 
Olcriv a/uij npoXurovTcc 'Epiveov ifvefioevra t 
Eipeiav HtXtmoQ vrjaov a^LKO(it&a. 
In a similar manner Pindar says that Apollo had planted the sons of 
Heraklte, jointly with those of JSgimius, at Sparta, Argos, and Pylns (Pyth. 
r. 93). 

Iaokrates (Or. vi. Archidamus, p. 120) makes oat a good title by a different 
line of mythical reasoning. There seem to have been also stories contain 
lag mythical reasons why the Herakleids did not acquire posses: ion of Aica 
Ha (Poly«n. i. 7). 
8 Plato, Legg. iii. 6-7, pp. 682-486. 


the incidents related, yet analogous in mythical feeling, and em- 
bodying alike the idea of a rightful reconquest. Moreover, the 
two accounts agree in representing both the entire conquest and 
the triple division of Dorian Peloponnesus as begun and com- 
pleted in one and the same enterprise, — so as to constitute one 
single event, which Plato would probably have called the Return 
of the Achaeans, but which was commonly known as the Return 
of the Herakleids. Though this is both inadmissible and incon- 
sistent with other statements which approach close to the histori- 
cal times, yet it bears every mark of being the primitive view 
originally presented by the genealogical poets : the broad way in 
which the incidents are grouped together, was at once easy for 
the imagination to follow, and impressive to the feelings. 

The existence of one legendary account must never be under 
stood as excluding the probability of other accounts, current at 
the same time, but inconsistent with it : and many such there 
were as to the first establishment of the Peloponnesian Dorians. 
In the narrative which I have given from Apollodorus, conceived 
apparently under the influence of Dorian feelings, Tisamenus is 
stated to have been slain in the invasion. But according to 
another narrative, which seems to have found favor with the his- 
torical Achaeans on the north coast of Peloponnesus, Tisamenus, 
though expelled by the invaders from his kingdom of Sparta or 
Argos, was not slain : he was allowed to retire under agreement, 
together with a certain portion of his subjects, and he directed 
his steps towards the coast of Peloponnesus south of the Cor- 
inthian Gulf, then occupied by the Ionians. As there were re 
lations, not only of friendship, but of kindred origin, between 
Ionians and Achaeans, (the eponymous heroes I6n and Achaeus 
pass for brothers, both sons of Xuthus, (Tisamenus solicited from 
the Ionians admission for himself and his fellow- fugitives into 
their territory. The leading Ionians declining this request, under 
the apprehension that Tisamenus might be chosen as sovereign 
over the whole, the latter accomplished his object by force. After 
a vehement struggle, the Ionians were vanquished and put to 
flight, and Tisamenus thus acquired possession of Helik&, as well 
as of the northern coast of the peninsula, westward from Sikyon ; 
which coast continued to be occupied by the Achaeans, and re- 
ceived its name from them, throughout all the historical time?. 


The Ionians retired to Attica, many of them taking part in what 
is ealled the Ionic emigration to the coast of Asia Minor, which 
followed shortly after. Pausanias, indeed, tells us that Tisame- 
1106, having gained a decisive victory over the Ionians, fell in the 
engagement, 1 and did not himself live to occupy the country of 
which his troops remained masters. But this story of the death 
of Tisamenus seems to arise from a desire, on the part of Pau- 
sanias, to blend together into one narrative two discrepant le- 
gends ; at least the historical Achs&ans in later times continued to 
regard Tisamenus himself as having lived and reigned in their 
territory, and as having left a regal dynasty which lasted down 
to Ogygds, 9 after whom it was exchanged for a popular govern- 
ment 3 

The conquest of Temenus, the eldest of the three Hcraklcids, 
originally comprehended only Argos and its neighborhood ; it was 
from thence thatTroezen, Epidaurus, iEgina, Sikydn, and Phlius 
were successfully occupied by Dorians, the sons and son-in-law 
of T&nenus — Deiphont&s, Phalkes, and Keisus — being the 
leaders under whom this was accomplished. 4 At Sparta, the suc- 
cess of the Dorians was furthered by the treason of a man 
named Philonomus, who received as recompense the neighboring 
town and territory of Amyklae. 5 Messenia is said to have sub- 
mitted without resistance to the dominion of the Herakleid Kres 
phontes, who established his residence at Stenyklarus : the Py- 
lian Melanthus, then ruler of the country, and representative of 
the great mythical lineage of Neleus and Nestor, withdrew with 

1 Pausan. vii 1-8. 

* Folyb. U. 45; iv. 1; Strabo, viii. pp. 383-884. This Tisamenus de- 
rives his name from the memorable act of revenge ascribed to his father 
Orestes. So, in the legend of the Siege of Thgbes, Thersander, as one of 
the Epigoni, avenged his father Polynikes : the son of Thersander was also 
called Tisamenut fHerodot. iv. 149). Compare O. Miiller, Dorians, i p. 69. 
note 9, Eng. Trans. 

* Dioddr. iv. 1. The historian Ephorus embodied in his work a narrative 
in considerable detail of this grand event of Grecian legend, the Return of 
the Herakleids, — with which he professed to commence his coMecntive ids 
tory : from what sources he borrowed we do not knoir. 

4 Strabo, viii. p. 389. Panaan. ii ft, 9 ; 19, 1. 

* Oono^Nar. Mi Strabo, viii. p. 345 


bis household gods and with a portion of his subjects to 
Attica. 1 

The only Dorian establishment in the peninsula not directly 
connected with the triple partition is Corinth, which is said tc 
have been Dorized somewhat later and under another leader 
though still a Herakleid. Hippot&s — descendant of HSrakles 
iii the fourth generation, but not through Hyllus, — had beea 
guilty (as already mentioned) of the murder of Karnus the 
prophet at the camp of Naupaktus, for which he had been ban- 
ished and remained in exile for ten years ; his son deriving the 
name of Alet£s from the long wanderings endured by the father 
At the head of a body of Dorians, Al!t6s attacked Corinth : hf 
pitched his camp on the Solygeian eminence near the city, and 
harassed the inhabitants with constant warfare until he compelled 
them to surrender. Even in the time of the Peloponnesian war, 
the Corinthians professed to identify the hill on which the camp 
of these assailants had been placed. The great mythical dyn- 
asty of the Sisyphids was expelled, and Al&t&s became ruler 
and (Ekist of the Dorian city ; many of the inhabitants, however, 
JEolic or Ionic, departed. 9 

The settlement of Oxylus and his JEtolians in Elis is said by 
some to have been accomplished with very little opposition ; the 
leader professing himself to be descended from JEtolus, who had 
been in a previous age banished from Elis into Ottilia, and the 
two people, Epeians and -ZEtolians, acknowledging a kindred 
origin one with the other. 3 At first, indeed, according to Epho- 
rus, the Epeians appeared in arms, determined to repel the in- 
truders, but at length it was agreed on both sides to abide the issue 
of a single combat. Degmenus, the champion of the Epeians, 
confided in the long shot of his bow and arrow ; but the -flDtolian 
Pyraechmes came provided with his sling, — a weapon then un« 
known and recently invented by the ^tolians, — the range of 
which was yet longer than that of the bow of his enemy : he 

1 Strabo, viii. p. 359 ; Coo6n, Narr. 39. 

•Thucydid. iv. 42. SchoL Pindar. Olymp. xiii. 17; and Nem. viL 155. 
Ooofa, Narrat 26. Ephor. ap. Strab. viii p. 389. 

Thucydidte calls the ante-Dorian inhabitants of Corinth JBoIiaas GonAt 
tails them T pnlamk 

» Epborof ap, Strabo, z. p. 468. 




thus killed Degmenus, and secured the victory to Oxylus and hit 
followers. According to one statement, the Epeians were ex- 
pelled ; according to another, they fraternized amicably with the 
new-comers : whatever may be the truth as to this matter, it is cer- 
tain that their name is from this moment lost, and that they never 
reappear among the historical elements of Greece: 1 we hear 
from this time forward only of Eleians, said to be of JEtolian 
descent. 9 

One most important privilege was connected with the posses- 
sion of the Eleian territory by Oxylus, coupled with his claim on 
the gratitude of the Dorian kings. The Eleians acquired the ad- 
ministration of the temple at Olympia, which the Achseans are 
said to have possessed before them ; and in consideration of this 
sacred function, which subsequently ripened into the celebration 
of the great Olympic games, their territory was solemnly pro- 
nounced to be inviolable. Such was the statement of Ephorus £ 
we find, in this case as in so many others, that the Return of the 
Herakleids is made to supply a legendary basis for the historical 
state of things in Peloponnesus. 

It was the practice of the great Attic tragedians, with rare ex- 
ceptions, to select the subjects of their composition from the heroic 
or legendary world, and Euripides had composed three dramas, 
now lost, on the adventures of TSmenus with his daughter Hyrne- 
tho and his son-in-law Deiphontes, — on the family misfortunes 
of Kresphontes and Merope, — and on the successful valor of 
Archelaus the son of Temenus in Macedonia, where he was al- 
leged to have first begun the dynasty of the Temenid kings. Of 
these subjects the first and second were eminently tragical, and 
the third, relating to Archelaus, appears to have been undertaken 
by Euripides in compliment to his contemporary sovereign and 

1 Strabo, viii. p. 358 ; Pausan. v. 4, 1 . One of the six towns in Triphylia 
mentioned by Herodotus is called 'E^oi; (HerodoL iv. 149). 

* Herodot viii. 73 ; Pausan. v. 1, 2. Hekatteus affirmed that the Epeians 
were completely alien to the Eleians ; Strabo docs not seem to have been 
able to satisfy himself either of the affirmative or negative (Hekataeus, Ft 
348, ed. Didot ; Strabo, viii. p. 341 ). 

8 Ephorus ap. Strabo. viii. p. 358. The tale of the inhabitants of Pisa, 
the territory more immediately bordering upon Olympia, was very different 
from this. 


patron, Archelaus king of Macedonia: we are even told that 
' those exploits which the usual version of the legend ascribed to 
Temenus, were reported in the drama of Euripides to have been 
performed by Archelaus his son. 1 Of all the heroes, touched 
upon by the three Attic tragedians, these Dorian Herakleids 
stand lowest in the descending genealogical series, — one mark 
amongst others that we are approaching the ground of genuine 

Though the name Ach&ans, as denoting a people, is hence- 
forward confined to the North- Peloponnesian territory specially 
called Achaia, and to the inhabitants of Achaea, Phthidtis, north 
of Mount CEta, — and though the great Peloponnesian states 
always seem to have prided themselves on the title of Dorians, 
— yet we find the kings of Sparta, even in the historical ago, 
taking pains to appropriate to themselves the mythical glories of 
the Achseans, and to set themselves forth as the representatives 
of Agamemndn and Orestes. The Spartan king Kleomenes even 
went so far as to disavow formally any Dorian parentage ; for 
when the priestess at Athens refused to permit him to sacrifice in 
the temple of Ath§n&, on the plea that it was peremptorily closed 
to all Dorians, he replied : "I am no Dorian, but an Achaean." 9 
Not only did the Spartan envoy, before Gel6n of Syracuse, con- 
nect the indefeasible title of his country to the supreme command 
of the Grecian military force, with the ancient name and lofty 
prerogatives of Agamemnon, 3 — but, in farther pursuance of the 
same feeling, the Spartans are said to have carried to Sparta both 
the bones of Orestes from Tegea, and those of Tisamenus from 
Helikg, 4 at the injunction of the Delphian oracle. There is also 
a story that Oxylus in Elis was directed by the same oracle to 
invite into his country an Achaean, as CEkist conjointly with him- 

1 Agatharchides ap. Photium, Sect 250, p. 1332. 06(5' Ei/pimdov Karrjyo- 
p£, r£ 'ApxeMup irepire&eiKoroc rdf TrjfUvov npaf-eif. 

Compare the Fragment** of the Typtvidai, 'Apx&aoc, and Kpeofovrr}^ \* 
Dindorf's edition of Euripides, with the illustrative remarks of Welcker, 
Griechische Tragodien, pp. 697, 708, 828. 

The Prologue of the Archelaus seems to have gone through the wholt 
leries of the Herakleidan lineage, from -flSgyptus and Danaus downwards 

■ Herodot v. 72. 8 HerodoL vii. 159. 

4 Harriot, i. 68; Paasan. rii. 1,3 


ielf ; and that he called in Agorius, the great-grandson of Ores* 
Ids, from Helikg, with a small number of Achaeans who joined 
aim. 1 The Dorians themselves, being singularly poor in native 
legends, endeavored, not unnaturally, to decorate themselves with 
those legendary ornaments which the Achaeans possessed in 

As a consequence of the Dorian establishments in Pelopon- 
a&us, several migrations of the preexisting inhabitants are rep- 
resented as taking place. 1. The Epeians of Elis are either 
expelled, or merged in the new-comers under Oxylus, and lose 
their separate name. 2. The Pylians, together with the great 
heroic family of Neleus and his son Nestor, who preside over 
them, give place to the Dorian establishment of Messenia, and 
retire to Athens, where their leader, Melanthus, becomes king : a 
large portion of them take part in the subsequent Ionic emigra- 
tion. 8. A. portion of the Achaeans, under Penthilus and other 
descendants of Orestds, leave Peloponnesus, and form what is 
called the JEolic emigration, to Lesbos, the Trdad, and the Gulf 
of Adramy ttium : the name JEolians y unknown to Homer, and 
seemingly never applied to any separate tribe at all, being intro- 
duced to designate a large section of the Hellenic name, partly in 
Greece Proper, and partly in Asia. 4. Another portion of Achae- 
ans expel the Ionians from Achaia, properly so called, in the 
north of Peloponnesus ; the Ionians retiring to Attica. 

The Homeric poems describe Achaeans, Pylians, and Epeians, 
in Peloponnesus, but take no notice of Ionians in the northern 
district of Achaia : on the contrary, the Catalogue in the Diad 
distinctly includes this territory under the dominions of Agamem 
ndn. Though the Catalogue of Homer is not to be regarded as an 
historical document, fit to be called as evidence for the actual state 
of Peloponnesus at any prior time, it certainly seems a better 
authority than the statements advanced by Herodotus and others 
respecting the occupation of northern Peloponnesus by the Ioni- 
ans, and their expulsion from it by Tisamenus. In so far as the 
Catalogue is to be trusted, it negatives the idea of Ionians at 
Belike, and countenances what seems in itself a more natural 

1 Pwuan. v. 4, f . 


•opposition, — that the historical Achaeans in the north part of 
Peloponnesus are a small undisturbed remnant of the powerful 
Achaean population once distributed throughout the peninsula, 
until it was broken up and partially expelled by the Dorians. 

The Homeric legends, unquestionably the oldest which we 
possess, are adapted to a population of Achaeans, Danaans, and 
Argeians, seemingly without any special and recognized names, 
either aggregate or divisional, other than the name of each sepa- 
rate tribe or kingdom. The post-Homeric legends are adapted to 
a population classified quite differently, — Hellens, distributed 
into Dorians, Ionians, and JEolians. If we knew more of the 
time and circumstances in which these different legends grew up, 
we should probably be able to explain their discrepancy ; but in 
our present ignorance we can only note the fact 

Whatever difficulty modern criticism may find in regard to the 
event called " The Return of the Herakleids," no doubt is ex- 
pressed about it even by the best historians of antiquity. Thucy- 
did§s accepts it as a single and literal event, having its assignable 
date, and carrying at one blow the acquisition of Peloponnesus. 
The date of it he fixes as eighty years after the capture of Troy. 
Whether he was the original determiner of this epoch, or copied 
it from some previous author, we do not know. It must have 
been fixed according to some computation of generations, for 
there were no other means accessible, — probably by means of 
the lineage of the Herakleids, which, as belonging to the kings 
of Sparta, constituted the most public and conspicuous thread of 
connection between the Grecian i\ al and mythical world, and 
measured the interval between the Siege of Troy itself and the 
first recorded Olympiad. HSrakles himself represents the gen 
eration before the siege, and his son Tlepolemus fights in the be- 
sieging army. If we suppose the first generation after Herakles 
to commence with the beginning of the siege, the fourth genera 
tion after him will coincide with the ninetieth year after the same 
epoch ; and therefore, deducting ten years for the duration of the 
struggle, it will coincide with the eightieth year after the capture 
of the city ; l thirty years being reckoned for a generation. Tht 

1 The date of Thucydid&s is calculate!, peril Wiov &Xu<nv (i. 


date assigned by Thucydid&s will thus agree with the distance in 
which Temenus, Kresphontes, and Aristodemus, stand removed 
from Htrakles. The interval of eighty years, between the cap- 
ture of Troy and the Return of the Herakleids, appears to have 
been admitted by Apolloddrus and Eratosthenes, and some other 
professed chronologists of antiquity: but there were different 
reckonings which also found more or less of support 


In the same passage in which Thucydidgs speaks of the Return 
of the Herakleids, he also marks out the date of another event a 
little antecedent, which is alleged to have powerfully affected the 
condition of Northern Greece. " Sixty years after the capture 
of Troy (he tells us) the Boeotians were driven by the Thessa- 
lians from Arn£, and migrated into the land then called KadmSi's, 
but now Bceotia, wherein there had previously dwelt a section 
of their race, who had contributed the contingent to the Trojan 

The expulsion here mentioned, of the Boeotians from Arnd 
" by the Thessalians," has been construed, with probability, to 
allude to the immigration of the Thessalians, properly so called, 
from the Thesprdtid in Epirus into Thessaly. That the Thessa- 
lians had migrated into Thessaly from the Thesprdtid territory, 
is stated by Herodotus, 1 though he says nothing about time or 
circumstances. Antiphus and Pheidippus appear in the Homeric 
Catalogue as vommanders of the Grecian contingent from the 
islands of K6s and Karpathus, on the south-east coast of Asia 
Minor : they are sons of Thessalus, who is himself the son of 
Herakles. A legend ran that these two chiefs, in the dispersion 
which ensued after the victory, had been driven by storms into 
the Ionian Gulf, and cast upon the coast of Epirus, where they 
landed and settled at EphyrS in the Thesprdtid. 3 It was Thes* 

1 Herod, vii. 176. 

9 Bee the Epigram ascribed to Aristotle (Antholog. Grace, t L p. 181, ed. 
ReUk ; Velleius Patercnl. i. 1 ). 

The Scholia on Lycophron (912) give a story somewhat different Ephyr! 
Is given as the old legendary name of the city of Krannon in The—sly ( Kineas, 


•aius, grandson of Pheidippus, who was reported to have con- 
ducted the Thesprotians across the passes of Pindus into Thes- 
saly, to have conquered the fertile central plain of that country, 
and to have imposed upon it his own name instead of its previoui 
denomination JEolis. 1 

Whatever we may think of this legend as it stands, the state 
of Thessaly during the historical ages renders it highly probable 
that the Thessalians, properly so called, were a body of immi- 
grant conquerors. They appear always as a rude, warlike, vio- 
lent^ and uncivilized race, distinct from their neighbors the Ach- 
aeans, the Magnetes, and the Perrhaebians, and holding all the 
three in tributary dependence : these three tribes stand to them 
in a relation analogous to that of the Lacedaemonian Perioeki 
towards Sparta, while the Penestse, who cultivated their lands, 
are almost an exact parallel of the Helots. Moreover, the low 
level of taste and intelligence among the Thessalians, as well as 
certain points of their costume, assimilates them more to Mace- 
donians or Epirots than to Hellens. 2 Their position in Thessaly 
is in many respects analogous to that of the Spartan Dorians in 
Peloponnesus, and there seems good reason for concluding that 
the former, as well as the latter, were originally victorious in- 
vaders, though we cannot pretend to determine the time at which 
the invasion took place. The great family of the Aleuads, 3 and 
probably other Thessalian families besides, were descendants of 
Heraklea, like the kings of Sparta. 

There are no similar historical grounds, in the case of the 
alleged migration of the Boeotians from Thessaly to Bceotia, to 
justify a belief in the main fact of the legend, nor were the 
different legendary stories in harmony one with the other. While 
the Homeric Epic recognizes the Boeotians in Boeotia, but not in 

ap. Schol. Pindar. Pyth. x. 85), which creates the confusion with the Thes* 
protian Ephyrd. 

1 Herodot yii. 176; Velleius Patercul. L 2-3; Charax. ap. Stephan. By* 
v. b&piov ; Polysen. viii. 44. 

There were t everal different statements, however, about the parentage of 
Thessalns, as well as about the name of the country (Strabo, ix. p. 443 
Stephan. Byz. v. Alpovia). 

* See K O. Miiller, History of the Dorians, Introduction, sect 4. 

' Pindar, Pyth. x. 2. 


Thessaly, Thucydides records a statement which he had found 
of their migration from the latter into the former ; but in order 
to escape the necessity of flatly contradicting Homer, he inserts 
the parenthesis that there had been previously an outlying frac- 
tion of Boeotians in Boeotia at the time of the Trojan war,' from 
whom the troops who served with Agamemnon were drawn. 
Nevertheless, the discrepancy with the Iliad, though less strik- 
ingly obvious, is not removed, inasmuch as the Catalogue is 
unusually copious in enumerating the contingents from Thessaly, 
without once mentioning Boeotians. Homer distinguishes Orcho- 
menus from Boeotia, and he does not specially notice Thgbes in 
the Catalogue : in other respects his enumeration of the towns 
coincides pretty well with the ground historically known after- 
wards under the name of Boeotia. 

Fausanias gives us a short sketch of the events which he sup- 
poses to have intervened in this section of Greece between the 
Siege of Troy and the Return of the Herakleids. Peneleos, the 
leader of the Boeotians at the siege, having been slain by Eury- 
pylus the son of Telephus, Tisamenus, son of Thersander and 
grandson of Polynikes, acted as their commander, both during 
the remainder of the siege and after their return. Autesidn, his 
son and successor, became subject to the wrath of the avenging 
Erinnyes of Laius and (Edipus : the oracle directed him to ex- 
patriate, and he joined the Dorians. In his place, Damasichthdn, 
son of Opheltas and grandson of Peneleos, became king of the 
Boeotians: he was succeeded by Ptolemseus, who was himself 
followed by Xanthus. A war having broken out at that time 
between the Athenians and Boeotians, Xanthus engaged in sin- 
gle combat with Melanthus son of Andropompus, the champion 
of Attica, and perished by the cunning of his opponent. After 
the death of Xanthus, the Boeotians passed from kingship to 
popular government 3 As Melanthus was of the lineage of the 
Neleids, and had migrated from Pylus to Athens in consequence 
of the successful establishment of the Dorians in Messenia, the 
due. with Xanthus must have been of course subsequent to the 
Return of the Herakleids. 

1 Thucyd. i. 12. i?v Sh avruv koX bnodaofibf irpbr&ov h ry yrj rmirry £* 
4» *dl if IXtov korpaTtvoav. * Pmsmi fat. ft, & 


Here, then, we have a summary of alleged Boeotian history 
between the Siege of Troy and the Return of the Herakleids, ii 
which no mention is made of the immigration of the mass of 
Boeotians from Thessuly, and seemingly no possibility left of 
fitting in so great and capital an incident The legends followed 
by Pausanias are at variance with those adopted by Thucydides, 
but they harmonize much better with Homer. 

So deservedly high is the authority of Thucydides, that die 
migration here distinctly announced by him is commonly set 
down as an ascertained datum, historically as well as chronologi- 
cally. But on this occasion it can be shown that he only followed 
one amongst a variety of discrepant legends, none of which there 
were any means of verifying. 

Pausanias recognized a migration of the Boeotians from Thes- 
saly, in early times anterior to the Trojan war ; l and the account 
of Ephorus, as given by Strabo, professed to record a series of 
changes in the occupants of the country : First, the non-Hellenic 
Aones and Temmikes, Leleges and Hyantes; next, the Kad- 
meians, who, after the second siege of Thebes by the Epigoni, 
were expelled by the Thracians and Pelasgians, and retired into 
Thessaly, where they joined in communion with the inhabitants 
of Ame, — the whole aggregate being called Boeotians. After 
the Trojan war, and about tho time of the JEolic emigration, 
these Boeotians returned from Thessaly and reconquered Boeotia, 
driving out the Thracians and Pelasgians, — the former retiring 
to Parnassus, the latter to Attica. It was on this occasion (he 
says) that the Minyae of Orchomenus were subdued, and forcibly 
incorporated with the Boeotians. Ephorus seems to have fol- 
lowed, in the main, the same narrative as Thucydides, about the 
n wr em ent of the Boeotians out of Thessaly ; coupling it, however 
with several details current as explanatory of proverbs and cus- 
toms. 9 

. x. 8 f 8. 

* l^hor, Fragm. 80, ed. Han. ; Strabo, iz. pp. 401-402. The story d 
B»ltoe»tfauM at Arne, in Polysmus (i. 12), probably comes from Bphoraa. 

IModdnu (six. 58) gives a summary of the legendary history of Thebes 
tarn DeokaUon downwards : he tells mi that the Boeotians were expelled 
has* their eetartry, and obliged to retain into Thessaly during the Trojaa 
tol. n. 2oc* 


The only fact which we make out, independent of these legends, 
is, that there existed c***in homonymies and certain affinities of 
religious worship, between parts of Boeotia and parts of Thessaly, 
which appear to indicate a kindred race. A town named Arne, 1 
similar in name to the Thessalian, was enumerated in the Boeo- 
tian Catalogue of Homer, and antiquaries identified it sometimes 
with the historical town Chaeroneia, 2 sometimes with Akraephium. 
Moreover, there was near the Boeotian Kordneia a river named 
Kuarius, or Koralius, and a venerable temple dedicated to the 
Itonian Athene, in the sacred ground of which the Pamboeotia, 
or public council of the Boeotian name, was held ; there was also 
a temple and a river of similar denomination in Thessaly, near 
to a town called Iton, or Itnnus. 3 We may from these circum- 
stances presume a certain ancient kindred between the population 
of these regions, and such a circumstance is sufficient to explain 
the generation of legends describing migrations backward and 
forward, whether true or not in point of fact 

war, in consequence of the absence of so many of their brave warriors at 
Troy ; they did not find their way back into Boeotia until the fourth generation. 
1 Stephen. Byz. v. 'Apvrj, makes the Thessalian ArnG an uttoiko^ of the 

* Homer, Iliad, ii.; Strabo, ix. p. 413; Pausan. ix. 40, 3. Some of the 
families at Chsdroneia, even during the time of the Roman dominion in 
Greece, traced their origin to Peripoltas the prophet, who was said to have 
accompanied Ophelias in his invading march out of Thessaly (Plutarch, 
Cimon, c. 1). 

* Strabo, ix. 41 1-435 ; Homer, Iliad, ii. 696 ; Heka tarns, Fr. 338, Didot 
The fragment from Alkseus (cited by Strabo, but briefly, and with a muti- 
lated text,) serves only to identify the river and the town. 

Itonus was said to be son of Amphiktyon, and Boeotus son of Itonss 
(Pausan. ix. 1, 1. 34, 1 : compare Staph. Byz. v. Boicjria) by Melanippe. 
By another legendary genealogy (probably arising after the name ^Eolic had 
obtained footing as the class-name for a large section of Greeks, but as old 
as the poet Asius, Olympiad 30), the eponymous hero Boeotus was fastened 
on to the great lineage of *£olus, through the paternity of the god Poseidon, 
either with Melanippe' or with Arnd, daughter of Molua (Asius, Fr 8, ed. 
Dilntzer; Strabo, vi. p. 265; Dioddr. v. 67 ; Hellanikus ap. Schol. Iliad, ii 
494). Two lost plays of Euripides were founded on the misfortunes of 
Melanippe^, and her twin children by Poseidon, — Boeotus and jEolus 
(Hygin. Fab. 186; see the Fragments of UeXavlmrn 2o^ and MeAawfnrj 
Aeap&ftf in Dindorf s edition, and the instructive comments of Weicker, 
Orieek Tragod. vol. ii. pp. 840-860). 
Vol. 2 ' i 


• What is most important to remark is, that the stories of Thu- 
eydides and Ephorus bring us out of the mythical into the histor- 
ical Bocotia. Orchomenus is Boeotized, and we hear no more of 
the once-powerful Minyae: there are no more Kadmeians at 
Th&bes, nor Boeotians in Thessaly. The Minys and the Kad- 
meians disappear in the Ionic emigration, which will be presentlj 
adverted to. Historical Boeotia is now constituted, apparently 
in its federative league, under the presidency of Thebes, just as 
we find it in the time of the Persian and Peloponnesian wan. 


1. JEOLIC.— 2. IONIC — 8. DORIC. 

To complete the transition of Greece from its mythical to iti 
historical condition, the secession of the races belonging to the 
former must follow upon the introduction of those belonging to 
the latter. This is accomplished by means of the JEolic and 
Ionic migrations. 

The presiding chiefs of the JEolic emigration are the represen 
tatives of the heroic lineage of the Pelopids : those of the Ionic 
emigration belong to the Neleids ; and even in what is called the 
Doric emigration to Thera, the CEkist Theras is not a Doriau 
but a Kadmeian, the legitimate descendant of CEdipus and Kad 

The -ZEolic, Ionic, and Doric colonies were planted along the 
western coast of Asia Minor, from the coasts of the Propontis 
southward down to Lykia (I shall in a future chapter speak more 
exactly of their boundaries) ; the iEolic occupying the northern 
portion, together with the islands of Lesbos and Tenedos ; the 
Doric occupying the southernmost, together with the neighboring 
islands of Rhodes and K6s ; and the Ionic being planted between 
thev, comprehending Chios, Samos, and the Cyclades islands. 


The ~£k>lic emigration was conducted by the Pelopids : the 
original story seems to have been, that Orestes himself was at the 
head of the first batch of colonists, and this version of the event 


is still preserved by Pindar and by Hellaniktu. 1 But the i 
current narratives represented the descendants of Orestte as 
chiefs of the expeditions to iEolis, — his illegitimate son Pen- 
tiums, by Erigon6 daughter of JEgisthus * together with Echela- 
tus and Gras, the son and grandson of Penthilus, together with 
Kleo&s and Malans, descendants of Agamemndn through another 
lineage. According to the account given by Strabo, Orestes be- 
gan the emigration, but died on his route in Arcadia ; his son 
Penthihis, taking the guidance of the emigrants, conducted them 
by the long land-journey through Boeotia and Thessaly to 
Thrace; 3 from whence Archelaus, son of Penthilus, led them 
across the Hellespont, and settled at Daskylium on the Propon- 
tis. Gras, son of Archelaus, crossed over to Lesbos and pos- 
sessed himself of the island. Kleues and Malaus, conducting 
another body of Achaeans, were longer on their journey, and 
lingered a considerable time near Mount Phrikium, in the terri- 
tory of Lokris ; ultimately, however, they passed over by sea to 
Asia and took possession of Kyme, south of the Gulf of Adra- 
myttium, the most considerable of all the JEolic cities on the 
oontinent.4 From Lesbos and KyrnS, the other less considerable 
.Solic towns, spreading over the region of Ida as well as the 
Troad, and comprehending the island of Tenedos, are said to 
have derived their origin. 

Though there are many differences in the details, the accounts 
agree in representing these iEolic settlements as formed by the 

1 Pindar, Netn. xi. 43 ; Hellanic Fragm. 1 14, ed. Didot. Compare St* 
phan. Byz. v. lUpivQac. 

9 Kinasthon ap. Pausan. ii. 18, 5. Penthilids existed in Lesbos doting the 
historical times (Aristot. Polit. v. 10, 2). 

* It has sometimes been supposed that the country called Thrace here 
means the residence of the Thraciana near Parnassus ; bat the length of the 
journey, and die number of years which it took op, are so specially marked, 
that I think Tarace in its usual and obvious sense most be intended. 

4 Strabo, xiii. p. 582. Hcllanikns seems to have treated of this delay near 
Mount Phrikium (see Steph. Byz. v. QpUiov). In another account (xiii p. 
621 ), probably copied from the Kymasan Ephoros, Strabo connects the estab- 
lishments of this colony with the sequel of the Trojan war : the Pelasgiana, 
the occupants of the territory, who had been the allies of Priam, wen 
weakened by the defeat which they had sustained and unable to resist the 


Aehssana expatriated from Laconia under the guidance of the 
dispossessed Pelopids. 1 We are told that in their journey through 
Boeotia they received considerable reinforcements, and Strabo 
adds that the emigrants started from Aulis, the port from whence 
Agamemnon departed in the expedition against Troy. 9 He also 
informs us that they missed their course and experienced many 
losses from nautical ignorance, but we do not know to what par*, 
ticular incidents he alludes^ 


The Ionic emigration is described as emanating from and di- 
rected by the Athenians, and connects itself with the previous 
legendary history of Athens, which must therefore be here briefly 

The great mythical hero ThSseus, of whose military prowess 
and errant exploits we have spoken in a previous chapter, was 
still more memorable in the eyes of the Athenians as an internal 
political reformer. He was supposed to have performed for them 
the inestimable service of transforming Attica out of many states 
into one. Each deme, or at least a great many out of the whole 
number, had before his time enjoyed political independence under 
its own magistrates and assemblies, acknowledging only a federal 
onion with the rest under the presidency of Athens : by a mix- 
ture of conciliation and force, Theseus succeeded in putting down 
all these separate governments, and bringing them to unite in one 
political system, centralized at Athens. He is said to have es- 
tablished a constitutional government, retaining for himself a de- 
fined power as king, or president, and distributing the people into 
three classes : Eupatridae, a sort of sacerdotal noblesse ; Geomori 
and Demiurgi, husbandmen and artisans. 4 Having brought these 
important changes into efficient working, he commemorated them 
for his posterity by introducing solemn and appropriate festivals. 
In confirmation of the dominion of Athens over the Megarid ter- 
ritory, he is said farther to have erected a pillar at the extremity 
of the latter towards the Isthmus, marking the boundary between 
Peloponnesus and Ionia. 

1 VeBetot Patercvl. i. 4: compare Antikleide* ap. Athens, xi. c 3; Pan* 

iii. 2, 1. 
* Strabo, ix. p. 401. ' Strabo, i. p. 10. 4 Plutarch, Theseus, c 24, 25, 2& 


But a revolution so extensive was not consummated without 
creating much discontent ; and Menestheus, the rival of Theseus, 

— the first specimen, as we are told, of an artful demagogue, — 
took advantage of this feeling to assail and undermine him. The* 
seus had quitted Attica, to accompany and assist his friend Peiri- 
thous, in his journey down to the under-world, in order to cany 
off the goddess Persephone^ — or (as those who were critical in 
legendary story preferred recounting) in a journey to the resi- 
dence of Aidoneus, king of the Molossians in Epirus, to carry off 
his daughter. In this enterprise, Peirithous perished, while Th6- 
seus was cast into prison, from whence he was only liberated by 
the intercession of Ilerakles. It was during his temporary ab- 
sence, that the Tyndarids Castdr and Pollux invaded Attica for the 
purpose of recovering their sister Helen, whom Th&seus had at 

- former period taken away from Sparta and deposited at 
Aphidnae ; and the partisans of Menestheus took advantage both 
of the absence of ThSscus and of the calamity which his licen- 
tiousness had brought upon the country, to ruin his popularity 
with the people. When he returned, he found them no longer 
disposed to endure his dominion, or to continue to him the honors 
which their previous feelings of gratitude had conferred. Hav- 
ing, therefore, placed hi3 sons under the protection of Elephenor, 
in Euboea, he sought an asylum with Lykom§d§s, prince of Scy- 
ros, from whom, however, he received nothing but an insidious 
welcome and a traitorous death. 1 

Menestheus, succeeding to the honors of the expatriated hero* 
commanded the Athenian troops at the Siege of Troy. But 
though he survived the capture, he never returned to Athens, — 
different stories being related of the place where he and his com- 
panions settled. During this interval, the feelings of the Athe- 
nians having changed, they restored the sons of Th&seus, who 
had served at Troy under Elephenor, and had returned unhurt, 
to the station and functions of their father. The Theseids Demo- 
phodn, Oxyntas, Apheidas, and Thymcetes had successively filled 
this poet for the space of about sixty years,- when the Dorian in* 
raders of Peloponnesus (as has been before related) compelled 
Melanthus and the Neleid family to abandon their kingdom of 

1 Plutarch, ThSseus, c. 34-35. 

* Eusebias, Chronic. Can. pp. 228-229, ed. Scaliger; Pausan. ii 18, 7. 


Pylus. The refugees found shelter at Athens, where a fortunate 
adventure soon raised Melanthus to the throne. A war breaking 
out between the Athenians and Boeotians, respecting the boundary 
tract of (Enod, the Boeotian king Xanthus challenged Thymoe- 
tes to single combat: the latter declining to accept it, Melanthus 
not only stood forward in his place, but practised a cunning 
stratagem with such success as to kill his adversary. He was 
forthwith chosen king, Thymcetes being constrained to resign. 1 

Melanthus and his son Kodrus reigned for nearly sixty years, 
during which time large bodies of fugitives, escaping from the 
recent invaders throughout Greece, were harbored by the Athen- 
ians : so that Attica became populous enough to excite the alarm 
and jealousy of the Peloponnesian Dorians. A powerful Dorian 
force, under the command of Aletes from Corinth and Althae- 
menes from Argos, were accordingly despatched to invade the 
Athenian territory, in which the Delphian oracle promised them 
success, provided they abstained from injuring the person of Ko- 
drus. Strict orders were given to the Dorian army that Kodrua 
should be preserved unhurt; but the oracle had become known 
among the Athenians, 9 and the generous prince determined to 
bring death upon himself as a means of salvation to his country. 
Assuming the disguise of a peasant, lie intentionally provoked a 
quarrel with some of the Dorian troops, who slew him without 
suspecting his real character. No sooner was this event known, 
than the Dorian leaders, despairing of success, abandoned their 

1 Ephorus ap. Harpocration. v. 'Avarovpta: "E^opof tv devripo, <&{■ <h* 
T%v ifirep tuv 6piuv uitutijv yevofievr/v, bn noTiffjovvruv 'Adrjvaiuv mr»df 
&ota>T(ri)c iirip ttjs tuv J&ehaivuv xu/mzc, M£?mv\)oc 6 tuv 'A&rjvaiuv Boat- 
fodf &uv&ov rdv Qrjfiaiov ftovofiaxuv uTreKTeivev. Compare Strabo, ix. p. 

Ephorus derives the term 'Airarovpia from the words signifying a trick 
with reference to the boundaries, and assumes the name of this great Ionfe 
festival to have been derived from the stratagem of Melanthus, described is 
Confe (Narrat 39) and Polyasnus (i. 19). The whole derivation is fanciful 
and erroneous, and the story is a curious specimen of legend growing out 
of etymology. 

1 The orator Lykurgus, in his eulogium on Kodrus, mentions a Delphian 
cAtiwn named Kleomantis, who secretly communicated the oracle to uV* 
Athenians, and was rewarded by them foe doing so with airtjai^ kv Ifovffc 
Mty (Lycnrg. cont Leocrat, c SO). 


enterprise and evacuated the country.* In retiring, however, 
they retained possession of Megara, where they established per* 
manent settlers, and which became from this moment Dorian, — 
seemingly at first a dependency of Corinth, though it afterwards 
acquired its freedom and became an autonomous community.* 
This memorable act of devoted patriotism, analogous to that of 
the daughters of Erechtheus at Athens, and of Menoekeus at 
Th&bes, entitled Kodrus to be ranked among the most splendid 
characters in Grecian legend. 

Kodrus is numbered as the last king of Athens : his descend- 
ants were styled Archons, but they held that dignity for life, — 
a practice which prevailed during a long course of years after- 
wards. Medon and Neileus, his two sons, having quarrelled 
about the succession, the Delphian oracle decided in favor of the 
former; upon which the latter, affronted at the preference, re- 
solved upon seeking a new home. 3 There were at this moment 
many dispossessed sections of Greeks, and an adventitious popu- 
lation accumulated in Attica, who were anxious for settlements 
beyond sea. The expeditions which now set forth to cross the 
iEgean, chiefly under the conduct of members of the Kodrid 
family, composed collectively the memorable Ionic Emigration, 
of which the Ionians, recently expelled from Peloponnesus, form- 
ed a part, but, as it would seem, only a small part ; for we hear 
of many quite distinct races, some renowned in legend, who with- 
draw from Greece amidst this assemblage of colonists. The 
Kadmeians, the Miny® of Orchomenus, the Abantes of Euboea, 
the Dryopes ; the Molossi, the Phokians, the Boeotians, the Arca- 
dian Pelasgians, and even the Dorians of Epidaurus, — are re- 
presented as furnishing each a proportion of the crews of these 
emigrant vessels. 4 Nor were the results unworthy of so mighty 

1 Pherekydes, Fragm. 110, ed. Didot; Veil. Patcrc. i. 2; Condn, Narr. «6j 
Polysen. L c 18. 

Hellanikus traced the genealogy of Kodrus, through ten generations, up 
to Deukalion (Fragment 10, ed. Didot) 

■ Strabo, xiv. p. 653. ■ Pausan. vii. 2, 1. 

4 Herodot L 146; Pausan. vii. 3, 3, 4. Isokrates extols his Athenian 
ancestors for having provided, by means of this emigration, settlements far 
to large a number of distressed and poor Greeks at the expense of Barba- 
rians (Or. xiL Panathenaic p. 241) 


of different races. Not only the Cyclades islands 
in the ffig**") but the great islands of Samoa and Chios, near 
the Asiatic coast, aud ten different cities on the coast of Asia 
Minor, from Mil&us in the south to Phoksea in the north, were 
founded, and all adopted the Ionic name. Athens was the me* 
tropolis or mother city of all of them : Androklus and Neileua, 
the CEkists of Ephesus and Mil&tus, and probably other (Ekists 
also, started from the Prytaneium at Athens, 1 with those solem- 
nities, religious and political, which usually marked the departure 
of a swarm of Grecian colonists. 

Other mythical families, besides the heroic lineage of NSleus 
and Neetdr, as represented by the sons of Kodrus, took a lead* 
tag part in the expedition. Herodotus mentions Lykian chiefs, 
descendants from Glaukus son of Hippolochus, and Pausanias 
tells us of Phildtas descendant of Peneleds, who went at the 
head of a body of Thebans: both Glaukus and Peneleds are 
commemorated in the Iliad. 9 And it is a remarkable fact men* 
tioned by Pausanias (though we do not know on what authority), 
that the inhabitants of Phokaea, — which was the northernmost 
city of Ionia on the borders of JSolis, and one of the last found- 
ed, — consisting mostly of Phokian colonists under the conduct 
of the Athenians Philogenes and Daemdn, were not admitted 
into the Pan-Ionic Amphiktyony until they consented to choose 
for themselves chiefs of the Kodrid family.3 Prokles, the chief 
who conducted the Ionic emigrants from Epidaurus to Samoa! 
was said to be of the lineage of Ion, son of Xuthus.* 

Of the twelve Ionic states constituting the Pan-Ionic Amphik- 
tyony — some of them among the greatest cities in Hellas— I 
•hall say no more at present, ^s I have to treat of them again 
when I come upon hirtorical ground. 


The JSoiie and Ionic emigrations are thus both presented to 
os as direct consequences of tne event called the Return of the 

1 Herodot L 146; vii 95; nil 46. Vellei Patera i. 4. Pberekyde* 
hag. Ill, ed» Didot * Herodot !. 147 ; Pausm. vfr X 7. 

* Pwisan. vii. 2 2; rftljl 4 Ifeataa. vii 4, a. 

VOL.11, t 


Herakleids: and in like manner the formation ol the Dorian 
Hexapolis in the south-western corner of Asia Minor : Koa, 
Knidus, Halikarnassus, and Rhodes, with its three separate cities, 
as well as the Dorian establishments in Krete, Melos, and Th&ra, 
are all traced more or less directly to the same great revolution. 
ThSra, more especially, has its root in the legendary world. Its 
CEkist was* Th&ras, a descendant of the heroic lineage of (Edipus 
and Kadmus, and maternal uncle of the young kings of S parte, 
Eurysthen&s and Prokl&s, during whose minority he had exercised 
the regency. On their coming of age, his functions were at an 
end : but being unable to endure a private station, he determined 
to put himself at the head of a body of emigrants : many came 
forward to join him, and the expedition was farther reinforced by 
a body of interlopers, belonging to the Minyae, of whom the Lace* 
daemonians were anxious to get rid. These Minyae had arrived 
in Laconia, not long before, from the island of Lemnos, out of 
which they had been expelled by the Pelasgian fugitives from 
Attica. They landed without asking permission, took up their 
abode and began to " light their fires * on Mount Taygetus. When 
the Lacedaemonians sent to ask who they were, and wherefore 
they had come, the Minyae replied that they were sons of the 
Argonauts who had landed at Lemnos, and that, being expelled 
from their own homes, they thought themselves entitled to solicit 
an asylum in the territory of their fathers : they asked, withal, to 
be admitted to share both the lands and the honors of the state. 
The Lacedaemonians granted the request, chiefly on the ground 
of a common ancestry, — their own great heroes, the Tyndarids, 
having been enrolled in the crew of the Argd : the Minyae were 
then introduced as citizens into the tribes, received lots of land, 
and began to intermarry with the preexisting families. It was 
not lon^, however, before they became insolent : they demanded a 
share in the kingdom (which was the venerated privilege of the 
Herakleids), and so grossly misconducted themselves in other 
ways, that the Lacedaemonians resolved to put them to death, and 
began by casting them into prison. While the Minyae were thus 
confined, their wives, Spartans by birth, and many of them daugh- 
ters of the principal men, solicited permission to go in and see 
them : leave being granted, they made use of the interview to 


change clothes with their husbands, who thus escaped and fled 
again to Mount Taygetus. The greater number of them quitted 
Laconia, and marched to Triphylia, in the western regions of 
Peloponnesus, from whence they expelled the ParoreatsB and the 
Kaukones, and founded six towns of their own, of which Lepreum 
was the chief. A certain proportion, however, by permission of 
the Lacedaemonians, joined Theras, and departed with him to the 
island of Kalliste, then possessed by Phoenician inhabitants, who 
were descended from the kinsmen and companions of Kadnius, 
and wh) had been left there by that prince, when he came forth 
in search of Eurdpa, eight generations preceding. Arriving thus 
among men of kindred lineage with himself, Theras met with a 
fraternal reception, and the island derived from him the name, 
under which it is historically known, of Thera. 1 

Such is the foundation-legend of Th&ra, believed both by the 
Lacedaemonians and by the Theraeans, and interesting as it brings 
before us, characteristically as well as vividly, the persons and 
feelings of the mythical world, — the Argonauts, with the Tynda- 
rids as their companions and Minyae as their children. In Le- 
preum, as in the other towns of Triphylia, the descent from the 
Minyas of old seems to have been believed in the historical times, 
and the mention of the river Minyeius in those regions by Homer 
tended to confirm it. 9 But people were not unanimous as to the 
legend by which that descent should be made out ; while some 
adopted the story just cited from Herodotus, others imagined that 
Chloris, who had come from the Minyeian town of Orchomenus 
as the wife of Neleus to Pylus, had brought with her a body of 
her countrymen. 9 

1 Herodot. iv. 145-149; VaJer. Maxim, iv. c. 6; Polyaen. vii. 49, who, 
however, gives lho narrative differently by mentioning " Tyrrhenians from 
Lemnos aiding Sparta daring the Helotic war :" another narrative in his col 
lection (viii. 71), though imperfectly preserved, seems to approach m<n% 
closely to Herodotus. 

* Homer, Iliad, xi. 721. 

' Strabo, viii. p. 347. M. Raonl Rochette, who treats the legends for the 
most part as if they were so mnch authentic history, is much displeased wits 
Strabo for admitting this diversity of stories (Histoire des Colonies Grecqnes, 
t iii. ch. 7, p. 54) : " Aprea des details si clairs et si positifs, comment est-Q 
possible que oe m&ne Btrabon, bonlevemnt toute la chronologic, km 


These MInyae from Lemnos and Imbros appear again as pm* 
tiooB of another narrative respecting the settlement at the colony 
of Melos. It has already been mentioned, that when the Herak* 
leids and the Dorians invaded Lacdnia, Philonomus, an Aehjean, 
treacherously betrayed to them the country, for which he received 
as his recompense the territory of Amyklae. He is said to hacv* 
peopled this territory by introducing detachments of Minya from 
Lemnos and Imbros, who, in the third generation after the return 
of the Herakleids, became so discontented and mutinous, that the 
Lacedaemonians resolved to send them out of the country as emi- 
grants, under their chiefs Polis and Delphns. Taking the direc- 
tion of Krete, they stopped in their way to land a portion of their 
colonists on the island of Melos, which remained throughout the 
historical times a faithful and attached colony of Lacedscmon.) 
On arriving in Kr£te, they are said to have settled at the town 
of Gortyn. We find, moreover, that other Dorian establishments, 
either from Lacedaemdn or Argos, were formed in Kr&te ; and 
Lyktos in particular, is noticed, not only as a colony of Sparta, 
but as distinguished for the analogy of its lawB and customs. 9 It 
is even said that Krgte, immediately after the Trojan war, had 
been visited by the wrath of the gods, and depopulated by famine 
and pestilence ; and that, in the third generation afterwards, so 
great was the influx of emigrants, the entire population of the 
island was renewed, with the exception of the Eteokretes at 
Polichnse and Prasus. 3 

arriver les Minyens dans la Triphylie sons la conchiite do Colons, mere dc 
Nestor ?* 

The story which M. Raoul Rochette thus puts aside, is quite equal in 
point of credibility to that which he accepts : in feet, no measure of credibility 
can be applied. 

1 Condn, Narrat 36. Compare Plutarch, Question. Gncc. c. 21, where 
Tyrrhenians from Lemnos are mentioned, as in the passage of Pol) anus, 
referred to in a preceding note. 

* Strabo, x. p. 481 ; Aristot Polit ii. 10. 

* Herodot vii 171 (see above, Ch. xii vol. L p. 226). Diodorus (v. 80), 
at well as Herodotus, mentions generally large emigrations into Krete from 
laeedsemdn and Argot ; bat even the laborious research of M. Raoul Bo* 

) (Histoire des Colonies Greoques, t iii. c 9, pp. 60-68) fails in collect 
\ any distinct particulars oft 


There were Dorians in Krete in the time of the Odyssey: 
Homer mentions different languages and different races of men, 
Eteokretes, Kyddnes, Dorians, Achseans, and Pelasgians, as all 
coexisting in the island, which he describes to be populous, and 
to contain ninety cities. A legend given by Andrdn, based seem- 
ingly upon the statement of Herodotus, that Ddrus the son of 
Heilen had settled in Histiarttis, ascribed the first introduction of 
the three last races to Tektaphus son of Ddrus, — who had led forth 
from that country a colony of Dorians, Achseans, and Pelasgians, 
and had landed in Krete during the reign of the indigenous king 
Kres.i This story of Andrdn so exactly fits on to the Homeric 
Catalogue of Kretan inhabitants, that we may reasonably pre- 
sume it to have been designedly arranged with reference to that 
Catalogue, so as to. afford some plausible account, consistently 
with the received legendary chronology, how there came to be 
Dorians in Krdte before the Trojan war, — the Dorian colonies 
after the return of the Herakleids being of course long posterior 
in supposed order of time. To find a leader sufficiently early fot 
his hypothesis, Andrdn ascends to the primitive Eponymus Do- 
ras, to whose son Tektaphus he ascribes the introduction of a 
mixed colony of Dorians, Achaaans, and Pelasgians into Krete : 
these are the exact three races enumerated in the Odyssey, and 
the king Kres, whom Andron affirms to have been then reigning 
in the island, represents the Eteokretes and Kydones in the 
list of Homer. The story seems to have found favor among 
native Kretan historians, as it doubtless serves to obviate what 

1 Steph. Bjz. v. kupiov. — Tlepl &v larnpel w Av6puv, YLpurbt h ry viyop 
dacnXcvovToc, Tex ra<pov rbv Aupov rod "EAA? vof , bp^aavra kn. rifr h GerroAif 
Tore ftkv Aopidos, vw 6k 'lortatuTidot KaXovfievifd fyiiuo&ai etc KprjTTfv fieri 
Aopieov re ical 'Axcuav koI UeXacrydv, rCn> oin enrapavruv el( Tvfifavia*. 
Compare Strata, x. pp. 475-476, from which it Is plain that the story WM 
adduced by Andrdn with a special explanatory reference to the pottage in 
the Odyssey (xv. 175.; 

The age of Andrdn, one of the authors of Atthidfts, is not precisely ascer- 
tainable, but he can hardly be put earlier than 300 b. o. ; see the preliminary 
Dissertation of C. Mailer to the Fragmenta Historicornm Gnecornm, ed. 
Didot, p. lxxxil; and the Prolnsio de Atthidum Scriptoribos, prefixed U 
Lena's edition of the Fragments of Fhanodemas and Pfenon, p. xxvift, I4p» 


would otherwise be a contradiction in the legendary chronol- 
ogy. 1 

Another Dorian emigration from Peloponnesus to Krete, which 
extended also to Rhodes and Eos, is farther said to have been 
conducted by Althaemenes, who had been one of the chiefs in the 
expedition against Attica, in which Krodus perished. This 
prince, a Herakleid, and third in descent from Temenus, was in 
duced to expatriate by a family quarrel, and conducted a body 
of Dorian colonists from Argos first to Krete, where some of 
them remained; but the greater number accompanied him to 
Rhodes, in which island, after expelling the Karian possessors, he 
founded the three cities of Lindus, Ialysus, and Kameirus. 9 

It is proper here to add, that the legend of the Rhodian archae- 
ologists respecting their oekist Althaemenes, who was worshipped 
in the island with heroic honors, was something totally differeni 
from the preceding. Althaemenes was a Kretan, son of the king 
Katreua, and grandson of Minos. An oracle predicted to him 
that he would one day kill his father : eager to escape so terrible 
a destiny, he quitted KrSte, and conducted a colony to Rhodes, 
where the famous temple of the Atabyrian Zeus, on the lofty 
summit of Mount Atabyrum, was ascribed to his foundation, built 
bo as to command a view of Kr&te. He had been settled on the 
island for some time, when his father Eatreus, anxious again to 
embrace his only son, followed him from Krete : he landed in 
Rhodes during the night without being known, and a casual collis- 
ion took place between his attendants and the islanders. AJthse- 
menes hastened to the shore to assist in repelling the supposed 
enemies, and in the fray had the misfortune to kill his aged 

Either the emigrants who accompanied Althajmene's, or some 

1 See Dioddr, iv. 60 ; v. 80. From Strabo, (I. e.) however, we see that 
others rejected the story of Andrdn. 

O. Mailer (History of the Dorians, b. i. c 1, { 9) accepts the stor} as sub- 
stantially true, putting aside the name Ddrus, and even regards it as certain 
tfcat Minos of Kndssus was a Dorian ; bat the evidence with which he rap* 
psjrto this eonclasion appears to me loose and fanciful. 

1 Condn. Narrat 47 ; Ephorus, Fragm. 69, ed. Marx. 

1 Dioddr. v. 59 ; Apolloddr. iil 2, ft. In the Chapter next but one preceding 


other Dorian colonists afterwards, are reported to have settled at 
Kos, Knidus, Karpathus, and Halikarnassus. To the last men- 
tioned city, however, Anthta of Troszen is assigned as the cekist: 
the emigrants who accompanied him were said to have belonged 
to the Dymanian tribe, one of the three tribes always found in a 
Doric state : and the city seems to have been characterized as a 
colony sometimes of Troezen, sometimes of Argos. 1 

We thus have the JEolic, the Ionic, and the Doric colonial es 
tablishments in Asia, all springing out of the legendary age, and 
all se« forth as consequences, direct or indirect, of what is called 
the Return of the Herakleids, or the Dorian conquest of Pelo- 
ponnesus. According to the received chronology, they are suc- 
ceeded by a period, supposed to comprise nearly three centuries, 
which is almost an entire blank, before we reach authentic chro- 
nology and the first recorded Olympiad, — and they thus form 
the concluding events of the mythical world, out of which we 
now pass into historical Greece, such as it stands at the last- 
mentioned epoch. It is by these migrations that the parts of the 
Hellenic aggregate are distributed into the places which they oc- 
cupy at the dawn of historical daylight, — Dorians, Arcadians, 
JEtolo-£leians, and Achseans, sharing Peloponnesus unequally 
among them, — iEolians, Ionians, and Dorians, settled both in 
the islands of the jEgean and the coast of Asia Minor. The 
Return of the Herakleids, as well as the three emigrations, 
JEolic, Ionic, and Doric, present the legendary explanation, 
suitable to the feelings and belief of the people, showing how 

this, Diodorus had made express reference to native Rhodian mythologists, 
— to one in particular, named Zeno (c. 57). 

Wesseling supposes two different settlers in Rhodes, both named Altha- 
menes : this is certainly necessary, if we are to treat the two narratives as 

1 Strabo, xiv, p. 653 ; Pausan. ii. 39, 3 ; Kallimachtts apud Stephan. Byz. 
V. 'h\iKapvacco{, 

Herodotus (Vii. 99) calls Halikarnassus a colony of Troezen ; Fomponini 
Mela (i. 16,) of Argos. Vitruvius names both Argos and Trcezen (ii. 8, 12); 
trat the two cekiste whom he mentions, Melas and Arevanius, were not m 
well known as Anthes ; the inhabitants of Halikarnassus being called An- 
Aeadct (see Stephan. Byz. v. 'Aft/vat ; and a curious inscription 2a Botckh'i 
Corpw Inecriptionum, No. 3655). 


Greece passed from the heroic races who besiege* Troj and 
Thebes, piloted the adventurous Argd, and slew the monstrous 
boar of Kalyddn, to the historical races, differently named and class- 
ified, who famished victors to the Olympic and Pythian games. 

A patient and learned French writer, M. Baoul Rochette, — 
who construes all the events of the heroic age, generally speak- 
ing, as so much real history, only making allowance for the mis- 
takes and exaggerations of poets, — is greatly perplexed by the 
blank and interruption which this supposed continuous series of 
history presents, from the Return of the Herakleids down to the 
beginning of the Olympiads. He cannot explain to himself so 
long a period of absolute quiescence, after the important incidents 
and striking adventures of the heroic age ; and if there happened 
nothing worthy of record during this long period, — as he pre 
sumes, from the fact that nothing has been transmitted, — he 
concludes that this must have arisen from the state of suffering 
and exhaustion in which previous wars and revolution had left 
the Greeks : a long interval of complete inaction being required 
to heal such wounds.* 

1 M La periode qui me semble la pins obscure ct la plus reraplie de difficult 
tes n'est pas celle que je viens de parcourir : e'est celle qui separe l'e'poqao 
des Heraclides de l'institution des Olympiades. La perte des ouvrages 
d'Ephore et de Theopompe est sans doute la cause en grande partie du Tide 
immense que nous offre dans cet intervalle Phistoire de la Grece. Mais si 
I'on en excepte l'etablissement des colonies Eoliennes, Doriennes, et lonien- 
nes, de 1'Asie Mineure, et quelques eVenemens, tres rapprocbes de la pre- 
miere de cet epoques, I'espace de plus de quatre siecles qui les separe est 
convert d'une obscurite* presque impenetrable, et Ton aura toujours lieu de 
s Itonner que les ouvrages des anciens n'offrent aucun secours pour remplir 
une lacune aussi considerable. Une pareille absence doit aussi nous faire 
■oupvonner qu'il se passa dans la Grece pen de ces grands eVenemens qui se 
graven! ftotoment dans la memoire des hommes : puisque, si les traces ne 
s'en Itaient point conservees dans les Merits des contemporains, au motns le 
souvenir s'en seroit il perpltue* par des monumens: or les monumens et 
rhistoire se egalemenk II faut done croire que la Grece, agitee depuis 
si long temps par des revolutions de toute espece, epuisee par ses dernieres 
emigrations, se tourna toute entiere vers des occupations paisibles, et ne 
chercha, pendant ce long intervalle, qu'a guerir, au sein du repos et de 
I'abondance qui en est la suite, les plaies profondes que sa population avait 
souftrtea. (Baoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, t. ii. c 16. p. 455.1 

To the same purpose, Gillies (History of Greece, ch. iii p. 67,qnajt»* 


Aamnaug M. Rechette's view «f the Laroie ages tt> be correct, 
and reasoning upon the supposition that the adventures aaeribed 
to the Grecian heroes are matters of historical reality, trans- 
mitted by tradition from * period of time four eentaries before 
the recorded Olympiads, and only embellished by A^j-fring 
poets,— the blank which he here dwells upon is, to say the least 
of it, embarrassing and nnaceonntable. It k strange that the 
stream of tradition, if k had once began to flow, should (like 
several of the rivers in Greece) be submerged for two or three 
centuries and then reappear. But when we make what appears 
to me the proper distinction between legend and history, it will 
be seen that a period of blank time between the two is perfectly 
conformable to the conditions under which the former is gen- 
erated. It is not the immediate past, but a supposed remote past, 
which forms the suitable atmosphere of mythical narrative, — a 
past originally quite undetermined in respect to distance from the 
present, as we see in the Iliad and Odyssey. And even when 
we come down to the genealogical poets, who affect to give a cer- 
tain measure of bygone time, and a succession of persons as well 
as of events, still, the names whom they most delight to honor 
and upon whose exploits they chiefly expatiate, are those of the 
ancestral gods and heroes of the tribe and their supposed eon- 
temporaries; ancestors separated by a long lineage from the 
present hearer. The gods and heroes were conceived as re- 
moved from him by several generations, and the legendary mat- 
ter which was grouped around them appeared only the more im- 
posing when exhibited at a respectful distance, beyond the days 
of rather and grandfather, and of all known predecessors. The 
Odes of Pindar strikingly illustrate this tendency. We thus see 
how it happened that, between the times assigned to heroic adven- 
ture and those of historical record, there existed an intermediate 
blank, filled with inglorious names ; and how, amongst the same 
society which cared not to remember proceedings of fathers and 
grandfathers, there circulated much popular and accredited narra- 
tive respecting real or supposed ancestors long past and gone 

•The obscure transactions of Greece, during the four fallowing centuries 
B correspond with Ike splendor of the Tfcnjaa,cr erea of the Argonamv 
expedition, ete. 

OL.IL r »0U 


The obscure and barren centuries which immediately precede 
the first recorded Olympiad, form the natural separation between 
the legendary return of the Herakleids and the historical wars 
of Sparta against Mess§ne, — between the province of legend, 
wherein matter of fact (if any there be) is so intimately combined 
with its accompaniments of fiction, as to be undistinguishable 
without the aid of extrinsic evidence, — and that of history 
where some matters of fact can bi ascertained, and where a 
sagacious criticism may be usefully employed in trying to add to 
their number. 



I need not repeat, what has already been sufficiently set forth 
in the preceding pages, that the mass of Grecian incident anterior 
to 776 B. c appears to me not reducible either to history or to 
chronology, and that any chronological system which may be 
applied to it must be essentially uncertified and illusory. It was, 
however, chronologized in ancient times, and has continued to be 
so in modern ; and the various schemes employed for this pur- 
pose may be found stated and compared in the first volume (the 
last published) of Mr. Fynes Clinton's Fasti Hellenici. There 
were among the Greeks, and there still are among modern 
scholars, important differences as to the dates of the principal 
events: 1 Eratosthenes dissented both from Herodotus and from 
Phanias and Kallimachus, while Larcher and Raoul Bochette 

1 Lurcher and Raoul Rochette, adopting the chronological date of Herodo- 
tus fix the taking of Troy at 1270 b. a, and the Return of the Herakleids at 
1190 B.C. According to the scheme of Eratosthenes, these two events 
itand at 1184 and 1104 b. c. 

O. Muller, in his Chronological Tables (Appendix vL to History of Do* 
i vol ft. p. 441, EngL transl), gives no dates or computation of yean 


(who follow Herodotus, stand opposed to O. Muller and to Mr, 
Clinton. That the reader may have a general conception of 
the order in which these legendary events were disposed, 1 
transcribe from the Fasti Hellenica a double chronological table, 
contained in p. 139, in which the dates are placed in series, from 
Phordneus to the Olympiad of Coroebua in B. c. 776, — in the 
first column according to the system of Eratosthenes, in the 
second according to that of Kallimachus. 

"The following Table (says Mr. Clinton) offers a summary 
view of the leading periods from Phordneus to the Olympiad of 
Coroebus, and exhibits a double series of dates ; the one proceed- 
ing from the date of Eratosthenes, the other from a date founded 
on the reduced calculations of Phanias and Kallimachus, which 
strike out fifty-six years from the amount of Eratosthenes, Pha- 
nias, as we have seen, omitted fifty-five years between the Return 
and the registered Olympiads; for so we may understand the 
account : Kallimachus, fifty-six years between the Olympiad of 
Iphitus and the Olympiad in which Coroebus won. 1 

anterior to the Capture of Troy and the Return of the Herakleids, which 
he places with Eratosthenes in 1184 and 1104 B.C. 

C. Muller thinks (in his Annotatio ad Marmor Parium, appended to the 
Fragments Historicorum Grsecorum, ed. Didot, pp. 556, 568, 572 ; compare 
his Prefatory notice of the Fragments of Hellanikus, p. xxviii. of the same 
volume^ that the ancient chronologists, in their arrangement of the mythical 
events as antecedent and consequent, were guided by certain numerical 
attachments, especially by a reverence for the cycle of 63 years, product of 
the sacred numbers 7 X 9 = 63. I cannot think that he makes out his 
hypothesis satisfactorily, as to the particular cycle followed, though it is not 
improbable that some preconceived numerical theories did guide these early 
calculators. He calls attention to the fact that the Alexandrine computation 
of dates was only one among a number of others discrepant, and that modern 
inquirers are too apt to treat it as if it stood alone, or carried some superior 
authority, (pp. 568-572; compare Clemen. Alex. Stromat. i. p. 145, Sylb.) 
For example, O. Muller observes, (Appendix to Hist of Dorians, p. 442,) 
that u Larcher's criticism and rejection of the Alexandrine chronologists may 
perhaps be found as groundless as they are presumptuous," — an observation, 
which, to say the least of it, ascribes to Eratosthenes a far higher authority 
than he is entitled to. 

1 The date of Kallimachus for Iphiha is approved by Clavier (Prem 
Temps, torn. ii. p. 203), who considers it as not far from the truth. 


•Hie fast oolwna of this Table exhibits tbx 
before and after the fall ef Troy : io the second 
the c e mpirt i inierrois ere expressed.* 

eurrmd jean 

of Tray. 

(883) { 

(200) { 












terrenlng] B. C. I B. C. 
bclwMD , ttr». ! KaUi- 
th* differ-) (oath. I mach. 

Pkoroneus, p. 19 

Da*eu*,p. 73 , 

Pelasaus V.p. 13,88 , 

Deukulion, p. 42 


jAircJunu*, p. 88 , 

\Azan, Aphtda , Elatus , 

\Kadwws, p. 85 • . 

Ptlops • , 

Birth of Hercules , 


First Thchan wax, p. 51, h. 

Death of Hercules 

Death of EnrnsthewB, p. 106, z 

Death of HyUm 

Accession of Agamemnon 
Second Thebnn war, p. 87, 1 , 
Trojan expedition (9y lm). tl 


the Fall 
of Troy. 







Troy taken , 

Orestes reigns at Argos in the 8th 
The Thessuti occupy Thcssaly . . 
The Baoti return to Boeotia, in the 
jEolic migration under Penthilu* 
Return of the Heraclida in the 80th year 
Aletes reigns at Corinth, p. 130, m 

Migration of Thtrns , 

Lesbos occupied 130 years after the 

iDeath of Codrus " 

I Ionic migration 60 years after the Return 
'Cyme founded 150 years after the sera 
Smyrna, 1G8 years after the aera, p. 105, t 

Olympiad of Tpkitus . . 
Olympiad of Corabus . 


| 33 











87 9m 










i 108 
I 52 

(1753) (1S97) 
(14*6) (1410) 
(1433) (1877) 
(1383)' (1327) 
















1 Tflme dates, distinguished from the rest by braces, are proposed it i 
senjoctnres, founded upon the probable length of generations. 


> chronology is possible, researches eneh as those of 
Mr. Clinton, which have conduced so much to the better un- 
derstanding of the later times of Greece, deserve respectful 
attention. But the ablest chronologist can accomplish nothing 
unless he is supplied with a certain basis of matters of fact, pure 
and distinguishable from fiction, and authenticated .by witnesses 
both knowing the truth and willing to declare it. Possessing 
this preliminary stock, he may reason from it to refute distinct 
falsehoods and to correct partial mistakes : but if all the original 
statements submitted to him contain truth (at least wherever 
there i* truth) in a sort of chemical combination with Action, 
which he has no means of decomposing, — he is in the condition 
of one who tries to solve a problem without data: hie is first 
obliged to construct his own data, and from them to extract his 
conclusions. The statements of the epic poets, our only original 
witnesses in this case, correspond to the description here given. 
Whether the proportion of truth contained in them be smaller or 
greater, k is at aU events unassignable, — and the constant and 
intimate admixture of fiction is both indisputable in itself, and, 
indeed, essential to the purpose and profession of those from 
whom the tales proceed. Of such a character are all the depos 
ing witnesses, even where their tales agree ; and it is out of a 
heap of such tales, not agreeing, but discrepant in a thousand 
ways, and without a morsel of pure authenticated truth, — that 
the critic is called upon to draw out a methodical series of his- 
torical events adorned with chronological dates. 

If we could imagine a modern critical scholar transported into 
Greece at the time of the Persian war, — endued with his 
present habits of appreciating historical evidence, without sharing 
hi the religious or patriotic feelings of the country, — and invited 
to prepare, out of the great body of Grecian epic which then 
existed, a History and Chronology of Greece anterior to 776 
B. c, assigning reasons as well for what he admitted as for what 
he rejected, — I feel persuaded that he would have judged the 
undertaking to be little better than a process of guesswork. But 
the modern critic finds that not only Pherekydte and Hellanikus, 
but also Herodotus and Thocydidfis, have either attempted the 
task or sanctioned the belief that it was practicable, — a matter 
not at all surprW, when we consider both their 


perience of historical evidence and the powerful ascendency of 
religion and patriotism in predisposing them to antiquarian belief; 
— and he therefore accepts the problem as they have bequeathed 
it, adding his own efforts to bring it to a satisfactory solution. 
Nevertheless, he not only follows them with some degree of 
reserve and uneasiness, but even admits important distinctions 
quite foreign to their habits of thought. Thucydides talks of the 
deeds of Hellen and his sons with as much confidence as we now 
•peak of William the Conqueror: Mr. Clinton recognizes Hel- 
len, with his sons Ddrus, JEolus, and Xuthus, as fictitious persons. 
Herodotus recites the great heroic genealogies down from Kad- 
mus and Danaus, with a belief not less complete in the higher 
members of the series than in the lower: but Mr. Clinton admits 
a radical distinction in the evidence of events before and after 
the first recorded Olympiad, or 776 b. c, — "the first date in 
Grecian chronology (he remarks, p. 123,) which can be fixed 
upon authentic evidence," — the highest point to which Grecian 
chronology, reckoning upward, can be carried. Of this impor- 
tant epoch in Grecian development, — the commencement of 
authentic chronological life, — Herodotus and Thucydides had no 
knowledge or took no account: the later chronologists, from 
Timaeus downwards, noted it, and made it serve as the basis of 
their chronological comparisons, so far as it went: but neither 
Eratosthenes nor Apolloddrus seem to have recognized (though 
Yarro and Africanus did recognize) a marked difference in 
respect of certainty or authenticity between the period before 
and the period after. 

In farther illustration of Mr. Clinton's opinion that the first 
recorded Olympiad is the earliest date which can be fixed upon 
authentic evidence, we have, in p. 138, the following just remarks 
in reference to the dissentient views of Eratosthenes, Phanias, 
and Eallimachu8, about the date of the Trojan war : " The chro- 
nology of Eratosthenes (he says), founded on a careful comparison 
of circumstances, and approved by those to whom the same stores 
of information were open, is entitled to our respect But we must 
remember that a conjectural date can never rise to the authority 
ef evidence; that what is accepted as a substitute for testimony 
it not an equivalent : witnesses only can prove a date, and In the 
want of these, the knowledge of it is plainly beyond our reach, 


If ill the absence of a better light we seek for what is probable, 
we are not to forget the distinction between conjecture and proof 
between what is probable and what is certain. Th<; computation, 
then, of Eratosthenes for the war of Troy is open to inquiry ; and 
if we find it adverse to the opinions of many preceding writers, 
who fixed a lower date, and adverse to the acknowledged length 
of generation in the most authentic dynasties, we are allowed to 
follow other guides, who give us a lower epoch." 

Here Mr. Clinton again plainly acknowledges the want of evi 
dence, and the irremediable uncertainty of Grecian chronology 
before the Olympiads ; and the reasonable conclusion from his 
argument is, not simply, that " the computation of Eratosthenes 
was open to inquiry ," (which few would be found to deny,) but 
that both Eratosthenes and Phanias had delivered positive opin- 
ions upon a point on which no sufficient evidence was accessible, 
and therefore that neither the one nor the other was a guide to 
be followed. 1 Mr. Clinton does, indeed, speak of authentic dynas- 
ties prior to the first recorded Olympiad, but if there be any 
such, reaching up from that period to a supposed point coeval 
with or anterior to the war of Troy, — I see no good reason 
for the marked distinction which he draws between chronology 
before and chronology after the Olympiad of Koroebus, or for the 
necessity which he feels of suspending his upward reckoning at the 
last-mentioned epoch, and beginning a different process, called 
" a downward reckoning/' from the higher epoch (supposed to be 
somehow ascertained without any upward reckoning) of the first 
patriarch from whom such authentic dynasty emanates. 9 Herod* 
otus and Thucydides might well, upon this supposition, ask of 

1 Karl M tiller observes (in the Dissertation above referred to, appended to 
the Fragmenta Historicum Grsacorum, p. 568) : " Qnod attinet aram Tro 
pnam, tot obruimur et tarn diversis veteram scriptoram computationibus, ut 
fhi gnlim enumerare negotinm sit tasdii plenum, eas vel probare vel improbare 
let van* nee vacua ab arrogantia. Nam nemo hodie nescit qua&nam fide* 
his habenda sit omnibus." 

* The distinction which Mr. Clinton draws between an upward and a down- 
ward chronology is one that I am nnable to comprehend. His doctrine is, 
fraj upward chronology is trustworthy and practicable up to the first record- 
ed Olympiad ; downward chronology is trustworthy and practicable trom Pho- 
roneur. down to the Ionic migration : what is uncertain is, the length of the 
intermediate line which joins the Ionic migration to the first recortftA Olym 


Mr. Clinton, why be called upon them to alter their method «f 
proceeding at the year 776 B. a, and why they sight net be 
allowed to pursue their " upward chronological reckoning," with- 
out interruption, from Leooidas up to Danaus, or from Peuistrata 
up to Hellea and Deukaliou, without any alteration in the poiat 
of view. Authentic dynasties from, the Olympiads, up to an 
epoch above the Trojan war, would enable ue to obtain chrono- 
logical proof for the latter date, instead of being reduced (as Mr. 
Clinton affirms that we are) to " conjecture " instead of proo£ 
The whole question, as to the value of the reckoning from the 

piad, — the downward aid the upward terminus. ( Sec Fasti Hellenici, voL L 
Introduct p. ix. second edit, and p 123, ch. vi.) 

All chronology must begin by reckoning upwards : when by this process 
we have arrived at a certain determined era in earlier time, we may from 
that date reckon downwards, if we please. We must be able to reckon up- 
wards from the present time to the Christian era, before we can employ mat 
event as a fixed point for chronological determinations generally. But if 
Eratosthenes could perform correctly the upward reckoning from his own 
time to the fall of Troy, so he could also perform the upward reckoning up 
to the nearer point of the Ionic migration. It is true that Eratosthenes gives 
all his statements of time from an older point to a newer (so far at least as 
we can judge from Clemens Alex. Strom. 1, p. 336) ; he says u From the cap- 
ture of Troy to the return of the Herakleids is 80 years ; from thence to the 
Ionic migration, 60 years ; then, farther on, to the guardianship of Lykurgus, 
159 years ; then to the first year of the first Olympiad, 108 years ; from which 
Olympiad to the invasion of Xerxes, 297 years ; from whence to the begin- 
ning of the Peloponnesian war, 48 years," etc But here is no difference 
between upward reckoning as high as the first Olympiad, and then down- 
ward reckoning for tho intervals of time above it Eratosthenes first found 
or made some upward reckoning to the Trojan capture, either from his own 
time or from some time at a known distance from his own : he then assumes 
the capture of Troy as an era, and gives statements of intervals going down- 
wards to the Peloponnesian war : amongst other statements, he assigns dearly 
that interval which Mr. Clinton pronounces to be undiscovered*, viz. the 
space of time between the Ionic emigration and the first Olympiad, interpos- 
ing one epoch between them. I reject the computation of Eratosthenes, or 
any other computation, to determine the supposed date of the Trojan war* 
hat, if I admitted it, I could have no hesitation in admitting also the space 
which he defines between the Ionic migration and the first Olympiad. Euse- 
teas (Pwsp. Ev. x. 9, p. 485) reckons upwards from the birth or Christ, 
■si-jag various halts, but never breaking off, to the initial phenomena of 
Grecian antiquity, — the deluge of Deukalion and the conflagration df Pba* 


Olympiads up to Pboroneus, does in truth turn upon this point j 
Are those genealogies, which profess to cover the spa» betweea 
the two, authentic and trustworthy, or mot ? Mr. Clinton appears 
to feel that they are not so, when he admits the essential difference 
in the character of the evidence and the necessity of altering the 
method of computation, before and after the first recorded Olym- 
piad; yet, in his Preface, he moors to prove that they possess 
historical worth and are in the main eorrectly set forth : moreover, 
that the fictitious persons, wherever any such are intermingled, 
may be detected and eliminated. The evidences upon which he 
relies, are : 1. Inscriptions ; 2. The early poets. 

1. An inscription, being nothing but a piece of writing on mar- 
ble, carries evidentiary value under the same conditions as a pub- 
lished writing on paper. If the inscriber reports a eoatemaerary 
met which he had the means of knowing, and if there be no rea- 
son to suspect misrepresentation, we believe his assertions if, on 
the other hand, he records facts belonging to a long period before 
his own time, his authority counts for little, except in so far as 
we can verify and appreciate his means of knowledge* 

In estimating, therefore, the probative force of any inscription, 
the first and most indispensable point is to assure ourselves of its 
date. Amongst all the public registers and inscriptions alluded 
to by Mr. Clinton, there is not one which can be positively refer- 
red to a dnte anterior to 776 b. c. The quoit of Iphitus, — the 
public registers at Sparta, Corinth, and Elis, — the list of the 
priestesses of Juno at Argos, — are all of a date completely un- 
certified. O. Mii Her does, indeed, agree with Mr. Clinton 
(though in my opinion without any sufficient proof) in assigning 
the quoit of Iphitus to the age ascribed to that prince : and if wt 
even grant thus much, we shall have an inscription as old (adopt* 
ing Mr. Clinton's determination of the age of Iphitus) as 828 
B. C. But when Mr. Clinton quotes O. Miiller as admitting the 
registers of Sparta, Corinth, and Elis, it is right to add that the 
latter does not profess to guarantee the authenticity of these doc- 
uments, or the age at which such registers began to be kept. It 
is not to be doubted that there were registers of the kings of 
Sparta carrying them up to Herakles, and of the kings of Elk 
from Oxyras to Iphitus; bat the question is, at what time did 
these Hsts begin to be top! m*te m m * y t TUa is a point which 


we have no means of deciding, nor can we accept Mr. Clinton'i 
unsupported conjecture, when he tells us : "Perhaps these were 
begun to be written as early as B. c. 1048, the probable time of 
the Dorian conquest." Again, he tells us : " At Argos, a register 
was preserved of the priestesses of Juno, which might be more 
ancient than the catalogues of the kings of Sparta or Corinth. 
That register, from which Hellanikus composed his work, con- 
tained the priestesses from the earliest times down to the age of 
Hellanikus himself. .... But this catalogue might have been 
commenced as early as the Trojan war itself, and even at a still 
earlier date." (pp. x. xi.) Again, respecting the inscriptions 
quoted by Herodotus from the temple of the Ismenian Apollo at 
Thebes, in which Amphitryo and Laodamas are named, Mr. 
Clinton says, " They were ancient in the time of Herodotus, which 
may perhaps carry them back 400 years before his time : and in 
that case they might approach within 300 years of Laodamas and 
within 400 years of the probable time of Kadmus himself." — " It 
is granted (he adds, in a note,) that these inscriptions were not 
genuine, that is, not of the date to which they were assigned by 
Herodotus himself. But that they were ancient, cannot be 
doubted," &c 

The time when Herodotus saw the temple of the Ismenian 
Apollo at Thebes can hardly have been earlier than 450 b. c. 
reckoning upwards from hence to 776 B. c, we have an interval 
of 326 years : the inscriptions which Herodotus saw may well 
therefore have been ancient, without being earlier than the first 
recorded Olympiad. Mr. Clinton does, indeed, tell us that an* 
dent " may perhaps " be construed as 400 years earlier than He- 
rodotus. But no careful reader can permit himself to convert 
such bare possibility into a ground of inference, and to make it 
available, in conjunction with other similar possibilities before 
enumerated, for the purpose of showing that there really existed 
inscriptions in Greece of a date anterior to 776 B. c. Unless 
Mr. Clinton can make out this, he can derive no benefit from in* 
scriptions, in his attempt to substantiate the reality of the mythi- 
cal persons or of the mythical events. 

The truth is, that the Herakleid pedigree of the Spartan kingf 
(as has been observed in a former chapter) is only one out of 
the numerous divine and heroic genealogies with which the HeV 


leaic world abounded, 1 — a class of documents which become 
historical evidence only so high in the ascending series as the 

1 See the string of fabulous names placed at the head of the Halikarnas- 
slan Inscription, professing to enumerate the series of priests of Poseiddn 
from the foundation of the city (Inscript. No. 2655, Boeckh), with the com- 
mentary of the learned editor : cot pare, also, what he pronounces to be an 
inscription of a genealogy partially fabulous at Hierapytna in Krdte (No. 

The memorable Parian marble is itself an inscription, in which legend and 
history — gods, heroes, and men — are blended together in the various suc- 
cessive epochs without any consciousness of transition in the mind of the 

That the Catalogue of Priestesses of H6re" at Argos went back to the ex- 
treme of fabulous times, we may discern by the Fragments of Hellanikus 
(Frag. 45-53). So also did the registers at Sikyon : they professed to re 
cord Amphion, son of Zeus and AntiopG, as the inventor of harp-rausio 
(Plutarch, De Musica, c. 3, p. 1132). 

I remarked in the preceding page, that Mr. Clinton erroneously cites K 
O. Mailer as a believer in the chronological authenticity of the lists of the early 
Spartan kings : he says (vol. Hi. App. vi. p. 330), " Mr. Miiller is of opinion 
that an authentic account of the years of each Lacedaemonian reign from the 
return of the Heraclidae to the Olympiad of Koroebus had been preserved to 
the time of Eratosthenes and Apollodorus." But this is a mistake; foi 
Miiller expressly disavows any belief in the authenticity of the lists (Dorians, 
i. p. 146) : he says: " I do not contend that the chronological accounts in the 
Spartan lists form an authentic document^ more than those in the catalogue of 
the priestesses of HSre* and in the list of Halikarnassian priests. The chro- 
nological statements in the Spartan lists may have been formed from imper- 
fect memorials : but the Alexandrine chronologists must have fonnd such 
tables in existence, 1 ' &c. 

The discrepancies noticed in Herodotus (vi. 52) are alone sufficient to 
prove that continuous registers of the names of the Lacedaemonian kings 
did not begin to be kept until very long after the date here assigned by Mr 

Xenophdn fAgesilaus, viii. 7) agrees with what Herodotus mentions to have 
been the native Lacedaemonian story, — that Aristode'mas (and not his sons) 
was the king who conducted the Dorian invaders to Sparta. What is 
farther remarkable is, that Xenophon calls him — 'ApioTodijpoc 6 'HpaxAeovf. 
The reasonable inference here is, that Xenophdn believed Aristod&nus to be 
the mr of Heraklgs, and that this was one of the various genealogical storiej 
current But here the critics interpose ; " 6 'TlpaicXeovc (observes Schneider,) 
non ira*f, sed bnoyovoc, ut ex Herodoto, viii 131, admonuit Weiske." Surely, 
if Xenophdn had meant this, he would have said 6 af 'HpoxAeovc. 

Perhaps particular exceptional cases might be quoted, wherein the very 
common phrase of 6, followed by a genitive, means descendant, and not son 


names composing them are authenticated by contemporary, or 
nearly contemporary, enrolment At what period thia practice 
of enrolment began, we have no information. Two remarks, 
however, may be made, in reference to any approximative guess 
as to the time when actual registration commenced : First, that 
the number of names in the pedigree, or the length of past time 
which it professes to embrace, affords no presumption of any 
superior antiquity in the time of registration : Secondly, that, 
looking to the acknowledged paucity and rudeness of Grecian 
writing, even down to the 60th Olympiad (540 B. a), and to the 
absence of the habit of writing, as well as the low estimate of 
its value, which such a state of things argues, the pressunption is, 
that written enrolment of family genealogies, did not commence 
until a long time after 776 B. c, and the obligation of proof falls 
upon him who maintains that it commenced earlier. And this 
second remark i« farther borne out, when we observe that there 
is no registered list, except that of the Olympic victors, which 
goes up even so high as 776 b. o. The next list which O. Miil* 
ler and Mr. Clinton produce, is that of the Karneonicn, or victors 
at the Karneian festival, which reaches only up to 676 b. c. 

If Mr. Clinton then makes little out of inscriptions to sustain 
his view of Grecian history and chronology anterior to the re- 
corded Olympiad*, let us examine the inferences which he draws 
from his other source of evidence, — the early poets. And here 
it will be found, First, that in order to maintain the credibility of 
these witnesses, he lays down positions respecting historical evi- 
dence both indefensible in themselves, and especially inapplica- 
ble to the early times of Greece : Secondly, that his reasoning ia 
at the same time inconsistent, — inasmuch as it includes admis- 
sions, which, if properly understood and followed out, exhibit 
these very witnesses as habitually, indiscriminately, and uncon- 
sciously mingling truth and fiction, and therefore little fit to be 
believed upon their solitary and unsupported testimony. 

To take the second point first, he says, Introduction, p. ii-iii J 
4 The authority even of the genealogies has been called in < 

But if any doubt be eUowed apoa this point, chrometegteai 
founded on genealogies, will be exposed to a eeriena ■Sditio*eJ saspiaoa 
Why are we to assume that Xeaopboo swat give the aasme story as Herods* 
la«, unless hie words natanily tell at sot 


tion by many able and learned persona, who reject Dsnaus, Kad» 
■ins, Heresies, Theseus, and many ethers, as fictitious persons. 
It is evident that any fact would come from the hands of the 
poets embellished with many fabulous additions : and fictitious 
genealogies were undoubtedly composed. Because, however, 
wane genealogies were fictitious, we are nrt justified in concluding 
*kat all were fabulous. • In estimating, then, the histori- 
cal value of the genealogies transmitted by the early poets, we 
amy take a middle coarse ; net rejecting them as wholly false, 
%ar yet implicitly receiving all as true. The genealogies con* 
t real perwonSy but these are incorporated with many jic- 
The fictions, however, will have a basis of truth : 
the gcnenlagicnl expression may be false, but the connection 
which it describes is real. Even to those who reject the whole 
as nibalavs, the exhibition of the early times which is presented 
in this volame may still be not unacceptable : because it is neces- 
sary to the right understanding of antiquity that the opinions of 
the Greeks concerning their own origin should be set before us, 
even if these are erroneous opinions, and that their story should 
be told as they have told it themselves. The names preserved 
by the ancient genealogies may be considered of three kinds ; 
either they were the name of a race or dan converted into the 
name ef an individual, or they were altogether fictitious, or lastly, 
they were real historical names. An attempt is made, in the 
four genealogical tables inserted below, to distinguish these three 
classes ef names. . . . * Of those who are left in the third class 
(u e. the real) all are not entitled to remain there. But I have 
only placed in the third class those names concerning which there 
seemed to be little doubt. The rest are left to the judgment of 
the reader." 

Pursuant to this principle of division, Mr. Clinton furnishes 
fonr genealogical tables, 1 in which the names of persons repre- 
senting races are printed in capital letters, and those of purely 
fictitions persons in italics. And these tables exhibit a curious 
sample of tke intimate commixture of fiction with that which ha 
calls troth: real sen and mythical father, real husband and 
mytkical wise, or row t*rsd. 

1 Sob Mr. Cttnton's wo*, pp. 33, 40, 100. 


Upon Mr. Clinton's tables we may remark : — 

1. The names singled out as fictitious are distinguished by no 
common character, nor any mark either assignable or defensible, 
from those which are left as real. To take an example (p. 40), 
why is Itonus the first pointed out as a fiction, while Itdnus the 
second, together with Physcus, Cynus, Salmoneus, Ormenus, etc, 
in the same page, are preserved as real, all of them being epo- 
nyms of towns just as much as Itonus ? 

2. If wo are to discard Hellen, Ddrus, JEolus, Idn, etc, as not 
being real individual persons, but expressions for personified 
races, why are we to retain Kadmus, Danaus, Hyllus, and several 
others, who are just as much eponyms of races and tribes as the 
four above mentioned ? Hyllus, Pamphylus, and Dymas are the 
eponyms of the three Dorian tribes, 1 just as Hoples and the other 
three sons of Ion were of the four Attic tribes : Kadmus and 
Danaus stand in the same relation to the Kadmeians and Dana- 
ans, as Argus and Achaeus to the Argeians and Achaeans. Be- 
sides, there are many other names really eponymous, which we 
cannot now recognize to be so, in consequence of our imperfect 
acquaintance with the subdivisions of the Hellenic population, 
each of which, speaking generally, had its god or hero, to whom 
the original of the name was referred. If, then, eponymous 
names are to be excluded from the category of reality, we shall 
find that the ranks of the real men will be thinned to a far greater 
extent than is indicated by Mr. Clinton's tables. 

3. Though Mr. Clinton does not carry out consistently either 
of his disfranchising qualifications among the names and persons 
of the old mythes, he nevertheless presses them far enough to 
6trike out a sensible proportion of the whole. By conceding thus 
much to modern scepticism, he has departed from the point of 
view of Hellanikus and Herodotus, and the ancient historians 
generally ; and it is singular that the names, which he has been 
the most forward to sacrifice, are exactly those to which they 
were most attached, and which it would have been most painful 
to their faith to part with, — I mean the eponymous heroes. 
Neither Herodotus, nor Hellanikus, nor Eratosthenes, nor any 

1 " From these three n (Hyllus, Pamphylus, and Dymas,) says Mr. CUntoa. 
rol. i. ch. 5, p. 109, " the three Dorian tribes derived their l 


c&e of the chronological reckoners of antiquity, would hare ad- 
mitted the distinction which Mr. Clinton draws between persons 
real and persons fictitious in the old mythical world, though they 
might perhaps occasionally, on special grounds, call in question 
the existence of some individual characters amongst the mythical 
ancestry of Greece ; but they never dreamed of that general 
severance into real and fictitious persons, which forms the princi- 
ple of Mr. Clinton's " middle course." Their chronological com- 
putations for Grecian antiquity assumed that the mythical char- 
acters, in their full and entire sequence, were all real persons. 
Setting up the entire list as real, they calculated so many genera- 
tions to a century, and thus determined the number of centuries 
which separated themselves from the gods, the heroes, or the 
autochthonous men who formed in their view the historical start- 
ing point. But as soon as it is admitted that the personages in 
the mythical world are divisible into two classes, partly real and 
partly fictitious, the integrity of the series is broken up, and it 
can be no longer employed as a basis for chronological calculation. 
In the estimate of the ancient chronologers, three succeeding per- 
sons of the same lineage — grandfather, father, and son, —counted 
for a century ; and this may pass in a rough way, so long as you 
are thoroughly satisfied that they are all real persons : but if, in 
the succession of persons A, B, C, you strike out B as a fiction, 
the continuity of data necessary for chronological computation 
disappears. Now Mr. Clinton is inconsistent with himself in 
this, — that, while he abandons the unsuspecting historical faith 
of the Grecian chronologers, he nevertheless continues his chro- 
nological computations upon the data of that ancient faith, — 
upon the assumed reality of all the persons constituting his ante- 
historical generations. What becomes, for example, of the Hera- 
kleid genealogy of the Spartan kings, when it is admitted that 
eponymous persons are to be cancelled as fictions ; seeing that 
Hyllus, through whom those kings traced their origin to Hera- 
kl&s comes in the most distinct manner under that category, as 
much so as Hoples the son of Ion ? It will be found that, when 
we once cease to believe in the mythical world as an uninter* 
rupted and unalloyed succession of real individuals, it become* 
unfit to serve as a basis for chronological computations, and thai 
Mr. Clinton, when he mutilated the data of the ancient chronolo. 


gists, ought at the same time to have abandoned their problem 
as insoluble. Genealogies of real persons, such as Herodotus 
and Eratosthenes believed in, afford a tolerable basis for calcula 
tions of time, within certain limits of error : u genealogies contain 
ing many real persons, bat incorporated with many fictitious 
names," (to use the language just cited from Mr. Clinton,) are 
essentially unavailable for such a purpose. 

It is right here to add, that I agree in Mr. Clinton's view of 
these eponjmous persons : I admit, with him, that " the genea- 
logical expression may often be false, when the connection which 
it describes is reaL" Thus, for example, the adoption of Hyllus 
by jEgimius, the father of Pamphylus and Dymas, to the privileges 
of a son and to a third fraction of his territories, may reasonably 
be construed as a mythical expression of the fraternal union of 
the three Dorian tribes, Hyli&is, Pamphyli, and Dymanes: so 
about the relationship of Idn and Achaeus, of Ddrus and JEolus. 
But if we put this construction on the name of Hyllus, or Idn, or 
Achaeus, we cannot at the same time employ either of these 
persons as units in chronological reckoning : nor is it consistent 
to recognize them in the lump as members of a distinct class, 
and yet to enlist them as real individuals in measuring the dura- 
tion of past time. 

4. Mr. Clinton, while professing a wish to tell the story of the 
Greeks as they have told it themselves, seems unconscious how 
capitally his point of view differs from theirs. The distinction 
which he draws between real and fictitious persons would have 
appeared unreasonable, not to say offensive, to Herodotus or 
Eratosthenes. It is undoubtedly right that the early history (if 
so it is to be called) of the Greeks should be told as they have 
told it themselves, and with that view I have endeavored in the 
previous narrative, as far as I could, to present the primitive 
legends in their original color and character, — pointing out at 
the same time the manner in which they were transformed and 
distilled into history by passing through the retort of later an- 
nalists. It is the legend, as thus transformed, which Mr. Clinton 
seems to understand as the story told by the Greeks themselves, 
— which cannot be admitted to be true, unless the meaning of 
the expression be specially explained. In his general distinc- 
tion, however, between the real and fictitious persons of the 


Mythical world, be departs essentially from the point of view 
even of the later Greeks. And if he had consistently followed 
out that distinction in his particular criticisms, ha would have 
found the ground slipping under his feet in his upward march 
even to Troy, — not to mention the series of eighteen genera, 
tions farther up, to Phordneus ; but he does not consistently fol- 
low it out, and therefore, in practice, he deviates little from the 
footsteps of the ancients. 

Enongh has been said to show that the witnesses upon whom 
Mr. Clinton relies, blend truth and fiction habitually, indiscrimi- 
nately, and unconsciously, even upon his own admission. Let 
us now consider the positions which he lays down respecting 
historical evidence. He says (Introduct pp. vi-vii) :— 

" We may acknowledge as real persons all those whom there 
is no reason for rejecting. The presumption is in favor a£ the 
early tradition, if no argument can be brought to overthrow k. 
The persons may be considered real, when tho description of 
them is consonant with the state of the country at that time: 
when no national prejudice or vanity could be concerned in in- 
venting them : when the tradition is consistent and general : when 
rival or hostile tribes concur in the leading facts : when the acts 
ascribed to the person (divested of their poetical ornament) enter 
into the political system of the age, or form the basis of other 
transactions which mil within known historical times* Kadmus 
and Danaus appear to be real persons : for it is conformable to 
the state of mankind, and perfectly credible, that Phoenician and 
Egyptian adventurers, in the ages to which these persons are 
ascribed, should have found their way to the coast* of Greece: 
fend the Greeks (as already observed) had no motive from any 
national vanity to feign these settlements. Hercules was a real 
person. His acts were recorded by those who were not friendly 
to the Dorians ; by Aehseans and JEetians, and Ionian*, who had 
no vanity to gratify in celebrating the hero of a hostile and rival 
people. His descendants in many branches remained in many 
starts down to the historical times. His son Tlepolemus, and 
ms grandson and great-grandson Cleodsus and Aristomachus, 
are acknowledged (t. e. by O. Miller) to be real persons: and 
there is no reason that can be assigned for receiving these, whioa 
wiH not be equally valid for estabhsiiing the reality both e* 

I s 4oc 


cules and Hyllus. Above all, Hercules is authenticated by th« 
testimonies both of the Iliad and Odyssey •" 

These positions appear to me inconsistent with any sound views 
of the conditions of historical testimony. According to what is 
here laid down, we are bound to accept as real all the persons 
mentioned by Homer, Arktinus, Lesches, the Hesiodic poets, 
Eumelus, Asius, eta, unless we can adduce some positive ground 
in each particular case to prove the contrary. If this position 
be a true one, the greater part of the history of England, from 
Brute the Trojan down to Julius Caesar, ought at once to be 
admitted as valid and worthy of credence. What. Mr. Clinton 
here calls the early tradition, is in point of fact, the narrative of 
these early poets. The word tradition is an equivocal word, and 
begs the whole question ; for while in its obvious and literal 
meaning it implies only something handed down, whether truth 
or fiction, — it is tacitly understood to imply a tale descriptive of 
some real matter of fact, taking its rise at the time when that 
fact happened, and originally accurate, but corrupted by subse- 
quent oral transmission. Understanding, therefore, by Mr. Clin- 
ton's words early tradition, the tales of the old poets, we shall 
find his position totally inadmissible, — that we are bound to 
admit the persons or statements of Homer and Ilesiod as real 
unless where we can produce reasons to the contrary. To allon 
this, would be to put them upon a par with good contemporarj 
witnesses ; for no greater privilege can be claimed in favor even 
of ThucydidSs, than the title of his testimony to be believed 
unless where it can be contradicted on special grounds. The 
presumption in favor of an asserting witness is either strong or 
weak, or positively nothing, according to the compound ratio of 
his means of knowledge, his moral and intellectual habits, and 
his motive to speak the truth. Thus, for instance, when Hesiod 
tells us that his father quitted the JEolic Kyme, and came to 
Askra in Boeotia, we may fully believe him ; but when he de- 
scribes to us the battles between the Olympic gods and the Titans, 
or between Herakles and Cycnus, — or when Homer depicts the 
efforts of Hector, aided by Apollo, for the defence of Troy, and 
the struggles of Achilles and Odysseus, with the assistance of 
Her6 and Poseidon, for the destruction of that city, events pro- 
fessedly long past and gone, — we cannot presume either of then 
Vol. 9 9 


to be in any way worthy of belief. It cannot be shown that they 
po&er&ed any means of knowledge, while it i6 certain that they 
ctuld have no motive to consider historical truth : their object 
was to satisfy an uncritical appetite for narrative, and to interest 
the emotions of their hearers. Mr. Clinton says, that " the per- 
sons may be considered real when the description of them is 
consistent with the state of the country at that time." But he 
has forgotten, first, that we know nothing of the state of the 
country except what these very poets tell us ; next, that fictitious 
persons may be just as consonant to the state of the country as 
real persons. While, therefore, on the one hand, we have no 
independent evidence either to affirm or to deny that Achilles or 
Agamemnon are consistent with the state of Greece or Asia 
Minor, at a certain supposed date 1 1 83 B. c, so, on the other 
hand, even assuming such consistency to be made out, this of 
itself would not prove them to be real persons. 

Mr. Clinton's reasoning altogether overlooks the existence of 
plausible fiction^ — fictitious stories which harmonize perfectly 
well with the general course of facts, and which are distinguish 
ed from matters of fact not by any internal character, but by the 
circumstance that matter of fact has some competent and well- 
informed witness to authenticate it, either directly or through 
legitimate inference. Fiction may be, and often is, extravagant 
and incredible ; but it may also be plausible and specious, and in 
that case there is nothing but the want of an attesting certificate 
to distinguish it from truth. Now all the tests, which Mr. Clin- 
ton proposes as guarantees of the reality of the Homeric persons, 
will be just as well satisfied by plausible fiction as by actual 
matter of fact : the plausibility of the fiction consists in its satis- 
fying those and other similar conditions. In most cases, the tales 
of the poets did fall in with the existing current of feelings in 
their audience : " prejudice and vanity" are not the only feelings, 
but doubtless prejudice and vanity were often appealed to, and it 
was from such harmony of sentiment that they acquired their 
hold on men's belief. Without any doubt, the Iliad appealed 
most powerfully to the reverence for ancestral gods and heroes 
among the Asiatic colonists who first heard it : the temptation ot 
patting forth an interesting tale is quite a sufficient stimulus to 
the invention of the poet, and the plausibility of the tale a 


dent passport to the belief of the hearers. Mr. Clinton talks of 
« consistent and general tradition." But that the tale of a poet, 
when once told with effect and beauty, acquired general belief 
— is no proof that it was founded on fact: otherwise, what are 
we to say to the divine legends, and to the large portion of the 
Homeric narrative which Mr. Clinton himself sets aside as un- 
true, under the designation of " poetical ornament ? " When a 
mythical incident is recorded as " forming the basis " of some 
known historical met or institution, — as, for instance, the suc- 
cessful stratagem by which Melanthus killed Xanthus, in the bat- 
tle on the boundary, as recounted in my last chapter, — we may 
adopt one of two views ; we may either treat the incident as real, 
and as having actually given occasion to what is described as its 
effect, — or we may treat the incident as a legend imagined in 
order to assign some plausible origin of the reality, — a Aut ex 
re nomen, aut ex vocabulo fabula." 1 In cases where the legend- 
ary incident is referred to a time long anterior to any records, 
. — as it commonly is, — the second mode of proceeding appears 
to me far more consonant to reason and probability than the first 
It is to be recollected that all the persons and facts, here defended 
as matter of real history, by Mr. Clinton, arc referred to an age 
long preceding the first beginning of records. 

I have already remarked that Mr. Clinton shrinks from his 
own rule in treating Kadmus and Danaus as real persons, since 
they are as much eponyms of tribes or races as Ddrus and Hellen. 
And if he can admit Herakles to be a real man, I cannot see 
upon what reason he can consistently disallow any one of the 
mythical personages, for there is not one whose exploits are more 
strikingly at variance with the standard of historical probability. 
Mr. Clinton reasons upon the supposition that u Hercul&s was a 
Dorian hero:" but he was Achaean and Kadmeian as well as 
Dorian, though the legends respecting him are different in all the 
three characters. Whether his son Tlepolemus and his grandson 
Cleodaaus belong to the category of historical men, I will not 
take upon me to say, though 0. Muller (in my opinion without 
any warranty) appears to admit it ; but Hyllus certainly is not a 
real man, if the canon of Mr. Clinton himself respecting the 

1 Pomponias Mela iii 7. 


enonj^ns is to be trusted. "The descendants of Hercules (ob 
serves Mr. Clinton) remained in many states down to the bistor* 
ical times." So did those of Zeus and Apollo, and of that god 
whom the historian Hekataras recognized as his progenitor in the 
sixteenth generation ; the titular kings of Ephesus, in the histor- 
ical times, as well as Peisistratus, the despot of Athens, traced 
their origin up to JEolus and Hellen, yet Mr. Clinton does not 
hesitate to reject JBolus and Hellen as fictitious persons. I dis- 
pute the propriety of quoting the Iliad and Odyssey (as Mi*. 
Clinton does) in evidence of the historic personality of HerculSs. 
For, even with regard to the ordinary men who figure in those 
poems, we have no means of discriminating the real from the 
fictitious ; while the Homeric Herakles is unquestionably more 
than an ordinary man, — he is the favorite son of Zeus, from his 
birth predestined to a life of labor and servitude, as preparation 
for a glorious immortality. Without doubt, the poet himself be- 
lieved in the reality of Hercules, but it was a reality clothed with 
superhuman attributes. 

Mr. Clinton observes (In trod. p. ii.), that " because some gene- 
alogies were fictitious, we are not justified in concluding that all 
were fabulous." It is no way necessary that we should maintain 
so extensive a position : it is sufficient that all are fabulous so far 
as concerns gods and heroes, — some fabulous throughout, — and 
none ascertainably true, for the period anterior to the recorded 
Olympiads. How much, or what particular portions, may be 
true, no one can pronounce. The gods and heroes are, from our 
point of view, essentially fictitious ; but from the Grecian point 
of view they were the most real (if the expression may be per- 
mitted, u e. clung to with the strongest fuitli) of all the members 
of the series. They not only formed parts of the genealogy as 
originally conceived, but were in themselves (he grand reason 
why it was conceived, — as a golden chain to connect the living 
man with a divine ancestor. The genealogy, therefore, taken as 
Mi whole, (and its value consists in its being taken as a whole,) 
was from the beginning a fiction ; but the names of the father 
and grandfather of the living man, in whose day it first came 
forth, were doubtless those of real men. Wherever, therefore, 
we can verify the date of a genealogy, as applied to some living 
person, we may reasonably presume the two lowest members of 


it to be also those of real persons : but this has no application to 
the time anterior to the Olympiads, — still less to the pretended 
times of the Trojan war, the Kalydonian boar-hunt, or the del- 
uge of Deukalion. To reason (as Mr. Clinton does, In trod. p. 
vi.), — " Because Aristomachus was a real man, therefore his 
father Cleodaeus, his grandfather Hjllus, and so farther upwards, 
etc., must have been real men," — is an inadmissible conclusion. 
The historian Hekatjcus was a real man, and doubtless his father 
Hegesander, also, — but it would be unsafe to march up his gene- 
alogical ladder fifteen steps, to the presence of the ancestorial 
god of whom he boasted : the upper steps of the ladder will be 
found broken and unreal. Not to mention that the inference, 
from real son to real father, is inconsistent with the admissions in 
Mr. Clinton's own genealogical tables ; for he there inserts the 
names of several mythical fathers as having begotten real his- 
torical sons. 

The general authority of Mr. Clinton's book, and the sincere 
respect which I entertain for his elucidations of the later chro- 
nology, have imposed upon me the duty of assigning those grounds 
on which I dissent from his conclusions prior to the first recorded 
Olympiad. The reader who desires to see the numerous and con- 
tradictory guesses (they deserve no better name) of the Greeks 
themselves in the attempt to chronologize their mythical narra- 
tives, will find them in the copious notes annexed to the first half 
of his first volume. As I consider all such researches not merely 
as fruitless, in regard to any trustworthy result, but as serving to 
divert attention from the genuine form and really illustrative 
character of Grecian legend, I have not thought it right to go 
over the same ground in the present work. Differing as I do, 
however, from Mr. Clinton's views on this subject, I concur with 
him in deprecating the application of etymology (Intr. pp. xi-xii.) 
as a general scheme of explanation to the characters and eventa 
of Greek legend. Amongst the many causes which operated an 
suggestives and stimulants to Greek fancy in the creation of these 
interesting tales, doubtless etymology has had its share ; but it 
cannot be applied (as Hermann, above all others, has sought to 
apply it) for the purpose of imparting supposed sense and system 
Vc the general body of mythical narrative. I have already re- 
marked on this topic in a former chapter. 


It would be curious to ascertain at what time, or by whom, the 
earliest continuous genealogies, connecting existing persons with 
the supposed antecedent age of legend, were formed and pre- 
served. Neither Homer nor Hesiod mentioned any verifiable 
present persons or circumstances : had they done so, the age of one 
or other of them could have been determined upon good evidence, 
which we may fairly presume to have been impossible, from the 
endless controversies upon this topic among ancient writers. In 
the Hcsiodic Works and Days, the heroes of Troy and Thebes 
are even presented as an extinct race, 1 radically different from 
the poet's own contemporaries, who are a new race, far too de- 
praved to be conceived as sprung from the loins of the heroes ; 
so that we can hardly suppose Hesiod (though his father was a 
native of the JEolic Kyme) to have admitted the pedigree of 
the JEolic chiefs, as reputed descendants of Agamemn6n. Cer- 
tain it is, that the earliest poets did not attempt to measure or 
bridge over the supposed interval, between their own age and the 
war of Troy, by any definite series of fathers and sons : whether 
Eumelus or Asius made any such attempt, we cannot tell, but 
fhe earliest continuous backward genealogies which we find men- 
tioned are those of Pherekydes, Hellanikus, and Herodotus. It 
is well known that Herodotus, in his manner of computing the 
upward genealogy of the Spartan kings, assigns the date of the 
Trojan war to a period 800 years earlier than himself, equivalent 
about to B. c. 1270-1250; while the subsequent Alexandrine 
chronologists, Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, place that event in 
1184 and 1183 b. c. ; and the Parian marble refers it to an in 
termediate date, different from either, — 1209 b. c. Ephorus, 
Phanias, Timaeus, Kleitarehus, and Duns, had each his own con- 
jectural date ; but the computations of the Alexandrine chronol- 
ogists was the most generally followed by those who succeeded 
them, and seems to have passed to modern times as the received 
date of this great legendary event, — though some distinguished 
inquirers have adopted the epoch of Herodotus, which Larcher 
has attempted to vindicate in an elaborate but feeble disserta- 
tion. 2 It is unnecessary to state that, in my view, the inquiry 

1 See the preceding volume of this History, Chap. ii. p. 66. 
* Larcher, Chronologic d'HeVodote, chap. xiv. pp. 352-401. 
From the capture of Troy down to the passage of Alexander with hie 


hat no other value except to illustrate the ideas which guided 
the Greek mind, and to exhibit its progress from the days of 
Homer to those of Herodotus. For it argues a considerable 
mental progress when men begin to methodize the past, even 
though they do so on fictitious principles, being as yet unprovided 
with those records which alone could put them on a better course* 
The Homeric man was satisfied with feeling, imagining, and 

invading army into Asia, the latter a known date of 334 b. c, the following 
different reckonings were made : — 

Phanias gave 715 years. 

Ephorus tt 735 « 

Eratosthenes M 774 " 

Timseus ... ) M g20 tl 

Kleitarchtu ) 

Duris w 1000 " 

(Clemens Alexand. Strom, i. p. 337.) 
Democritns estimated a space of seven hundred and thirty years between 
his composition of the Mwcpdc biaKoopoc and the capture of Troy (Diogen. 
LaerLix. 41). Isokratds believed the Lacedaemonians to have been estab- 
ished in Peloponnesus seven hundred years, and he repeats this in three dif- 
ferent passages (Archidam. p. 118; Panathen. p. 275; De Pace, p. 178). 
The dates of these three orations themselves differ by twenty-four years, the 
Archidamus being older than the Panathenaic by that interval ; yet he em- 
ploys the same number of years for each in calculating backwards to the 
Trojan war, (see Clinton, vol. i. Introd. p. v.) In round numbers, his calcu- 
lation coincides pretty nearly with the eight hundred yean given by Herod- 
otus in the preceding century. 

The remarks of Boeckh on the Parian marble generally, in his Corpus 
Inscriptionnm Graec. t. ii. pp. 822-336, are extremely valuable, but especially 
his criticism on the epoch of the Trojan war, which stands the twenty-fourth 
in the Marble. The ancient chronologists, from Damast£s and Hellanikus 
downwards, professed to fix not only the exact year, but the exact month, 
day, and hour in which this celebrated capture took place. [Mr. Clinton 
pretends to no more than the possibility of determining the event within fifty 
years, Introduct p. vi.] Boeckh illustrates the manner of their argumentation. 
O Muller observes (History of the Dorians, t. ii. p. 442, Eng. Tr.), "In 
reckoning from the migration of the Heraklida downward, we follow the 
Alexandrine clironology, of which it should be observed, that our materials 
only enable us to restore it to its original state, not to examine its correctness * 
But I do not see upon what evidence even so much as this can be done, 
Mr Clinton, admitting that Eratosthenes fixed his date by conjecture, sup- 
poses him to have chosen " a middle point between the longer and shortat 
computations of his predecessors." Boeckh thinks this explanation unsafc 
*«*actory (/. c. p 328) 


believing particular incidents of a supposed past, without any 
attempt to graduate the line of connection between them and 
himself: to introduce fictitious hjpotbeses and media of connec- 
tion is the business of a succeeding age, when the stimulus of 
rational curiosity is first felt, without any authentic materials to 
supply it We have, then, the form of history operating upon 
the matter of legend, — the transition-state between legend and 
history ; less interesting, indeed, than either separately, yet nec- 
essary as a step between the two. 




Though the particular persons and events, chronicled in the 
legendary poems of Greece, are not to be regarded as belonging 
to the province of real history, those poems are, nevertheless, full 
of instruction as pictures of life and manners ; and the very same 
circumstances, which divest their composers of all credibility as 
historians, render them so much the more valuable as unconscious 
expositors of their own contemporary society. While professedly 
describing an uncertified past, their combinations are involuntarily 
borrowed from the surrounding present : for among communities, 
such as those of the primitive Greeks, without books, without 
means of extended travel, without acquaintance with foreign lan- 
guages and habits, the imagination, even of highly gifted men, 
was naturally enslaved by the circumstances around them to a far 
greater degree than in the later days of Soldn or Herodotus ; 
insomuch that the characters which they conceived and the 
scenes which they described would for that reason bear a stronger 
generic resemblance to the realities of their own time and 
locality. Nor was the poetry of that age addressed to lettered 
end critical authors, watchful to detect plagiarism, sated with 



simple imagery, and requiring something of novelty or peculiarity 
in every fresh production. To captivate their emotions, it wag 
sufficient to depict, with genius and fervor, the more obvious 
manifestations of human adventure or suffering, and to idealize 
mat type of society, both private and public, with which the 
hearers around were familiar. Even in describing the gods, 
where a great degree of latitude and deviation might have been 
expected, 1 we see that Homer introduces into Olympus the pas- 
sions, the caprices, the love of power and patronage, the alterna- 
tion of dignity and weakness, which animated the bosom of an 
ordinary Grecian chief; and this tendency, to reproduce in sub- 
stance the social relations to which he had been accustomed, 
would operate still more powerfully when he had to describe sim- 
ply human characters, — the chief and his people, the warrior 
and his comrades, the husband, wife, father, and son, — or the 
imperfect rudiments of judicial and administrative proceeding. 
That his narrative on all these points, even with fictitious charac- 
ters and events, presents a close approximation to general reality, 
there can be no reason to doubt 2 The necessity under which he 
lay of drawing from a store, then happily unexhausted, of per- 
sonal experience and observation, is one of the causes of that 
freshness and vivacity of description for which he stands unri- 
valled, and which constituted the imperishable charm of the Hiad 
and Odyssey from the beginning to the end of Grecian literature. 
While, therefore, we renounce the idea of chronologizing or 
historicizing the events of Grecian legend, we may turn them to 
profit as valuable memorials of that state of society, feeling, and 
intelligence, which must be to us the starting-point of the history 
of the people. Of course, the legendary age, like all those which 
succeeded it, had its antecedent causes and determining condi- 
tions ; but of these we know nothing, and we are compelled to 

1 Kdt roi% &eoi>c 6t dth tovto navrec fyaoi 3aoiht&to&ai, 6rt #ra2 avrol f ol 
(Lev in *al vw, ol 61 rb kpxatov, tpaotXcvovro. 'Qtrrrep 6h xal rd eldtf iavnlf 
afofiowvoiv ol dv#puirot, oDtu kcU Toty (Move tGv $e£>v (Aria tot. Politic, i 

f In the pictures of the Homeric Heroes, there is no material difference of 
character recognized between one race of Greeks and another, — or even 
between Greeks and Trojans. See Helbig, Die Sittlichen Zast&nde del 
Griechischcn Heldenalters, part ii. p. 53. 


assume it as a primary fact, for the purpose of following out ife 
subsequent changes. To conceive absolute beginning or origin 
(as Niebuhr has justly remarked) is beyond the reach of our 
faculties : we can neither apprehend nor verify anything beyond 
progress, or development, or decay, 1 — change from one set of 
circumstances to another, operated by some definite combination 
of physical or moral laws. In the case of the Greeks, the 
legendary age, as the earliest in any way known to us, must be 
taken as the initial state from which this series of changes com- 
mences. We must depict its prominent characteristics as well as 
we can, and show, — partly how it serves to prepare, partly how 
it forms a contrast to set off, — the subsequent ages of Soldn, of 
Perikles, and of Demosthenes. 

1. The political condition, which Grecian legend everywhere 
presents to us, is in its principal features strikingly different from 
that which had become universally prevalent among the Greeks 
in the time of the Peloponnesian war. Historical oligarchy, as 
well as democracy, agreed in requiring a certain established sys- 
tem of government, comprising the three elements of specialized 
functions, temporary functionaries, and ultimate responsibility 

1 Niebuhr, Komische Gcschichte, vol. i. p. 55, 2d edit "Erkennt man aber 
dass allcr Ursprung jenseits unserer nur Entwickelung trad Fortgang fassen- 
den Begriffe liegt ; und beschrankt sich von Stufe auf Stufe im Umfang der 
Geschichte zuriickzugchen, so wird man Volker eines Stammes (das heisst, 
durch eigenthflmliche Art und Sprachc identisch) vielfach eben an sich 

entgcgenliegcndcn KUstcnlandern autrefieu ohne dass irgend etwas die 

Voraussetzung crheischtc, eine von dieson gctrennten Landschaften sei die 
urspriingliche Heimath gewesen vuii wo ein Theil nach der andern gewan- 
dert ware Dies ist der Geographic der Thicrgeschlechter und der 

. Vegetation analog : deren grosse Bezirke durch Geburge geschieden werden, 

/ and beschrankte Mecre einschliesscn." 

u When we once recognize, however, that all absolute beginning lies out of the 
reach of our mental conceptions, which comprehend nothing beyond development 
und progress, and when we attempt nothing more than to go back from 
the later to the earlier stages in the compass of history, we shall often find, 
on opposite coasts of the same sea, people of one stock (that is, of the sirae 
peculiar customs and language,) without being warranted in supposing that 
either of these separate coasts was the primitive home from whence emigrants 
crossed over to the other. This re analogous to the geography of animal* 
and plants, whose wide districts are severed by mountain* and inclose »o*mrf 


(undor some forms or other) to the mass of qualified citizens. — 
either a Senate or an Ecclesia, or both. There were, of course, 
many and capital distinctions between one government and 
another, in respect to the qualification of the citizen, the attri- 
butes and efficiency of the general assembly, the admissibility to 
power, etc. ; and men might often be dissatisfied with the way in 
which these questions were determined in their own city. But 
in the mind of every man, some determining rule or system — 
something like what in modern times is called a constitution — 
was indispensable to any government entitled to be called legiti- 
mate, or capable of creating in the mind of a Greek a feeling of 
moral obligation to obey it. The functionaries who exercised 
authority under it might be more or less competent o) popular ; 
but his personal feelings towards them were commonly tost in hi» 
attachment or aversion to the general system. If any energetic 
man could by audacity or craft break down the constitution, and 
render himself permanent ruler according to his own rill and 
pleasure, — even though he might govern well, he could never in- 
spire the people with any sentiment of duty towards him. His 
sceptre was illegitimate from the beginning, and even the taking 
of his life, far from being interdicted by that moral feeling which 
condemned the shedding of blood in other cases, was considered 
meritorious. Nor could he be mentioned in the language except 
by a name 1 (tvgawog, despot,) which branded him as an object 
of mingled fear and dislike. 

If we carry our eyes back from historical to legendary Greece, 
we find a picture the reverse of what has been here sketched. 
We discern a government in which there is little or no scheme or 
system, — still less any idea of responsibility to the governed, — 
but in which the mainspring of obedience on the part of the peo- 
ple consists in their personal feeling and reverence towards the 

1 The Greek name rvpavvoc cannot be properly rendered tyrant ; for many 
of the ityawoi by no means deserved to be s > called, nor is it consistent 
with the use of language to speak of a mild and well-intentioned tyrant 
The word despot is the nearest approach which wo can n_ake to it, since it is 
understood to imply that a man has got more power than he ought to have, 
while it does not exclude a beneficent nse of such power by some individuals 
It is, however, very inadequate to express the full strength of Grecian feel 
ing which the origiual word called forth. 


•hief. We remark, first and foremost, the king: next, a limited 
Dumber of subordinate kings or chiefs ; afterwards, the mass of 
armed freemen, husbandmen, artisans, freebooters, etc ; lowest of 
all, the free laborers for hire, and the bought slaves. The king 
is not distinguished by any broad or impassable boundary from 
the other chiefs, to each of whom the title ba&tleus is applicable as 
well as to himself: his supremacy has been inherited from his 
ancestors, and passes by descent, as a general rule, to his eldest 
son, having been conferred upon the family as a privilege by the 
favor of Zeus.* In war, he is the leader, foremost in personal 
prowess, and directing all military movements ; in peace, he is 
the general protector of the injured and oppressed ; he farther 
offers up those public prayers and sacrifices which are intended 
to obtain for the whole people the favor of the gods. An ample 
domain is assigned to him as an appurtenance of his lofty posi- 
tion, while the produce of his fields and his cattle is consecrated 
in part to an abundant, though rude hospitality. Moreover, he 
receives frequent presents, to avert his enmity, to conciliate his 
favor, 3 or to buy off his exactions ; and when plunder is taken 

1 The Phssakian king Alkinous (Odyss. vii. 55-65) : there are twelve other 
Fmeakian BacrM^ff, he is himself the thirteenth (viii. 391). 

The chief men in the Iliad, and the suitors of Penelope" in the Odyssey, 
are called usually and indiscriminately both BaatAijeg and 'Avaxref ; the lat 
ter word, however, designates them as men of property and masters of slaves, 
(analogous to the subsequent word deairorrf^ which word does not occur in 
Homer, though deairoiva is found in the Odyssey,) while the former word 
marks them as persons of conspicuous station in the tribe (see Odyss. L 
393-401; xiv. 63). A chief could only be Baattevc of freemen; but he 
might be "Ava£ either of freemen or of slaves. 

Agamemnon and Menelaus belong to the most kingly race (yevoc fiaoiXev* 
repov : compare Tyrtsraa, Fragm. ix. v. 8, p. 9, ed. Schneidewin) of the Pelo- 
pids, to whom the sceptre originally made for Zeus has been given by Hermes 
(Iliad, ii. 101; ix. 160; x. 239); compare Odyss. xv. 539. The race of 
Dardanns are the favorite offspring of Zeus, Paodevrarov among the Tro- 
jans (Iliad, xx. 304). These races ate the parallels of the kingly promput 
called Amati, Asdingi, Gungingi, and Idthingi, among the Goths, Vandals, 
and Lombards fJornandes, De Rebus Geticss, c. 14-22; Paul WarnetHct 
Gest Langob. c 14-21 ) ; and the ap*«dv /woe among the Chaonian Bpirov 
(Thucyd. ii. 80). 

•Ody/js. L392; xi.184; xiii. 14; xi*. 109.— 

Oi fih>yap ti kcuu* jfafiAefepev • ahpa re oi d& 
"Afwiov x&sriM, *al rifufhrtpof afrrSc 


from the enemy, a large previous share, comprising probably the 
most alluring female captive, is reserved for him, apart from the 
general distribution. 1 

Iliad, ix. 154-297 (when Agamemndn is promising seren townships to 
Achilles, as a means of appeasing his wrath ) : — 

'Ev <P avdpec valovci iroXvfifnjvec, froAv/Jovrax, 
02 k£ ae durivyot, #edv oc, Tififjoovoi, 
Kai aot fad aKTjTTTpy Xinapu^ teXcovci titfiurrac. 
8ce Iliad, xii. 312; and the reproaches of ThersitSs (ii. 226)— >/tanAr/ar 
dcjpofuyovc CHesiod, Opp. Di. 38-264). 

The Roman kings had a large ripevoc assigned to them, — '* agri, arva, et 
arbusta et pascai laeti atque ubercs" (Cicero, Dc Republ. v. 2) : the German 
kings received presents : " Mos est eivitatibus (observes Tacitus, respecting 
the Germans whom he describes, M. G. \5) ultro ac viritim conferre princip- 
ibus, vel armentorum vel frturnm, qnod pro honore acceptum etiam necessi 
tatibus subvenit." 

The revenue of the Persian kings before Darius consisted only of what 
were called «5<jpa, or presents (Herod, iii. 89) : Darius first introduced both 
the name of tribute and the determinate assessment. King Polydektes, in 
Seriphos, invites his friends to a festival, the condition of which is that each 
puest shall contribute to an ipavos for his benefit (Pherekydes, Fragm. 26, 
H. Didot); a case to which the Thracian banquet prepared by Seuthes 
nifords an exact parallel f Xenophon, Anab. vii. 3, 16-32 : compare Thucyd. 
ii. 97, and Welcker, .A&chyl. Trilogic. p. 381 ). Such Aids, or Benevolences, 
even if originally voluntary, became in the end compulsory. In the Euro- 
pean monarchies of the Middle Ages, what were called free gifts were more 
ancient than public taxes : " The feudal Aids (observes Mr. HallamJ are the 
beginning of taxation, of which they for a long time answered the purpose." 
(Middle Ages, eh. ii. part i. p. 189.) So about the Aides in the old French 
Monarchy,." La Cour des Aides avoit tfte* institute, et sa jurisdiction s'e'toit 
formee, lorsque le domaine des Rois suffisoit a toutes les defenses de l'Etat, 
les droits d' Aides dtoicnt alors des supptemens pen considerables et toujour* 
temporaires. Depuis, le domaine des Rois avoit e*te* aneanti : les Aides, au 
oontraire, Itoient devenues permanentes et formoient presque la totality det 
resources du tre'sor." (Histoire de la Fronde, par M. de St Aulaire, ch. iii 
p. 124.) 

1 'En-i /yrjTol^ yipaai irarptKal paotXeicu, is the description which Thucy 
dides gives of these heroic governments (i. 13). 

The language of Aristotle (Polit iii 10, 1) is much the same : 'H fiaoiXda 
— if vept rode ifpoiKai>( xf>^ vov C — airtij IP #v Ikovtuv ph>, hri rtai <J' bpiofu* 
MH" orparqydt & fa Kai ducatrrift 6 paotXei^, koX rwv irpdc roty #t<ri< 

It can hardly be said correctly, however, that the king's authority we* 
Itftml: nothing can well be more indefinite. 

Agnmemndn enjoyed or assumed the power of putting to death a di**be 


Such is the position of the king, in the heroic times of Greece, 
— the only person (if we except the heralds and priests, each 
both special and subordinate,) who is then presented to us as 
clothed with any individual authority, — the person by whom all 
the executive functions, then few in number, which the society 
requires, are either performed or directed. His personal ascen- 
dency — derived from divine countenance, bestowed both upon 
. himself individually and upon his race, and probably from ac- 
credited divine descent — is the salient feature in the picture. 
The people hearken to his voice, embrace his propositions, and 
obey his orders: not merely resistance, but even criticism upon 
his acts, is generally exhibited in an odious point of view, and is, 
indeed, never heard of except from some one or more of the subor- 
dinate princes. To keep alive and justify such feelings in the 
public mind, however, the king must himself possess various ac- 
complishments, bodily and mental, and that too in a superior 
degree. 1 He must be brave in the field, wise in the council, 
and eloquent in the agora ; he must be endued with bodily strength 
and activity above other men, and must be an adept, not only in 
the use of his arms, but also in those athletic exercises which the 
crowd delight to witness. Even the more homely varieties of 
manual acquirements are an addition to his character, — such as 
the craft of the carpenter or shipwright, the straight furrowing 
of the ploughman, or the indefatigable persistence of the mower 
without repose or refreshment throughout the longest day. 3 The 

dient soldier ( Aristot Tolit. iii. 9, 2). The words which Aristotle read in the 
speech of Agamemnon in the Iliad — Hap yup tfio) davaro? — are not in our 
present copies : the Alexandrine critics effaced many traces of the old 

1 Striking phrases on this head are put into the mouth of Sarpfiddn (Hiad, 
xii. 310-322). 

Kings are named and commissioned by Zeus, — 'E/c de Atdf paotiifM 
(Hesiod, Theogon. 96; Callimach. Hymn, ad Jov. 79) : Kparepa depuirovre 
Aibs i» a sort of paraphrase for the kingly dignity in the case of Pelias and 
Neleus (Odyss. xi. 255; compare Iliad, ii. 204). 

9 Odysseus builds his own bed and bedchamber, and his own raft (Odyss. 
xxiii. 188; t. 246-255) : he boasts of being an excellent mower and plough 
nan (xyiii. 365-375) : for his astonishing proficiency in the athletic contests, 
see viii. 180-230. Paris took a share in building his own house (Hiad, ii 


conditions of voluntary obedience, during the Grecian heroii 
times, are family descent with personal force and superiority 
mental as well as bodily, in the chief, coupled with the favor of 
the gods : an old chief, such as Peleus and Laertes, cannot retail 
his position. • But, on the other hand, where these elements of 
force are present, a good deal of violence, caprice, and rapacity 
is tolerated : the ethical judgment is not exact in scrutinizing the 
conduct of individuals so preeminently endowed. As inthecas.e 
of the gods, the general epithets of good, just, etc, are applied to 
them as euphemisms arising from submission and fear, being not 
only not suggested, but often pointedly belied, by their particular 
acts. These words signify- the man of birth, wealth, influence, 
and daring, whose arm is strong to destroy or to protect, whatever 
may be the turn of his moral sentiments ; while the opposite epi- 
thet, bad, designates the poor, lowly, and weak ; from whose dis- 
positions, be they ever so virtuous, society has little either to hope 
or to fear. 

Aristotle, in his general theory of government, 2 lays down th« 

1 Odyss. xi. 496; xxiv. 186-248. 

*Sce tjiis prominent meaning of the words dyatfdr, kodXdc, Kaxdf, etc, 
copiously illustrated in Welckcr's excellent Prolegomena to Theognis, sect 
9*16. Camerarius, in his notes on that poet (v. 19 J), had already conceived 
clearly the sense in which these words urc used. Iliad, xv. 323. Ota re roif 
uya&oloi irapadpwjoi .tfpr/ff. Compare llesiod, Opp. Di. 216, and the lino 
in Atheneus, v. p. 178, \vTuparoL d' uyadol SeiXtiv enl dairac laaiv. 

"Moralis illarum vocum vis, ct civilis — quarum hose a lexicographis et 
commentatoribus plurimis fere lie^lecta est — probe discernendas erunt. Quod 
quofacilius fieret, nescio an uhi posterior intellects valet, majuscula scriben- 
dum ftusset 'Aya&ol tt Kaico*. 1 ' 

If this advice of Welcker could have been followed, much misconception 
would have been obviated. The reference of these words to power and not 
to worth, is their primitive import in the Greek language, descending from 
the Iliad downward, and determining the habitual designation of parties 
during the period of active political dispute. The ethical meaning of tho 
word hardly appears until the discussions raised 1>/ Socrates, and prosecuted 
by his disciples; but the primitive import still continued to maintain concur- 
rent footing. 

I shall have occasion to touch more largely on this subject, when I corns 
4o expound the Grecian political parties. At present it is enough to remark 
that the epithets of good men, best men, habitually applied afterwards to ths 
aristocratical parties, descend from the rudest period of Grecian i 

' Aristot Polit L 1, 7. 


position, that the earliest sources of obedience and authority 
among mankind are personal, exhibiting themselves most perfectly 
in the type of paternal supremacy ; and that therefore the kingly 
government, as most conformable to this stage of social sentiment, 
became probably the first established everywhere. And in fact 
it still continued in his time to be generally prevalent among the 
non-Hellenic nations, immediately around ; though the Phoeni- 
cian cities and Carthage, the most civilized of all non-Hellenic 
status, were republics. Nevertheless, so completely were the 
feelings about kingship reversed among his contemporary Greeks, 
that he finds it difficult to enter into the voluntary obedience paid 
by his ancestors to their early heroic chiefs. He cannot explain 
to his own satisfaction how any one man should have been so 
much superior to the companionb around him as to maintain such 
immense personal ascendency: he suspects that in such small 
.communities great merit was very rare, so that the chief had few 
competitors. 1 Such remarks illustrate strongly the revolution 
which the Greek mind had undergone during the preceding cen- 
turies, in regard to the internal grounds of political submission 
But the connecting link, between the Homeric land the republi 
can schemes of government, is to be found in two adjuncts of 
the Homeric royalty, which are now to be mentioned, — the 
boulS, or council of chiefs, and the agora, or general assembly 
of freemen. 

These two meetings, more or less frequently convoked, and 
interwoven with the earliest habits of the primitive Grecian com- 
munities, are exhibited in the monuments of the legendary age 

1 Kal diu toUt* loos ipcuriXevovro irporepov, bn trrravtov Ijv eipelv avdpaf 
diafipovrac rear* dptrfyv, dAAu; re nal rore fwepike oUovvrac iroXeif (Polit 
lit 10, 7) ; also the same treatise, v. 8, 5, and v. 8, 22. Ov ylvovrat d' Irt [3a- 
tnXeiai vvv, etc. 

Aristotle handles monarchy far less copiously than either oligarchy or 
democracy : the tenth and eleventh chapters of his third hook, in which he 
discusses it, are nevertheless very interesting to peruse. 

In the conception of Plato, also, the kingly government, if it is to work 
well, implies a breed superior to humanity to hold the sceptre (Legg. iv. ft. 
p. 718). 

The Athenian dramatic poets (especially EuripiddsJ often put into tb* 
months of their heroic characters popular sentiments adapted to the demo 
OMtical- atmosphere of Athens — very different IVom what wo find in Hornet 

▼ox. n. 5oc- 


A3 opportunities for advising the king, and media for promulgat- 
ing his intentions to the people, rather than as restraints upon 
his authority. Unquestionably, they must have conduced in prac- 
tice to the latter result as well as to the former; but this is not 
the light in which the Homeric poems describe them. The chiefs, 

. kings, princes, or gerontes — for the same word in Greek design- 
nates both an old man and a man of conspicuous rank and posi- 
tion — compose the council, 1 in which, according to the repre 
sentations in the Iliad, the resolutions of Agamemnon on the one 
side, and of Heetdr on the other, appear uniformly to prevail. 

, The harshness and even contempt with which Hectdr treats re- 
spectful opposition from his ancient companion Polydamas,— 
the desponding tone and conscious inferiority of the latter, and 
the unanimous assent which the former obtains, even when quite 
in the wrong — all this is clearly set forth in the poem : 2 while 
in the Grecian camp we see Nestor tendering his advice in the 
most submissive and delicate manner to Agamemndn, to be adopt- 
ed or rejected, as " the king of men" might determined The 
council is a purely consultative body, assembled, not with any 
power of peremptqrily arresting mischievous resolves of the king, 
but solely for his information and guidance. He himself is the 
presiding (boulephOrus, or) member* of council ; the rest, col- 
lectively as well as individually, are his subordinates. 

We proceed from the council to the agora : according to what 
seems the received custom, the king, after having talked over 
his intentions with the former, proceeds to announce them to the 
people. The heralds make the crowd sit down in order, 5 and 

1 BovXfjv 6e np&Tov peyctivfiuv Ifr yepovruv (Iliad, ii. 53) : compare Z 
195-415. "I?-ov, naXatov 6 q fio ye povrof (xi. 371). 
» Iliad, xviii. 313.— 

'Eicropi fih> ybp hnjvrfaav KaxHt fiifTtoovTt, 
UovXvddfiavri <T ap y ofrnf, 6c icd/jv ^pafero povXrpt 
Alio, xii. 213, where Polydamas says to Hector,— 

tnei ovde ftkv ovde louce 

Arjfiov kovra nape? byopevepev, oir J ivl /3ovA§, 
Ofoe nor* h iroAq^Y abv 6h Kpurof aHv aefciv. 

• Iliad, ix. 95-101. 

• Iliad, vii. 126, n.T}Xevc — 'Ecr&\bc Hvpfttdovov BovXifrpot W dyopfrfjk. 

• Considerable stress seems to be laid on th« necessity that the people hi 


enforce silence : any one of the chiefs or councillors — but as il 
seems, no one "Ise 1 — is allowed to address them : the king first 
promulgates his intentions, which are then open to be comment- 
ed upon by others. But in the Homeric agora, no division of 
affirmative of negative voices ever takes place, nor is any format 
resolution ever adopted. The nullity of positive function strikes 
ns even more in the agora than in the council. It is an assem- 
bly for talk, communication, and discussion, to a certain extent, 
by the chiefs, in presence of the people as listeners and sympath- 
izers, — often for eloquence, and sometimes for quarrel, — but 
here its ostensible purposes end. 

The agora in Ithaka, in the second book of the Odyssey, is 
convened by the youthful Telemachus, at the instigation of Athene, 
not for the purpose of submitting any proposition, but in order to 
give formal and public notice to the suitors to desist from their 
iniquitous intrusion and pillage of his substance, and to absolve 
himself farther, before gods and men, from all obligations towards 
them, if they refuse to comply. For the slaughter of the suitors, 
in all the security of the festive hall and banquet (which forms 
the catastrophe of the Odyssey), was a proceeding involving 
much that was shocking to Grecian feeling, 3 and therefore re- 
quired to be preceded by such ample formalities, as would leave 
both the delinquents themselves without the shadow of excuse, 
and their surviving relatives without any claim to the customary 
satisfaction. For this special purpose, Telemachus directs the 
heralds to summon an agora : but what seems most of all sur- 

the agora should sit down (Iliad, ii. 96) : a standing agora is a symptom of 
tumult or terror (Iliad, xviii, 246) ; an evening agora, to which men come 
elevated by wine, is also the forerunner of mischief (Odyss. Hi. 138). 

Such evidences of regular formalities observed in the agora are not with- 
out interest 

1 Iliad, ii. 100. — 

eliror' aQiijc 

1X 0LaT \ aKOvaetav 6h dwrpefeov (SaoiXrjuv. 
Nitssch (ad Odyss u. 14) controverts this restriction of individual manifes- 
tation to the chiefs : the view of O. Mailer (Hist Dorians, b. iii. c 3) appears 
to me more correct: such was also the opinion of Aristotle — frol mivw 
'AfHOTOTiXqc fridfihr typos fiovov rod faovoai icvpiof $v, ol 6i frytfrivec «ol 
Triirpa&u (SchoL Iliad, iz. 17) : compare the same statement in his Nik* 
m«?h «pm Bthics, iii S. * See Iliad, ix. 635 ; Odyss. zL 4*9. 


prising is, that none bad ever been summoned or held since tlw 
departure of Odysseus himself, — an interval of twenty* years. 
" No agora or session has taken place amongst us (says the 
gray -headed JEgyptius, who opens the proceedings) since Odys- 
seus went on shipboard : and now, who is he that has called us 
together ? what man, young or old, has felt such a strong neces- 
sity ? Has he received intelligence from our absent warriors, or 
has he other public news to communicate? He is our good 
friend for doing this : whatever his projects may be, I pray Zeus 
to grant him success." i Telemachus, answering the appeal forth- 
with, proceeds to tell the assembled Ithakans that he has no 
public news to communicate, but that he has convoked them 
upon his own private necessities. Next, he sets forth, pathetic- 
ally, the wickedness of the suitors, calls upon them personally tc 
desist, and upon the people to restrain them, and concludes by 
solemnly warning them, that, being henceforward free from all 
obligation towards them, he will invoke the avenging aid of Zeus, 
so " that they may be slain in the interior of his own house, with- 
out bringing upon him any subsequent penalty." 9 

We are not of course to construe the Homeric description as 
anything more than an ideal, .approximating to actual reality. 
But, allowing all that can be required for such a limitation, it 
exhibits the agora more as a special medium of publicity and 
intercommunication, 3 from the king to the body of the people, 
than as including any idea of responsibility on the part of the 

1 Odyss. ii. 25-40. 
Odyss. a 43, 77, 145.- 

Nqirotvoi icev iiretra Sofiuv &vto<j&£v 6?.oiode. 

8 A similar character is given of the public assemblies of the early Franks 
and Lombards (PfefFel, Histoire du Droit Public en Allcmagne, t. i. p. 18 j 
Sismondi, Histoire des Re'publiques Italiennes, t. i. c. 2, p. 71). 

Dionysius of Halikarnassus (ii. 12) pays rather too high a compliment to 
the moderation of the Grecian heroic kings. 

The kings at Rome, like the Grecian heroic kings, began with an apxh 
awrrev&vvoc: the words of Pomponius (De Origine Juris, i. 2,) would be 
perhapt more exactly applicable to the latter than to the former : " Initio 
dritatis nostra Populus sine certa lege, sine jure certo, primum agere insti- 
ttrit: omniaque mamx a Regions gubernabantur. n Tacitus says (Ann. in. 
86), " Nobis Romulus, ut libitum, imperitaverat : dein Numa religionibu ct 
divino jure popttlum derinxit, rcpertaqua qnsAam a Tullo et Aneo : Md 


or refltraining force on the part of the latter, however 
«uch consequences may indirectly grow out of it. The primitive 
Grecian government is essentially monarchical, reposing on per- 
sonal feeling and divine right: the memorable dictum in the 
Iliad is borne out by all that we hear of the actual practice : 
" The ruler of many is not a good thing : let us have one ruler 
only, — one king, — him to whom Zeus has given the sceptre 
and the tutelary sanctions." 1 

The second book of the Iliad, full as it is of beauty and 
vivacity, not only confirms our idea of the passive, recipient, and 
listening character of the agora, but even presents a repulsive 
picture of the degradation of the mass of the people before the 
chiefs. Agamemndn convokes the agora for the purpose of 
immediately arming the Grecian host, under a full impression 
that the gods have at last determined forthwith to crown his 
arms with complete victory. Such impression lias been created 
by a special visit of Oneirus (the Dream-god), sent by Zeus 
during his sleep, — being, indeed, an intentional fraud on the 
port of Zeus, though Agamemnftn does not suspect its deceitful 
character. At this precise moment, when he may be conceived 
to be more than usually anxious to get his army into the field 
and snatch the prize, an unaccountable fancy seizes him, that, 
instead of inviting the troops to do what he really wishes, and 
encouraging their spirits for this one last effort, he will adopt a 
course directly contrary : he will try their courage by professing 

pnecipuus Somas Tullius sanctor legum fait, qa!s etiam Reges obtempera- 
rent" The appointment of a Dictator under the Republic was a reproduc- 
tion, for a short and definite interval, of this old unbounded authority (Cicero, 
De Repub. ii. 32; Zonaras, Ann. vii. 13 ; Dionys. Hal. y. 75). 

See Rubino, Untersuchungen tiber Romische Verfassung and Geschichte, 
Cassel, 1839, bach i. abschnitt 2, pp. 112-132; and Wachsmuth, Hellenische 
Alterthumskunde, i. sect. 18, pp. 81-91. 

1 Iliad, ii. 204. Agamenunn promises to make oyer to Achilles seven 
well-peopled cities, with a boi'y of wealthy inhabitants (Iliad, ix. 153) ; and 
Menelaos, if he could have in Inced Odysseus to quit Ithaka, and settle near 
him in Argos. would have dep jpulated one of his neighboring towns in order 
to make room for him (Odyss iv. 176). 

Manso (Sparta, i. 1, p. 34) and Nitasch (ad Odyss. ir. 171) are incline* 
10 exclude theso passages as spurious, — a proceeding, in my opinion, inaaV 
missible, without more direct grounds than they are able to produce. 


to believe that the siege had become desperate, and that there 
was no choice except to go on shipboard and flee. Announcing 
to Nestdr and Odysseus, in preliminary council, his intention to 
hold this strange language, he at the same time tells them that ho 
relies upon them to oppose it and counterwork its effect upon tho 
multitude. 1 The agora is presently assembled, and the king of 
men pours forth a speech full of dismay and despair, concluding 
by a distinct exhortation to all present to go aboard and return 
home at once. Immediately the whole army, chiefs as well as 
people, break up and proceed to execute his orders : every one 
rushes off to get his ship afloat, except Odysseus, who looks on 
in mournful silence and astonishment The army would have 
been quickly on its voyage home, had not the goddesses Here* 
and Athene stimulated Odysseus to an instantaneous interference. 
He hastens among the dispersing crowd and diverts them from 
their purpose of retreat : to the chiefs he addresses flattering 
words, trying to shame them by gentle expostulation : but the 
people he visits with harsh reprimand and blows from his scep- 
tre, 9 thus driving them back to their seats in the agora. 

Amidst the dissatisfied crowd thus unwillingly brought back, 
the voice of Thersitgs is heard the longest and the loudest, — a 
man ugly, deformed, and unwarlike, but fluent in speech, and 
especially severe and unsparing in his censure of the chiefs, 
Agamemnon, Achilles, and Odysseus. Upon this occasion, he 
addresses to the people a speech denouncing Agamemndn for 
selfish and greedy exaction generally, but particularly for his 
recent ill-treatment of Achilles, — and he endeavors, moreover, 
to induce them to persist in their scheme of departure. In reply, 
Odysseus not only rebukes Thersites sharply for his impudence 
in abusing the commander-in-chief, but threatens that, if ever 
such behavior is repeated, he will strip him naked, and thrash 
him out of the assembly with disgraceful blows ; as an earnest of 
which, he administers to him at once a smart stroke with the 

1 Iliad, ii. 74* Uptira d' iyuv kneoiv neipqooftait etc. 

« Iliad, ii. 188-196.— 

'Ovriva ftkv (3aoi\fia not kfrxov uvdpa Ktxeiti, 

T6v<P ayavoif hreeooiv Iptfrteaaice irapaardc 

Ov ff av typov r' Uvdpa 16<h, fioowra r 1 tyeipoc, 
Tbv OKTfvrp^ k\aoao*tv % bpoKMtowjmi re /tfrftft ale. 


studded sceptre, imprinting its painful mark in a bloody weal 
across his back. ThersitSs, terrified and subdued, sits down 
weeping ; while the surrounding crowd deride him, and express 
the warmest approbation of Odysseus for having thus by force 
put the re viler to silence. 1 

Both Odysseus and Nestor then address the agora, sympathiz- 
ing with Agamemn6n for the shame which the retreat of the 
Greeks is about to inflict upon him, and urging emphatically 
upon every one present the obligation of persevering until the 
siege shall be successfully consummated. Neither of them ani- 
madverts at all upon Agamemnon, either for his conduct towards 
Achilles, or for his childish freak of trying the temper of the 
army. 9 

There cannot be a clearer indication than this description — 
so graphic in the original poem — of the true character of the 
Homeric agora. The multitude who compose it are listening and 
acquiescent, not often hesitating, and never refractorya to the 
chief. The fate which awaits a presumptuous critic, even where 
his virulent reproaches are substantially well-founded, is plainly 
set forth in the treatment of Thersit&s ; while the unpopularity 
of such a character is attested even more by the* excessive pains 
which Homer takes to heap upon him repulsive personal defor- 
mities, than by the chastisement of Odysseus ; — he is lame, bald, 
crook-backed, of misshapen head, and squinting vision. 

But we cease to wonder at the submissive character of the 
agora, when we read the proceedings of Odysseus towards the 
people themselves ; — his fine words and flattery addressed to the 
chiefs, and his contemptuous reproof and manual violence towards 
the common men, at a moment when both were doing exactly the 

1 Iliad, ii. 213-277. 

• Iliad, ii. 284-340. Nor doe* ThersitSs, in his criminatory speech against 
Agamemnon, touch in any way npon this anomalous point, though, in the 
circumstances under which his speech is made, it would seem to be of all 
others the most natural, — and the sharpest thrust against the commander* 

« • See this illustrated in the language of Theseus, Eurip. Supplic 949"85ft 
A6£<u di XPV& K( *i t£A*< icaoy rade • 
A6f*t <5* t Afwit QiXovrof aXXd rev "kbyov 
Ilpootfodr, be 01 ?' & v &Vpo* tiftevempop. 


name thing, — fulfilling the express bidding of Agamemndn, upon 
whom Odysseus does not offer a single comment. This scene, 
which excited a sentiment of strong displeasure among the 
democrats of historical Athens, 1 affords a proof that the feeling 
of personal dignity, of which philosophic observers in Greece — 
Herodotus, Xeaophon, Hippocrates, and Aristotle — boasted, as 
distinguishing the free Greek citizen from the slavish Asiatic, 
was yet undeveloped in the time of Homer. 9 The ancient epic 
Is commonly so iUled with the personal adventures of the chiefs, 
and the people are so constantly depicted as simple appendages 
attached to them, that we rarely obtain a glimpse of the treat- 
ment of the one apart fr xn the other, such as this memorable 
Homeric agora affords. 

There remains one other point of view in which we are to re- 
gard the agora of primitive Greece, — as the scene in which jus- 
tice was administered. The king is spoken of as constituted by 
Zeus the great judge of society : he has received from Zeus the 
sceptre, and along with it the powers of command and sanction : 
the people obey these commands and enforce these sanctions, 
under him, enriching him at the same time with lucrative pres- 
ents and payments. 3 Sometimes the king separately, sometimes 
the kings or chiefs or gerontes in the plural number, are named 
as deciding disputes and awarding satisfaction to complainants ; 
always, however, in public, in the midst of the assembled agora. 4 

1 Xenophdn, Memorab. i. 2, 9. 
Aristot PoKt vii. 6, 1 ; Hippocrat. Dc Acre, Loc. et Aq.r. 85-86; He* 
rodot. vii. 135. 

* The oKTtirTpov, &e/uarec t or dl/LUf, and uyopr), go together, under the pre* 
aiding superintendence of the gods. The goddess Themis both convokes 
And dismisses tht> agora (see Iliad, xi 806 ; Odyss. ii. 67 ; Iliad, xx. 4) 

The dcpicTTEc, commandments and sanctions, belong properly to Zens 
(Odyss. zri. 403) > from him they are given in charge to earthly kings along 
with the sceptre (Iliad, i. 238 ; ii. 206). 

Th* commentators on Homer recognized #c/luc , rather too strictly, at 
4}Ty>ar mil fiovXijc \k%tv (see Enstath. ad Odyss. xri. 403). 

The presents and the Xcirapal difitarec (Iliad, ix. 156). 

4 Hesiod, Theogon. 85 ; the single person judging seems to be men ti one d 
(Odytcs. zii. 439> 

It deserves to be noticed that, m Sparta, the senate decided accusations 
of homicide (Aristot. Polit iii 1, 7): in historical Athens, the senate 
tf Areiopogns originally did the same, sad retained, eyen when its powsw 


In one of the compartments of the shield of Achilles, the details 
of a judicial scene are described* While the agora is full of an 
eager and excited crowd, two men are disputing about the fine 
of satisfaction for the death of a murdered man, — one averring, 
the other denying, that the fine had already been paid, and both 
demanding an inquest The gerontes are ranged on stone seats, 1 
im the holy circle, with two talents of gold lying before them, to 
be awarded to such ol the litigants as shall make out his case to 
their satisfaction. The heralds with their sceptres, repressing 
the warm sympathies of the crowd in favor of one or other of 
the parties, secure an alternate hearing to both. 9 This interest- 
ing picture completely harmonizes with the brief allusion of 
Herfiod to the judicial trial — doubtless a real trial — between 
himself and his brother Perses. The two brothers disputed 
about their paternal inheritance, and the cause was carried to be 
tried by the chiefs in agora ; but Pers6s bribed them, and ob- 
tained an unjust verdict for the whole. 3 So at least Hesiod 
affirms, in the bitterness of his heart ; earnestly exhorting his 
brother not to waste a precious time, required for necessary la- 
bors, in the unprofitable occupation of witnessing and abetting 
litigants in the agora, — for which (he adds) no man has proper 
leisure, unless his subsistence for the year beforehand be safely 
treasured up in his garners. 4 He repeats, more than once, his 
complaints of the crooked and corrupt judgments of which the 
aings were habitually guilty ; dwelling upon abuse of justice as 

were much abridged, the trial of accusations of intentional homicide and 

Respecting the judicial functions of the early Roman kings, Dionys. HaL 
A. R. x. 1. Td (lev apxalov ol fiaoifaic ty airuv trarrov rote Seo/uevoic rdf 
i'tKOQt Kttl rd dtKaiur&hv far' Ixeivuv, tovto vofioc fjv (compare iv. 25 ; and 
Cicero, Bepnblic. r. 2 ; Rubino, Untersachnngen, i. 2, p. 122). 

1 Iliad, xriii. 504.— 

01 dh yepovree 
Elar* brl fcarolai Xi&oic f lepy tvl kvk\^, 
Several of the old northern Sagas represent the old men, assembled for the 
purpose of judging, as sitting on great stones in a circle, called the Urthe- 
Hiring, or Gerichtsring (Leitfaden der Ndrdischen Alterthtaer r p. 3V 
Copenhag. 1837). 

» Homer, Iliad, xTiii. 497-5 .0. » Hesiod, Opp. DL 57 

* Hesiod, Opp. Di. 27-88. 

TOL.TJ. 4 


the crying evil of his day, and predicting as well as invoking the 
vengeance of Zeus to repress it. And Homer ascribes the tre- 
mendous violence of the autumnal storms to the wrath of Zeus 
against those judges who disgrace the agora with their wicked 
verdicts. 1 

Though it is certain that, in every state of society, the feelings 
of men when assembled in multitude will command a certain 
measure of attention, yet we thus find the agora, in judicial mat- 
ters still more than in political, serving merely the purpose of 
publicity. It is the king who is the grand personal mover of 
Grecian heroic society. 9 He is on earth, the equivalent of Zeus 
in the agora of the gods : the supreme god of Olympus is in the 
habit of carrying on his government with frequent publicity, of 
hearing some dissentient opinions, and of allowing himself occa- 
sionally to be wheedled by Aphrodite, or worried into compliance 
by flere : but his determination is at last conclusive, subject only 
to the overruling interference of the Mocrae, or Fates. 3 Both the 
society of gods, and the various societies of men, are, according 
to the conceptions of Grecian legend, carried on by the personal 
rule of a legitimate sovereign, who does not derive his title from 
the special appointment of his subjects, though he governs with 
their full consent In fact, Grecian legend presents to us hardly 
anything else, except these great individual personalities. The 
race, or nation, is as it were absorbed into the prince : eponymous 
persons, especially, are not merely princes, but fathers and rep- 
resentative unities, each the equivalent of that greater or less 
aggregate to which he gives name. 

But though, in the primitive Grecian government, the king is 
the legitimate as well as the real sovereign, he is always con- 
ceived as acting through the council and agora. Both the one 
and the other are established and essential media through which 
his ascendency is brought to bear upon the society : the absence 
of such assemblies is the test and mark of savage men, as in the 

1 Hesiod, Opp. Di. 250-263 ; Homer, Iliad, xvi. 387. 

* Tittmann (Daretellung der Griechischen Staatsverfassungen, book ii. p. 
63) givea too lofty an idea, in my judgment, of the condition and function! 
of the Homeric agora. 

* Iliad, i. 520-527 ; iv. 14-56 ; especially the agora of the gods (xx. 16). 


case of the Cyclopes. 1 Accordingly, he must possess qualities fit 
to act with effect upon these two assemblies : wise reason for the 
council, unctuous eloquence for the agora. 3 Such is the icUal of 
the heroic government : a king, not merely full of valor and re- 
source as a soldier, but also sufficiently superior to those around 
him to insure both the deliberate concurrence of the chiefs, and 
the hearty adhesion of the masses. 3 That this picture is not, in 
all individual cases, realized, is unquestionable ; but the endow- 
ments so often predicated of good kings show it to have been the 
type present to the mind of the describer. 4 XenophOn, in his 
Cyropaedia, depicts Cyrus as an improved edition of the Homeric 
Agamemndn,— u a good king and a powerful soldier," thus ideal- 
izing the perfection of personal government 

It is important to point out these fundamental conceptions of 
government, discernible even before the dawn of Grecian his- 
tory, and identified with the social life of the people. It shows 
us that the Greek*, in their subsequent revolutions, and in the 
political experiments which their countless autonomous comiuu* 

1 Odyss. ix. 114.— 

Total v 6' (the Cyclopes) ovr y ayopal ftovXf/fopoi, ovre difiteref 
'AAA' oly* vrpijX&v bpeuv vaiovai Kiiprjva 
'Ev orriooi yXtupvpoiai • defiurrevei dh Ikcigtos 
TlaidCtv if6* ciXox^v • ov6 y u?.Xt]X(jv aXeyovai. 
These lines illustrate the meaning of &/**?. 

* See this point set forth in the prolix discourse of Aristeides, Uepl Tyro* 
pudfc (Or. xlv. vol. ii. p. 99) : 'Haiodo? ravrcL dvrucptig 'Ofxijpy 7*yut 

5ti re 7 (yyjropLKT) ovvedpo$ rye ftacuXiKTjc, etc. 

* Ptleus, king of the Myrmidons, is called (Iliad, vii. 126) 'EotfAdf JAvpfu- 
S6v<jv PovMffopof i) 4' Lyop^r^q — Diomedes, ayopy 6i r* dpeivw (iv. 400) — 
Nest6r, hyi>s HvXiuv Ayopiyr^f — Sarptddn, Avk'iuv PovXij^ope (v. 6S3J; and 
IdcmeneiiSj KptjTuv (SovXrj<pope (xiii. 219). 

Hesiod (Theogon. 80-96) illustrates still more amply the icfaU of the king 
governing by persuasion and inspired by the Muses. 

4 See the striking picture in Thucydides (ii. 65). Xenophon, in the Cyre- 
pttdia, puts into the mouth of his hero the Homeric comparison between the 
good king and the good shepherd, implying as it does immense superiority ot 
organization, morality, and intelligence (Cyropssd. viii. p. 450, Hutchinson). 

Yolney observes, respecting the emirs of the Druses in Syria : u Every- 
thing depends on circumstances : if the governor be a man of ability, he is 
absolute ; if weak, he is a cipher. This proceeds from the want of fixed 
laws; a want common to all Asia." (Travels in Egypt and Syria, vol. ii. p 
66.) Such was pretty much the condition of the king in primitive Greece* 


nities presented, worked upon preexisting materials, — develop- 
ing and exalting elements which had been at first subordinate, 
and suppressing, or remodelling on a totally new principle, that 
which had been originally predominant. When we approach 
historical Greece, we find that (with the exception of Sparta) 
the primitive hereditary, unresponsible monarch, uniting in him- 
self all the functions of government, has ceased to reign, — whil€ 
the feeling of legitimacy, which originally induced his people U 
obey him willingly, has been exchanged for one of aversion 
towards the character and title generally. The multifarious 
functions which he once exercised, have been parcelled out among 
temporary nominees. On the other hand, the council, or senate, 
and the agora, originally simple media through which the king 
acted, are elevated into standing and independent sources of au- 
thority, controlling and holding in responsibility the various spe- 
cial officers to whom executive duties of one kind or another are 
confided. The general principle here indicated is common both 
to the oligarchies and the democracies which grew up in his- 
torical Greece: much as these two governments differed from 
each other, and many as were the varieties even between one 
oligarchy or democracy and another, they all stood in equal 
contrast with the principle of the heroic government Even in 
Sparta, where the hereditary kingship lasted, it was preserved 
with lustre and influence exceedingly diminished, 1 and such 
timely diminution of its power seems to have been one of the 
essential conditions of its preservation. 2 Though the Spartan 
kings had the hereditary command of the military forces, yet, 

1 Nevertheless, the question pat by Leotychides to the deposed Spartan 
king Demaratus, — 6koiov ri r\t\ rd upxeiv /*erd rd fiaaiXeveiv ( Uerodot. vi. 
65), and the poignant insult which those words conveyed, afford one among 
many other evidences of the lofty estimate current in Sparta respecting the 
regal dignity, of which Aristotle, in the Politico, seems hardly to take suffi- 
cient account 

' 0. Mutter ( Hist. Dorians, book iii. i. 3) affirms that the fundamental 
features of the loyalty were maintained in the Dorian states, and obliterated 
only in the Ionian and deraocmtical. In this point, he has been followed 
by Yarinn* other authors (see Helbig, Die Sittlich. Zustaade des Ueldonal- 
*trt. p. 73), hut his position appears to me substantially incorrect, even as 
regards Spuria: and strikingly incorrect, in repnrd to the other Dorian 


t in all foreign expeditions, they habitually acted in obedience 
to orders from home ; while in affairs of the interior, the supe- 
rior power of the ephors sensibly overshadowed them. So that, 
unless possessed of more than ordinary force of character, they 
seem to have exercised their chief influence as presiding mem- 
ben of the senate. 

There is yet another point of view in which it behoves us to 
take notice of the council and the agora as integral portions of 
the legendary government of the Grecian communities. We are 
thns enabled to trace the employment of public speaking, as the 
standing engine of government and the proximate cause of obe- 
dience, to the social infancy of the nation. The power of speech 
in the direction of public affairs becomes more and more obvious, 
developed, and irresistible, as we advance towards the cul- 
minating period of Grecian history, the century preceding the 
battle of Choeroneia. That its development was greatest among 
the most enlightened sections of the Grecian name, and smallest 
among the more obtuse and stationary, is matter of notorious 
fact ; nor is it less true, that the prevalence of this habit was one 
of the chief causes of the intellectual eminence of the nation gen* 
erally. At a time when all the countries around were plunged 
comparatively in mental torpor, there was no motive sufficiently 
present and powerful to multiply so wonderfully the productive 
minds of Greece, except such as arose from the rewards of pub* 
lie speaking. The susceptibility of the multitude to this sort of 
guidance, their habit of requiring and enjoying the stimulus 
which it supplied, and the open discussion, combining regular 
forms with free opposition, of practical matters, political as well 
as judicial, — are the creative causes which formed such con- 
spicuous adepts in the art of persuasion. Nor was it only pro- 
fessed orators who were thus produced; didactic aptitude was 
formed in the background, and the speculative tendencies were 
supplied with interesting phenomena for observation and combi- 
nation, at a time when the truths of physical science were almost 
inaccessible. If the primary effect was to quicken the powers 
of expression, the secondary, but not less certain result, was to 
develop the habits of scientific thought. Not ouly the oratory of 
Demosthenes and Perikles, and the colloquial magic of Socrates, 
but also the philosophical speculations of Plato, and the syste* 


matic politics, rhetoric, and logic of Aristotle, are traceable to 
the same general tendencies in the minds of the Grecian people : 
and we find the germ of these expansive forces in the senate and 
agora of their legendary government. The poets, first epic and 
then lyric, were the precursors of the orators, in their power of 
moving the feelings of an assembled crowd ; whilst the Homeric 
poems — the general training-book of educated Greeks — consti- 
tuted a treasury of direct and animated expression, full of con- 
crete forms, and rare in the use of abstractions, and thence better 
suited to the workings of oratory. The subsequent critics had 
no difficulty in selecting from the Iliad and Odyssey, samples of 
eloquence in all its phases and varieties. 

On the whole, then, the society depicted in the old Greek poems 
is loose and unsettled, presenting very little of legal restraint, 
and still less of legal protection, — but concentrating such politi- 
cal power as does exist in the hands of a legitimate hereditary 
king, whose ascendency over the other chiefs is more or less com- 
plete according to his personal force and character. Whether 
that ascendency be greater or less, however, the mass of the 
people is in either case politically passive and of little account. 
Though the Grecian freeman of the heroic age is above the de- 
graded level of the Gallic plebs, as described by Caesar, 1 he is far 
from rivalling the fierce independence and sense of dignity, com- 
bined with individual force, which characterize the Germanic 
tribes before their establishment in the Roman empire. Still 
less does his condition, or the society in which he moves, cor- 
respond to those pleasing dreams of spontaneous rectitude and 
innocence, in which Tacitus and Seneca indulge with regard to 
primitive man. 9 

1 Caesar, Bell. Gallic, vi. 12. 

* Seneca, Epist xc. ; Tacitus. Annal. iii. 26. •■ Vetustissimi mortal inm 
(says the latter), nulla adhuc mala Hbidine, sine probro. scelcrc, coque sine 
pcenfl ant coCrutione, agebant: neqne praeraiis opus erat, cam honesta suopte 
ingenio peterentur ; et ubi nihil contra morem cuperent, nihil per metum 
retabantur. At postquam exui aequalitas, et pro modestia et pudore arobitio 
et vis incedebat, proven£re dominationes, multosque apud populas sternum, 
mansere," etc Compare Strabo, vii. p. 801 

These are the same fancies so eloquently set fort^ by BousseAO, in the 
but century. A far more sagacious criticism pervades the preface of Thucy- 


2. The state of moral and social feeling, prevalent in legendary 
Greece, exhibits a scene in harmony with the rudimentary po- 
litical fabrics just described. Throughout the long stream of 
legendary narrative on which the Greeks looked back as their 
past history, the larger social motives hardly ever come into 
play : either individual valor and cruelty, or the personal attach- 
merits and quarrels of relatives and war-companions, or the feudi 
of private enemies, are ever before us. There is no sense of 
obligation then existing, between man and man as such, — and 
very little between each man and the entire community of which 
he is a member ; such sentiments are neither operative in the 
real world, nor present to the imaginations of the poets. Per- 
sonal feelings, either towards the gods, the king, or some near and 
known individual, fill the whole of a man's bosom : out of them 
arise all the motives to beneficence, and all the internal restraints 
upon violence, antipathy, or rapacity : and special communion, 
as well as special solemnities, are essential to their existence. 
The ceremony of an oath, so imposing, so paramount, and so in 
dispensable in those days, illustrates strikingly this principle. 
And even in the case of the stranger suppliant, — in which an 
apparently spontaneous sympathy manifests itself, — the succor 
and kindness shown to him arise mainly from his having gone 
through the consecrated formalities of supplication, such as that 
of sitting down in the ashes by the sacred hearth, thus obtaining 
a sort of privilege of sanctuary. 1 That ceremony exalts him 

1 Seuthes, in the Anabasis of Xenophon (vii. 2, 33), describes how, when 
an orphan youth, he formerly supplicated M&dokos, the Thracian king, to 
grant him a troop of followers, in order that ho might recover his lost do- 
minions, iKa&e&prjv kvdifpioc airy Uirifc iovvai fiot avdpaf. 

Thucydides gives an interesting description of the arrival of the exile 
Themistokles, then warmly pursued by the Greeks on suspicion of treason, 
at the house of AdmStus, king of the Epirotic Molossians. The wife of 
Admetns herself instructed the fugitive how to supplicate her husband in 
form * the child of Admgtus was placed in his arms, and he was directed to 
sit down in this guise close by the consecrated hearth, which was of the nature 
of an altar. While so seated, he addressed his urgent entreaties to Ad- 
u$tus for protection : the latter raised him up from the ground and promised 
what was asked. " That (says the historian) was the most powerful form of 
supplication." Adm£tas, — Lkovoos &vi<mioi re airbv perd, to$ kavrov vieofr 
jcnrv) kcU lx<*> abrbv Ua&i&ro, Kai piytffrov Ittrevfia $y rtpfrv 


tdto something more than a mere suffering man, — it places him 
in express fellowship with the master of the house, under the 
tutelary sanctions of Zeus Hiket&ios. There is great difference 
between one form of supplication and another; the suppliant, 
however, in any form, becomes more or less the object of a par* 
ticular sympathy. 

The sense of obligation towards the gods manifests itself 
separately in habitual acts of worship, sacrifice, and libations, or 

(Thuc i. 136). So Telephus, in the lost drama of JEschylus called Mwroi, 
takes up the child Orestes. See Bothe's Fragm. 44 ; Schol. Aristopk. Ach. 305 

In the Odyssey, both Nansikaa and the goddess Athene 1 instruct Odrtsens 
in the proper form of supplicating Alkinous : he first throws himself down 
at the feet of queen Ar6t£, embracing her knees and addressing to her his 
prayer, and then, without waiting for a reply, sits down among the ashes 
on the hearth, — «c c/irdv, nar* op* Ifrr 9 krt ioxapy tv kovltjol^ — Alkinous 
is dining with a large company: for some time both he and the guests are 
silent : at length the ancient Echendua remonstrates with him t>n his tasdi- 
ness in raising the stranger up from the ashes. At his exhortation, the Phe> 
akian king takes Odysseus by the hand, and, raising him up, places him oa 
a chair beside him : he thon directs the heralds to mix a bowl of wine, and 
to serve it to every one round, in order that all may make libations to Z&sts 
Hiketesios. This ceremony clothes the stranger with the full rights and 
character of a suppliant (Odyss. vi. 310; vii. 75, 141, 166): /card vopovi 
d+iKTopwv, JEschyl. Sapplic 242. 

That the form counted for a great deal we see evidently marked : but oi 
course supplication is often addressed, and successfully addressed, in circum- 
stances where this form cannot be gone through. 

It is difficult to accept the doctrine of Eustathius, (ad Odyss. xvi. 424,) 
that Uerffc is a vox media (like frivoc), applied as well to the UcraAox of as 
to the Ufrni^ properly so called : but the word aXkr}Xotaiv y in the passage 
just cited, docs seem to justify his observation : yet there is no direct au« 
thority for such use of the word in Homer. 

The address of Theoclymenos, on first preferring his supplication to Tel- 
emachus, is characteristic of the practice (Odyss. xv. 260); compare alto 
Iliad, xvi. 574, and Hesiod. Scut Hercul. 12-35. 

The idea of the Zrivog and the Uerift run very much together. I can 
hardly persuade myself that the reading Uirrvxre (Odyss. xi. 520) is truly 
Homeric : implying as it does the idea of a pitiable suircrer, it is altogether 
out of place when predicated of the proud and impetuous Neoptofemus : 
we should rather have expected ticiXevoe. (Sec Odyss. x. 15.) 

The constraining efficacy of special formalities of supplication, amoif 
the 8cythians, is powerfully set forth in the Toxaris of Lucian : the suppliant 
dm upon an ox -hide, with his hands confined behind him (Lucian, Toxaris 
i\ 48, vol. iii. p. 69, Tauchn.) — the fuy'tarri Uertipia among thu people 


by votive presents, such as that of the hair of Achilles, which he 
has pledged to the river-god Spercheius, 1 and such as the con- 
stant dedicated offerings which men who stand in urgent need of 
the divine aid first promise and afterwards fulfil. But the feel- 
ing towards the gods also appears, and that not less frequently, 
as mingling itself with and enforcing obligations towards some 
particular human person. The tie which binds a man to his 
father, his kinsman, his guest, or any special promisee towards 
whom he has taken the engagement of an oath, is conceived in 
conjunction with the idea of Zeus, as witness and guarantee; 
and the intimacy of the association is attested by some surname 
or special appellation of the god.2 Such personal feelings com- 
posed all the moral influences of which a Greek of that day was 
susceptible, — a state of mind which we can best appreciate by 
contrasting it with that of the subsequent citizen of historical 
Athens. In the view of the latter, the great impersonal authority, 
called M The Laws," stood out separately, both as guide and sanc- 
tion, distinct from religious duty or private sympathies : but of 
this discriminated conception of positive law and positive morali- 
ty,? the germ only can be detected in the Homeric poems. The 
appropriate Greek word for human laws never occurs. Amidst 
a very wavering phraseology,* we can detect a gradual transition 

1 Iliad, xxiii. 142. 


06 /dp Toitex' kyu o 3 aldeaooftat, o&dl fiXfav, 
'AAAd Ala £eviov ieicac, abrlv <P kXeaipw. 

* N&gelsbach (Homerische Theologie, Abschn. v. b. S3) gives a just and 
well-sustained view of the Homeric ethics : u Es ist der charakteristisehe 
Standpunkt der Homerischen Ethik, dass die 8ph&ren des Rechts, der Sitt- 
lichkeit, und Religiositat, bey dem Dichter, durchans noch nicht auseinander 
fallen, bo dass der Mensch z. B. dUaio? seyn kxrnte ohne #eov<% an seyn — 
sondern in irnentwiekeiter Einheit beysammen Bind." 

4 No/ioc, ftnev, is not an Homeric word ; vSfio?, knc y in the singular, ocean 
twice in the Heskxric Works and Days (276, 388J. 

The employment of the words 6ixy> &kcu, 0ej*r, &&fu<rrts, in Hooter, ii 
curious as illustrating the early moral associations, but wowld recprire ta 
more space than can be given to it in a note ; we see that the sense of each 
of these words was essentially fluctuating. Themis, in Hoamer, is sometimes 
decidedly a penon, who exercises the important function of opening and 
rJosag the agora, both of gods and men (Iliad, xx. 4 : Odyas. ii. 68), and 

4* fee 


from the primitive idea of a personal goddess Themis, attached 
to Zeus, first to his sentences or orders called Themistes, and 
next by a still farther remove to various established customs, 
which those sentences were believed to sanctify, — the authority 
of religion and that of custom coalescing into one indivisible 

The family relations, as we might expect, are set forth in our 
pictures of the legendary world as the grand sources of lasting 
union and devoted attachment. The paternal authority is highly 
reverenced : the son who lives to years of maturity, repays by 
affection to his parents the charge of his maintenance in infancy, 
which the language notes by a special word ; whilst on the other 
hand, the Erinnys, whose avenging hand is put in motion by the 
curse of a father or mother, is an object of deep dread. 1 

who, besides that, acts and speaks (Iliad, xiv. 87-93 ) ; always the associate 
and companion of Zeus, the highest god. In Hesiod, (Theog. 901,) she is 
the wife of Zens: in jEschylus, (Prometh. 209,) she is the same as Tola: 
even in Plato, (Legg. xi. p. 936,) witnesses swear (to want of knowledge of 
matters under inquest) by Zeus, Apollo, and Themis. Themis as a persm 
is probably the oldest sense of the word : then we have the plural depiorec 
(connected with the verb rnfy/M, like deopdf and rnfydf ), which are (not 
persons, but) special appurtenances or emanations of the supreme god, or 
of a king acting under him, analogous to and joined with the sceptre. The 
sceptre, and the depiorec or the diicai constantly go together (Iliad, ii. 209; 
ix. 99): Zeus or the king is a judge, not a law-maker; he issues decrees or 
special orders to settle particular disputes, or to restrain particular men ; and, 
agreeable to the concrete forms of ancient language, the decrees are treated 
as if they were a collection of ready-made substantive things, actually iu 
his possession, like the sceptre, and prepared for being delivered out when 
the proper occasion arose: <h/ca<nroAot, olre difjuarac Updc Aid? elpvarat 
(II. i. 138), compared with the two passages last cited: 'A<f>pova tovtw 
ivevrac, flf olriva oldt dtfiiara (IL v. 761), 'Ayptov, odre dUac ev eldora 
obre Qifuorac (Odyss. ix. 215). The plural number dUat is more commonly 
used in Homer than the singular : dUij is rarely used to denote Justice, an 
an abstract conception ; it more often denotes a special claim of right on 
the part of some given man (H. xviii. 508). It sometimes also denotes, 
simply, established custom, or the known lot, — tpuuv dixti, yepovrov, tieiuv 
BooiMiav, &son> (see Damm'e Lexicon, ad voc.) tiifuf is used in the tame 

See, upon this matter, Platner, De Notion* Juris ap. Homerum, p, 61 , 
•ad O. Muller, Prolegg. MythoL p. 121. 

1 OWk TOKevoi ephrrpa fiXoic Airlduxe (H iv. 477) : tipetrrpa ox tyeirr?/Na 
fconpare IL ix. 454 ; Odyss. ii. 134 j Hesiod, Opp. Di 186> 
Vol. 2 8 


In regard to marriage, we find the wife occupying a station of 
great dignity and influence, though it was the practice for the 
husband to purchase her by valuable presents to her parents, — 
a practice extensively prevalent among early communities, and 
treated by Aristotle as an evidence of barbarism. She even 
seems to live less secluded and to enjoy a wider sphere of action 
than was allotted to her in historical Greece. 1 Concubines are 
frequent with the chiefs, and occasionally the jealousy of the wife 
breaks out in reckless excess against her husband, as may be 
seen in the tragical history of Phoenix. The continence of La- 
ertes, from fear of displeasing his wife Antikleia, is especially 
noticed. 8 A large portion of the romantic interest which Grecian 
legend inspires is derived from the women : Penelope*, Androma- 

1 Aristot. Polit. ii. 5, 11. The tdva, or present given by the suitor to the 
father, as an inducement to grant his daughter in marriage, are spoken of 
as very valuable, — arrepeiaia Idva (II. xi. 244 ; xvi. 1 78 ; xxii. 472) : to grant 
a daughter without idva was a high compliment to the intended son-in-law 
(11. ix. 141 : compare xiii. 366). Among the ancient Germans of Tacitus, 
the husband gave presents, not to his wife's father, but to herself (Tacit 
Germ. c. 18): the customs of the early Jews were in this respect completely 
Homeric; see the case of Shechein and Dinah (Genesis, xxxiv. 12) and 
others, etc. ; also Mr. Catlin's Letters on the North American Indians, voL 
i. Lett. 26, p. 213. 

The Greek iSva correspond exactly to the mundium of the Lombard and 
Alemannic laws, which is thus explained by Mr. Price (Notes on the Laws 
of King Ethelbert, in the Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, translated 
and published by Mr. Thorpe, vol. i. p 20) : " The Longobardic law is the 
most copious of all the barbaric codes in its provisions respecting marriage, 
and particularly so on the subject of the Mund. From that law it appean 
that the Mundium was a sum paid over to the family of the bride, for trans- 
ferring the tutelage which they possessed over her to the family of the hus- 
band : ' Si quis pro muliere liberA aut puella mundium dederit et ci tradita 
faeritad uxorero,' etc. (ed. Rotharis, c. 183.) In the same sense in which 
the term occurs in these dooms, it is also to be met with in the Alemannic 
law : it was also common in Denmark and in Sweden, where the bride was 
called a mund-bought or a mund-given woman." 

According to the 77th Law of King Ethelbert (p. 23), this mund was 
often paid in cattle : the Saxon daughters were irap&evoi uXfeoifloiat (Iliad, 
xviii. 593). 

* Odyss. l 430 ; Iliad, ix. 450 ; see also Terpstra, Antiquitas Homerica, 
eapp. 17 and 18. 

Polygamy appears to be ascribed to Priam, but to no one else (Iliad, xxl 


che, Helen, Klytemn&stra, Eriphyle 4 , Iokasta, Hekabe, etc, all 
stand in the foreground of the picture, either from their virtue* 
their beauty, their crimes, or their sufferings. 

Not only brothers, but also cousins, and the more distant blood- 
relations and clansmen, appear connected together by a strong 
feeling of attachment, sharing among them universally the obli- 
gation of mutual self-defence and revenge, in the event of injury 
to any individual of the race. The legitimate brothers divide 
between them by lot the paternal inheritance, — a bastard brother 
receiving only a small share ; he is, however, commonly very well 
treated, 1 though the murder of Phokus, by Telamon and Peleus, 
constitutes a flagrant exception. The furtive pregnancy of young 
women, often by a god, is one of the most frequently recurring 
incidents in the legendary narratives ; and the severity with 
which such a fact, when discovered, is visited by the father, is 
generally extreme. As an extension of the family connection, 
we read of larger unions, called the phratry and the tribe, which 
are respectfully, but not frequently, mentioned. 9 

The generous readiness with which hospitality is afforded to 
the stranger who asks for it, 3 the facility with which he is allowed 
to contract the peculiar connection of guest with his host, and the 

1 Odyss. xiv. 202-215: compare Iliad, xi. 102, The primitive German 
Uw of succession divided the paternal inheritance among the sons of a de- 
ceased father, under the implied obligation to maintain and portion oat their 
sisters (Eichhorn, DaOaches Privat-Recht. sect 330. 

» Iliad, iL 362.— 

'A+pqTQp, atiifuoroc, uvearioc iartv ticeivoc, 
*Of icoXiftov Iparai, otc (II. ix. 63.) 

These three epithets include the three different classes of personal sym 
pathy and obligation : 1. The Phratry, in which a man is connected with 
father, mother, brothers, cousins, brothers-in-law, clansmen, etc; 2. The 
fofiMTec, whereby he is connected with his fellow-men who visit the same 
a?ora; 8. His Hestia, or Hearth, whereby he becomes accessible to the 
{river and the Uinfc '• — 

T$ f 'OoWet>c fifor 6ft> koX ahciftov iyx<K W«**«* f 
•A p x $ » frtvoowi/c icpoenijdeoc ©toe rpawefe 
TvuTtfv 6XXr?\oiv (Odyw. xx. 34.) 
* Tt mast he mentioned, however, that when a chief received a Strang* 
»i. J made presents to him, he reimbursed to himself the value of the preseatt 
• v collections among the people (Odyss. xiii 14 ; xix. 197) : 6py*X*ov ydp 
*"i <rpo<«dr xwioaadai, says Alkinoua. 


Hence with which that connection, when created by partak- 
ing of the same food and exchanging presents, is maintained even 
through a long period of separation, and even transmitted from 
father to son. — these are among the most captivating features 
of the heroic society. The Homeric chief welcomes the stranger 
who comes to ask shelter in his house, first gives him refresh- 
ment, and then inquires his name and the purpose of his voyage.* 
Though not inclined to invite strangers to his house, he cannot 
repel them when they spontaneously enter it craving a lodging.* 
The suppliant is also commonly a stranger, but a stranger under 
peculiar circumstances ; who proclaims his own calamitous and 
abject condition, and seeks to place himself in a relation to the 
chief whom he solicits, something like that in which men stand to 
the gods. Onerous as such special tie may become to him, the 
chief cannot decline it, if solicited in the proper form : the cere- 
mony of supplication has a binding effect, and the Erinnys punish 
the hardhearted person who disallows it. A conquered enemy 
may sometimes throw himself at the feet of his conqueror, and 
solicit mercy, but he cannot by doing so acquire the character 
and claims of a suppliant properly so called : the conqueror has 
free discretion either to kill him, or to spare him and accept a 
ransom. 3 

There are in the legendary narratives abundant examples of 
individuals who transgress in particular acts even the holiest of 

1 Odyss. i 123 ; iii. 70, etc. 

• Odyss. xvii. 383.— 

Ttf yap <fc) Heivav xaXel &2.Xo$ev airdc kireXduv 
•AAAov y 1 el fii) twvcT, ot fypioepyoi laoiv, etc ; 

which breathes the plain-spoken shrewdness of the Hesiodic Works and 

*Jays, v. 355. 

* See the illustrative case of Lykaon, in vain craving mercy from Achillea. 
(Hiad, xxi. 64-97. J kvri rot eif*' Uerao, etc.) 

Menelaus is about to spare the life of the Trojan Adrastus, who clasps his 
knees and craves mercy, offering a large ransom, — when Agamemnon repels 
the idea of quarter, and kills Adrastus with his own hand : his speech to 
Menelaus displays the extreme of violent enmity, yet the poet says, — 
'Of elnuv, irapixeiocv udeXfeiov <ppevac $pt>f , 
kiaifia nap e artiv, etc 

Adrastus is not called an krn?f, nor is the expression used in respect to 
Dokm (II. x. 456), nor in the equally striking case of Odysseus (Odyss. xiv 
$79), when begging lor his lift. 


tibese personal tics, but the savage Cyclops is the only person de- 
scribed as professedly indifferent to them, and careless of Uuu 
■auction of the gods which in Grecian belief accompanied them 
•II. 1 In fact, the tragical horror which pervades the lineage of 
Athamas or Kadmus, and which attaches to many of the acts of 
H6rakl3s, of Peleus and Telamon, of Jason and Medea, of Atreus 
and Thyestes, etc., is founded upon a deep feeling and sympathy 
with those special obligations, which conspicuous individuals, un- 
der the temporary stimulus of the maddening Ate, are driven to 
violate. In such conflict of sentiments, between the obligation 
generally reverenced and the exceptional deviation in an individ- 
ual otherwise admired, consists the pathos of the story. 

These feelings — of mutual devotion between kinsmen and 
companions in arms — of generous hospitality to the stranger, 
and of helping protection to the suppliant, — constitute the bright 
spots in a dark age. "We find them very generally prevalent 
amongst communities essentially rude and barbarous, — amongst 
the ancient Germans as described by Tacitus, the Druses in 
Lebanon, 9 the Arabian tribes in the desert, and even the North 
American Indians. 

1 Odyss. ix. 112-275. 

* Tacit German, c. 21. " Que mean que mortal ium arccre tecto, ncfas ha- 
betar : pro fortuna quisqae apparatis epulis excipit : cum dcfecerc qui morio 
hospes fuerat, monstratur hospitii et comes, proximam domum non invitati 
adeunt: nee interest — pari humanitate accipiuntur. Notum ignotumque, 
quantum ad jus hospitii, nemo discernit." Compare Caesar, B. G. vi. 22. 

See about the Druses and Arabians, Volney, Travels in Egypt and Syria* 
yoI. ii. p. 76, Engl. Transl. ; Niebuhr, Beschreibung von Arabien, Copenh. 
1772, pp. 46-49. 

Fomponius Mela describes the ancient Germans in language not inappli- 
cable to the Homeric Greeks: "Jus in viribus habent, adeo ut ne latrocinii 
quidem pudeat : tantum hospitibus boni, mitesque supplicibus." (iii. 3.) 

u The hospitality of the Indians is well known. It extends even to strangers 
who take refuge among them. They count it a most sacred duty, from 
which no one is exempted. Whoever refuses relief to any one, commits a 
grievous offence, and not only makes himself detested and abhorred by ail, 
but liable to revenge from the offended person. In their conduct towards 
their enemies they are cruel aud inexorable, and, when enraged, bent npon 
norhing but murder and bloodshed. They are, however, remarkable for con 
ceuiing their passions, and waiting for a convenient opportunity of gratify- 
ing them. But then their fury knows no bounds. If they cannot satisfy 
their resentment, they will even call upon their friends and posterity to do 


They are the instinctive manifestations of human sociality, 
standing at first alone, and for that reason appearing to possess a 

it The longest space of time cannot cool their wrath, nor the most distant 
place of refuge afford security to their enemy." (Loskiel, History of the 
Mission of the United Brethren among the North American Indians, Part 

I. ch. 2, p» 15.) 

" Charlevoix observes, (says Dr. Ferguson, Essay on Civil Society, Part 

II. $ 2, p. 145,) that the nations among whom he travelled in North America 
never mentioned acts of generosity or kindness under the notion of duty. 
They acted from affection, as they acted from appetite, without regard to 
its consequences. When they had done a kindness, they had gratified a de- 
sire : the business was finished, and it passed from the memory. The spirit 
with which they give or receive presents is the same as that which Tacitus 
remarks among the ancient Germans : * Gaudent muneribus, sed nee data 
imputant, nee acceptis obligantur.' Such gifts are of little consequence, ex- 
cept when employed as the seal of a bargain or a treaty." 

Respecting the Morlacchi (Illyrian Sclavonians), the Abbe' Fortis says 
(Travels in Dalmatia, pp. 55-58): — 

" The hospitality of tho Morlachs is equally conspicuous among the poor 
as among the opulent The rich prepares a roasted lamb or sheep, and the 
poor, with equal cordiality, gives his turkey, milk, honey, — whatever he 
has. Nor is their generosity confined to strangers, but generally extends to 

all who an in want Friendship is lasting among the Morlacchi. They 

have even trade it a kind of religious point, and tie the sacred bond at the 
foot of the altar. The Sclavonian ritual contains a particular benediction, 
for the solemn union of two male or two female friends, in presence of the 
whole congregation. The male friends thus united are called Pobratimi, and 
the females Posestreme, which means half-brothers and half-sisters. The 
duties of tin Pobratimi are, to assist each other in every case of need and 
danger, to revenge mutual wrongs, etc. : their enthusiasm is often carried so 

far as to risk, and even lose their life But as the friendships of the 

Morlacchi are strong and sacred, so their quarrels are commonly unextin- 
guishable. They pass from father to son, and the mothers fail not to put 
their children in mind of their duty to revenge their father, if he has had the 
misfortune to be killed, and to show them often the bloody shirt of the de- 
ceased A Morlach is implacable, if injured or insulted. With him, 

revenge and justice have exactly the same meaning, and truly it is the prim- 
itive idea, and I have been told that in Albania the effects of revenge are 
•till more atrocious and more lasting. There, a man of the mildest charac- 
ter is capable of the most barbarous revenge, believing it to be his positive 
duty A Morlach who has killed another of a powerful family is com- 
monly obliged to save himself by flight, and keep out of the way for several 
years. If during that time he has been fortunate enough to escape the 
search of his pursuers, and has got a small sum of money, he endeavors to 
•btasn pardon and peace It is the custom in some places for the offended 


greater tutelary force than really belongs to them,— beneficent! 
indeed, in a high degree, with reference to their own appropriate 
period, but serving as a very imperfect compensation for the im- 
potence of the magistrate, and for the absence of any all-per- 
vading sympathy or sense of obligation between man and man. 
We best appreciate their importance when we compare the Ho- 
meric society with that of barbarians like the Thracians, who 
tattooed their bodies, as the mark of a generous lineage, — sold 
their children for export as slaves, — considered robbery, not 
merely as one admissible occupation among others, bat as the 
only honorable mode of life ; agriculture being held contemptible, 
— and above all, delighted in the shedding of blood as a luxury. 
Such were the Thracians in the days of Herodotus and Taucy- 
dides : and the Homeric society forms a mean term between thai 
which these two historians yet saw in Thrace, and that which 
they witnessed among their own civilized countrymen. 1 

party to threaten the criminal holding all sorts of arms to his throat, and 
at last to consent to accept his ransom." 

Concerning the influence of these two distinct tendencies— devoted per- 
sonal friendship and implacable animosities — among the Iliyrico-Sclavonian 
population, see Cyprien Robert, Los Slaves de la Turquie, ch. vii. pp. 42-46, 
and Dr. Joseph Miiller, Albanian, Rumelien, und die G&steireichisch-Mon- 
tenegrenische Granze, Prag. 1844, pp. 24-25. 

u It is for the virtue of hospitality (observes Goguet, Origin of Laws, etc 
Tol. i. book vi. ch. iv), that the primitive times are chiefly famed. But, in 
my opinion, hospitality was then exercised, not so much from generosity and 
greatness of soul, as from necessity. Common interest probably gave rise 
to that custom. In remote antiquity, there were few or no public inns . they 
entertained strangers, in order that they might render them the same service, 
if they happened to travel into their country. Hospitality was reciprocal. 
When they received strangers into their houses, they acquired a right of 
being received into theirs again. This right wad regarded by the ancicnta 
as sacred and inviolable, and extended not only to those who had acquired 
ft, but to their children and posterity Besides, hospitality in these times 
could not be attended with much expense . men travelled but little. In a 
word, the modern Arabians prove that hospitality may consist with the 
greatest vices, and that this specie* of generosity is no decisive evidence of 
goodness of heart, or rectitude of manners.* 

The book of Genesis, amidst many other features c£ resemblance to the 
Homeric manners, presents that of ready and exuberant hospitality to the 

1 Respecting the Thracians. commre Herodot, v 11, Thucydid. vii 


When, however, among the Homeric men we pass beyond tbt 
Influence of the private ties above enumerated, we find scarcely 
any other moralizing forces in operation. The acts and adven* 
tuxes commemorated imply a community wherein neither the 
protection nor the restraints of law are practically felt, and where 
in ferocity, rapine, and the aggressive propensities generally, seem 
restrained by no internal counterbalancing scruples. Homicide, 
especially, is of frequent occurrence, sometimes by open violence, 
sometimes by fraud : expatriation for homicide is among the most 
constantly recurring acts of the Homeric poems* and savage 
brutalities are often ascribed, 5*en to admired heroes, with appa- 
rent indifference. Achilles sacrifices twelve Trojan prisoners on 
the tomb of Patroklus, while his son Neoptolemus not only slaught- 
ers the aged Priam, but also seizes by tbe leg the child Astyanax 
(son of the slain Hector) and hurls him from one of the lofty 
towers of Troy. 1 Moreover, the celebrity of Autolykus, the ma- 
ternal grandfather of Odysseus, in tbe career of wholesale rob- 
bery and perjury, and the wealth which it enabled him to acquire, 
are described with the same unaffected admiration as the wisdom 

29-^30. The expression of the latter historian is remarkable, — rb 8e yevof 
rCtv QpQK&v, bfioia role paXiara rov fiapfiapiKov % kv £ av dapai) ay, 


Compare Herodot viii. 116; the cruelty of the Thracian king of the 
BisaltSB towards his own sons. 

The story of Odysseus to Eumseus in the Odyssey (xiv 310-226) furnishes 
a valuable comparison for this predatory disposition among the Thraciana. 
Odysseus there treats the love of living by war and plunder as his own 
peculiar taste ' he did not happen to like regular labor, but the latter is not 
treated in any way mean or unbecoming a freeman . — 
fyryov di ftoi ov QiTuov $ev 
Oi><T oUufeXiq, fj re rpfyei aylaxi rexvo, etc 

1 Lias Minor, Fragm. 7, p. 18, ed. Dontser , Iliad, xxiii 175 Odysseus is 
mentioned once as obtaining poison for his arrows (Odyss. i. 160), but no 
poisoned arrows are ever employed in either of the two poems. 

The anecdotes recounted by die Scythian Toxaris in Lucian*s work so 
entitled (vol. ii. c. 36, p 644, eeqq. ed. Hemst) afford a vivid picture of this 
combination of intense and devoted friendship between individuals, with the 
ttoat revolting cruelty of manners. " Yon Greeks live in peace and tranquil- 
lity," observes the Scythian,— wap' ^/ilv 6e owexek oi irdte/toi, Kal % hceteih 
wpev &XXotc t # (nroxoprifuv tmhrraft If avfiireawref inrep votfc fj XeidQfiMxt 
mt&a. iv&a paXiora del f&uv dyatov, etc 


of Nealfir or the strength of AjaxJ Achilles, Menelaus, Odys- 
seus, pilliige in person, wherever they can find an opportunity, 
employing both force and stratagem to surmount resistance. 2 The 
vocation of a pirate is recognized and honorable, so that a host, 
when he asks his guest what is the purpose of his voyage, enu- 
merates enrichment by indiscriminate maritime plunder as among 
those projects which may naturally enter into his contemplation. 3 
Abduction of cattle, and expeditions for unprovoked ravage aa 
well as for retaliation, between neighboring tribes, appear ordi- 
nary phenomena; 4 and the established inviolability of heralds 
seems the only evidence of any settled feeling of obligation 
between one community and another. While the house and 
property of Odysseus, during his long absence, enjoys no public 

1 Odyss. xxi. 397 ; Pherekydes, Fragm. 63, ed. Didot; Autolykus, irfalora 
aAfTrwv b&ijaavptfyv. The Homeric Hymn to Hermes (the great patron-god 
of Autolykus) is a farther specimen of the admiration which might be made 
to attach to clever tliioving. 

The iffiepoKoirog dvifp, likely to rob the farm, is one great enemy against 
whom Hesiod advises precaution to be taken, — a sharp-toothed dog, well-fed, 
to serve as guard (Opp. Di. 604). 

■ Iliad, xi. 624 ; xx. 189. Odyss. iv. 81-90 ; ix. 40 ; xiv. 230 ; and the 
indirect revelation (Odyss. xix. 284), coupled with a compliment to the dex- 
terity of Odysseus. 

1 Even in the century prior to Thucydides, undistinguishing plunder at sea, 
committed by Greek ships against ships not Greek, seems not to have been 
held discreditable. The Phokaean Dionysius, after the ill-success of the Ionie 
revolt, goes with his three ships of war to Sicily, and from thence plunders 
Tyrrhenians and Carthaginians (Herod, vi. 17). — A^'arfa KaTeoTTJKee^EMiv 
vw fuv ovfievbg, Kapj^dowuv de Kal Tvpmjvuv. Compare the conduct of 
the Phokaean settlers at Alalia in Corsica, after the conquest of Ionia by 
Harpagus (Herodot. i. 166). 

In the treaty between the Romans and Carthaginians, made at some period 
subsequent to 509 b. c, it is stipulated, — Tov KaXov 'AKpurijpiov, Maariac, 
Taporitov, firf Xrjtfra9ai tnlKeiva 'Pwyuatovr pnd' kfinopevetr&a^ fitjdh ir6\iv 
kt'i&iv (Polyb. iii. 24, 4). Plunder, commerce, and colonization, are here 
assumed as the three objects which the Roman ships would pursue, unless 
they were under special obligation to abstain, in reference to foreigners. This 
morality approaches nearer to that of the Homeric age, than to the staid 
of sentiment which Thucydides indicates as current in his day among the 

* See the interesting honstfulncss of Nestor, Iliad, xi. 670-700 ; also Odym 
• xi. 18; Odyss. iii. ri ; Thucyd. i. 5. 


protection, 1 those unprincipled chiefs, who consume his substance, 
find sympathy rather than disapprobation among the people of 
Ithaka. As a general rule, he who cannot protect himself finds 
no protection from society: his own kinsmen and immediate 
companions are the only parties to whom he can look with confi- 
dence for support. And in this respect, the representation given 
by Hesiod makes the picture even worse. In his emphatic 
denunciation of the fifth age, that poet deplores not only the 
absence of all social justice and sense of obligation among his 
contemporaries, but also the relaxation of the ties of family and 
hospitality. 2 There are marks of querulous exaggeration in the 
poem of the "Works and Days ; yet the author professes to de- 
scribe the real state of things around him, and the features of his 
picturo, soften them as we may, will still appear dark and calam- 
itous. It is, however, to be remarked, that he contemplates a 
state of peace, — thus forming a contrast with the Homeric poems. 
His copious catalogue of social evils scarcely mentions liability 
to plunder by a foreign enemy, nor does he compute the chances 
of predatory aggression as a source of profit. 

There are two special veins of estimable sentiment, on which 
it may be interesting to contrast heroic and historical Greece, 
and which exhibit the latter as an improvement on the former, 
not less in the affections than in the intellect. 

The law of Athens was peculiarly watchful and provident with 
respect both to the persons and the property of orphan minors ; 
but the description given in the Iliad of the utter and hopeless 
destitution of the orphan boy, despoiled of his paternal inherit- 
ance, and abandoned by all the friends of his father, whom he 
urgently supplicates, and who all harshly cast him off, is one of 
the most pathetic morsels in the whole poem.3 In reference 

1 Odyss. iv. 165, among many other passages. Telemachus laments the 
misfortune of his race, in respect that himself, Odysseus, and LadrtSs were all 
only sons of their fathers : there were no brothers to serve as mutual auxil- 
iaries (Odyss. xvi. 118). 
•Opp. Di. 182-199: — 

Ovdi narfyp icaidtaoiv dfioitoc, oidi rt naldcc, 
Obdl ielvoc ZeivodoKy, koI iralpoc kraipy, 
(Mi KoaiyvriTOQ fiXog laoerai, «f rb irapoc rap* 
Alfa 61 yqpaoKOVTOt drifirjaovai ro/c^of, etc. 
• Iliad, xxii. 487-500. Hesiod dwells upon injury to orphan children, 
hoyvrer, as a heinous offence (Opp. Di. 330). 


again to the treatment of the dead body of an enemy w* find all 
the Greek chiefs who come near (not to mention the conduct of 
Achilles himself) piercing with their spears the corpse of the 
slain Hect6r, while some of them even pass disgusting taunts 
upon it We may add, from the lost epics, the mutilation of the 
dead bodies of Paris and Deiphobus by the hand of Menelaus. 1 
But at the time of the Persian invasion, it was regarded as 
unworthy of a righ>minded Greek to maltreat in any way the 
dead body of an enemy, even where such a deed might seem to 
be justified on the plea of retaliation. After the battle of Pla- 
tea, a proposition was made to the Spartan king Pausanias, 
to retaliate upon the dead body of Mardonius the indignities 
which Xerxes had heaped upon that of Leonidas at Thermopy- 
lae. He indignantly spurned the suggestion, not without a severe 
rebuke, or rather a half-suppressed menace, towards the pro* 
poser : and the feeling of Herodotus himself goes heartily along 
with him. 9 

The different manner of dealing with homicide presents a third 
test, perhaps more striking yet, of the change in Grecian feelings 
and manners during the three centuries preceding the Persian 
invasion. That which the murderer in the Homeric times had 
to dread, was, not public prosecution and punishment, but the 
personal vengeance of the kinsmen and friends of the deceased, 
who were stimulated by the keenest impulses of honor and obli- 
gation to avenge the deed, and were considered by the public as 
specially privileged to do so. 3 To escape from this danger, he 

1 Iliad, xxii. 371. old' upa ol tic Avotorqri ye wapkarq. Argument of 
Iliad. Minor, ap. Ddntzer, Epp. Fragm. p. 17 ; Virgil, -dEneid, vi. 520. 

Both Agamemndn and the Oiliad Ajax cat off the heads of slain warriors, 
and send them rolling like a ball or like a mortar among the crowd of war 
riors (Iliad, xi. 147 ; xiii. 102). 

The ethical maxim preached by Odysseus in the Odyssey, not to utter 
boastful shouts oyer a slain enemy (OitK bairj, Krafievoiatv in 9 av5paaiv ti*xt- 
raatr&ai, xxii. 412), is abundantly violated in the Iliad. 

* Herodot. ix. 78-79. Contrast this strong expression from Pausanias, 
with the conduct of the Carthaginians towards the end of the Peloponne&ian 
war, after their capture of Sclinus in Sicily, where, after haying put to death 
16,000 persons, they mutilated the dead bodies, — icarH t6 irurpiav Wof 
(Piodor. xiii. 57-86 j. 

* The Mosaio law recognizes this habit and duty on the part of the rala* 


fa obliged to flee the country, unless he can prevail upon the 
incensed kinsmen to accept of a valuable payment (we must not 
epeak of coined money, in the days of Homer) as satisfaction for 
their slain comrade. They may, if they please, decline the offer, 
and persist in their right of revenge ; bat if they accept, they are 
bound to leave the offender unmolested, and he accordingly 
remains at home without farther consequences. The chiefs in 
agora do not seem to interfere, except to insure payment of the 
stipulated sum. 

Here we recognize once more the characteristic attribute of 
the Grecian heroic age, — the omnipotence of private force, tem- 
pered and guided by family sympathies, and the practical nullity 
of that collective sovereign afterwards called The Ofoy, — who in 
historical Greece becomes the central and paramount source of 
obligation, but who appears yet only in the background, as a 
germ of promise for the future. And the manner in which, in the 
case of homicide, that germ was developed into a powerful reality, 
presents an interesting field of comparison with other nations. 

For the practice, here designated, of leaving the party guilty 
of homicide to compromise by valuable payment with the rela- 
tives of the deceased, and also of allowing to the latter a free 
choice whether they would accept such compromise or enforce 
their right of personal revenge, — has been remarked in many 
rude communities, but is particularly memorable among the early 
German tribes. 1 Among the many separate Teutonic establish* 

lives of the murdered man, and provides cities of refuge for the purpose of 
sheltering the offender in certain cases (Deateron. xxxv. 13-14; Bauer, 
Handbach der HebraTschen Alterthiimer, sect. 51-52). 

The relative who inherited the property of a murdered man was specially 
obliged to avenge his death (H. Leo, Vorlesungen uber die Geschichte des 
Judjschen Staats. — Vorl. Hi. p. 35). 

1 u Suscipere tarn inimicitias, sea patris, sea propinqai, quam amicitiat, 
necesse est Nee implacabiles durant : luitur enim etiara homicidium certo 
pecorum armentorumqne numero, recipitqae satisfactionem universa domus." 
(Tacit German. 21.) Niebuhr, Beschreibnng von Arabien, p. 32. 

u An Indian feast (says Loekiel, Mission of the United Brethren in North 
America J is seldom concluded without bloodshed. For the murder of a man 
one hundred yards of wampum, and for that of a woman two hundred 
yards, must be paid by the murderer. Tf ho is too poor, which is commonly 
the case, and his friends cannot or will not assist him, he most fly from this 
resentment of the relations." 


ments which rose upon the ruins of the Western Empire ot ftonA, 
the right as well as duty of private revenge, for personal injury 
or insult offered to any member of a family, — and the endeavor 
to avert its effects by means of a pecuniary composition levied 
upon the offender, chiefly as satisfaction to the party injured, bur 
partly also as perquisite to the king, — was adopted as the basis 
of their legislation. This fundamental idea was worked out in 
elaborate detail as to the valuation of the injury inflicted, where- 
in one main circumstance was the rank, condition, and power of 
the sufferer. The object of the legislator was to preserve the 
society from standing feuds, but at the same time to accord such 
full satisfaction as would induce the injured person to waive his 
acknowledged right of personal revenge, — the full luxury of 
which, as it presented itself to the mind of an Homeric Greek, 
may be read in more than one passage of the Iliad. 1 The Ger- 

, Rogge (Gerichtswesen der Germanen, capp. 1, 2, 8), Grimm (Deutsche 
Rechtsalterthumer, book v. cap. 1-2), and Eichhorn (Deutsches Privat-Recht 
sect. 48) have expounded this idea, and the consequences deduced from it 
among the ancient Germans. 

Aristotle alludes, as an illustration of the extreme silliness of ancient 
Greek practices {ivrj^rj nupirav), to a custom which he states to have still 
continued at the JEolic Kym6, in cases of murder. If the accuser produced 
in support of his charge a certain number of witnesses from his own kin- 
dred, the person was held peremptorily guilty, — olov h> Kvpy nepl rd QoviKa 
v6pog iartVj av irAtftfoc ti itapa<rxv TC u ftaprvpuv 6 6l<jkdv rdv Qovov rCtv 
cirov ovyyevGw, Ivoxov elvat r£ fovy rdv ftiyovra (Polit ii. 5, 12). This 
presents a curious parallel with the old German institution of the Eides- 
helfern, or conjurators, who, though most frequently required and produced in 
support of the party accused, were yet also brought by the party accusing. 
See Rogge, sect 36, p. 186 ; Grimm, p. 862. 

J The word itolvt) indicates this satisfaction by valuable payment for wrong 
done, especially for homicide : that the Latin word poena originally meant 
the same thing, may be inferred from the old phrases dare pamas, pendere 
pamas. The most illustratWe passage in the Iliad is that in which Ajax, in 
the embassy undertaken to conciliate Achilles, censures by comparison the 
Inexorable obstinacy of the latter in setting at naught the proffered presents 
of Agamemnon (H. ix. 627) : — 

NfXiyf • koI fiev vie fe Kaaiyv^roio <povoto 
Xloivijv, t) ov notify idi^aro Tedveiurof • 
Kai p 6 /uv h typ? phei o&tov, noXK dnoTioaf • 
Tov di r' tptrrierat Kpadirj koX Mpog ayqv<*Pt 
Hoivfyv detapburo 


man codes begin by trying to bring about the acceptance of a 
fixed pecuniary composition as a constant voluntary custom, an! 
proceed ultimately to enforce it as a peremptory necessity : the 
idea of society is at first altogether subordinate, and its influence 
passes only by slow degrees from amicable arbitration into im- 
perative control. 

The Homeric society, in regard to this capital point in human 
progression, is on a level with that of the German tribes at 
described by Tacitus. But the subsequent course of Grecian 
legislation takes a direction completely different from that of the 
German codes : the primitive and acknowledged right of private 
revenge (unless where bought off by pecuniary payment), instead 
of being developed into practical working, is superseded by more 
comprehensive views of a public wrong requiring public inter- 
vention, or by religious fears respecting the posthumous wrath of 
the murdered person. In historical Athens, this right of private 
revenge was discountenanced and put out of sight, even so early 
as the Drakonian legislation,* and at last restricted to a few ex- 

The noivi) is, in its primitive sense, a genuine payment in valuable com- 
modities serving as compensation (Iliad, iii. 290; v. 266 ; xiii. 659): but it 
comes by a natural metaphor to signify the death of one or more Trojans, at 
a satisfaction for that of a Greek warrior who had just fallen (or vies vers^ 
Iliad, xiv. 483; xvi. 398); sometimes even the notion of compensation 
generally (xvii. 207 J. In the representation on the shield of Achilles, the 
genuine proceeding about itoivt} clearly appears : the question there tried is, 
whether the payment stipulated as satisfaction for a person slain, has really 
been made or not, — Svo d' tivdpec heUeov elvtua iroivijc 'Avdpdc &Tro$&ifu~ 
vov, etc. (xviii. 498.) 

The danger of an act of homicide is proportioned to the number and 
power of the surviving relatives of the slain ; but even a small number is 
luificient to necessitate flight ( Odyss. xxiii. 1 20) : on the other hand, a large 
body of relatives was the grand source of encouragement to an insolent 
criminal (Odyss. xviii. 141). 

An old law of Tralles in Lydia, enjoining a nominal noivr) of a medimm 
of beans to the relatives of a murdered person belonging to a contemptible 
class of citizens, is noticed by Plutarch, Quaest Graec. c. 46, p. 302. Even 
m the century preceding Herodotus, too, the Delphians gave a iroiv^ as 
satisfaction for the murder of the fabulist JEsop ; which noivi) was claimed 
and received by the grandson of JEsop's master (Herodot ii. 134. Plutarch. 
Ber. Nam. Vind. p. 556). 

1 See Lysias, Be Csede Eratosthen. Orat L p. 94 ; Plutarch. 
B\ Demoethen. cont Aristokrat pp. 638-637. 


treme and special cases; while the murderer came to be consid- 
ered, first as having sinned against the gods, next as having 
deeply injured the society, and thus at once as requiring absolu- 
tion and deserving punishment On the first of these two 
grounds, he is interdicted from the agora and from all holy places, 
as well as from public functions, even while yet untried and sim- 
ply a suspected person ; for if this were not done, the wrath of 
the gods would manifest itself in bad crops and other national 
salamities. On the second ground, he is tried before the council 
of Areiopagus, and if found guilty, is condemned to death, or 
perhaps to disfranchisement and banishment. 1 The idea of a 
propitiatory payment to the relatives of the deceased has ceased 

Plato (De Legg. ix. pp. 871-874), in his copious penal suggestions to deal 
with homicide, both intentional and accidental, concurs in general with the 
old Attic law (see Matthias, Miscellanea Philologico, vol. i. p. 151) : and as 
he states with sufficient distinctness the grounds of his propositions, we see 
how completely the idea of a right to private or family revenge is absent 
from his mind. In one particular case, he confers upon kinsmen the priv- 
ilege of avenging their murdered relative (p. 87 1 ) ; but generally, he rather 
seeks to enforce upon them strictly the duty of bunging the suspected mur- 
derer to trial before the court By the Attic law, it was only the kinsmen 
of the deceased who had the right of prosecuting for murder, — or the master, 
if the deceased was an oUertjg (Demosthen. cont. Euerg. et Mnesibul. c. 18J; 
they might by forgiveness shorten the term of banishment for the uninten- 
tional murderei (Demosth. cont Makart. p. 1069). They seem to have been 
regarded, generally speaking, as religiously obliged, but not legally com. 
pellable, to undertake this duty ; comparo Plato, Euthyphro, capp. 4 and 5. 

1 Lysias, cont Aporat Or. xiii. p. 137. Antiphon. Tetralog. i. 1, p. 629. 
'Xavfifopov (P ifiiv tori rovde, /uapdv not ivayvov oira, etc rd, Ttfikvn ™* 
&euv eloiovra fuaiveiv rijv ftyveiav avribv, iirl 6e rug avrac Tpairifa iovra 
avyKarainfifcXuvai rot>c uvatriovc- Ik yilp tovtuv al re u<f>6piai ylpovrai, 
tivorvxclc w' al irpafrtc Ka^iaravraL. 

The three Tetralogies of Antipho are all very instructive respecting the 
legal procedure in cases of alleged homicide : as also the Oration De Caede 
Herodis (see capp. 1 and 2) — rov vopov netpevov, rdv dizoKreivavra dvro- 
ir*#av£iv, etc 

The case of the Spartan Drakontius, one of the Ten Thousand Greeks 
wh# served with Cyras the younger, and permanently exiled from his country 
in consequence of an involuntary murder committed during his boyhood 
presents a pretty exact parallel to the fatal quarrel of Patroklus at dice, 
when a boy, with the son of Ampaidamas, in consequence of which he wit 
forced to seek shelter under the roof of Ptlens (compare Iliad, xxiiL *§, 
with Xenoph. A nab as. iv. 8, 25) 


altogether to be admitted: it is the protection of society which 
dictates, and the force of society which inflicts, a measure of 
punishment calculated to deter for the future. 

3. The society of legendary Greece includes, besides the 
chiefs, the general mass of freemen (Xacii), among whom stand 
out by special names certain professional men, such as the car- 
penter, the smith, the leather-dresser, the leech, the prophet, the 
bard, and the fisherman. 1 We have no means of appreciating 
their condition. Though lots of arable land were assigned in 
special property to individuals, with boundaries both carefully 
marked and jealously watched, 2 yet the larger proportion of sur- 
face was devoted to pasture. Cattle formed both the chief item 
in the substance of a wealthy man, the chief means of making 
payments, and the common ground of quarrels, — bread and meat,' 
in large quantities, being the constant food of every one. 3 The 
estates of the owners were tilled, and their cattle tended, mostly 
by bought slaves, but to a certain degree also by poor freemen 
called Thetes, working for hire and for stated periods. The prin- 
cipal slaves, who were intrusted with the care of large herds of 
oxen, swine, or goats, were of necessity men worthy of confidence, 
their duties placing them away from their master's immediate 

1 Odyss. xvii. 384 j xix. 135. Iliad, iv. 187; vU. 221. I know nothing 
which better illustrates the idea of the Homeric dtiiuotpyo'^ — the herald, the 
prophet, the carpenter, the leech, the bard, etc., — than the following descrip- 
tion of the structure of an East Indian village (Mill's History of British 
India, b. ii. c 5, p. 266) : u A village, politically considered, resembles a cor- 
poration or township. Its proper establishment of officers and servants con- 
sists of the following descriptions: the potail, or head inhabitant, who 
settles disputes and collects the revenue, etc. ; the carnum, who keeps the 
accounts of cultivation, etc ; the tallier ; the boundary-man ; the superinten- 
dent of tanks and water-courses ; the Brahman, who performs the village 
worship ; the schoolmaster ; the calendar Brahman, or astrologer, who pro- 
claims the lucky or unpropitious periods for sowing or thrashing ; the smith 
and carpenter ; the potter; the washerman ; the barber; the cowkeeper ; the 
doctor ; the dancing-girt who attends at rejoicings ; the musician, and the 

Each of these officers and servants (Sij/uoepyoi) is remunerated by a den- 
lite perquisite— so much landed jroduce — out of the general crop of the 
Tillage (p. 264). 

* Iliad, xiL 421; xxi. 405. 

• Iliad, i. 155; ix.154; xiv. m 

V01* ii* 5 7oo. 


*yeJ They had other slaves subordinate to them, and appear to 
have been well-treated : the deep and unshaken attachment of 
Eumseus the swineherd and Philoetius the neatheid to the family 
and affairs of the absent Odysseus, is among the most interesting 
points in the ancient epic Slavery was a calamity, which in 
that period of insecurity might befall any one : the chief who 
conducted a freebooting expedition, if he succeeded, brought back 
with him a numerous troop of slaves, as many as he could seize, 9 
— if he failed, became very likely a slave himself: so that the 
slave was often by birth of equal dignity with his master : Eu- 
mseus was himself the son of a chief, conveyed away when a 
child by his nurse, and sold by Phoenician kidnappers to Laertes. 
A slave of this character, if he conducted himself well, might 
often expect to be enfranchised by his master and placed in an 
independent holding. 3 

On the whole, the slavery of legendary Greece does not pre- 
sent itself as existing under a peculiarly harsh form, especially 
if we consider that all the classes of society were then very much 
upon a level in point of taste, sentiment, and instruction. 4 In the 
absence of legal security or an effective social sanction, it is 
probable that the condition of a slave under an average master, 
may have been as good as that of the free Thete. The class of 
slaves whose lot appears to have been the most pitiable were the 

1 Odysseus and other chiefs of Ithaka had oxen, sheep, mules, eta, on the 
continent and in Peloponnesus, under the care of herdsmen (Odyss. iv. 636; 
xiv. 100). 

Leukanor, king of Bosporus, asks the Scythian Arsakomas — H6aa 61 
fiooKJifiaTa y t) iroaac afia^aq ^czf, ravra y&p v^ielg vrXovreiTe ; (Lucian, Tox- 
•ris, c. 45.) The enumeration of the property of Odysseus would have 
placed the (3o<TKrj/iara in the front line. 

* Afiual d' df 'A^iXet)f Aiftaaaro (Iliad, xviii. 28 : compare also Odyss. 
i; 397; xxiii. 357 ; particularly xvii. 441). 

* Odyss. xiv. 64; xv. 412 ; see also xix. 78 : Eurykleia was also of dig 
nined birth (i. 429). The questions put by Olysseus to Eumaus, to which 
the speech above referred to is an answer, indicate the proximate causes of 
slavery : " Was the city of your father sacked ? or were you seized by pirates 
when alone with your sheep and oxen ? n (Odyss. xv. 385.) 

Eumssus had purchased a slave for himself (Odyss. xiv. 448). 

4 Tacitus, Mor. Germ. 21. "Dominum ac servum nullis education!! 
deliciis dignoscas : inter eadem pecora, in eadem homo, degunt,' etc. ( Jave- 
ud. Bat. xiv. 167.) 


females, — more numerous than the males, and performing the 
principal work in the interior of the house. Not only do they 
seem to have been more harshly treated than the males, but they 
were charged with the hardest and most exhausting labor which 
the establishment of a Greek chief required: they brought in 
water from the spring, and turned by hand the house-mills, which 
ground the large quantity of flour consumed in his family. 1 This 
oppressive task was performed generally by female slaves, in his- 
torical as well as legendary Greece. 9 Spinning and weaving was 
the constant occupation of women, whether free or slave, of every 
rank and station : all the garments worn both by men and women 
were fashioned at home, and Helen as well as Penelope* is expert 
and assiduous at the occupation. 3 The daughters of Eeleos at 
Eleusis go to the well with their basins for water, and Nausikaa, 
daughter of Alkinous, 4 joins her female slaves in the business of 
washing her garments in the river. If we are obliged to point 
out the fierceness and insecurity of an early society, we may at 
the same time note with pleasure its characteristic simplicity of 

1 Odyss. vii. 104; xx. 116; Iliad vi. 457; compare the Book of Genesis, 
ch. xi. 5. The expression of Telemachus, when he is proceeding to hang 
op che female slaves who had misbehaved, is bitterly contemptuous : — 
MJ) [th> <Jt) Ka&apy $ avary and frvpbv iXol/xrjv 
Tauvy etc. (Odyss. xxii. 464.) 

The humble establishment of Hesiod's farmer does not possess a mill ; he 
has nothing better than a wooden pestle and mortar for grinding or bruising 
the com ; both are constructed, and the wood cut from the trees, by his 
own hand (Opp. Pi. 423), though it seems that a professional carpenter 
("the servant of AtheneV') is required to put together the plough (v. 430). 
The Virgil ian poem Moretum, (v. 24,) assigns a hand-mill even to the 
humblest rural establishment The instructive article "Corn Mills," in 
Beckmann's Hist, of Inventions (vol. i. p. 227, Eng. transl), collects all the 
information available, about this subject. 

* See Lysias, Or. 1, p. 93 (De Caede Eratosthenis). Plutarch (Non posse 
suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, c. 21, p. 1 101 ), — II c^vaxe^f aXerplf 
irpd$ ftvXfiv Ktvovfiivrj i — and Kallimachus, (Hymn, ad Delum, 242,) — /m?<F 
Mi deiXal Avcro/tee? poyiovoiv dXerpide^ — notice the overworked condition 
of these women. 

The " grinding slaves" (aXerptfof) are expressly named in one of the 
Laws of Ethelbert, king of Kent, and constitute the second class in point of 
value among the female slaves (Law xi. Thorpe's Ancient Laws and Insti* 
tales of England, vol. i. p. 7> 

• Odyss. iv. 131 xix, 236. * Odyss. vi 96 ; Hymn, ad Dfcnto. 106 


Banners : Rebecca, Rachel, and the daughters of Jethro, in the 
early Mosaic narrative, as well as the wife of the native Macedo- 
nian chief (with whom the Temenid Perdiccas, ancestor of Philip 
and Alexander, first took service on retiring from Argos), baking 
Her own cakes on the hearth, 1 exhibit a parallel in this respect to 
the Homeric pictures. 

We obtain no particulars respecting either the common freemen 
generally, or the particular class of them called ThStes. These 
latter, engaged for special jobs, or at the harvest and other busy 
seasons of field labor, seem to have given their labor in exchange 
for board and clothing : they are mentioned in the same line with 
the slaves, 2 and were (as has been just observed) probably on the 
whole little better of£ The condition of a poor freeman in those 
days, without a lot of land of bis own, going about from one tem- 
porary job to another, and having no powerful family and no 
social authority to look up to for protection, must have been suf- 
ficiently miserable. When Eumaeus indulged his expectation of 
being manumitted by his masters, he thought at the same time 
that they would give him a wife, a house, and a lot of land near 
to themselves; 3 without which collateral advantages, aimpU 
manumission might perhaps have been no improvement in his 
condition. To be ThSte in the service of a very poor farmer is 
selected by Achilles as the maximum of human hardship : such a 
person could not give to his Thete the same ample food, and good 
shoes and clothing, as the wealthy chief Eurymachus, while he 
would exact more severe labor. 4 It was probably among such 
smaller occupants, who could not advance the price necessary to 
purchase slaves, and were glad to save the cost of keep when 
they did not need service, that the Theses found employment : 
though we may conclude that the brave and strong amongst these 
poor freemen found it preferable to accompany some freebooting 
chief and to live by the plunder acquired. 5 The exact Hesiod 

1 Herodot. vili. 137. • Odyss. iv. 643. > Odyss. xir. 64. 

4 Compare Odyss. xi. 490, with xviii. 358, KlytaemnSstra, in the Ayo- 
mami6n of .ASschylus, preaches a something similar doctrine to Kassandra, — 
mow much kinder the dp;r<u<wrAovTw deanorai were towards their slavea, 
than masters who had risen by unexpected prosperity (Agamemn. 1042). 

* Thucydid. i. 5, trpairovro irpbc \rjareLav f iiyovpevtov av&pCw ob r£» 
Wworwrdrw, uttdovt nO ojeripov air&v £ve*a, not rotq utr&eveoi Tpofij( t 


advises his farmer, whose work is chiefly performed by slaves, U 
employ and maintain the Th&ta daring summer-time, but to dis- 
miss him as soon as the harvest is completely got in, and then to 
take into his house for the winter a woman " without any child ;" 
who would of course be more useful than the Thfcte for the indoor 
occupations of that season. 1 

In a state of soct My such as that which we have been describ- 
ing, Grecian commerce was necessarily trifling and restricted. 
The Homeric poems mark either total ignorance or great vague- 
ness of apprehension respecting all that lies beyond the coasts of 
Greece and Asia Minor, and the islands between or adjoining 
them. Libya and Egypt are supposed so distant as to be known 
only by name and hearsay : indeed, when the city of Kyrene 
was founded, a century and a half after the first Olympiad, it 
was difficult to find anywhere a Greek navigator who had ever 
visited the coast of Libya, or was fit to serve as guide to the 
colonists^ The mention of the Sikels in the Odyssey, 3 leads us to 

1 Hesiod, Opp. Di. 459 — tyoppirdifrat, 6/t&£ Sfiuig re ttal avroc — and 

608: — 

Avrdp brifr> <ty 

Uuvra fiiov Karu^rjai kirijp/tevov kvdo&t oUov, 
Otjtu t* uoikov nouicr&ai, koI &tckvov Ipi&ov 
bi&o&ai KiXofiai • ^aAwri) cT virdnopric lpi&o(. 
The two words uoikov rro i ei<j& a i seem hear to be taken together in 
the sense of "dismiss the ThSte," or "make him houseless;" for when pnt 
out of his employer's house, he had no residence of his own. Gottling {ad 
he.), Nitzsch (ad Odyss. iv. 643), and Lehrs (Qusest. Epic p. 205) all construe 
AoiKOv with tiyra, and represent Hesiod as advising that the houseless Thete 
should be at that moment taken on, just at the time when the summer's work 
was finished. Lehrs (and seemingly Gottling also), sensible that this can 
never have been the real meaning of the poet, would throw out the two lines 
as spurious. I may remark farther that the translation of #$c given by 
Gdttling — villicus — is inappropriate : it includes the idea of superintendence 
over other laborers, which does not seem to have belonged to the Th6te in 
any case. 

There were a class of poor free women who made their living by taking 
in wool to spin and perhaps to weave : the exactness of their dealing, as well 
as the poor profit which they made, are attested by a touching Homeric 
simile (Iliad, xiii. 434). Bee Iliad, vi. 289 ; xxiii 742. Odyss. xv. 414. 

* Harodot iv. 151. Compare Ukert, Geographic der Griechen und Bomer, 
parti pp. 16-19. 

Odyss. xx. 88a j xxiv. 210. The identity of the Homeric Schcria whfc 


conclude that Korkyra, Italy, and Sicily were not wholly unknowi 
to the poet : among seafaring Greeks, the knowledge of tha 
latter implied the knowledge of the two former, •— since the habi- 
tual track, even of a well-equipped Athenian trireme during the 
Peloponnesian war, from Peloponnesus to Sicily, was by Korkyra 
and the Gulf of Tarentum. The Phokseans, long afterwards, 
were the first Greeks who explored either the Adriatic or Tyr- 
rhenian sea. 1 Of the Euxine sea no knowledge is manifested in 
Homer, who, as a general rule, presents to us the names of dis- 
tant regions only in connection with romantic or monstrous ac- 
companiments. The Kretans, and still more the Taphians (who 
are supposed to have occupied the western islands off the coast of 
Acarnania), are mentioned as skilful mariners, and the Taphian 
Mentes professes to be conveying iron to Temesa to be there ex- 
changed for copper ; 9 but both Taphians and Kretans are more 
corsairs than traders. 3 The strong sense of the dangers of the 
sea, expressed by the poet Hesiod, and the imperfect structure of 
the early Grecian ship, attested by Thucydides (who points out 
the more recent date of that improved ship-building which pre* 
vailed in his time), concur to demonstrate the thsG tuhtcw rang* 
of nautical enterprise. 4 

Such was the state of the Greeks, as traders, at a time whe* 
Babylon combined a crowded and industrious population with 
extensive commerce, and when the Phoenician merchant-ships 
visited in one direction the southern coast of Arabia, perhaps 
even the island of Ceylon, — in another direction, the British 

The Phoenician, the kinsman of the ancient Jew, exhibits the 
type of character belonging to the latter, — with greater enterprise 

Korkyra, and that of the Homeric Thrinakia with Sicily, appear to me not 
at all made out Both Welcker and Klausen treat the Phwakians as purely 
mythical persons (see W. C. M uller, De CorcyrsBorum Republic*, Gotting. 
1835, p. 9). 

1 Herodot. i. 168. 

* Nitzsch. ad Odyss. i. 181 ; Strabo, L p. 6. The situation of Temesa, 
whether it is to he placed in Italy or in Cyprus, has been a disputed point 
anions critics, both ancient and modern. 

9 Odyss. xv. 42G. Taftoi, Xtjtoropec fcdpea and xtl 426. Hymn to 
Dt'niAtcr. v. 123. 

4 Ucsiod. Opp. Pi. 615-684 ; Thucyd. L 13. 


and ingenuity, and less of religious exclusiveness, yet still differ* 
ent from, and even antipathetic to, the character of the Greeks, 
• In the Homeric poems, he appears somewhat like the Jew of the 
Middle Ages, a crafty trader, turning to profit the violence and 
rapacity of others, — bringing them ornaments, decorations, the 
finest and brightest products of the loom, gold, silver, electrum, 
ivory, tin, etc., in exchange for which he received landed produce, 
skins, wool, and slaves, the only commodities which even a 
wealthy Greek chief of those early times had to offer, — prepared 
at the same time for dishonest gain, in any manner which chance 
might throw in his way. 1 He is, however, really a trader, not 
undertaking expeditions with the deliberate purpose of surprise 
and plunder, and standing distinguished in this respect from the 
Tyrrhenian, Kretan, or Taphian pirate. Tin, ivory, and electrum, 
all of which are acknowledged in the Homeric poems, were the 
fruit of Phoenician trade with the West as well as with the East* 

1 Odyss. xiv. 290 ; xv. 416. — 

*otvi£ fyX&ev &v%p, airarjjXta eldCts, 

TpoiKTtjCt of dr) noWd. jcujc' uv&poiroiotv iupyet. 

The interesting narrative given by Eumssus, of the manner in which he 
fell into slavery, is a vivid picture of Phoenician dealing (compare Herodot 
i. 2-4. Iliad, vi. 290; xxiii. 743). Paris is reported to have visited Sidon, 
and brought from thence women eminent for skill at the loom. The Cyprian 
Verses (see the Argument ap. Duntzer, p. 17) affirmed that Paris had landed 
at Sidon. and attacked and captured the city. Taphian corsairs kidnapped 
slaves at Sidon (Odyss. xv. 424). 

The ornaments or trinkets (utivpfiara) which the Phoenician merchant 
carries with him, seem to bo the same as the daiddka ttoXIA, TLopirac re 
yvafiirrac w' iMicac, etc. which Hephaestus was employed in fabricating 
(Iliad, xviii. 400) under the protection of Thetis. 

" Fallacissimum esse genus Phcenicum omnia monumenta vetustatis atque 
omnes histories nobis prodiderunt." (Cicero, Orat. Trium. partes in edits*, 
ed. Maii, 1815, p. 13.) 

* Ivory is frequently mentioned in Homer, who uses the word Mtyaf ex- 
clusively to mean that substance, not to signify the animal. 

The art of dyeing, especially with the various shades of purple, was ia 
after-ages one of the special excellences of the Phoenicians : yet Homer, 
where he alludes in a simile to dyeing or staining, introduces a Mseonian of 
Karian woman as the performer of the process, not a Phoenician (Iliad, iv 

What the electrum named in the Homeric poems really is cannot be posi 
lively determined. The word in antiquity meant two different things : 1 


Thucydidgs tells as that the Phoenicians and Karians, in ray 
early periods, occupied many of the islands of the JEgean, and 
we know, from the striking remnant of their mining works whieh 
Herodotus himself saw in Thasus, off the coast of Thrace, dial 
they had once extracted gold from the mountains of that island, 
— at a period indeed very far back, since their occupation most 
have been abandoned prior to the settlement of the poet Archilo- 
chus.i Yet few of the islands in the <£gean were rich in such 
valuable products, nor was it in the usual course of Phoenician 
proceeding to occupy islands, except where there was an adjoining 
mainland with which trade could be carried on. The traffic ef 
these active mariners required no permanent settlement, but as 
occasional visitors they were convenient, in enabling a Greek 
chief to turn his captives to account, — to get rid of slaves or 
friendless Thetes who were troublesome, — and to supply himself 
with the metals, precious as well as useful. 9 The halls of Alki- 

amber ; 2, an impure gold, containing as much as one-fifth or more of silver 
(Pliny, H. N. xxxiii 4). The passages in which we read the word in the 
Odyssey do not positively exclude either of these meanings ; but they present 
to us eiectrnm so much in juxtaposition with gold and silver each separately, 
that perhaps the second meaning is more probable than the first. Herodotus 
aaderstands it to mean ambtr (iiL 1 15) : Stpphokles, on the contrary, employs 
it to designate a metal akin to gold (Antigone, 1033). 

See the dissertation of Buttmann, appended to his collection of essays 
called AfytAofapiif , yoI. ii. p. 337 ; also, Beckmann, History of Inventions, voL 
iv. p. 12, Engl. Transl. u The ancients (observes the latter) used as a pecu- 
liar metal a mixture of gold and silver, because they were not acquainted 
with the art of separating them, and gave it the name of dectrum* Dr 
Thirtwall (Hist, of Greece, vol. L p. 241 ) thinks that the Homeric dednm is 
amber *, on the contrary, Hiillmann thinks that it was a metallic substance 
(Handels, Geschichte der Griechen, pp. 63-81). 

Beckmann doubts whether the oldest icaooirepoc of the Greeks was really 
tin: he rather thinks that it was "the stannum of tha Romans, the werk of 
•or smel ting-houses,— that is, a mixture of lead, silver, and other accidental 
metals." (Ibid. p. 20). The Greeks of Massalia procured tin from Britain, 
through Gaul, by the Seine, the Saone, and the Rhone (Diodor. v. 22). 

1 Herodot. ii. 44; vi 47. Archiloch. Fragm. 21-22, ed. Qaiat fF.nofna 
ap. Euseb. Prop. Ev. vi. 7. Thucyd. L 12. 

The Greeks connected this Phoenician sttrtstjient In Thaws with the 
legend of Kadmus and his sister Enropat Tbaeat, the ep o uymui of the 
island, was brother of Kadmas . (Hand. aV) 

a The angry Laoaadoa thwstaw, w*»ft PtMSiittsi and Aftib ask stosn 


fious and Menelaus glitter with gold, copper, and electram ; while 
large stocks of yet unemployed metal — gold, copper, and iron — 
are stored up in the treasure-chamber of Odysseus and other 
chiefs. 1 Coined money is unknown to the Homeric age, — tha 
trade carried on being one of barter. In reference also to the) 
metals, it deserves to be remarked that the Homeric descriptions 
aniversally suppose copper, and not iron, to be employed for 
arms, both offensive and defensive. By what process the copper 
was tempered and hardened, so as to serve the purposes of the 
warrior, we do not know ; a but the use of iron for these objects 
belongs to a later age, though the Works and Days of Hesiod 
suppose this change to have been already introduced. 3 

hi:n (at the expiration of their term of servitude) the stipulated wages of 
their labor, to cut off their ears and send them off to some distant islands 
(Iliad, xxi. 454). Compare xxiv. 752. Odyss. xx. 383; xviii. 83. 
1 Odyss. iv. 73 ; vii. 85 ; xxi. 61. Iliad, ii. 226 , vi. 47. 

* See Millin, MineValogie Homerique, p. 74. That there are, however, 
modes of tempering copper, so as to impart to it the hardness of steel, hat 
been proved by the experiments of the Comte de Caylus. 

The Ma»*ngettt employed only copper — no iron — for their weapons 
(Hcrodot. i. 215). 

• Hesiod, Opp Di. 150-420. The examination of the various matters of 
antiquity discoverable throughout the north of Europe, as published by the 
Antiquarian Society of Copenhagen, recognizes a distinction of three suc- 
cessive ages: 1. Implements and arms of stone, bone, wood, etc.: little or 
no use of metals aft all ; clothing made of skins. 2. Implements and arm* 
of copper and gold, or rather bronze and gold ; little or no silver or iron. 
Articles of gold and clectrum are found belonging to this age, but none of 
silver, nor any evidences of writing. 3. The age which follows this has be» 
longing to it arms of iron, articles of silver, and some Runic inscriptions: 
it is the last age of northern paganism, immediately preceding the introduc- 
tion of Christianity (Leitfaden zur Nordischen Alterthumskunde, pp. 31, 57, 
63, Copenhagen, 1837). 

The Homeric age coincides with the second of these two periods. Silver 
is comparatively little mentioned in Homer, while both bronze and gold are 
familiar metals. Iron also is rare, and seems employed only for agricultural 
purposes — Xpvaov re, x<&kov re &t - ia&iJTa #' ifavTipf (Iliad, vi. 48; 
Odyss. n. 338 ; xiii. 136). The xpdrtftoof and the x<zAxet)f are both men- 
tioned in Homer, but workers in silver and iron are not known by any special 
name (Odyss. iii. 425-436). 

"The hatchet, wimble, plane, and level, are the tools mentioned by Homer, 
who appears to hare been unacquainted with the saw, the square, and tks 
»." (Gillies. Hist, of Greece, chap. XL p. 61.) 


The mode of fighting among the Homeric heroes is not lets 
different frou* .he historical times, than the material of which 
their arms were composed. The Hoplites, or heavy-armed in- 
fantry of historical Greece, maintained a close order and well- 
dressed line, charging the enemy with their spears protended at 
even distance, and coming thus to close conflict without breaking 
their rank: there were special troops, bowmen, slingers, etc* 
armed with missiles, but the hoplite had no weapon to employ in 
this manner. The heroes of the Iliad and Odyssey, on thf 
contrary, habitually employ the spear as a missile, which they 
launch with tremendous force : each of them is mounted in his 
war-chariot, drawn by two horses, and calculated to contain the 
warrior and his charioteer ; in which latter capacity a friend or 
comrade will sometimes consent to serve. Advancing in his 
chariot at *ull speed, in front of his own soldiers, he hurls his 
spear against the enemy : sometimes, indeed, he will fight on foot, 
and hand to hand, but the chariot is usually near to receive him 
«f he chooses, or to insure his retreat. The mass of the Greeks 
and Trojans, coming forward to the charge, without any regular 
6tep or evenly-maintained line, make their attack in the same way 
by hurling their spears. Each chief wears habitually a long 
sword and a short dagger, besides his two spears to be launched 
forward, — the spear being also used, if occasion serves, as a 
weapon for thrust. Every man is protected by shield, helmet, 
breastplate, and greaves : but the armor of the chiefs is greatly 
superior to that of the common men, while they themselves are 
both stronger and more expert in the use of their weapons. 
There are a few bowmen, as rare exceptions, but the general 
equipment and proceeding is as here described. 

Such loose array, immortalized as it is in the Iliad, is familiar 
to every one; and the contrast which it presents, with those 
inflexible ranks, and that irresistible simultaneous charge which 
bore down the Persian throng at Plataea and Kunaxa, 1 is such 

The Gaols, known to Polybius, seemingly the Cisalpine Gaols only, pos- 
sessed all their property in cattle and gold, — dpi/i/iara Kal x/wcrdf, — on 
account ot the easy transportability of both (Pol yd. ii 17). 

1 Tyrtseas, in his military expressions, seems to conceive the Homeric mode 
of hurling the spear as still prevalent, — dopv <T ebrotyu^ ffaXXovret 
(Fregm. ix. Gaisford). Either he had his mind prepossessed with the Ho- 


as to illustrate forcibly the general difference between heroic 
and historical Greece. While in the former, a few splendid 
figures stand forward, in prominent relief, the remainder being a 
mere unorganized and ineffective mass, — in the latter, these units 
have been combined into a system, in which every man, othccr 
and soldier, has his assigned place and duty, and the victory, 
when gained, is the joint work of all. Preeminent individual 
prowess is indeed materially abridged, if not wholly excluded, — 
no man can do more than maintain his station in the line : l but 
on the other hand, the grand purposes, aggressive or defensive, 
for which alone arms are taken up, become more assured and 
easy, and long-sighted combinations of the general are rendered 
for the first time practicable, when he has a disciplined body of 
men to obey him. In tracing the picture of civil society, we 
have to remark a similar transition — we pass from Herakles, 
Theseus, Jason, Achilles, to Solon, Pythagoras, and Perikles — 
from "the shepherd of his people," (to use the phrase in which 
Homer depicts the good side of the heroic king,) to the legislator 
who introduces, and the statesman who maintains, a preconcerted 
system by which willing citizens consent to bind themselves. If 
commanding individual talent is not always to be found, the whole 
community is so trained as to be able to maintain its course under 
inferior leaders ; the rights as well as the duties of each citizen 
being predetermined in the social order, according to principles 
more or less wisely laid down. The contrast is similar, and the 
transition equally remarkable, in the civil as in the military 
picture. In fact, the military organization of the Grecian repub- 
lics is an element of the greatest importance in respect to the 
conspicuous part which they have played in human affairs,— 

meric array, or else the close order and conjunct spears of the hoplites had 
not yet been introduced during the second M esse man war. 

Thiersch and Schneidewin would substitute iriikkovrec in place of /3aA- 
/U>ref. Euripides ( Androra. 695) has a similar expression, yet it does not 
apply well to hoplites ; for one of the virtues of the boplite consisted in car- 
rying his spear steadily : dopdruv xivrjeru; betokens a disorderly march, and 
the want of steady courage and self-possession. See the remarks of Bra- 
gidai upon the ranks of the Athenians under Kleon at Amphipolis (Thucyd 
r. 6). 

1 Euripid. Andromach. 696. 


their superiority over other contemporary nations in this respect 
being hardly less striking than it is in many others, as we shall 
have occasion to see in a subsequent stage of this history. 

Even at the most advanced point of their tactics, the Greeks 
could effect little against a walled city, whilst the heroic weapons 
and array were still less available for such an undertaking as a 
siege. Fortifications are a feature of the age deserving conside- 
rable notice. There was a time, we are told, in which the prim- 
itive Greek towns or villages derived a precarious security, not 
from their walls, but merely from sites lofty and difficult of ac- 
cess. They were not built immediately upon the shore, or close 
upon any convenient landing-place, but at some distance inland, 
on a rock or elevation which could not be approached without 
notice or scaled without difficulty. It was thought sufficient at 
that time to guard against piratical or marauding surprise : but as 
the state of society became assured, — as the chance of sudden 
assault comparatively diminished and industry increased, — these 
uninviting abodes were exchanged for more convenient sites on 
the plain or declivity beneath ; or a portion of the latter was in- 
closed within larger boundaries and joined on to the original 
foundation, which thus became the Acropolis of the new town. 
ThSbes, Athens, Argos, etc, belonged to the latter class of cities ; 
but there were in many parts of Greece deserted sites on hill- 
tops, still retaining, even in historical times, the traces of former 
habitation, and some of them still bearing the name of the old 
towns. Among the mountainous parts of Krete, in JEgina and 
Rhodes, m portions of Mount Ida and Parnassus, similar rem- 
nants might be perceived. 1 

1 'H naXaid nSXtc in JSgina (Herodot. vi. 88), 'Aorvird/Uua in Samoa 
(Polyen. i. 23. 2 , Etymol. Magn. v. 'AorviruXaia) : it became seemingly the 
acropolis of the subsequent city. 

About the deserted sites in the lofty regions of Krete, see Thebphrastos, 
De Ventis, y 13, ed. Schneider, p 762 

The site of naXcuaKTrfHC in Mount Ida, — kicavo Kefipifvoc *ord rd /tence- 
p6rarov rfa *I<% (Strabo, xih p. 607) , iarepov Si KaroTipu eradiate #*- 
icovra etc r^v v$v licrppiv fieroKicr&Tjaav Paphos in Cyprus was the sane 
dfaanoe below the ancient Pato-Paphos (Strabo, xiv. p. 683). 

Near Mantineia in Arcadia was situated bpof kv rp iruttp, rd kpeinia *r« 
Havnveiaf ix ov *%* tyx^ac • icaXelrai 6k rd x&piov fy' ifp&v UtoXic (Pausaa. 
viii 12> 4) See a simU*r statement about the lofty sites of the aodect 


Probably, in such primitive hill villages, a continuous circle of 
wall would hardly be required as an additional means of defence, 
and would often be rendered verj difficult by the rugged nature 
of the ground. But Thncydides represents the earliest Greeks 
— those whom he conceives anterior to the Trojan war — as liv- 
ing thus universally in unfortified villages, chiefly on account of 
their poverty, rudeness, and thorough carelessness for the mor- 
row. Oppressed, and held apart from each other by perpetual 
fear, they had not yet contracted the sentiment of fixed abodes : 
they were unwilling even to plant fruit-trees because of the un- 
certainty of gathering the produce, — and were always ready to 
dislodge, because there was nothing to gain by staying, and a bare 
subsistence might be had any where. He compares them to the 
mountaineers of JEtolia and of the Ozolian Lokris in his own 
time, who dwelt in their unfortified hill villages with little or no 
mtercommunication, always armed and fighting, and subsisting 
on the produce of their cattle and their woods, 1 —clothed in un- 
dressed hides, and eating raw meat. 

The picture given by Thucydides, of these very early and un- 

town of Orchomenus (in Arcadia) (Pans. viii. 13, 2), of Nonakris (viii 17, 
5,) of Lusi (viii. IS, 3), Lykoreia on Parnassus (Pans. x. 6, 2; Strata, ix. 
i 418). 

Compare also Plato, Legg. iii. 2, pp. 678-679, who traces these lofty and 
craggy dwellings, general among the earliest Grecian townships, to the com- 
mencement of human society after an extensive deluge, which had covered 
alt the lower grounds and left only a few survivors. 

1 Tnucyd. I. 2. Qaiverat yup 17 vvv 'EAAd? KaXovfievtj, oil naXat 0e(3aU>c 
olnou/thnf, aZXd, fisravaaroaetf re ohoat rd npdrepa, xctt fatiioc Ikootqi tj)» 
kavr&p bKoXeiirorrec, pia&jtevoi ford nvuv del vXeiSvuv • rifr ydp tfnropiaf 
ofat ofaar? o£o° htifuyvvvrec ddtuf AZfyXoic, otre /card yyv ofoe <J*d QdXaooT}$, 
pcpo/uvoi 6e rd avruv Ikootqi baov airo£pi>, koX xepiovoiap xpijftaTov ov* 
iXWTCC obfo yrjv fvrevovre^ adjjXov dv furore ri( bre\&dv t nal areixi-crruw 
6fta dvTuv, &XXo$ dfaipqaerai, ttj( re xa£* Jr/iepav bvaytcaiov rpotfc irawa- 
Xov dv ffyovpevoi hrticparclv, oh ^aAeiruf diraviaravro, koI oV abrb oin 
fteye&ei noXeuv loxvov f ovre ry &%%y irapaoicevy. 

About the distant and unfortified villages and rude habits of the JEtolians 
mad Lokriana, see Thucyd. iii. 94 ; Pausan. x. 38, S . also of the Cisalpine 
Gauls, Polyb. ii. 17. 

Both Thucydides and Aristotle seem to have conceived the Homeric period 
as mainly analogous to the Papflapoi of their own day— Avu f 'Apiorore- 
Xtfc Aiywp, 6ti TOLavra dei noiel 'Oprjpoc ola fyv rote- ijv de roiavra rd 
vakatd olanep jcai vvv kv role 0ao$upoic (SchoL Iliad, x. 151 K 


recorded times, can only be taken as conjectural, — the conjecture* 
indeed, of a statesman and a philosopher, — generalized too, in 
part, from the many particular instances of contention and expul- 
sion of chiefs which he found in the old legendary poems. The 
Homeric poems, however, present to us a different picture. They 
recognize walled towns, fixed abodes, strong local attachments, 
hereditary individual property in land, vineyards planted and 
carefully cultivated, established temples of the gods, and splendid 
palaces of the chiefs. 1 The description of Thucydides belongs 
to a lower form of society, and bears more analogy to that which 
the poet himself conceives as antiquated and barbarous, — to the 
savage Cyclopes, who dwell on the tops of mountains, in hollow 
caves, without the plough, without vine or fruit culture, without 
arts or instruments, — or to the primitive settlement of Dardanus 
son of Zeus, on the higher ground of Ida, while it was reserved 
for his descendants and successors to found the holy Ilium on the 
plain. 2 Ilium or Troy represents the perfection of Homeric soci- 
ety. It is a consecrated spot, containing temples of the gods as 
well as the palace of Priam, and surrounded by walls which are 
the fabric of the gods ; while the antecedent form of ruder society, 
which the poet briefly glances at, is the parallel of that which the 
theory of Thucydides ascribes to his own early semi-barbarous 

Walled towns serve thus as one of the evidences, that a large 
part of the population of Greece had, even in the Homeric 
times, reached a level higher than that of the -ZEtolians and Lok- 
rians of the days of Thucydides. The remains of AlykSnaa and 
Tiryns demonstrate the massy and Cyclopian style of architecture 
employed in those early days : but we may remark that, while 
modern observers seem inclined to treat the remains of the former 
as very imposing, and significant of a great princely family, Thu- 
fydides, on the contrary, speaks of it as a small place, and labors 

1 Odyss. vi. 10; respecting Nausithous, rast king of the Pheeokians : 
'Afifl 61 rti%0{ IXaaae ir6A«, kcI Iteifiaro oIkovc, 
Ko. N vqodf nolfjae deuv } xal iducaar 1 upovpac. 
The vineyard, olive-ground, and garden U Laertes, is a model of careftil 
cultivation (Odyss. xxir. 245); see also the shield of Achi/lr* (Iliad, xrtt. 
W 1-580), and the Kalyddnian plain (Iliad, ix. 575). 
' Odvgs. x. 106-115 ; Iliad, xx. 216. 


to elude the inference, which might be deduced from its insignifi- 
cant size, in disproof of the grandeur of Agamemndn. 1 Suck 
fortifications supplied a means of defence incomparably superior 
to those of attack. Indeed, even in historical Greece, and after 
the invention of battering engines, no city could be taken except 
by surprise or blockade, or by ruining the country around, and 
thus depriving the inhabitants of their means of subsistence. 
And in the two great sieges of the legendary time, Troy and 
Thebes, the former is captured by the stratagem of the wooden 
horse, while the latter is evacuated by its citizens, under the 
warning of the gods, after their defeat in the field. 

This decided superiority of the means of defence over those of 
attack, in rude ages, has been one of the grand promotive causes 
both of the growth of civic life and of the general march of hu- 
man improvement. It has enabled the progressive portions of 
mankind not only to maintain their acquisitions against the pre- 
datory instincts of the ruder and poorer, and to surmount the 
difficulties of incipient organization, — but ultimately, when their 
organization has been matured, both to acquire predominance, and 
to uphold it until their own disciplined habits have in part passed 
to their enemies. The important truth here stated is illustrated 
not less by the history of ancient Greece, than by that of modern 
Europe during the Middle Ages. The Homeric chief, combining 
superior rank with superior force, and ready to rob at every con- 
venient opportunity, greatly resembles the feudal baron of the 
Middle Ages, but circumstances absorb him more easily into a city 
life, and convert the independent potentate into the member of a 
governing aristocracy. 9 Traffic by sea continued to be beset with 

1 ThuCyd. i. 10. Kai 6n (jlfv Mvur/vai fitKpdv i/v, % el rt ruv Tore Tro/.urpa 
n?) u£ioxpeov doKtl eivai, etc. 
* Nagelsbach, Homerische Theologie, Abschn. v. sect 54. Hesiod strongly 

condemns robbery, — A«f iiyadr), upiraf 6k Kant;, davaroio doretpa ( Opp. Di. 
$56, comp. 320) ; but the sentiment of the Grecian heroic poetry seems not 
to go against it, — it is looked upon as a natural employment of superior 
force, — kvTopaTot <T aya&oi deiXdv hrl daira? laciv (A thence, v. p. 178, 
comp. Pindar, Fragra. 48, ed. Dissen.)- the long spear, sword, an 1 breast- 
plate, of the Kretan Hybreas, constitute his wealth (Skolion 27, p. 877 ; Poet 
Lyric, ed. Bergk), wherewith he ploughs and reaps, — while the u iwarlike, 
who dare not or cannot wield these weapons, fall at his feet, and call him 

rhe Great King. The feeling is different in the later age of Demttrina 


danger from pirates, long after it had become tolerably assort! 
by land : the " wet ways " have always been the last resort of 
lawlessness and violence, and the JEgean, in particular, has in all 
times suffered more than other waters under this calamity. 

Aggressions of the sort here described were of course most 
numerous in those earliest times when the Mgean was not yet 
an Hellenic sea, and when many of the Cyclades were occupied, 
»Dt by Greeks, but by Karians, — perhaps by Phoenicians : the 
number of fen-rimi sepulchres discovered in the sacred island of 

Poliorkdtes (about 810 b. o.) : in the Ithyphallic Ode, addressed to him at hi* 
entrance into Athena, robbery ifl treated as worthy only of -JStolians : — 
AirtiXutbv ydp ooicooai rd rdv iriXof, 
Nwl dk, koI Tti KOfipW. 

CPoet Lyr. xxv. p. 453, «L Schneid.) 

The robberies of powerful men, and even highway robbery generally 
found considerable approving sentiment in the Middle Ages. "All Europe 
(observes Mr. Hallam, Hist Mid. Ag. ch. viii. part 3, p. 247) was a scene of 
intestine anarchy during the Middle Ages : and though England was far less 
exposed to the scourge of private war than most nations on the continent, 
we should find, could we recover the local annals of every country, such an 
accumulation of petty rapine and tumult, as would almost alienate us from 

the liberty which served to engender it Highway robbery was from 

the earliest times a sort of national crime We know how long the out 

laws of Sherwood lived in tradition ; men who, like some of their betters, 
have been permitted to redeem, by a few acts of generosity, the just ignominy 
of extensive crimes. These, indeed, were the heroes of vulgar applause ; but 
when such a judge as Sir John Fortescue could exult, that more Englishmen 
were hanged for robbery in one year than French in seven, — and that, if on 
Englishman be poor, and see another having riches, which may be taken from him 
by might, he trill not spare to do so, — it may be perceived how thoroughly 
these sentiments had pervaded the public mind." 

The robberies habitually committed by the noblesse of France and Ger- 
many during the Middle Ages, so much worse than anything in England, — 
and those of the highland chiefs even in later times, — are too well known to 
need any references: as to France, an ample catalogue is set forth in 
Dulaure's Histoire de la Noblesse (Paris, 1792). The confederations of the 
German cities chiefly originated in the necessity of keeping the roads and 
riven open for the transit of men and goods against the nobles who infested 
the luri roads. Scaliger might have found a parallel to the Xqtrral of the 
heroic ages in the noblesse of la Bouergue, as it stood even in the 16th 
century, which he thus describes: "In Comitate Rode* pessimi sunt 
r-Slitr»M iKj lutrocinatur : nee p«ssunt reprimi." (ap. Dulaure, c. 9.) 

pkact 118 

Dehis seems to attest such occupation as an historical fact 1 Ac- 
cording to the legendary account, espoused both by Herodotus 
and by Thucydides, it was the Kretan Minds who subdued these 
islands and established his sons as rulers in them ; either expel- 
ling the Karians, or reducing them to servitude and tribute, 9 
Thucydides presumes that he must of course have put down 
piracy, in order to enable hi6 tribute to be remitted in safety, 
like the Athenians during the time of their hegemony .3 Upon 
the legendary thalassocraty of Minos, I have already remarked 
in another placer* it is sufficient here to repeat, that, in the 
Homeric poems (long subsequent to Minds in the current chro- 
nology), we find piracy both frequent and held in honorable esti- 
mation, as Thucydides himself emphatically tells us, — remarking, 
moreover, that the vessels of those early days were only half 
decked, built and equipped after the piratical fashion, 5 in a man- 
ner upon which the nautical men of his time looked back with 
disdain. Improved and enlarged shipbuilding, and the trireme, 
or ship with three banks of oars, common for warlike purposes 
during the Persian invasion, began only with the growing skill, 
activity, and importance of the Corinthians, three quarters of a 
century after the first Olympiad. 6 Corinth, even in the Homeric 
poems, is distinguished by the epithet of wealthy, which it ac- 
quired principally from its remarkable situation on the Isthmus, 
and from its two harbors of Lechseum and Kenchress, the one on 
the Corinthian, the other on the Sardnic gulf. It thus supplied 
a convenient connection between Epirus and Italy on the on* 
aide, and the iEgean sea on the other, without imposing upon 
the unskilful and timid navigator of those days the necessity of 
circumnavigating Peloponnesus. 

The extension of Grecian traffic and shipping is manifested 

1 Thncyd. i. 4-8. rjfc vvv ' ETlXtjviktjc dakdacrft. 

*Herodoti. 171 ; Thucyd. i. 4-8. Isokrat&j (Panathenaic. p. 241) takes 
credit to Athens for having finally expelled the Karians out of these islaads 
at the time of the Ionic emigration. 

1 Thncyd. i. 4. to re Xgarucbv « f e I k b f , ica&ypti he r^f daXamtc if 
low fydwaro, rov r&f irpooodovf puXXov livai airy. 

4 See the preceding volume of this History, Chap, xii p. W7. 

• Thncyd. i. 10. r$ iraXmuft r/rixv Xforpix&repo* irapeoKtwundve. 

• Thncyd. i 13. 

TOL.U. 800. 


by a comparison of the Homeric with the Hesiodic poems ; to 
respect to knowledge of places and countries, — the latter being 
probably referable to dates between b. c. 740 and b. c. 640. In 
Homer, acquaintance is shown (the accuracy of such acquaint- 
ance, however, being exaggerated by Strabo and other friendly 
critics) with continental Greece and its neighboring islands, with 
Krgte and the principal islands of the iEgean, and with Thrace, 
the Troad, the Hellespont, and Asia Minor between Paphlagouia 
northward and Lykia southward. The Sikels are mentioned in 
the Odyssey, and Sikania in the last book of that poem, but no- 
thing is said to evince a knowlege of Italy or the realities of the 
western world. Libya, Egypt, and Phcenike, are known by 
name and by vague hearsay, but the Nile is only mentioned as 
" the river Egypt :" while the Euxine sea is not mentioned at 
all. 1 In the Hesiodic poems, on the other hand, the Nile, the 
later, the Phasis, and the Eridanus, are all specified by name ; a 
Mount JEtna, and the island of Ortygia near to Syracuse, the 
Tyrrhenians and Ligurians in the west, and the Scythians in the 
north, were also noticed. 3 Indeed, within forty years after the 
first Olympiad, the cities of Korkyra and Syracuse were founded 
from Corinth, — the first of a numerous and powerful series of 
colonies, destined to impart a new character both to the south of 
Italy and to Sicily. 

In reference to the astronomy and physics of the Homeric 
Greek, it has already been remarked that he connected together 
the sensible phenomena which form the subject matter of these 
sciences by threads of religious and personifying ftuicy, to which 
the real analogies among them were made subordinate ; and that 
these analogies did not begin to be studied by themselves, apart 

1 See Voelcker, Homerische Geographic, ch. Hi. sect. 55-63. He has 
brought to bear much learning and ingenuity to identify the places visited 
by Odysseus with real lands, but the attempt is not successful. Compare 
also Ukert, Horn. Geog. vol. i. p. 14, and the valuable treatises of J. H 
Voss, Alte Webhmde, annexed to the second volume of his Kritische Blat- 
ter (Stuttgart, 1828), pp. 245-413. Voss is the father of just views respect- 
ing Homeric geography. 

9 Hesiod. Theog. 838-340. 

8 Hesiod. Theogon. 1016; Hesiod. Fragm. 190-194, ed. Gottling; Strabo, 
l.p. 16 ; vii. p 300 Compare Ukert, Geographic der Griechen und Bomer, 
I IK 87. 

Vol. 9 4 


from the religious element by which they had been at first over- 
laid, until the age of Thales, — coinciding as that period did 
with the increased opportunities for visiting Egypt and the inte- 
rior of Asia. The Greeks obtained access in both of these coun- 
tries to an enlarged stock of astronomical observations, to the use 
of the gnomon, or sundial, 1 and to a more exact determination 
of the length of the solar year,** than that which served as the 

1 The Greeks learned from the Babylonians, no?*ov kui yvupova koX t<1 
dvuKatdexa fiefea t% yuepw (Herodot ii. 109). In my first edition, I had 
interpreted the word iroXov in Herodotus erroneously. I now believe it to 
mean the same as horologium, the circular plate upon which the vertical 
gnomon projected its shadow, marked so as to indicate the hour of the day, 
— twelvo hours between sunrise and sunset: see Ideler, Handbuchdet Chro- 
nologic, vol. i. p. 233. Respecting the opinions of Thales, see the same 
work, part ii. pp. 18-57 ; Plutarch, de Placit. Philosophor. ii. c. 12; Aristot 
de Coelo, ii. 13. Costard, Rise and Progress of Astronomy among the 
Ancients, p. 99. 

* We have very little information respecting the early Grecian mode of 
computing time, and we know that though all the different states computed 
by lunar periods, yet most, if not all, of them had different names of months 
as well as different days of beginning and ending the!/ months. All their 
immediate computations, however, were made by months : the lunar period 
was their immediate standard of reference for determining their festivals 
and for other purposes, the solar period being resorted to only as a correc- 
tive, to bring the same months constantly into the same seasons of the year 
Their original month had thirty days, and was divided into three decades, as 
it continued to be during the times of historical Athens (Hesiod. Opp. Di. 
766). In order to bring this lunar period more nearly into harmony with 
the sun, they intercalated every year an additional month : so that their 
years included alternately twelve months and thirteen months, each month 
of thirty days. This period was called a Dieteris, — sometimes a Trieteris. 
Solon is said to have first introduced the fashion of months differing in 
length, varying alternately from thirty to twenty-nine days. It appears, how- 
ever, that Herodotus had present to his mind the Dieteric cycle, or years 
alternating between thirteen months and twelve months (each month of 
thirty days), and no other (Herodot. i. 32; compare -ii. 104). As astrono- 
mical knowledge improved, longer and more elaborate periods were calcu- 
lated, exhibiting a nearer correspondence between an integral number of 
lunations and an integral number of solar years. First, we find a period of 
four years ; next, the OctaGteris, or period of eight years, or seventy -nine 
lunar months; lastly, the Metonic period of nineteen years, or 235 lunar 
months. How far any of these larger periods were ever legally authorized, 
or brought into civil usage, even at Athens, is matter of much doubt. Set 
Ideler, Uber die Astronomischen Beobachtungen der Alten, pp, 17&-49*; 
Macrobius, Saturnal. i. IS. 


basis of their various lunar periods. It is pretended (hat Thais* 
was the first who predicted an eclipse of the sun, — not, indeed; 
accurately, but with large limits of error as to the time of its 
occurrence, — and that he also possessed so profound an acquaint* 
ance with meteorological phenomena and probabilities, as to be 
able to foretell an abundant crop of olives for the coming year, 
and to realize a large sum of money by an olive speculation. 1 

From Thales downward we trace a succession of astronomical 
and physical theories, more or less successful, into which I da 
not intend here to enter: it is sufficient at present to contrast 
the father of the Ionic philosophy with the times preceding him, 
and to mark the first commencement of scientific prediction among 
the Greeks, however imperfect at the outset, as distinguished 
from the inspired dicta of prophets or oracles, and from those 
special signs of the purposes of the gods, which formed the habit- 
ual reliance of the Homeric man. 9 We shall see these two modes 
of anticipating the future, — one based upon the philosophical, 
the other upon the religious appreciation of nature, — running 
simultaneously on throughout Grecian history, and sharing be- 
tween them in unequal portions the empire of the Greek mind ; 
the former acquiring both greater predominance and wider appli- 
cation among the intellectual men, and partially restricting, but 
never abolishing, the spontaneous employment of the latter among 
the vulgar. 

Neither coined money, nor the art of writing, 3 nor painting, 
nor sculpture, nor imaginative architecture, belong to the Ho- 
meric and Hesiodic times. Such rudiments of arts, destined 
ultimately to acquire so great a development in Greece, as may 
have existed in these early days, served only as a sort of nucleus 
to the fancy of the poet, to shape out for himself the fabulous 

1 Hnrodot. i. 74 ; AriatJt Polit i. 4, 5. 
■■ Od>i. iii 173.— 

*H rtofuv <fe 0edv Qcuretv rtpa? abrbp bf rjuZv 
Ae?fe, Kal ijvuyci iriAcryoc f^oov eif Etifioiav 
TSpvetv, etc 

Compare Odyss. xx. 100; Iliad, i. 62; Eurip. SuppL 210-230. 
• The oftftara Xvypd, mentioned in the Iliad, vi. 168, if they prove any* 

thing, are rather an eridenoe against, than for, the existence of alphabetical 

wiitiag at the times when the Iliad was composed 


creations ascribed to Hephaestus or Desdalns. No statues of the 
g*dp, not even of wood, are. mentioned in the Homeric poms. 
All the many varieties, in Grecian music, poetry, and dancing, — 
the former chiefly borrowed from Lydia and Phrygia*— date 
from a period considerably later than the first Olympiad : Ter- 
pander, the earliest musician whose date is assigned, and the in- 
ventor of the harp with seven strings instead of that with four 
strings, does not come until the 26th Olympiad, or 676 a, c. : the 
poet ArehilochuB is nearly of the same date. The iambic and 
elegiac metres — the first deviations from the primitive epic strain 
and snbject — do not reach up to the year 700 b, c. 

It is this epic poetry which forms at once both the undoubted 
prerogative and the solitary jewel of the earliest era of Greece. 
Of the many efrie poems which existed in Greece daring the 
eight century before the Christian era, none have been preserved 
except the Iliad and OdyBsey : the JEthiopis of Arktinua, the 
Ilias Minor of Leeches, the Cyprian Verses, the Capture ef 
CEchalia, the Returns of the Heroes from Troy, the Thebais and 
the Epigoni*— several of them passing in antiquity under the 
name of Homer, — have all been lost But the two which re- 
main are quite sufficient to demonstrate im the primitive Greeks, 
a mental organization unparalleled in any other people, and pow- 
ers of invention and expression which prepared, as well as fore- 
boded, the future eminence of the nation in all the various de- 
partments to which thought and language can be applied. Great 
as the power of thought afterwards became among the Greeks, 
their power of expression was still greater : in the former, other 
nations have built upon their foundations and surpassed them, — 
in the latter, they still remained unrivalled. It is not too much 
to say that this flexible, emphatic, and transparent character of 
the language as an instrument of communication, — its perfect 
aptitude for narrative and discussion, as well as for stirring all 
the veins of human emotion without ever forfeiting that character 
of simplicity which adapts it to all men and all times, — may be 
traced mainly to the existence and the wide-spread influence of 
the Iliad and Odyssey. To ns, these compositions are interesting 
as beautiful poems, depicting life and manners, and unfolding cer- 
tain types of character with the utmost vivacity and artlessness; 
to their original hearer, they possessed all these sources of attrae 


tion, togetfa er with others more powerful still, to which we an 
now strangers. Upon him, they bore with the full weight and 
solemnity of history and religion combined, while the charm of 
the poetry was only secondary and instrumental The poet was 
then the teacher and preacher of the community, not simply the 
amuser of their leisure hours : they looked to him for revelations 
tf the unknown past and for expositions of the attributes and 
dispensations of the gods, just as they consulted the prophet for 
his privileged insight into the future. The ancient epic com* 
prised many different poets and poetical compositions, which ful- 
filled this purpose with more or less completeness : but it is the 
exclusive prerogative of the Iliad and Odyssey, that, after the 
minds of men had ceased to be in full harmony with their original 
design, they yet retained their empire by the mere force of secon- 
dary excellences : while the remaining epics — though serving 
as food for the curious, and as storehouses for logographers, 
tragedians, and artists — never seem to have acquired very wide 
popularity even among intellectual Greeks. 

I shall, in the succeeding chapter, give some account of the 
epic cycle, of its relation to th*3 Homeric poems, and of the 
general evidence* respecting the l*t<er, both as to antiquity and 



At the head of the once abundant epical compositions of 
Greece, most of them unfortunately lost, stand the Iliad and 
Odyssey, with the immortal name of Homer attached to each 
of them, embracing separate portions of the comprehensive 
legend of Troy. They form the type of what may be called 
the heroic epic of the Greeks, as distinguished from the gene- 
alogical, in which latter species some of the Hesiodic poems — 
the Catalogue of Wwnen, the Eoiai, and the Naup^ktia — 


stood conspicuous. Poems of the Homeric character (if so it 
may be called, though the expression is very indefinite,) — being 
confined to one of the great events, or great personages of Gre 
cian legendary antiquity, and comprising a limited number of 
characters, all contemporaneous, made some approach, more or less 
successful, to acertain poetical unity ; while the Hesiodic poems, 
tamer in their spirit, and unconfined both as to time and as to 
persons, strung together distinct events without any obvious view 
to concentration of interest, — without legitimate beginning or 
end. 1 Between these two extremes there were many gradations : 
biographical poems, such as the Herakleia, or Thesei's, recounting 
all the principal exploits performed by one single hero, present a 
character intermediate between the two, but bordering more 
closely on the Hesiodic Even the hymns to the gods, which 
pass under the name of Homer, are epical fragments, narrating 
particular exploits or adventures of the god commemorated. 

Both the didactic and the mystico-religious poetry of Greece 
began in Hexameter verse, — the characteristic and consecrated 
measure of the epic : 9 but they belong to a different species, and 
burst out from a different vein in the Grecian mind. It seems to 
have been the more common belief among the historical Greeks, 
that such mystic effusions were more ancient than their narrative 
poems, and that Orpheus, Musaeus, Linus, Olen, Pamphus, rod 
even Hesiod, etc, etc, the reputed composers of the former, were 
of earlier date than Homer. But there is no evidence to sustain 
this opinion, and the presumptions are all against it. Those com- 
positions, which in the sixth century before the Christian era 
passed under the name of Orpheus and Musteus, seem to have 
been unquestionably post-Homeric, nor can we even admit the 
modified conclusion of Hermann, Ulrici, and others, that the 
mystic poetry as a genus (putting aside the particular composi- 
tions falsely ascribed to Orpheus and others) preceded in order 
of time the narrative. 3 

1 Aristot Poet c. 17-37. He points out and explains the superior struc 
tare of the Iliad and Odyssey, as compared with the semi Homeric and bio 
graphical poems : but he takes no notice of the Hesiodic, or genealogical. 

* Aristot Poetic, c. 41. He considers the Hexameter to be the naturd 
measure of narrative poetry : any other would be unseemly. 

9 Ulrici, Geschichte des Oriechischen Epos, 5te Vorlesung, pp. 96-105 
G. Hermann, Ueber Homer und Sappho, in his Opuscula, torn, ri >. 80, 

120 Bl&ri'ltT OF GREECE. 

Besides the Iliad and Odyssey, we make out the titles el 
about thirty lost epic poems, sometimes with a brief hint of their 

Concerning the legen 1 of Troy there were five : the Cyprian 
Verses, the JEthiopis, and the Capture of Troy, both ascribed to 
Arktinus ; the lesser Iliad, ascribed to Lesch&3 ; the Returns (of 
the Heroes from Troy), to which the name of Hagias of Trazen 
is attached ; and the Telegonia, by Eugammdn, a continuation of 
the Odyssey. Two poems, — the Thebais and the Epigoni (per- 
haps two parts of one and the same poem) were devoted to the 
legend of Thebes, — the two sieges of that city by the Argeiana. 
Another poem, called (Edipodia, had for its subject the tragical 
destiny of CEdipus and his family ; and perhaps that which is 
cited as Eurdpia, or verses on Europa, may have comprehended 
the tale of her brother Kadmus, the mythical founder of Thebes. 1 

The exploits of Herakles were celebrated in two compositions, 
sach called H6rakleia, by KinaethOn and Pisander, — probably 
also in many others, of which the memory has not been preserved. 
The capture of (Echalia, by Herakles, formed the subject of a 
separate epic Two other poems, the JEgimius and the Minyas, 
are supposed to have been founded on other achievements of this 
hero, — the effective aid which he lent to the Dorian king JEgi- 
mius against the Lapithse, his descent to the under- world for the 
purpose of rescuing the imprisoned Theseus, and his conquest of 
the city of the Minyae, the powerful Orchomenus. 9 

Other epic poems — the Phoronis, the Danais, the Alkmaednis, 
the Atthis, the Amazonia — we know only by name, and can just 
guess obscurely at their contents so far as the name indicates. 3 

The superior antiquity of Orpheus a* compared with Homer passed as ft 
received position to the classical Romans (Horat. Art Poet. 392). 

1 Respecting these lost epics, see*DiraUer, Collection of the Fragment* 
Eplcor. GrsBcorum ; Wttllner, De Cyclo Epico, pp. 43-66 j and Mr. Fynes 
Clinton's Chronology, vol. Hi. pp. 349-359. 

• Welcker, Der Epische Kyklns, pp. 256-266 ; ApollodoT. n. 7, 7 j Dioddi 
iv. 37 ; O. MQller, Dorians, i. 28. 

9 Welcker (Der Epische Kyklns, p. 209) considers the Alkma6nis as the 
same with the Epigoni, and the Atthis of Hegesinous the same with the 
Amazonia: in Snides (v. 'Opnpoc) the latter is among the poems ascribed to 

Leutsch (Thebaidos Cyclicss Tteliquire, pp. 12-14) views the Thebais md 
•he Epigoni as different parts of the same uocm. 


The Titanomachia, the Gigantomachia, and the Corinthiaca, 
three compositions all ascribed to Eum&us, afford by means of 
their titles an idea somewhat clearer of the matter which thej 
comprised. The Theogony ascribed to Hesiod still exists, though 
partially corrupt and mutilated : but there seem to have been 
Other poems, now lost, of the like import and title. 

Of the poems composed in the Hesiodic style, diffusive and 
lull of genealogical detail, the principal were, the Catalogue of 
Women and the Great Eoiai ; the latter of which, indeed, seems 
to have been a continuation of the former. A large number of 
the celebrated women of heroic Greece were commemorated in 
these poems, one after the other, without any other than an arbi- 
trary bond of connection. The Marriage of Keyx, — the Me- 
lampodia, — and a string of fables called Astronomia, are farther 
ascribed to Hesiod : and the poem above mentioned, called -<Egi- 
mius, is also sometimes connected with his name, sometimes with 
that of Kerkops. The Naupaktian Verses (so called, probably, 
from the birthplace of their author), and the genealogies of 
Kinarthdn and Asius, were compositions of the same rambling 
character, as far as we can judge from the scanty fragments re- 
maining. 1 The Orchomenian epic poet Chersias, of whom two 
lines only are preserved to us by Pausanias, may reasonably be 
referred to the same category.* 

The oldest of the epic poets, to whom any date, uurying with 
it the semblance of authority, is assigned, is Arktinus of Mil&tus, 
who is placed by Eusebius in the first Olympiad, and by Suidas 
in the ninth. Eugammdn, the author of the Telegonia, and the 
latest of the catalogue, is placed in the fifty-third Olympiad, b. g. 
566. Between these two we find Asius and Lesches, about the 
thirtieth Olympiad, — a time when the vein of the ancient epic 
was drying up, and when other forms of poetry — elegiac, iambic, 
lyric, and choric — had either already arisen, or were on the 
point of arising, to compete with it. 3 

1 See the Fragments of Hesiod, Eumelos, Kinfethdn, and Asia*, in the 
eoUcctMHis of Marktecheffel, Duntzer, Gottling, and Gaisford 

I have already, in going otct the ground of Grecian legend, l e far c d to al 
tVese lost poems, in their proper places. 

• Pansan. ix. 88, 6 ; Plutarch, Sept Sap. Cost. p. 156. 

» See Mr. Clinton's Fasti Hellenid, about the date of Arktbins, vol i p 880 

TOL. IL 6 


It has already been stated in a former chapter, that in the early 
commencements of prose-writing, Hekatseus, Pherekydes, and 
other logographers, made it their business to extract from the 
ancient fables something like a continuous narrative, chronolog- 
ically arranged. It was upon a principle somewhat analogous 
that the Alexandrine literati, about the second century before the 
Christian era, 1 arranged the multitude of old epic poets into a 
series founded on the supposed order of time in the events nar- 
rated, — beginning with the intermarriage of Uranus and Gse, 
and the Theogony, — and concluding with the death of Odysseus 
by the hands of his son Telegonus. This collection passed by 
the name of the Epic Cycle, and the poets, whose compositions 
were embodied in it, were termed Cyclic poets. Doubtless, the 
epical treasures of the Alexandrine library were larger than had 
ever before been brought together and submitted to men both of 
learning and leisure : so that multiplication of such compositions 
in the same museum rendered it advisable to establish some fixed 
order of perusal, and to copy them in one corrected and uniform 
edition. 9 It pleased the critics to determine precedence, neither 

1 Perhaps Zenodotus, the superintendent of the Alexandrine library under 
Ptolemy Philadelphia, in the third century B.C.: there is a Scholion on 
Plautus, published not many years ago by Osann, and since more fully by 
Ritschl, — a Ctecius in commento Comosdiarum Aristophanis in Pluto, — 
Alexander JEtolus, et Lycophron Chalcidensis, et Zenodotus Ephcsius, im- 
pulsu regis Ptolemsei, Philadelphi cognomento, artis poetices libros in unum 
collegerunt et in ordinem redegemnt. Alexander tragoedias, Lycophron 
comoedias, Zenodotus vera Homeri poemata et reliquorum illustrium poet- 
arum." See Lange, Ueber die Kyklischen Dichter, p. 56 (Mainz. 1837); 
Welcker, Der Epische Kyklus, p. 8 ; Ritschl, Die Alexandrinischen Biblio- 
theken, p. 3 (Breslau, 1838). 

Lange disputes the sufficiency of this passage as proof that Zenodotus 
was the framer of the Epic Cycle : his grounds are, however, unsatisfactory 
to me. 

* That there existed a cyclic copy or edition of the Odyssey (^ kvkXikt)) k 
proved by two passages in the Scholia (xvl 195; xvii. 25), with Boeckh't 
remark in Buttmann's edition : this was the Odyssey copied or edited along 
with the other poems of the cycle. 

Our word to edit — or edition — suggests ideas not exactly suited to the 
proceedings of the Alexandrine library, in which we cannot expect to find 
anything like what is now called publication. That magnificent establish- 
ment, possessing a large collection of epical manuscripts, and ample means 
of every kind at command, would naturally desire to have these compoti 


by antiquity nor by excellence of the compositions themselves, 
but by the supposed sequence of narrative, so that the whole 
taken together constituted a readable aggregate of epical an- 

Much obscurity 1 exists, and many (Liferent opinions have been 
expressed, respecting this Epic Cycle : I view it, not as an ex- 
clusive canon, but simply as an all-comprehensive classification, 
with a new edition founded thereupon. It would include all the 
epic poems in the library older than the Telegonia, and apt for 
continuous narrative ; it would exclude only two classes, — first, 
the recent epic poets, such as Panyasis and Antimachus ; next, 
the genealogical and desultory poems, such as the Catalogue of 
Women, the Eoiai, and others, which could not be made to fit 
in to any chronological sequence of events. 3 Both the Iliad and 

tions put in order and corrected by skilful hands, and then carefully copied 
for the use of the library. Such copy constitutes the cyclic edition: they 
might perhaps cause or permit duplicates to be made, but the Udomg or 
edition was complete without them. 

1 Respecting the great confusion in which the Epic Cycle is involved, see 
the striking declaration of Buttmann, Addenda ad Scholia in Odysseum, p 
575 : compare the opinions of the different critics, as enumerated at the end 
of Welcker's treatise, Episch. Eyk. pp. 420-453. 

* Our information respecting the Epic Cycle is derived from Eutychius 
Proclus, a literary man of Sicca during the second century of the Christian 
era, and tutor of Marcus Antoninus (Jul. Capitolin. Vit. Marc, c 2), — not 
from Proclus, called Diadochus, the new-Platonic philosopher of the fifth 
century, as Heyne, Mr. Clinton, and others have imagined. The fragments 
from his work called Chrestomathia, give arguments of several of the lost 
cyclic poems connected with the Siege of Troy, communicating the import 
ant fact that the Iliad and Odyssey were included in the cycle, and giving 
the following description of the principle upon which it was arranged: 
AiaXafiftavei 61 irepl toO fayopevov hvmov kvkXov, 6f apxerat fitv kit rfft 

OifXtvov Kal Trj{ SfioXoyovuivTjc pifrw , xdl neparovrai 6 hrucbt 

«faAof, in dtatyopov iroLTjrtnf ovfiirbijpovftevot, fiexpi rrjc &iropaaeo( 'Odvroluf 

Aiyei <Jfr tif rov farucov kvkXov t& iroitifiara 6iaadC,trcu nal awovda- 

Zrrai role iroXXolc obx o$to Sid. iifv dperifv, &c dtii lifv d.KoTj.ovdiav rfi» 
iv airy irpayparuv (ap. Photium, cod. 289). 

This much-commented passage, while it clearly marks out the cardinal 
principle of the Epic Cycle (&Ko\ov$ia irpay/iarov), neither affirms nor de- 
lies anything respecting the excellence of the constituent poems. Proclus 
speaks of the taste common in fak own time {onovdaCercu toff voXXalc) : 
there was not much relish in Us time te these poems as such, bat people 


the Odyssey were comprised in the Cycle, so that the denomina- 
tion of cyclic poet did not originally or designedly carry with il 
any association of contempt But as the great and capital poems 
were chiefly spoken of by themselves, or by the tide of their 
own separate authors, so the general name of poet* of the Cycle 
came gradually to be applied only to the worst, and thus to imply 
vulgarity or common-place ; the more so, as many of the inferior 
compositions included in the collection seem to have been anony- 
mous, and their authors in consequence describable only under 
some such common designation as that of the cyclic poete. It is 
in this manner that we are to explain the disparaging sentiment 
connected by Horace and others with the idea of a cyclic writer, 
though no such sentiment was implied in the original meaning of 
the Epic Cycle. 

The poems of the Cycle were thus mentioned in contrast and 
antithesis with Homer, 1 though originally the Iliad and Odyssey 

were much interested in the sequence of epical events. The abstracts which 
he himself drew up in the form of arguments of several poems, show that 
lie adapted himself to this taste. We cannot collect from his words thai he 
Intended to express any opinion of his own respecting the goodness or bad- 
ness of the cyclic poems. 

1 The gradual growth of a contemptuous feeling towards the emptor 
ofdicut (Horat. Ars. Poetic. 136), which was not originally implied in the 
name, is well set forth by Lang* (Ueber die Kyklisch. Dicht pp. 53-56). 

Both Lange (pp. 36-41 ), however, and Ulrici (Geschichte des Qriech. Epos, 
tte Vorles. p. 418) adopt another opinion with respect to the cycle, which I 
think unsupported and inadmissible, — that the several constituent poems 
were not received into it entire (i. e. with only such changes as were requi- 
site for a corrected text), but cut down and abridged in such manner as to 
produce an exact continuity of narrative. Lange even imagines that the 
cyclic Odyssey was thus dealt with. But there seems no evidence to coun- 
tenance this theory, which would convert the Alexandrine literati from critics 
Into logographers. That the cyclic Iliad and Odyssey were the same in the 
main (allowing for corrections of text) as the common Iliad and Odyssey, it 
shown by the fact, that Proclus merely names them in the series without 
giving any abstract of their contents : they weru too well known to render 
such a process necessary. Nor does either the language of Proclus, or that 
of CaKius as applied to Zenodotus, indicate any transformation applied to 
the poets whose works are described to have been brought together and put 
Into a certain order. 

The hypothesis of Lange is founded upon the idea that the (dtoAtvwia 
nfiayubruv) continuity of narrated events must necessarily have been exact 


had both been included among them : and this alteration of the 
meaning of the word has given birth to a mistake as to the pri- 
mary purpose of the classification, as if it had been designed espe- 
cially to part off the inferior epic productions from Homer. Bat 
while some critics are disposed to distinguish the cyclic poets too 
pointedly from Homer, I conceive that Welcker goes too much 
into the other extreme, and identifies the Cycle too closely with 
that poet. He construes it as a classification deliberately framed 
to comprise all the various productions of the Homeric epic, 
with its unity of action and comparative paucity, both of persons 
and adventures, — as opposed to che Hesiodic epic, crowded with 
separate persons and pedigrees, and destitute of central action as 
well as of closing catastrophe. This opinion does, indeed, coincide 
to a great degree with the fact, inasmuch as few of the Hesiodic 
epics appear to have been included in the Cycle : to say thnt 
none were included, would be too much, for we cannot venture to 
set aside either the Theogony or the -flCgimius; but we may 
account for their absence perfectly well without supposing any 
design to exclude them, for it is obvious that their rambling 
character (like that of the Metamorphoses of Ovid) forbade the 
possibility of interweaving them in any continuous series. Con- 
tinuity in the series of narrated events, coupled with a certain 
degree of antiquity in the poems, being the principle on which 
the arrangement called the Epic Cycle was based, the Hesiodic 
poems generally were excluded, not from any preconceived in- 
tention, but because they could not be brought into harmony with 
such orderly reading. 

What were the particular poems which it comprised, we can- 
not now determine with exactness. Welcker arranges them as 

and without tweak, as if the whole Constituted one work. But this wool J 
not be possible, let the framera do what they might : moreover, in the attempt, 
the individuality of all the constituent poets mast have been sacrificed, in 
such manner that it would be absurd to discuss their separate merits. 

The continuity of narrative in the Epic Cycle could not have seen man 
than approximate, — as complete as the poems composing it would admit: 
nevertheless, it would be correct to say that the poems were arranged in 
•tries upon this principle and upon no other. The librarians might have 
arranged in like manner the vast mass of tragedies in their possession (V 
laey had chosen to do so) upon the principle of sequence in the subject! 
had they done to, the series would have formed a Tragic CyfJc 


follows : Titanomuchia, Danai's, Amazonia (or Atthis), GEdipo- 
dia, Thebais (or Expedition of Amphiaraus), Epigoni (or AJk- 
maeonis), Minyas (or Phokai's), Capture of (Echalia, Cyprian 
Verses, Iliad, JEthiopis, Lesser Iliad, Iliupersis or the Taking 
of Troy, Returns of the Heroes, Odyssey, and Telegonia. Wuell- 
ner, Lange, and Mr. Fynes Clinton enlarge the list of cyclic 
poems still farther.! But all such reconstructions of the Cycle 
are conjectural and destitute of authority : the only poems which 
we can affirm on positive grounds to have been comprehended in 
it, are, first, the series respecting the heroes of Troy, from the 
Cypria to the Telegonia, of which Proclus has preserved the 
arguments, and which includes the Iliad and Odyssey, — next, 
the old Thebais, which is expressly termed cyclic, 9 in order to dis- 
tinguish it from the poem of the same name composed by Anti- 
machus. In regard to other particular compositions, we have no 
evidence to guide us, either for admission or exclusion, except 
our general views as to the scheme upon which the Cycle was 
framed. If my idea of that scheme be correct, the Alexandrine 
critics arranged therein all their old epical treasures, down to 
the Telegonia, — the good as well as the bad ; gold, silver, and 
iron, — provided only they could be pieced in with the narrative 
series. But I cannot venture to include, as Mr. Clinton does, 
the EurGpia, the Phordnis, and other poems of which we know 
only the names, because it is uncertain whether their contents 
were such as to fulfil their primary condition : nor can I concur 
with him in thinking that, where there were two or more poems 
of the same title and subject, one of them must necessarily have 
been adopted into the Cycle to the exclusion of the others. There 
may have been two Theogonies, or two Herakleias, both compre- 
hended in the Cycle ; the purpose being (as I before remarked), 
not to sift the better from the worse, but to determine some fixed 
order, convenient for reading and reference, amidst a multiplicity 
of scattered compositions, as the basis of a new, entire, and cor- 
rected edition. 

1 Welcker, Der Epische Kyklus, pp. 37-41 ; Wuellner, De Cyclp Bpico, 
p. 48, seq. ; Lange, TTeber die Kyklischen Dichter, p. 47 ; Clinton, Fasti He* 
lurid, vol. i. p. 349. 

9 8chol Pindar Olymp. vi. 26 ; Athena. zL p. 465. 

HOMER. 117 

Whatever may have been the principle on which the cyclic 
poems were originally strung together, they are all now lost, 
except those two unrivalled diamonds, whose brightness, dim* 
ming all the rest, has alone sufficed to confer imperishable glory 
even upon the earliest phase of Grecian life. It has been the 
natural privilege of the Iliad and Odyssey, from the rise of 
Grecian philology down to the present day, to provoke an in* 
tense curiosity, which, even in the historical and literary days of 
Greece, there were no assured facts to satisfy. These composi- 
tions are the monuments of an age essentially religious and poet- 
ical, but essentially also unphilosophical, unreflecting, and unre- 
cording : the nature of the case forbids our having any authentic 
transmitted knowledge respecting such a period ; and the lesson 
must be learned, hard and painful though it be, that no imaginable 
reach of critical acumen will of itself enable us to discriminate 
fancy from reality, in the absence of a tolerable stock of evidence. 
After the numberless comments and acrimonious controversies 1 
to which the Homeric poems have given rise, it can hardly be 
said that any of the points originally doubtful have obtained a 
solution such as to command universal acquiescence. To glance 
at all these controversies, however briefly, would far transcend 
the limits of the present work ; but the most abridged Grecian 
history would be incomplete without some inquiry respecting the 
Poet (so the Greek critics in their veneration denominated Homer), 
and the productions which pass now, or have heretofore passed, 
under his name. 

Who or what was Homer ? What date is to be assigned to 
him ? What were his compositions ? 

A person, putting these questions to Greeks of different towns 
and ages, would have obtained answers widely discrepant and 
contradictory. Since the invaluable labors of Aristarchus and 

1 It is a memorable illustration of that bitterness which has so much dis- 
graced the controversies of literary men in all ages (I fear, we can make no 
exception), when we find Paosanias saving that he had examined into the 
ages of Hesiod and Homer with the most laborious scrutiny, but that he 
knew too well the calumnious dispositions of contemporary critics and poets, 
to declare what conclusion he had come to (Pans. ix. 80, 2) : Tlcpl <fe 'Hoiodov 
re ^Xuuaf zeal 'Opqpov, icoXvicpayfiovifomrri if rd faptfioraTov oi fioi ypa^etw 
*5t> }?, hrurrafibv rd ^falrum MXov rt cat <*x t«*ra 600c w> if* fart 

%WQ01f ffS)V WWW Ka&tUJT$ KtO QB» 


the other Alexandrine critic* on the text of the Iliad and Odys- 
sey, it has, indeed, been customary to regard those two (patting 
aside the Hymns, and a few other minor poems) as being the 
only genuine Homeric compositions : and the literary ssen called 
Chorizontes, or the Separators, at the head of whom were Xenon 
and Helmnikns, endeavored still farther to reduce the number 
by disconnecting the Iliad and Odyssey, and pointing out that 
both could not be the work of the same author. Throughout 
the whole course of Grecian antiquity, the Iliad and the Odys- 
sey, and the Hymns, have been received as Homeric : but if we 
go back to the time of Herodotus, or stall earlier, we find that 
several other epics also were ascribed to Homer, — and there 
were not wanting l critics, earlier than the Alexandrine age, who 
regarded the whole Epic Cycle, together with the satirical poem 
called Margitta, the Batrachomyomachia, and other smaller pieces, 
a* Homeric works. The cyclic Thebais and the Epigoni (whether 
they be two separate poems, or the latter a second part of the 
former) were in early days currently ascribed to Homer: the 
same was the case with the Cyprian Verses : some even attri* 
buted to him several other poems, 9 the Capture of CEchalia, the 
Lesser Iliad, the Phokais, and the Amazonia. The title of the 
poem called Thebais to be styled Homeric, depends upon evi* 
dence more ancient than any which can be produced to authenti- 
cate the Iliad and Odyssey: for Kallinus, the ancient elegiac 
poet (b. a 640), mentioned Homer as the author of it, — and his 
opinion was shared by many other competent judges. 8 From the 

1 See the extract of Proclus, in Photius Cod. 239. 

* Suidas, v. 'O/ttyx* ; Eustath. ad Iliad, ii. p. 330. 

1 Pausan. be. 9, 3. The Dame of Kallinus in that passage seems certainly 
correct: Ta 6k inij ravra (the Thebais) KoXXivof, cfyiffjpevoc a*rti» If 
jvnpvv, fyistv 'Oftqpw rdv iroiffoavra elvai • KaXXivy 6i volXoi re 
dfcoc "koyov cord rafrrd tyvuoav. 'Ey£ 6h rip noitjaiv ravrffv pera yt 'IA 
<fo kclI 'Odfaretav hraivu fiaXtara. 

To the same purpose the author of the Oertamea of Hesiod and Horn. « 
and the pseudo-Herodotus (Vit. Homer, c 9). The 'Ap^apeu efefaria, 
sHudcd to in Suidas as the production of Homer, nay be nasouably identi- 
fied with the Thebais (Suidas, t. 'Ofa/p*). 

The cydographer Dionysius, who affirmed that Homer had Sired fcetasu 
the Theban and the Trojan wars, must hare l e u o gmae d that poet as " 
«T the Thebais as well as of the Iliad (ap. Prod, ad Heskri. p,S>. 

homeb. ISM 

pwnarka. le description given by Herodotus, of the expulsion of the 
rhapsodes from Sikydn, by the despot KLeisthente, in the time 
of Solon (about B. o. 580), we may form a probable judgment 
that the Thebaia and the Epigoni were then rhapsodized at Sik- 
yon as Homeric productions. 1 And it is clear from the language 

Herodot y. 67. KXtio&evijs ytip 'Apyeiotci noXepfaac — rovro piv, fn- 
^V<5ot^ hravae kv Soruwvc dywifecrda*, ruv 'O/uipiUtv kniuv efoe«a, &ti 
'Apyeioi r« koX 'Apyof rd, iroXkb navra ifiviarai — tovto dh, Jjp<t>ov y&p }p> 
tat iari kv aifTy rg iiyopg. ruv linvvviuv 'Kdprjorov rov TaXaov, tovtov 
hre&vftifai 6 KXeio&hnjc, kovra 'Apyelov, kicfiaXelv kit ttjc X&PVC- Herodotus 
then goes on to relate how Kleisthenfe carried into effect his purpose of 
banishing the hero Adrastas : first, he applied to the Delphian Apollo, for 
permission to do so directly, and avowedly ; next, on that permission being 
refused, he made application to the Thebans, to allow him to introduce into 
Sikydn their hero Melanippns, the bitter enemy of Adrastns in the old 
Theban legend ; by their consent, he consecrated a chapel to Melanippns in 
Jie most commanding part of the Sikyonian agora, and men transferred to 
me newly-imported hero the rites and festivals which had before been given 
to Adrastns. 

Taking in conjunction all the points of this very cnrions tale, I venture to 
think that the rhapsodes incurred the displeasure of Kleisthenes by reciting, 
not the Homeric Iliad, but the Homeric Thebal* and Epigoni, The former does 
not answer the conditions of the narrative : the latter fulfils them accurately. 

1. It cannot be said, even by the utmost latitude of speech, that, in the 
Iliad, " Little else is sung except Argos and the Argeians," — (" in illis ubique 
fere nonnisi Argos et Argivi celebrantur, ") — is the translation of Schweigh- 
huuser) : Argos is rarely mentioned in it, and never exalted into any primary 
importance: the Argeians, as inhabitants of Argos separately, are never do 
ticed at all: that name is applied in the Iliad, in common with the Ackceans 
and Dcmaaru, only to the general body of Greeks, — and even applied to 
them much less frequently than the name of Achaan*. 

S. Adrastns is twice, and only twice, mentioned in the Iliad, as master of 
Ike wonderful horse Areion, and as father-in-law of Tydeus ; but he makes 
bjo figure in the poem, and attracts no interest. 

Wherefore, though Kleisthente anight have been ever so much incensed 
against Argos and Adrastns, there seems no reason why he should have 
interdicted the rhapsodes from reciting the Iliad. On the other hand, the 
Thebals and Epigoni could not fail to provoke him especially. For, 

1. Argos and its inhabitants were the grand subject of the poem, and the 
proclaimed assailants in the expedition against Th6bes. Though the poem 
Itself is lost, the first line of it has been preserved (Loatsch, Theb. Cysi 
ReHq. p. 5; compare Sophocles, GBd. Col. 860 with Sesjotia),— 
'Apyoc aeide, <feu % vo\v8i$io» % Mtp fooffTcr, Ate. 

vol. n & to* 


of Herodotus, that in his time the general opinion ascribed to 
Homer both the Cyprian Verses and the Epigoni, though ha 
himself dissents. 1 In spite of such dissent, however, that his- 
torian must have conceived the names of Homer and Hesiod to 
be nearly coextensive with the whole of the ancient epic ; other* 
wise, he would hardly have delivered his memorable judgment, 
that they two were the framers of Grecian iheogony. 

The many different cities which laid claim to the birth of 
Homer (seven is rather below the truth, and Smyrna and Chic* 
are the most prominent among them,) is well known, acd most of 
them had legends to tell respecting his romantic parentage, his 
alleged blindness, and his life of an itinerant bard, acquainted 
with poverty and sorrow. 9 The discrepancies of statement re- 

2. A&raatus was king of Argos, and the chief of the expedition. 
It is therefore literally true, that Argos and the Argnians were u the harden 
of the song " in these two poems. 
To this we may add — 

1. The rhapsodes would have the strongest motive to recite the Thebals 
and Epigoni at Sikydn, whore Adrastus was worshipped and enjoyed so vast 
a popularity, and where he even attracted to himself the choric solemnities 
which in other towns were given to Dionysus. 

2. The means which Kleisthene's took to get rid of Adrastus indicates a 
special reference to the ThcbaTs : he invited from Thlbes the hero Melanip 
pus, the Hector of Thfibes, in that very poem. 

For these reasons, I think we may conclude that the 'Orfpeia krni, alluded 
to in this very illustrative story of Herodotus, are the Thebals and the Epi- 
goni, not the Iliad. 

1 Herodot. ii. 117 ; iv 32. The words in which Herodotus intimates hii 
own dissent from the reigning opinion, are treated as spurious by F. A. 
Wolf, and vindicated by Schweighhauser : whether they be admitted or no^ 
the general currency of the opinion adverted to is equally evident. 

* The Life of Homer, which passes falsely under the name of Herodotus, 
contains a collection of these different stories : it is supposed to have bee* 
written about the second century after the Christian era, but the statements 
which it furnishes are probably several of them as old as Ephorus (compare 
also Proclus ap. Photium, c 239). 

The belief in the blindness of Homer is doubtless of far more ancient 
date, since the cirenmstance appears mentioned in the Homeric Hymn to 
the Delian Apollo where the bard of Chios, in some very touching lines, 
recommends himself and his strains to the favor of the Delian maidens 
employed in the worship of Apollo. This hymn is cited by Thncydidte as 
•aqnestionably authentic, and he doubtless accepted the lines as a descrip- 
tion of the personal condition and relations of the author of the Iliad and 


ipttviug the date o/ his reputed existence are no less worthy of 
remark ; for out of the eight different epochs assigned to him, the 
oldest differs from the most recent by a period of four hundred 
and sixty }rears. 

Thus conflicting would have been the answers returned in dif- 
ferent portions of the Grecian world to any questions respecting 
the person of Homer. But there were a poetical gens (fraternity 
or guild) in the Ionic island of Chios, who, if the question had 
been put to them, would have answered in another manner. To 
them, Homer was not a mere antecedent man, of kindred nature 
with themselves, but a divine or semi-divine eponymus and pro- 
genitor, whom they worshipped in their gentile sacrifices, and in 
whose ascendent name and glory the individuality of every mem- 
ber of the gens was merged. The compositions of each separata 
Homerid, or the combined efforts of many of them in conjunc- 
tion, were the works of Homer : the name of the individual bard 
perishes and his authorship is forgotten, but the common gentile 

Odyssey (Thucyd. iii. 104): Simonid&s of Keds also calls Homer a Chiaa 
(Frag. 69, Schneidewin). 

There were also tales which represented Homer as the contemporary, the 
cousin, and the rival in recited composition, of Hesiod, who (it was pretend- 
ed) had vanquished him. See the Certamen Homed et Hesiodi, annexed 
to the works of the latter (p. 314, ed. Gottling ; and Plutarch, Conviv. Sept 
Sapient c. 10), in which also various stories respecting the Life of Homer 
are scattered. The emperor Hadrian consulted the Delphian oracle to know 
who Homer was : the answer of the priestess reported him to be a native of 
Ithaca, the son of Telemachus and Epikaste, daughter of Nestor (Certamen 
Horn, et Hes. p. 314). The author of this Certamen tells us that the author- 
ity of the Delphian oracle deserves implicit confidence. 

Hellanikus, Damastes, and PherekydSs traced both Homer and Hesiod 
up to Orpheus, through a pedigree of ten generations (see Stura, Fragment 
fiellanic. fr. 75-144; compare also Lobeck's remarks — Aglaophamus, p. 323 
— on the subject of these genealogies). The computations of these authors 
earlier than Herodotus are of value, because they illustrate the habits of 
mind in which Grecian chronology began : the genealogy might be easily 
continued backward to any length in the past. To trace Homer up to 
Orpheus, however, would not have been consonait to the belief of ths 

The contentions of the different cities which disputed for the birth of 
Homer, and, indeed, aJL the legendary anecdotes circulated in antiquity in 
ipecting the poet, are ooptooty discussed in Wekker, Dv Epfcohe Kykka 
(pp. 194*199). 


fhther lives and grows in renown, from generation to genera 
lion, by the genius of Ids self-renewing sons. 

Such was the conception entertained of Homer by the poetical 
gens called Homeridae, or Hom&rids ; and in the general ob- 
scurity of the whole case, 1 lean towards it as the most plausible 
conception. Homer is not only the reputed author of the various 
compositions emanating from the gentile members, but also the 
recipient of the many different legends and of the divine gene* 
alogy, which it pleases their imagination to confer upon him. 
Such manufacture of fictitious personality, and such perfect 
incorporation of the entities of religion and fancy with the real 
world, is a process familiar, and even habitual, in the retrospec- 
tive vision of the Greeks. 1 

It is to be remarked, that the poetical gens here brought to 
view, the Homerids, are of indisputable authenticity. Their ex* 
istence and their considerations were maintained down to the 
historical times in the island of Chios. 9 If the Homerids were 
still conspicuous, even in the days of Akusilaus, Pindar, Hellani- 
kus, and Plato, when their productive invention had ceased, and 
when they had become only guardians and distributors, in com- 
mon with others, of the treasures bequeathed by their predeces- 
sors, — far more exalted must their position have been three 
centuries before, while they were still the inspired creators of 
epic novelty, and when the absence of writing assured to them 
the undisputed monopoly of their own compositions. 3 

1 Even Aristotle ascribed to Homer a divine parentage : a damsel of the 
isle of Ios, pregnant by some god, was carried off by pirates to Smyrna, at 
Ike time of the Ionic emigration, and there gave birth to the poet ( Aristotel. 
ap. Plutarch. Vit Homer, p. 1059). 

Plato seems to have considered Homer as having been an itinerant rhap- 
sode, poor and almost friendless (Hepubl. p. 600). 

* Pindar, Nem. ii. 1, and Scholia; Akusilaus, Fragm. SI, Didot; Harpo* 
fcnckra, v. 4 0^p«Jai; Hellanic, Fr. 55, Didot; Strabo, xiv. p. 645. 

It seems by a passage of Plato (Phssdrn*, p. 252), that the Homend» 
pre/essed to possess unpublished verses of their ancestral poet — ftny unodera 
Compare Plato, Republic, p. 599, and Isocrat Helen, p. 21 a 

•Nitasch (De Historia Homeri, Fascic. 1, p. 128, Fascic. 2, p. 71), and 
Ulrfct (Geachichte der Spisch. Poesie, voL i. pp. 240-381) question the anfft* 
qoisy of the Homerid gens, and limit their functions to simple reciters, daap* 
ing that they ever composed songi or poems of their own. Yet these t 


Homer, then, is no individual man, but the divine or? heron 
mther (the ideas of worship and ancestry coalescing, as they 
constantly did in the Grecian mind) of the gentile Homerids, 
and he is the author of the Thebai's, the Epigoni, the Cyprian 
Verses, the Proteins, or Hymns, and other poems, in the same 
sense in which he is the author of the Iliad and Odyssey, — as- 
suming that these various compositions emanate, as perhaps they 
may, from different individuals numbered among the Homerids. 
But this disallowance of the historical personality of Homer is 
quite distinct from the question, with which it has been often 
confounded, whether the Iliad and Odyssey are originally entire 
poems, and whether by one author or otherwise. To us, the 
name of Homer means these two poems, and little else : we desire 
to know as much as can be learned respecting their dale, their 
original composition, their preservation, and their mode of com- 
munication to the public All these questions are more or less 
complicated one with the other. 

Concerning the date of the poems, we have no other informa- 
tion except the various affirmations respecting the age of Homer, 

nidi 88 the Euneidss, the Lykomidss, the Butadss, the Talthybiadss, As 
defendants of Cheiron at Pelion, etc., the Hesychidse (Schol. Sophocl. CEdia. 
Col. 489), (the acknowledged parallels of the Homeridn), may be surely all 
considered as belonging to the earliest known elements of Grecian history : 
rarely, at least, if ever, can snch gens, with its tripartite character of civil, 
religions, and professional, be shown to have commenced at any recent period 
And in the early times, composer and singer were one person: often at 
least, though probably not always, the bard combined both functions. The 
Homerie fotdor sings his own compositions ; and it is reasonable to imagine 
that many of the early Homerids did the same. 

See Niebuhr, Romisch. Gesch. vol. i p. 324 ; and the treatise, Ueber die 
Bikeler in der Odyssee, — in the Rheinisches Museum, 182S, p. 257; sad 
Boeckh, in the Index of Contents to his Lectures of 1884. 

u The sage Vyasa (observes Professor Wilson, System of Hindu Mythology 
fat p. Ixii.) is represented, not as the author, but as the arranger and com- 
piler of the Votes and the Puranas. His name denotes his character, mean- 
ing As arranger or oVsfribitfsr ( Welcker gives the same meaning to the name 
Homer); and the recurrence of many Vyasas,— many individuals who new- 
modelled the Hindu scriptures, — has nothing in it that is improbable, except 
the fabulous intervals by which their labors are separated." Individual 
innd the thirst of perse— 1 distinction, are in this case also barfed 
> grant and etanmen name, as in the ease of Homer 


which differ among themselves (as I have before observed) by 
an interval of four hundred and sixty yean, and which for the 
most part determine the date of Homer by reference to some 
other event, itself fabulous and unauthenticated, — such as the 
Trojan war, the Return of the HSrakleids, or the Ionic migra- 
tion. Krat&s placed Homer earlier than the Return of the 
Herakleids, and less than eighty years after the Trojan war: 
Eratosthenes put him one hundred years after the Trojan war : 
Aristotle, Aristarchus, and Castor made his birth contemporary 
with the Ionic migration, while Apollodorus brings him down to 
(me hundred years after that event, or two hundred and forty 
years after the taking of Troy. Thucydides assigns to him a 
date much subsequent to the Trojan war. 1 On the other hand, 
Theopompus and Euphoridn refer his age to the far more recent 
period of the Lydian king, Gyges, (01. 18-23, b. c. 708-688,) 
and put him five hundred years after the Trojan epoch. 9 What 
were the grounds of these various conjectures, we do not know ; 
though in the statements of Krates and Eratosthenes, we may 
pretty well divine. But the oldest dictum preserved to us re- 
specting the date of Homer, — meaning thereby the date of the 
Iliad and Odyssey, — appears to me at the same time the most 
credible, and the most consistent with the general history of the 
ancient epic Herodotus places Homer four hundred years be- 
fore himself; taking his departure, not from any fabulous event, 
bat from a point of real and authentic time. 3 Four centuries 

1 Thucyd. i. 3. 

* See the statements and citations respecting the age of Homer, collected 
in Mr. Clinton's Chronology, vol i. p. 146. He prefers the view of Aristotle, 
and places the Iliad and Odyssey a century earlier than I am inclined to do, 
-940-927 B. c. 

Krates, probably placed the poet anterior to the Return of the Herakleids, 
because the Iliad makes no mention of Dorians in Peloponnesus : Erastof- 
thenes may be supposed to have grounded his date on the passage of the 
Iliad, which mentions the three generations descended from JEneas. We 
should hare been glad to know the grounds of the very low date assigned 
by Theopompus and Euphoridn. 

The pseudo-Herodotus, in his life of Homer, pats the birth of the poet 
one hundred and sixty-eight yean after the Trojan war. 

•Herodot ii. 68. Herakleidea Pontkus affirmed (bat Lykurgus had 
Imght into Peloponnesus the Homeric poems, which had before been 


interior to Herodotus would be a period commencing with 880 
3.C. so that the composition of the Homeric poems would thus 
fall in a space between 850 and 800 b. c. We may gathor from 
the language of Herodotus that this was his own judgment 
opposed to a current opinion, which assigned the poet to an 
earlier epoch. 

To place the Iliad and Odyssey at some periods between 850 
b. c. and 776 B. c, appears to me more probable than any other 
date, anterior or posterior, — more probable than the latter, be- 
cause we are justified in believing these two poems to be older 
than Arktinus, who comes shortly after the first Olympiad ; — 
more probable than the former, because, the farther we push the 
poems back, the more do we enhance the wonder of their pre- 
servation, already sufficiently great, down from such an age and 
society to the historical times. 

The mode in which these poems, and indeed all poems, epic as 
well as lyric, down to the age (probably) of Peisistratus, were 
circulated and brought to bear upon the public, deserves particu- 
lar attention. They were not read by individuals alone and 
apart, but sung pr recited at festivals or to assembled companies. 
This seems to be one of the few undisputed facts with regard to 
the great poet : for even those who maintain that the Iliad and 
Odyssey were preserved by means of writing, seldom contend 
that they were read. 

In appreciating the effect of the poems, we must always tako 
account of this great difference between early Greece and our 
own times, — between the congregation mustered at a solemn 
festival, stimulated by community of sympathy, listening to a 
measured and musical recital from the lips of trained bards or 
rhapsodes, whose matter was supposed to have been inspired by 
the Muse, — and the solitary reader, with a manuscript before 
him ; such manuscript being, down to a very late period in Greek 
literature, indifferently written, without division into parts, and 
without marks of punctuation. As in the case of dramatic per* 

unknown oat of Ionia. The supposed epoch of Lykurgus has sometimes 
been employed to sustain the date here resigned to the Homeric poems ; but 
•verything respecting Lykurgus is too d mbtful to serve as evidence in otbei 


formal .cea, in all ages, so in that of the earl/ Grecian epic, — a 
very large proportion of its impressive effect was derived from 
the talent of the reciter and the force of the general aooompani 
ments, and would have disappeared altogether in solitary reading. 
Originally, the bard sung his own epical narrative, commencing 
with a procsmium or hymn to one of the gods : l his profassioa 
was separate and special, like that of the carpenter, the leech, or 
the prophet : his manner and enunciation must have inquired par- 
ticular training no less than his imaginative faculty. His charac- 
ter presents itself in the Odyssey as one highly esteemed ; and 
in the Iliad, even Achilles does not disdain to touch the lyre 
with his own hands, and to sing heroic deeds. 9 Not only did 
the Iliad and Odyssey, and the poems embodied in the Epic 
Cycle, produce all their impression and gain all their renown by 
this process of oral delivery, but even the lyric and ehoric poets 
who succeeded them were known and felt in the same way by 
the general public, even after the full establishment of habits of 
reading among lettered men. While in the case of the epic, 
the recitation or singing had been extremely simple, and the 
measure comparatively little diversified, with no other accompan- 
iment than that of the four-stringed harp, — all the variations 
superinduced upon the original hexameter, beginning with the 
pentameter and iambus, and proceeding step by step to the < 

1 The Homeric hymns are proouns of this sort, some very short, consisting 
only of a few lines, — others of considerable length. The Hymn (or, rather, 
one of the two hymns) to Apollo is cited by Thucydides as the Prooem of 

The Hymns to Aphrodite, Apollo, Hermes, Demdter, and Dkmysw, am 
genuine epical narratives. Hermann (Prof, ad Hymn. p. lxxxix.) pro- 
Bounces the Hymn to Aphroditd to be the oldest and most genuine : portions 
of the Hymn to Apollo (Herm. p. xx.) are also very old, but both that hymn 
and the others are largely interpolated. His opinion respecting these inter* 
notations, however, is disputed by Franke (Trssrat ad Hymn. Homeric, p. 
ix-xix.) ; and the distinction between what is genuine and what is spartaa, 
depends upon criteria not jery distinctly assignable. Compare Ulriei, Geach. 
der Ep. Poes. pp. 385-391. 

• Phemius, Demodokus, and the nameless bard who guarded the fidelity 
Of KlytsBmnestra, bear out this position (Odyss. i. 155; lit. 267; vfii. 490; 
Kxi 390; Achilles in Iliad, ix. 190). 

A degree of inviolability seems attached to the person of the bud at wsl 
m to that of the herald (Odyss. xxii. 355-357). 


plicated strophes of Pindar and the tragic writers, still left the 
general effect of the poetry greatly dependent upon voice and 
accompaniments, and pointedly distinguished from mere solitary 
reading of the words. And in the dramatic poetry, the latit in 
order of time, the declamation and gesture of the speaking actor 
alternated with the song and dance of the chorus, and with the 
instruments of musicians, the whole being set off by imposing 
visible decorations. Now both dramatic effect and song are 
Ifrmiliftr in modern times, so that every man knows the difference 
between reading the words and hearing them under the appro- 
priate circumstances : but poetry, as such, is, and has now long 
been, so exclusively enjoyed by reading, that it requires an espe- 
cial memento to bring us back to the time when the Iliad and 
Odyssey were addressed only to the ear and feelings of a pro- 
miscuous and sympathizing multitude. Readers there were none, 
at least until the century preceding Solon and Feisistratus : from 
that time forward, they gradually increased both in number and 
influence; though doubtless small, even in the most literary 
period of Greece, as compared with modern European society. 
So far as the production of beautiful epic poetry was concerned, 
however, the select body of instructed readers, furnished a less 
potent stimulus than the unlettered and listening crowd of the 
earlier periods. The poems of Choerilus and Antimachus, 
towards the close of the Peloponnesian war, though admired by 
erudite men, never acquired popularity ; and the emperor Ha- 
drian failed in his attempt to bring the latter poet into fashion 
at the expense of Homer. 1 

: Spartian. Vit Hadrian, p. 8 ; Dio Cass. lxix. 4 : Flat. Tim. c. 36. 

There are some good observations on this point in Nake's comments on 
Choerilus, ch. viii. p. 59 : — 

" Habet hoc epica poesis, vera ilia, cajus perfectissimam normara agnoscv 
mus Homericam — habet hoc proprium, at non in possewione virorara 
eruditorum, sed quasi yiva sit et coram popalo recitanda : at cam popalo 
crescat, et si populus Deorum et antiquorum heroum facinora, quod prce- 
dpiam est epicn poeseos argumentum, aadire et secum repetere dedidicerit, 
obmatescat Id vero tarn factum est in Grsecia, quam populus ea state, 
quam pueritiam dicere possis, peracta, partim ad res serias tristesque, politi- 
cas maxime — easque multo, quam artea, impeditiores — abstrahebatnr: 
partim epica poeseos pertsBsus, ex aliis poeseos generibus, qua* turn nasce' 
bantur, noynm et diversum oblectamenti genus primo poBsagire, sibi, deinda 
haorire, ccepit." 


It will be seen by what has been here stated, that that clan of 
men, who formed the medium of communication between the 
verse and the ear, were of the highest importance in the ancient 
world, and especially in the earlier periods of its career, — the 
bards and rhapsodes for the epic, the singers for the lyric, the 
actors and singers jointly with the dancers for the chorus and 
drama. The lyric and dramatic poets taught with their own lips 
the delivery of their compositions, and so prominently did this 
business of teaching present itself to the view of the public, that 
the name Didaskalia, by which the dramatic exhibition was com 
monly designated, derived from thence its origin. 

Among the number of rhapsodes who frequented the festivals 
at a time when Grecian cities were multiplied and easy of access, 
for the recitation of the ancient epic, there must have been of 
course great differences of excellence ; but that the more consid- 
erable individuals of the class were elaborately trained and 
highly accomplished in the exercise of their profession, we may 
assume as certain. But it happens that Socrates, with his two 
pupils Plato and Xenophon, speak contemptuously of their merits ; 
ai d many persons have been disposed, somewhat too readily, to 
admit this sentence of condemnation as conclusive, without taking 
account of the point of view from which it was delivered. 1 These 

Nake remarks, too, that the u splendidissima et propria Homeric® pocseos 
sstas, ea qu» sponte quasi su& inter populum et quasi cum populo viveret," 
did not reach below Peisistratus. It did not, I think, reach even so low as 
that period. 

1 Xcnoph. Memorab. iv. 2, 10 ; and Sympos. iii. 6. OUr&d ri o$v Ifoof 

^?.i&Lurepov ^a^ipduv j Ay?.ov yap oti rdf irrovoiac ohr briaravrcu 

li> <Je XTTimpppoTty re kqX 'Ava^avdpp teat &XXotc iroAAotr froAt) oeoWof 
apyvpiov, Cxrre ovdiv oe rdv iro%?.ov a£iuv Xi?,ij^e, 

These vnovoiat are the hidden meanings, or allegories, which - certain set 
of philosophers undertook to discover in Homer, and whi di the rhapsodef 
were no way called upon to study. 

The Platonic dialogue, called Ion, ascribes to Ion the double function of a 
rhapsode, or impressive reciter, and a critical expositor of the poet (Isokrasfta 
also indicates the same double character, in the rhapsodes of his time, — 
Panathenaic, p. 240) ; but it conveys no solid grounds for a mean estimate of 
the class of rhapsodes, while it attests remarkably the striking effect produced 
by their recitation (c. C, p. 535). That this class of men came to combina 
the habit of expositor} comment on the poet with their original profei 
of reciting, proves the tendencies of the age ; probably, it also brought I 
Into rivalry with the philosophers. 


philosophers considered Homer and other poets with a view to 
instruction, ethical doctrine, and virtuous practice : they analyzed 
the characters whom the poet described, sifted the value of the 
lessons conveyed, and often struggled to discover a hidden mean- 
ing, where they disapproved that which was apparent. When they 
found a man like the rhapsode, who professed to impress the 
Homeric narrative upon an audience, and yet either never med- 
dled at all, or meddled unsuccessfully, with the business of expo- 
sition, they treated him with contempt; indeed, Socrates depre- 
ciates the poets themselves, much upon the same principle, as 
dealing with matters of which they could render no rational 
account. 1 It was also the habit of Plato and Xenophon to dis- 
parage generally professional exertion of talent for the purpose 
of gaining a livelihood, contrasting it often in an indelicate man- 
ner with the gratuitous teaching and ostentatious poverty of their 
master. But we are not warranted in judging the rhapsodes by 
such a standard. Though they were not philosophers or moral- 
ists, it was their province — and it had been so, long before the 
philosophical point of view was opened — to bring their poet 
home to the bosoms and emotions of an assembled crowd, and to 
penetrate themselves with his meaning so far as was suitable for 
that purpose, adapting to it the appropriate graces of action and 
intonation. In this their genuine task they were valuable mem- 
bers of the Grecian community, and seem to have possessed all 
the qualities necessary for success. 

These rhapsodes, the successors of the primitive aoedi, or 
bards, seem to have been distinguished from them by the discon- 
tinuance of all musical accompaniment. Originally, the bard 
sung, enlivening the song with occasional touches of the simple 
(bur-stringed harp : his successor, the rhapsode, recited, holding 

The grounds taken by Aristotle (Problem, xxx. 10 ; compare Aul. ^relliua, 
zx. 14) against the actors, singers, musicians, etc. of his time, are more 
terious, and have more the air of truth. 

If it be correct in Lehrs (do Studiis Aristarchi, Diss. ii. p. 46) to identify 
those early glossographers of Homer, whose explanations the Alexandrine 
critics so severely condemned, with the rhapsodes, this only proves that the 
rhapsodes had come to undertake a donVle duty, of which their predeooMOM 
before Soldo would never have dreamed . 

1 Flato, Apolog. Socrat p. 22. c. 7. 


in his hand nothing bat a branch of laurel and depending fee 
effect upon voice and manner, — a species of musical and 
rhythmical declamation, 1 which gradually increased in vehement 

1 Aristotel. Poetic c. 47 ; Welcker, Der Episch. Kyklos ; Ueber den Vor- 
trag der Homerischsn Gedichte, pp. 840-406, which collect* all the facta 
respecting the aosdi aad the rhapsodes. Unfortunately, the ascertained 
points are very few. 

The laurel branch in the hand of the singer or reciter (for the two expres- 
sions are often confounded ) seems to have been peculiar to the recitation 
of Homer and Hesiod (Hesiod, Theog. 80 ; Schol. ad Aristophan. Nub. 1367. 
Pausan. x. 7, 2). "Poemata omne genus (says Apuleius, Florid, p. 122, 
Bipont.) apta virgo^ lyrse, socco, cothurno." 

Not only Homer and Hesiod, but also Archilochus, were recited by rhap 
sodes (Athena*, xii 620; also Plato, Legg. ii. p. 658). Consult, besides, 
Nitzsch, De Historia Homeri, Fascic. 2, p. 114, seq , respecting the rhapsodes; 
and O. MQller, History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, ch. iv. s. 8. 

The ideas of singing and speech are, however, often confounded, in refer 
ence to any verse solemnly and emphatically delivered (Thucydid. ii. 58) 
— <j>ugkovt(s ol wpeafivrepoi ndXai #6ea&ai, °H£e< Aupuucdf noXcftoc kcU 
Woifibc &fi* airy.. And the rhapsodes are said to sing Homer (Plato, Eryxias, 
e. 13 ; Hesych. v. Bpavpuvioig) ; Strabo (i. p. 1 8) has a good passage upon 
song and speech. 

William Grimm (Deutsche Heldensage, p. 878) supposes the ancient Ger- 
man heroic romances to have been recited or declaimed in a similar manner 
with a simple accompaniment of the harp, as the Servian heroic lays are 
even at this time delivered. 

Fauriel also tells us, respecting the French Carlo vingian Epic (Romans 
de Chevalerie, Revue des Deux Mondes, xiii. p. 559) : u The romances of 
the 12th and 18th centuries were realty sung : die jongleur invited his audi 
ence to hear a bdU ckan*m cTAMtotrv,— -*le mot chanter ne manque jamais 
dans laJbrmule initialed — and it is to be understood literally: the mnsie 
was simple and intermittent, more like a recitative ; the jongleur carried a 
rebek, or violin with three strings, an Arabic instrument ; when he wished to 
rest his voice, he played an air or ritonrnelle upon this ; he went thus about 
from place to place, and the romances had no existence among the people, 
except through the aid and recitation of these jongleurs.' 9 

It appears that there had once been rhapsodic exhibition* at the festivals of 
Dionysus, but they were discontinued (Klearchus ap. Athens*, vii. p. 275) 
~ probably superseded by the dithyramb and the tragedy. 

The etymology of HM*f is * disputed point : Welcker traees it to fc#*H 9 
most critics derive it from fiatn-etv LoiMfv, which O. Mailer explains** 
denote the coupling together of verses without any considerable division* or 
pauses,— the even, unbroken, continuous flow of the epic poem,* as oor> 
toasted with the atrophic or choric periods 11 c). 


emphasis and gesticulation until it approached to that of the 
dramatic actor. At what time this change took place, or whether 
the two different modes of enunciating the ancient epic may for a 
certain period have gone on simultaneously, we have no means 
of determining. Hesiod receives from the Muse a branch of 
laurel, as a token of his ordination into their service, which 
narks him for a rhapsode ; while the ancient bard with his harp 
is still recognised in the Homeric Hymn to the Delian Apollo, 
as efficient and popular at the Panionic festivals in the island of 
Delos. 1 Perhaps the improvements made in the harp, to which 
three strings, in addition to the original four, were attached by 
Terpander (b. c. 660), and the growing complication of instru- 
mental music generally, may have contributed to discredit the 
primitive accompaniment, and thus to promote the practice of 
recital : the story, th/U Terpander himself composed music, not 
only for hexameter poems of his own, but also for those of 
Homer, seems to indicate that the music which preceded him was 
ceasing to find favor. 9 By whatever steps the change from the 
bard to the rhapsode took place, certain it is that before the time 
of Soldn, the latter was the recognized and exclusive organ of 

1 Homer, Hymn to Apoll. 170. The Ki&apic, uoidf), dpxy&fibc, are con- 
stantly pat together in that hymn : evidently, the instrument*! accompani- 
ment was essential to the hymns at the Ionic festival. Compare also the 
Hymn to Hermes (480), where the function ascribed to the Muses can hardly 
be understood to include non-musical recitation. The Hymn to Hermes it 
more recent than Terpander, inasmuch as it mentions the seven strings of 
the lyre, v. 50. 

• Terpander, — see Plutarch, de MusicA, c 3-4 ; the facts respecting him 
are collected in Plehn's Lesbiaca, pp. 140-160; but very little can be authen 

Stessmder at the Pythian festivals sang the Homeric battles, with a harp 
accompaniment of his own composition (Athena, xiv. p. 638). 

The principal testimonies respecting the raphsodising of the Homeric 
poems at Athens, chiefly at the Panathenaie festival, are Isokratfis, Pane- 
gyric, p. 74; Lycurgus contra Lcocrat p. 161; Plato, Hipparch. p. 228; 
Dlogen* Laflrt Vit. Solon, i. 57. 

fecriptions attest that rhapsodizing continued in great esteem, down n 
a la* period of the historical age, both at Chios and Teds, especially the 
former : it was the subject of competition by trained youth, and of prizes fof 
fee victor, at periodical religious solemnities : see Corp. Inscript Boeckh, 5o 


the old Epic; fometimes in short fragments before private 
companies, by single rhapsodes, — sometimes several rhapsode* 
in continuous succession at a public festival. 

Respecting the mode in which the Homeric poems were pre* 
served, during the two centuries (or as some think, longer 
interval) between their original composition and the period shortly 
preceding Soldn, — and respecting their original composition and 
subsequent changes, — there are wide differences of opinion 
among able critics. Were they preserved with or without being 
written ? Was the Iliad originally composed as one poem, and 
the Odyssey in like manner, or is each of them an aggregation 
of parte originally self-existent and unconnected? Was the 
authorship of each poem single-headed or many-headed ? 

Either tacitly or explicitly, these questions have been generally 
coupled together and discussed with reference to each other, by 
inquiries into the Homeric poems ; though Mr. Payne Knight's 
Prolegomena have the merit of keeping them distinct. Half a 
century ago, the acute and valuable Prolegomena of F. A. Woi£ 
turning to account the Venetian Scholia which had then been 
recently published, first opened philosophical discussion as to the 
history of the Homeric text. A considerable part of that disser- 
tation (though by no means the whole) is employed in vindi- 
cating the position, previously announced by Bentley, among 
others, that the separate constituent portions of the Iliad and 
Odyssey had not been cemented together into any compact body 
and unchangeable order until the days of Peisistratus, in the 
sixth century before Christ. As a step towards that conclusion, 
Wolf maintained that no written copies of either poem could be 
tihown to have existed during the earlier times to which their 
composition is referred, — and that without writing, neither the 
perfect symmetry of so complicated a work could have been 
originally conceived by any poet, nor, if realized by him, trans- 
mitted with assurance to posterity. The absence of easy and 
convenient writing, such as must be indispensably supposed for 
long manuscripts, among the early Greeks, was thus one of the 
points in Wolf's case against the primitive integrity of the Iliad 
and Odyssey. By Nitzsch and other leading opponents of Wolf, 
the connection of the one with the other seems to have been 
accepted as he originally put it ; and it has been considered 


incumbent on those, who defended the ancient aggregate char- 
acter of the Iliad and Odyssey, to maintain that they were 
written poems from the beginning. 

To me it appears that the architectonic functions ascribed 
by Wolf to Peisistratus and his associates, in reference to 
the Homeric poems, are nowise admissible. But much would 
undoubtedly be gained towards that view of the question, if it 
could be shown that, in order to controvert it, we were driven to 
the necessity of admitting long written poems in the ninth century 
before the Christian era. Few things, in my opinion, can be 
raore improbable : and Mr. Payne Knight, opposed as he is to the 
Wolfian hypothesis, admits this no less than Wolf himself. 1 The 
traces of writing in Greece, even in the seventh century before 
the Christian era, are exceedingly trifling. We have no remain- 
ing inscription earlier than the 40th Olympiad, and the early 
inscriptions are rude and unskilfully executed : nor can we even 
assure ourselves whether Archilochus, Simonides of Amorgus, 
Kallinus, Tyrteeus, Xanthus, and the other early elegiac and lyric 

1 Knight, Prolegom. Horn. c. xxxviii-xl. " Hand taraen ullum Homeri- 
coram carminam exemplar Pisistrati seculo antiquius extitisse, aut sexcen- 
tesimo print anno ante G. N. Bcriptum fuisse, facile credam : ran enim et 
perdifficilis erat iis temporibns scriptnra ob pennriam materia scribendo 
idone®, quum literas ant lapidiboa exarare, ant tabnlis ligneis ant laminis 

metalli alicujus inscnlpere oporteret Atqae ideo memoriter rctenta 

sunt, et hsec et alia veterum poetarum carmina, et per urbes et vicos et in 
principum yirorom sedibus, decantata a rhapsodis. Neqae mirandam est, 
ea per tot sascula tic Integra conserrata esse, quoniam — per eos tradita 
erant, qui ab omnibus Graecia et coloniarum regibus et civitatibus mercede 
satis ampla condacti, omnia sua stndia in iis ediscendis, retinendis, et rite 
recitandis, conferebant" Compare Wolf, Prolegom. xxiv-xxv. 

The evidences of early writing among the Greeks, and of written poems 
eren anterior to Homer, may be seen collected in Ereuser ( Vorfragen neber 
Homero3,pp. 127-1 59, Frankfort, 1828). His proofs appear to me altogether 
inconclusive. Nitzsch maintains the same opinion (Histor. Homeri, Fasc. L 
sect xL xvii.xviii.), — in my opinion, not more successfully: nor does Fram 
(Epigraphies' Grsc. Introd. s. iv.) produce any new arguments. 

I do not quite subscribe to Mr. Knight's language, when he says that 
there is nothing wonderful in the long preservation of th r Homeric poems 
unwritten. It is enough to maintain that the existence, and practical use of 
long manuscripts, by all the rhapsodes, under the condition and circum- 
stances of the 8th and 9th centuries among the Greeks, would be a gre 


poets, committed their compositions to writing, or at what tut* 
the practice of doing so became familiar. The first positive 
ground, which authorizes us to presume the existence of a manu- 
script of Homer, is in the famoas ordinance of Solon with regard 
to the rhapsodes at the Panathensea ; but for what length of time, 
previously, manuscripts had existed, we are unable to say. 

Those who maintain the Homeric poems to have been written 
from the beginning, rest their case, not upon positive proofe,— nor 
yet upon the existing habits of society with regard to poetry, for 
they admit generally that the lUad and Odyssey were not 
read, bat recited and heard, — hat upon the supposed necessity 
that there must have been manuscripts, 1 to insure the praserva* 
tkm of the poems, — the unassisted memory of reciters being 
neither sufficient nor trustworthy. But here we only escape a 
smaller difficulty by running into a greater; for the existence of 
trained bards, gifted with extraordinary memory, is far less 
astonishing than that of long manuscripts in an age essentially 
non-reading and non-writing, and when even suitable mstrnments 
and materials for the process are not .bvious. Moreover, there 
is a strong positive reason for believing that the bard was under 
no necessity for refreshing his memory by consulting a manu- 
script. For if such had been the fact, blind ne ss would have been 
a disqualification for the profession, which we know that k was 
not ; as well from the example of Demodokus in the Odyssey, as 
from that of the blind bard of Chios, in the hymn to the Delian 
Apollo, whom Thucydides, as well as the general tenor of 
Grecian legend, identifies with Homer himself.* The author of 
mat Hymn, be he who he may, could never have described a 

1 See this argument strongly put by Nitssch, in the prefatory remarks si 
the beginning of his second volume of Commentaries on the Odyssey (pp. 
x-xxix). He takes great pains to discard all idea that the poems were 
written in oafer to be read. To the same purpose, Franz (Epigraphies 
Gr«c. Introd. p. 33), who adopts Nitssch's positions, — u Anditnris enim, noa 
tecturts, carmina parabaot." 

* Odyss. vitt. 65; Hymn, ad ApoiL 172; Pseudo-HerodoC Vit Hornet;* 
3 ; Thucyd. Hi 104. 

Various commentators on Homer iaaginad that, under the mkfertane af 
Domodokus, the poet in reality described his own (Schoi ad Odyss. I 1{ 
Maxim. Tyr. xxxviii. 1). 


Mind man as attaining the utmost perfection in his art, if he had 
been conscious that the memory of the bard was only maintained 
by constant reference to the manuscript in his chest. 

Nor will it be found, after all, that the effort of memory 
required, either from bards or rhapsodes, even for the longest of 
these old Epic poems, — though doubtless great, was at all super- 
human. Taking the case with reference to the entire Iliad and 
Odyssey, we know that there were educated gentlemen at Athens 
who could repeat both poems by heart: 1 but in the professional 

1 Xenoph. Sympos. iii. 5. Compare, respecting the laborious discipline of 
the Gallic Braids, and the number of unwritten verses which they retained 
in their memories, Cawar, B. Q. vi. 14 ; Mela, iii 2 ; also Wolf, Prolcgg. s. 
xxiv. and Herod, ii. 77, about the prodigious memory of the Egyptian priests 
at Heliopolis. 

I transcribe, from the interesting Discoun of M. Fauriel (prefixed to his 
Chants Popnlaires de la Greco Moderne, Paris 1824), a few particulars re- 
specting the number, the mnemonic power, and the popularity of those 
' erant singers or rhapsodes who frequent the festivals or paneghyris of 
mod e r n Greece : it is curious to learn that this profession is habitually cxer 
cited by blind men (p. xc. sey.). 

* Lea areagles exercent en Grece unc profession qui les rend non scule- 
ment agrSsbles, mais necessaires ; le caractere, Pimagination, et la condition 
da people, e'tant oe qnlls sont: e'est la profession de chanteurs ambulant. 

Iii sont dans 1'usage, tant ear le continent que dans les Tics, de la 

Grece, d'apprendre par cceur le plus grand nombre qu'ils peurent de chan- 
sons popnlaires de tout genre et de toute epoque. Quelques una finisscnt 
par en savoir nne qnaatite* prodigiense, et tons en savent beaucoup. Avee 
ee sresor dans leur merooire, its sont toujours en marche, traverscnt la Greco 
en toot sens ; lis s'en vont de ville en rifle, de Tillage en village, chantant a 
l'aaditoire qui se forme aussitftt autour d'eux, partout ou its se montrent, 
eeOes de tears ehansons quite jugent conrenir le mieux, sdit a la localite*, 
soft a la cfaoasiance, et recoirerrt one petite retribution qni fait tout leur 
sevena. Us o»t Tair de chercher de preference, en tout lieu, la partie la plus 
factum de la population, qui en est toujours la pros curieuse, la plus avide 
timp r ss sio n a , et la moins difficile dans le choix de ceux qui leur sont offertes. 
Las Tares seals ve les eoorrtent pas. Cert aux reunions nombreuses, anx 
ttses de ▼ittage eonouee eons ie oom de Pecnegkyris^ que ces chanteurs am- 
bulans accourent le plus volontiers. lis chantent en s'accompagnaiit dNm 
tnstoamea* a eovties qae Pen touch* avec un archet, et qui est exactement 
I'ancienno lyre des Grecs, dont il a conserve* le nom comme la forme. 

u Oatte lyre, pear Stre untfere, deft aroir cinq cordes : mais sourent elle 
a'en a qae deux on tr?is, dent les sons, cevnme tl est aise* de presvmer, n'ont 
lien de bien harmonieux. Les chanteurs aveugles vont ordinairement iiole* 
▼ DL. II. 7 lOue 


recitations, we are not to imagine that the same person did go 
through the whole : the recitation was essentially a joint under- 
taking, and the rhapsodes who visited a festival would naturally 
understand among themselves which part of the poem should 
devolve upon each particular individual. Under such circum- 
stances, and with such means of preparation beforehand, the 
quantity of verse which a rhapsode could deliver would be 
measured, not so much by the exhaustion of his memory, as by 
the physical sufficiency of his voice, having reference to the 
sonorous, emphatic, and rhythmical pronunciation required 
from him. 1 

But what guarantee have we for the exact transmission of 
the text for a space of two centuries by simply oral means ? It 

et chacon d'eux chante a part de# *utrcs: mais quelquefois aussi ils so 
reunissent par groupcs do deux ou fa trois, pour dire ensemble les memes 

chansons Ces modernes rhap«od«s doivent gtre divises en deux classes. 

Les uns (et ce sont, selon toute apparara, les plus nombreux) se bornent a 
la fonction de recueillir, d'apprendre par n»ur, et de mettre en circulation, 
des pieces qu'ils n'ont point composees. L«s autres (et ce sont ceux qui 
forment l'ordre le plus distingue de lew corps), a cette fonction de repe*ti 
tears et de colporteurs des poesies d'autrci, joigcent celle de pontes, et ajout- ' 

ent a la masse des chansons apprises d'autres cSants de leur ftwjon 

Ces rhapsodes aveugles sont les nouvellistes et let historiens, en m&ne temps 
que les pontes du peuple, en cela parfaitement senr blables aux rhapsodes 
anciens de la Grece." 

To pass to another country — Persia, once the great rival of Greece. 
" The Kurroglian rhapsodes are called Kurrogbu-Khana, from khaunden, to 
ling. Their duty is, to know by heart ail the mejjlisses (mcetags) of Kurro- 
glou, narrate them, or sing them with the accompaniment of the favorite 
instrument of Kurroglou, the chungur, or sitar, a three-stringed guitar. Fer- 
dausi has also his Shah-nama-Khans, and the prophet Mohamm*4 his Koran 
Khan*. The memory of those singers is truly astonishing. At every request, 
they recite in one breath for some hours, without stammering, beginning the 
tale at the passage or verse pointed out by the hearers." (Specimens of the 
Popular Poetry of Persia, as found in the Adventures and Improvi-*tions 
of Kurroglou, the Bandit Minstrel of Northern Persia, by Alexander Ch«da- 
ko: London 1842, Introd. p. 13.) 

" One of the songs of the Calmuck national bards sometimes lasts a whefe 
day." (Ibid. p. 372.) 

1 There are just remarks of Mr. Mitford on the possibility that the Homed* 
poems might have been preserved without writing (History af Greece. *ai 
Lpp 135-137). 
Vol. 2 5 


may be replied, that oral transmission would hand down the text 
as exactly as in point of fact it was handed down. The great 
lines of each poem, — the order of parts, — the vein of Homeric 
feeling, and the general style of locution, and, for the most part, 
the true words, — would be maintained : for the professional 
training of the rhapsode, over and above the precision of his 
actual memory, would tend to Homerize his mind (if the ex- 
pression may be permitted), and to restrain him within this magic 
circle. On the other hand, in respect to the details of the text, 
we should expect that there would be wide differences and 
numerous inaccuracies : and so there really were, as the records 
contained in the Scholia, together with the passages cited in 
ancient authors, but not found in our Homeric text, abundantly 

Moreover, the state of the Iliad and Odyssey, in respect to the 
letter called the Digamma, affords a proof that they were recited 
for a considerable period before they were committed to writing, 
insomuch that the oral pronunciation underwent during the in- 
terval a sensible change. 9 At the time when these poems were 
composed, the Digamma was an effective consonant, and figured 
as such in the structure of the verse : at the time when they were 

1 Villoison, Prolegomen. pp. xxxiY-lvi; Wolf, Prolegomen. p. 37. Diint- 
ser, in the Epicor. Grsec Fragm. pp. 27-29, gives a considerable list of the 
Homeric passages cited by ancient authors, bat not found either in the Iliad 
or Odyssey. It is hardly to be doubted, however, that many of these pas* 
sages belong* i to other epic poems which passed under the name of Homed 
Welcker (Der Episch. Kyklus, pp. 20-133) enforces this opinion very justly, 
and it harmonizes with his view of the name of Homer as coextensive wi'h 
the whole Epic cycle. 

9 See this argument strongly maintained in Giese (Ueber den jEolischeo 
Dialekt, sect 14. p. 160, seqq.). He notices several other particulars in the 
Homeric language, — the plenitude and variety of interchangeable grammat- 
ical forms, — the numerous metrical licenses, set right by appropriate oral 
intonations, — which indicate a language as yet not constrained by the fixity 
of written authority. 

The same line of argument is taken by O. Miiller (History of the Litera- 
ture of Ancient Greece, ch. iv. s. 5). 

Giese has shown also, in the same chapter, that all the manuscrints of 
Homer mentioned in the Scholia, were written in the Ionic alphabet (with 
H and Q as marks for the long vowels, and no special mark for the rough 
breathing), in so far as the special citations out of them enable us to verify 


committed to writing, it had ceased to be pronounced, and there- 
fore never found a place in any of the manuscripts, — insomuch 
that the Alexandrine critics, though they knew of its existence 
in the much later poems of Alkaeus and Sappho, never recognized 
it in Homer. The hiatus, and the various perplexities of metre, 
occasioned by the loss of the Digamma, were corrected by differ- 
ent grammatical stratagems. But the whole history of this lost 
letter is very curious, and is rendered intelligible only by the 
supposition that the Iliad and Odyssey belonged for a wide space 
of time to the memory, the voice, and the ear, exclusively. 

At what period these poems, or, indeed, any other Greek 
poems, first began to be written, must be matter of conjecture, 
though there is ground for assurance that it was before the 
time of Solon. If, in the absence of evidence, we may venture 
upon naming any more determinate period, the question at once 
suggests itself, what were the purposes which, in that stage of 
society, a manuscript at its first commencement must have been 
intended to answer ? For whom wa3 a writen Iliad necessary ? 
Not for the rhapsodes ; for with them it was not only planted in 
the memory, but also interwoven with the feelings, and conceived 
in conjunction with all those flexions and intonations of voice, 
pauses, and other oral artifices, which were required for emphatic 
delivery, and which the naked manuscript could never reproduce. 
Not for tike general public, — they were accustomed to receive it 
with its rhapsodic delivery, and with its accompaniments of a 
solemn and crowded festival. The only persons for whom the 
written Iliad would be suitable, would be a select few ; studious 
and curious men, — a class of readers, capable of analyzing the 
complicated emotions which they had experienced as hearers in 
the crowd, and who would, on perusing the written words* realise 
in their imaginations a sensible portion of the impression com 
municated by the reciter. 1 

1 NitzHch and Welcker argue, that because the Homeric poems were heara. 
with great delight and interest, therefore the first rudiments of the art of 
writing* even while beset by a thousand mechanical difficulties, would bs 
employed to record them. I cannot adopt this opinion, which appears la 
me to derive all its plausibility from our present familiarity with reading 
and writing. The first step from the recited to the written poem is really 
one of great violence, as well aa useless for any want then actually felt 1 


Ina edible as the statement va&j seem in an age like the pre** 
est, there is in all early societies, and there was in early Greece, 
a time when no such reading class existed. If we could discover 
ai what time such a class first began to be formed, we should be 
able to make a guess at the time when the old Epic poems were 
first committed to writing. Now the period which may with the 
greatest probability be fixed upon as having first witnessed the 
formation even of the narrowest reading class in Greece, is the 
middle of the seventh century before the Christian era (b. c. 6 BO 
to b. c. 630)) — the age of Terpander, Kallinus, Archilochus, 
Simonides of Amorgus, etc. I ground this supposition on the 
change then operated in the character and tendencies of Grecian 
poetry and music, — the elegiac and iambic measures having 
been introduced as rivals to the primitive hexameter, and poetical 
compositions having been transferred from the epical past to 
the affairs of present and real life. Such a change was impor- 
tant at a time when poetry was the only known mode of publica- 
tion (to use a modern phrase not altogether suitable, yet the 
nearest approaching to the sense). It argued a new way of 
looking at the old epical treasures of the people, as well as a 

much more agree with Wolf when he says : " Diu enim illorum hominam 
vita et simplicitas nihil admodum habuit, quod scriptura dignam videretnr : 
is aliis omnibus occupati agunt illi, qiue posted scribunt, vel (ut de quibus- 
dam poputis accepimus) ctiam monstratam operam hanc spernunt tanquam 
indecori otii : carmina autera quae pangunt, longo usu sic ore fundere et 
excipere conaueverunt, at canta et recitatione cum maxime vigentia deducere 
ad mutas notas, ex illi us static sensu nihil aliud esset, quam perimere ca et 
vitali vi ac spirku privare." (Prolegom. s. xv. p. 59.) 

Some good remarks on this subject are to be found in William Humboldt's 
Introduction to his elaborate treatise Ueber die Kaxm-Sprach^ in reference to 
the oral tales current among the Basques. He, too, observes how great and 
repulsive a proceeding it is, to pass at first from verse sung, or recited, to 
verse written; implying that the words are conceived detached from the 
Vortrag, the accompanying music, and the surrounding and sympathizing 
assembly. The Basque tales have no charm for the people themselves, when 
put in Spanish words and read (Introduction, sect. xx. p. 258-259). 

Unwritten prose tales, preserved in the memory, and said to be repeated 
nearly in the same words from age to age, are mentioned by Mariner, in the 
Tonga Islands (Mariner's Account, vol. ii. p. 377). 

The Druidical poems were kept unwritten by design, after writing was it 
established us* far other purposes (Cesar, B. G. vi 13). 


thirst for new poetical effect ; and the men who stood f:rward m 
it may well be considered as desirous to study, and competent to 
criticize, from their own individual point of view, the written 
words of the Homeric rhapsodes, just as we are told that Kallinus 
both noticed and eulogized the Thebais as the production of Ho- 
mer. There seems, therefore, ground for conjecturing, that (for 
the use of this- newly-formed and important, but very narrow 
class) manuscripts of the Homeric poems and other old epics — 
the Thebais and the Cypria as well as the Iliad and the Odyssey 
— began to be compiled towards the middle of the seventh cen- 
tury b. c. i 1 and the opening of Egypt to Grecian commerce, 
which took place about the same period, would furnish increased 
facilities for obtaining the requisite papyrus to write upon. A 
reading class, when once formed, would doubtless slowly increase, 
and the number of manuscripts along with it ; so that before the 
time of Soldn, fifty years afterwards, both readers and manu- 
scripts, though still comparatively few, might have attained a 
certain recognized authority, and formed a tribunal of reference, 
against the carelessness of individual rhapsodes. 

-We may, I think, consider the Iliad and Odyssey to have been 
preserved without the aid of writing, for a period near upon two 
centuries.* But is it true, as Wolf imagined, and as other able 

1 Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. pp. 368-373) treats it as a 
matter of certainty that Archilochus and Alkman wrote their poems. I am 
not aware of any evidence for announcing this as positively known, — - ex- 
cept, indeed, an admission of Wolf, which is, doubtless, good as an artp n m m 
turn ad hominem, but is not to be received as proof (Wolf, Prolcg. p. 50). 
The evidences mentioned by Mr. Clinton (p. 368) certainly cannot In 
regarded as proving anything to the point 

Giese (TJeber den JEoliscben Dialckt, p. 172) places the first writing of 
the separate rhapsodies composing the Iliad in the seventh century B. a 

* The songs of the Icelandic Skalds were preserved orally for a period 
longer than two centuries, — P. A. Mailer thinks very much longer,— 
before they were collected, or embodied in written story by Snorro and 
Saunund (Lange, Untersuchungen Qber die Gesch. der Nordischen Held en- 
sage, p. 98 ; also, Introduct. pp. xx-xxviii). He confounds, however, oftcfc, 
the preservation of the songs from old time, — with the question, whetner 
they have or have not an historical basis. 

And there were, doubtless, many old bards and rhapsodes in ancient 
Greece, of whom the same might be said which Saxo Gramma ticus affirmt 
of an Englishman named Lucas, that he was " Uteris quideip tenuiter to 


critics have imagined, also, that the separate portions of which 
these two poems are composed were originally distinct epics' 
ballads, each constituting a separate whole and intended foi 
separate recitation ? Is it true, that they had not<only no com* 
mon author, but originally, neither common purpose nor fixed 
order, and that their first permanent arrangement and integration 
was delayed for three centuries, and accomplished at last only 
by the taste of Peisistratus conjoined with various lettered 
friends ?* 

This hypothesis — to which the genius of Wolf first gave 
celebrity, but which has been since enforced more in detail by 
others, especially by William Miiller and Lachmann — appears 
to me not only unsupported by any sufficient testimony, but also 
opposed to other testimony as well as to a strong force of inter- 
nal probability. The authorities quoted by Wolf are Josephus, 
Cicero, and Fausanias : a Josephus mentions nothing about Pei- 

structas, sed historiarum scientiA apprime eruditus." (Dahlmann, Historische 
Forschangen, vol. ii. p. 176.) 

1 u Homer wrote a sequel of songs and rhapsodies, to be sang by himself 
for small earnings and good cheer, at festivals and other days of merriment; 
the Iliad he made for the men, the Odysseus for the other sex. These loose 
tangs were not collected together into the form of an epic poem until 500 
rears after." 

Such is the naked language in which Wolf's main hypothesis had been 
previously set forth by Bentley, in his " Remarks on a late Discourse of 
(freethinking, by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis," published in 1713: the passage 
remained unaltered in the seventh edition of that treatise published in 1737 
Bee Wolf's Prolog, xxvii. p. 115. 

The same hypothesis may be seen more amply developed, partly m the 
work of Wolfs pupil and admirer, William Mailer, Homerische Vorschuk 
(the second edition of which was published at Leipsic, 1836, with an excel- 
lent introduction and notes by Baumgarten-Crusius, adding greatly to the 
value of the original work by its dispassionate review of the whole contro- 
versy), partly in two valuable Dissertations of Lachmann, published in too 
Philological Transactions of the Berlin Academy for 1837 and 1841. 

* Joseph, cont. Apion. i. 2 ; Cicero de Orator, iii. 34 ; Pausan. vii. 26, 6 : 
compare the Scholion on Plautus in Ritschl, Die Alexandria. Bibliothek, p. 
4. jElian (V. H. xiii. 14 J), who mentions both the introduction of the 
Homeric poems into Peloponnesus by Lykurgus, and the compilation by 
Peisistratus, can hardly be considered as adding to the value of the testi- 
mony : still less, Libanius and Suidas. What we learn is, that some literary 
ud critical men of the Alexandrine age (more or fewer, as the case mflj 


swrtratut, but merely states (what we may accept as the probable 
met) that the Homeric poems were originally unwritten, and 
preserved only in songs or recitations, from which they were at a 
subsequent period put into writing: hence many of the discrepan- 
cies in the text On the other hand, Cicero and Pausanias go 
farther, and affirm that Peisistratus both collected, and arranged 
in the existing order, the rhapsodies of the Iliad and Odyssey, 
(implied as poems originally entire, and subsequently broken int j 
pieces,) which be found partly confused and partly isolated from 
each other, — each part being then remembered only in its own 
portion of the Grecian world. Respecting Hipparchus the son 
«f Peisistratus, too, we are told in the Pseudo-Platonic dialogue 
which bears his name, that he was the first to introduce into 
Attica, the poetry of Homer, and that he prescribed to the rhap- 
sodes to recite the parts of the Panathenaic festival in regular 
sequence, 1 

Wolf and William M tiller occasionally speak as if they admit- 
ted something like an Iliad and Odyssey as established aggregates 
prior to Peisistratus ; but for the most part they represent him or 
his associates as having been the first to put together Homeric 
poems which were before distinct and self-existent compositions. 
And liaehmann, the recent expositor of the same theory, ascribes 
to Peisistratus still more unequivocally this original integration 
of parts in reference to the Iliad, — distributing the first twenty- 
two books of the poem into sixteen separate songs, and treating it 
as ridiculous to imagine that the fusion of these songs, into an 
order such as we now read, belongs to any date earlier than 
Peisistratus. 9 

be; bat Wolf exaggerates when he talks of an unanimous conviction) spoke 
of Peisistratus as having first put together the fractious! parts of the Iliad 
and Odyssey iuto entire poems. 

1 Plato, Hipparch. p. 228. 

* *' Docfa icfa komme mtr bald lacherlich vor, wonn ich noch immcr die 
Noglichkeit gel ten, dass unsere IUas in dem gegenwarogen Zusanv 
aemhange der bedeutenden Theile, und nicht bios der wenigen bedeutend- 
ssen, jeraals vor der Arbeit des PUistratus gedacht worden sey." (Lachmann, 
Feraere Bstrachtaagea Ober die Ilias, sect, xxviii. p. S2 ; Abbandlungen Bcr 
Urn. Academ. 1841. ) How far this admission — that for the few most impor 
toss* portions of the Iliad, there did exist an established order of succession 
prior to Psisktiatafl— is intended to reach, I do not know; but the language 


Upon this theory we may remark, first, that it stands opposed 
Id the testimony existing respecting the regulations of So26n; 
who, before the time of Peisistrani3, had enforced a fixed order 
of recitation on the rhapsodes of the Iliad at the Panathenaic 
festival; not only directing that they should go throngh the 
rhapsodies seriatim, and without omission or corruption, but also 
establishing a prompter or censorial authority to insure obedience, 1 

of Lachmann goes farther than cither Wolf or William Miiller. (See Wol$ 
Prolegomen. pp. cxli-cxlii, and W. Miiller, Homcrische Vorschule, Absch 
nitt vii. pp. 96, 98, 100, 102.) The latter admits that neither Pelsistratui 
nor the Diaskeuaats could hare made any considerable changes in the Ilia* 
and Odyssey, either in the way of addition or of transposition ; the poem* 
** aggregates being too well known, and the Homeric vein of invention toe 
completely extinct, to admit of such novelties. 

I confess, I do not see how these last-mentioned admissions can bo recon- 
ciled with the main doctrine of Wolf, in so far as regards Peisistrsnw. 

1 Diogen. LaSrt i 57. — Til di i Ofj)poo «f ixofioXifc yeypa+t (ZdAwv) 
fiaifj^eiotiat, olov 6iwv 6 frpvrog £2.7} fev, lner&cv &px e<y $ at to* upxopevevt 
wc <ptfci A/er^/dac b> role MeyapiKoic. 

Respecting Hip parch us, 6on of Pcisistratus, the Pscndo-Plato tells ns (in 
the dialogue so called, p. 228), — *al r£ *Op9pov kntf ir/*<jror bebfuat* etc rfrr 
yf/v ravr^vlf ko2 ffPuyKaae rot? /fa^xfcri)? Ravafhjvahotc i$ iw0Xr)yeuf 
ioc^c «*tA duevw, uoicep v%v tri olSe itoiovai. 

These words have provoked multiplied criticisms from all the learned 
men who have touched upon the theory of the Homeric poems, — to deter* 
mine what was the practice which Solon found existing, and wh:4 was the 
change which he introduced. Our information is too scanty to pretend •• 
certainty, but I think the explanation of Hermann the moat satisfactory 
(" Quid sit i)*opo\)l e£ iiro(3\r}drjv. n — Optucula, torn. v. p. 300, torn, 
vii. p. 162). 

'Tiro/?oAd)f is the technical term for the prompter at a theatrical represent 
tation (Plutarch, Prssccpt gerend. Reip. p. 819) ; iiroftotef and trD/?uAA*t» 
have corresponding meanings, of aiding the memory of a speaker and keep- 
ing him in accordance with a certain standard, in possession of the prompter; 
see the words if birofioXw, Xenophon. Cyropsed. lit. 3, 37. *Tiro/3oA}, them* 
fore, has no necessary connection with a asnes of rhapsodes, bat would apply 
just as much to one alone; although k happens in this case to be brought 
to bear upon several in succession. 'TnoXrrftc, again, means u the taking 
up in succession of one rhapsode by another r* though the two wuvdt, there- 
fore, have not the same meaning, yet the proceeding described in the two 
passages, in reference bom to Solon and Hipparchns, appear* to he in 
substance the same,— t, e, to insprc by compulsory eunerriaiftn, a coneoi 



— which implies the existence (at the same time that it proclaim* 
the occasional infringement) of an orderly aggregate, as well aa 
ot manuscripts professedly complete. Next, the theory ascribes 
•o Peisistratus a character not only materially different from 
what is indicated by Cicero and Pausanias, — who represent 
him, not as having put together atoms originally distinct, but as 
the renovator of an ancient order subsequently lost, — but also 
in itself unintelligible, and inconsistent with Grecian habit and 
feeling. That Peisistratus should take pains to repress the 
license, or make .up for the unfaithful memory, of individual 
rhapsodes, and to ennoble the Panathenaic festival by the most 
correct recital of a great and venerable poem, according to the 

and orderly recitation by the successive rhapsodes who went through the 
diflforent parts of the poem. 

There is good reason to conclude from this passage that the rhapsodes 
before Solon were guilty both of negligence and of omission in their recital 
of Homer, but no reason to imagine either that they tiansposed the books, 
or that the legitimate order was not previously recognized. 

The appointment of a systematic vTrofioXefy, or prompter, plainly indicate* 
the existence of complete manuscripts. 

Tho direction of Solon, that Homer should be rhapsodized under tue 
security of a prompter with bis manuscript, appears just the same as that of 
the orator Lykurgns in reference to JEschylus, SophoklSs, and Euripides 
(Pseudo-Plutarch. Vit. x. Rhetor. Lycurgi Vit.) — eloyveyice 6e nal vofiov; 

— uc x<xAxdf eluovac ava&eivai rCtv noiijruv AlcxvXov, VofoKXiovc, Efy>* 
nidov, koI roc Tpay<pdiac airuv iv koivQ ypmjta/ievovc ^vXarre<v, koI rbv rift 
w6Xei*c ypafifiaria irapavayiyvuoKeiv role iiroKpivofievoif ov yap i£ijv airdc 
(dAAo>f ) vnoKpivea&ai. The word uXXuc, which occurs last but one, is intro- 
duced by the conjecture of Grysar, who has cited and explained the above 
passage of the Pseudo-Plutarch in a valuable dissertation — De Grcccorum 
Tragadid, qualis fiat circa tempera Demosthenis (Cologne, 1830). All the 
critics admit the text as it now stands to be unintelligible, and various cor- 
rections have been proposed, among which that of Grysar seems the best 
From his Dissertation, I transcribe the following passage, which illustrates 
the rhapsodizing of Homer it; iirofloXijc : — 

" Quum histriones fabulis interpolandis eagre abstincrent, Lycurgus legem 
•upra indicatam eo tulit consilio, ut recitationes histrionum cum publico illo 
exemplo oinnino congruas redderet Quod ut assequeretur, constituit, ot 
dnm fabultt in scena recitarentur. scriba put licus simul exemplum civitatis 
inspiceret, juxta sive in theatro sive in postocenio sedens. Haec enim verfai 
napavayivucKeiv est significatio, posita prsecipue in prsepositione ffapd, at 
idem sit, quod contra sive juxta legere ; id quod faciunt ii, qui lecta ab aitom 
vol tenia ta cum fuii conferre cupiunt." (Grysar, p. 7.) 


standard received among the best judges in Greece, — this is a 
task both suitable to his position, and requiring nothing mora 
than an improved recension, together with exact adherence to it 
on the part of the rhapsodes. But what motive had he to string 
together several peems, previously known only as separate, into 
one new whole? What feeling could he gratify by introducing 
the extensive changes and transpositions surmised by Lachmann, 
for the purpose of binding together sixteen songs, which the 
rhapsodes are assumed to have been accustomed to recite, an<J 
the people to hear, each by itself apart ? Peisistratus was not a 
poet, seeking to interest the public mind by new creations and 
combinations, but a ruler, desirous to impart solemnity to a greaf 
religious festival in his native city. Now such a purpose would 
be answered by selecting, amidst the divergences of rhapsodes 
in different parts of Greece, that order of text which intelligent 
men could approve as a return to the pure and pristine Iliad ; 
but it would be defeated if he attempted large innovations of his 
own, and brought out for the first time a new Iliad by blending 
together, altering, and transposing, many old and well-known 
songs. A novelty so bold would have been more likely to offend 
than to please both the critics and the multitude. And if it 
were even enforced, by authority, at Athens, no probable reason 
can be given why all the other towns, and all the rhapsodes 
throughout Greece, should abnegate their previous habits in 
favor of it, since Athens at that time enjoyed no political ascen- 
dency such as she acquired during the following century. On 
the whole, it will appear that the character and position of 
Peisistratus himself go far to negative the function which Wolf 
and Lachmann put upon him. His interference presupposes 
a certain foreknown and ancient aggregate, the main lineaments 
of which were familiar to the Grecian public, although many of 
thte rhapsodes in their practice may have deviated from it both 
by omission and interpolation. In correcting the Athenian 
recitations conformably with such understood general type, he 
might hope both to procure respect for Athens, and to constitute 
a fashion for the rest of Greece. But this step of " collecting 
■he torn body of sacred Homer," is something generieally differ- 
art from the composition of a new Iliad out of preexisting songs 


the former is as easy, suitable, and promising, as the latter fe 
violent and gratuitous.* 

To sustain the inference, that Peisistratus was the first arch- 
itect of the Iliad and Odyssey, it ought at least to be shown that 
ao other long and continuous poems existed during the earlier 
•enturies. But the contrary of this is known to be the fact. 
The JEthiopis of Ark tin us, which contained nine thousand one 
hundred verses, dates from a period more than two centuries 
earlier than Peisistratus : several other of the lost cyclic epics, 
some among them of considerable length, appear during the 
century succeeding Arktinus ; and it is important to notice that 
three or four at least of these poems passed currently under tho 
name of Homer. 9 There is no greater intrinsic difficulty in 

1 That the Iliad or Odyssey were ever recited with all the parts entire, at 
any time anterior to Solon, is a point which Ritschl denies (Die Alexandria. 
Bibliothek. pp. 67-70). He thinks that before Solon, they were always recited 
in parts, and without any fixed order among the parts. Nor did 8oI6n 
determine (as he thinks) the order of the parts : he only checked the license 
of the rhapsodes as to the recitation of the separate books : it was Pesktra- 
tus, who, with the help of Onomakritus and others, first settled the order of 
the parts and bound each poem into a whole, with some corrections and 
interpolations. Nevertheless, he admits that the parts were originally com- 
posed by the same poet, and adapted to form a whole amongst each other: 
but this primitive entireness (he asserts) was only maintained as a sort of 
traditional belief, never realized in recitation, and never reduced to an obvi- 
ous, unequivocal, and permanent fact, — until the time of Peisistratus. 

There is no sufficient ground, I think, for denying all entire recitation 
previous to Solon, and we only interpose a new difficulty, both grave ant 
gratuitous, by doing so. 

* The jEthiopis of Arktinus contained nine thousand one hundred verses 
as we learn from the Tabula Iliaca: yet Proklus assigns to it only four 
books. The Ilias Minor had four books, the Cyprian Verses eleven, thong?* 
we do not know the number of lines in either. 

Nitzsch states it as a certain matter of fact, that Arktinus recited his own 
poem alone, though it was too long to admit of his doing so without interrup- 
tion. (See his Vorrede to tho second vol. of the Odyssey, p. xxiv.) Thcw 
is no evidence for this assertion, and it appears to me highly improbable. 

In reference to the Romances of the Middle Ages, belonging to the Cycle 
of the Round Table, M. Fauriel tells us that the German Perceval has nearly 
iwenty-five thousand verses (more than half as long again as the Iliad) ; the 
Perceval of Christian of Troyes, probably more ; the German Tristan, of 
Gtodfrev of Strasburc. has more than twenty-three thousand ; tometi 


long epict to have begun with the Iliad and Od jssej 
than with the -/Ethiopia : the ascendency of the name of Homer 
and the subordinate poaitkm of Arktimia, in the history of earij 
Grecian poetry, tend to prove the former in preference to the 

Moreover, we find particular portions of the Iliad,, which 
expressly pronounce themselves, by the'r own internal evidence* 
as belonging to a large whole, and not as separate integers- We 
can hardly conceive the Catalogue in the second book, except as 
a fractional composition, and with reference to a series of ap- 
proaching exploits ; for, taken apart by itself, such a barren enu- 
meration of names could have stimulated neither the fancy of the 
poet, nor the attention of the listeners. But the Homeric Cata- 
logue had acquired a sort of canonical authority even in the time 
of Solon, insonrach that he interpolated a line into it, or was 
accused of doing so, for the purpose of gaining a disputed point 
against the Megarians, who, on their side, set forth another 
version* 1 No such established reverence could have been felt for 
this document, unless there had existed for a long time prior to 
Peisistratus, the habit of regarding and listening to the Iliad as 
a continuous poem. And when the philosopher Xenophanes, 
contemporary with Peisistratus, noticed Homer as the universal 
teacher, and denounced him as an unworthy describer of the gods, 
he must have connected this great mental sway, not with a number 
of unconnected rhapsodies, but with an aggregate Iliad and 
Odyssey ; probably with other poems, also, ascribed to the same 
author, such as the Cypria, Epigoni, and Thebats. 

We find, it is true, references in various authors to portions ot 
the Iliad, each by its own separate name, such as the Teichem- 
achy, the Aristeia (preeminent exploits) of Diomedes, or Aga- 
memnon, the Doloneia, or Night-expedition (of Dolon as well 

poem is begun by one author, and continued by another. (Fauriel, Remans 
de Chevaierie, Revue dee Deux Monde*, t xiii. pp. 695-697.) 

The ancient unwritten poems of the Icelandic Skalds are as much lyric 
as epic : the longest of them does not exceed eight hundred lines, and they 
art for the most part much shorter, (Untersuchungen iiber die Geschichtete 
Nordischen Heldensage, aus P. A, Mailer's Sagabibliothek von Q. 
Frankf 1832, Introduet. ; zlii) 

1 Plutarch, Soldo, 10. ' 


as of Odysseus and Diomedes), etc, and hence, it has beet 
concluded, that these portions originally existed as separate 
poems, beft re they were cemented together into an Iliad. But 
such references prove nothing to the point ; for until the Iliad 
was divided by Aristarchus and his colleagues into a given 
number of books, or rhapsodies, designated by the series of letters 
in the alphabet, there was no method of calling attention to any 
particular portion of the poem except by special indication of 
its subject-matter. 1 Authors subsequent to Peisistratus, such as 
Herodotus and Plato, who unquestionably conceived the Iliad as 
a whole, cite the separate fractions of it by designations of this 

The foregoing remarks on the Wolfian hypothesis respecting 
the text of the Iliad, tend to separate two points which are by no 
means necessarily connected, though that hypothesis, as set forth 
by Wolf himself, by W. Miiller, and by Lachmann, presents the 
two in conjunction. First, was the Iliad originally projected and 
composed by one author, and as one poem, or were the different 
parts composed separately and by unconnected authors, and 
subsequently strung together into an aggregate? Secondly, 
assuming that the internal evidences of the poem negative the 
former supposition, and drive us upon the latter, was the con- 
struction of the whole poem deferred, and did the parts exist only 
in their separate state, until a period so late as the reign of 
Peisistratus ? It is obvious that these two questions are essen- 
tially separate, and that a man may believe the Iliad to have 
been put together out of preexisting songs, without recognizing 
the age of Peisistratus as the period of its first compilation. 
Now, whatever may be the steps through which the poem passed 
to its ultimate integrity, there is sufficient reason for believing 
that they had been accomplished long before that period: the 
friends of Peisistratus found an Iliad already existing and already 
ancient in their time, even granting that the poem had not been 
originally born in a state of unity. Moreover, the Alexandrine 
critics, whose remarks are preserved in the Scholia, do not even 
notice the Peisistratic recension among the many manuscripts 

1 The Homeric Scholiast refers to Qnintus Calaber h> rg ' Kfia^ovofusxUs 
trhich was *nly one portion rf his long poem (Schol. ad Iliad. £L MOjk 


which they had before them: and Mr. Payne Knight justly 
imfers from their silence that either they did not possess it, or it 
was in their eyes of no great authority ;> which could ne\ er have 
been the case if it had been the prime originator of Homeric 

The line of argument, by which the advocates of Wolf's 
hypothesis negative the primitive unity of the poem, consists in 
exposing gaps, incongruities, contradictions, etc, between the 
separate parts. Now, if in spite of all these incoherences, 
standing mementos of an antecedent state of separation, the 
component poems were made to coalesce so intimately as to 
appear as if they had been one from the beginning, we can better 
understand the complete success of the proceeding and the uni- 
versal prevalence of the illusion, by supposing such coalescence 
to have taken place at a very early period, during the productive 
days of epical genius, and before the growth of reading and criti- 
cism. The longer the aggregation of the separate poems was 
deferred, the harder it would be to obliterate in men's minds the 
previous state of separation, and to make them accept the new 
aggregate as an original unity. The bards or rhapsodes might 
have found comparatively little difficulty in thus piecing together 
distinct songs, during the ninth or eighth century before Christ ; 

1 Knight, Prolegg. Homer, xxxii. xxxvi. xxxvii. That Peisistratos 
caused a corrected MS. of the Iliad to be prepared, there seems good reason 
to believe, and the Scholion on Plautus edited by Ritschl (see Die Alexan- 
drinische Bibliothek, p. 4) specifies the four persons (Onomakritns was one) 
employed on the task. Ritschl fancies that it served as a sort of Vulgate 
for the text of the Alexandrine critics, who named specially other MSS. 
(of Chios, SindpS, Massalia, etc.) only when they diverged from this Vul- 
gate: he thinks, also, that it formed the original from whence those other 
MSS. were first drawn, which are called in the Homeric Scholia al Koival, 
KOivorepat (pp. 59-60). 

Welcker supposes the Peisistratic MS. to have been either lost or carried 
away when Xerxes took Athens (Der Epische Kyklus, pp. 382-388). 

Compare Nitzsch, Histor. Homer. Fasc. i. pp. 165*167 ; also his commen- 
tary on Odyss. xL 604, the alleged interpolation of Onomakritns; and Ulrici, 
Geschichte der Hellcn. Poes. Part L s. vii. pp. 252-255. 

The main facts respecting the Peisistratic recension are collected and 
discussed by Gr&fenhan, Geschichte der Philologie, sect 54-64, vol L 
ftp. 266-311. Unfortunately, we cannot get beyond mere conjecture and 


fcut it we suppose the process to be deferred until the Utter half 
if the sixth century, — if we imagine that Soldn, with all his 
contemporaries and predecessors, knew nothing about any aggre- 
gate Iliad, but was accustomed to read and hear only those six* 
teen distinct epical pieces into which Lachmann would dissect 
the Iliad, each of the sixteen bearing a separate name of its 
own, — no compilation then for the first time made by the friends 
of Peisistratus could have effaced the established habit, and 
planted itself in the general convictions of Greece as the primi- 
tive Homeric production. Had the sixteen pieces remained dis- 
united and individualized down to the time of Peisistratus, 
they would in all probability have continued so ever afterwards ; 
nor could the extensive changes and transpositions which (ac- 
cording to Lachmann'8 theory) were required to melt them down 
into our present Iliad, have obtained at that late period universal 
acceptance. Assuming it to be true that such changes and trans- 
positions did really take place, they must at least be referred to 
a period greatly earlier than Peisistratus or Solon. 

The whole tenor of the poems themselves confirms what is 
here remarked. There is nothing either in the Iliad or Odyssey 
which savors of modernism, applying that term to the age of 
Peisistratus ; nothing which brings to our view the alterations, 
brought about by two centuries, in ihe Greek language, the 
coined money, the habits of writing and reading, the despotism 
and republican governments, the close military array, the im- 
proved construction of ships, the Amphiktyonic convocations, the 
mutual frequentation of religious festivals, the Oriental and 
Egyptian veins of religion, etc., familiar to the latter epoch. 
These alterations Onomakritus and the other literary friends of 
Peisistratus, could hardly have failed to notice even without 
design, had they then for the first time undertaken the task of 
piecing together many self-existent epics into one large aggre- 
gate. 1 Everything in the two great Homeric poems, both io 

1 WvMf allows both the uniformity of coloring, and the antiquity of color 
tog, * hich perrade the Homeric poems ; also, the strong line by which they 
stand distinguished from the other Greek poets : " Imrao congruunt in iis 
omnia ferme in idem ingenium, in eosdem mores, in eandem formam sentiendi 
et loqaendi" (Prolegom. p. eclxv; compare p. exxxviii.; 

He thinks, indeed, that this harmonj was restored by the ability and care 


substance and in language, belongs to an age two or three cen- 
turies earlier than Peisistratus. Indeed, even the interpolation! 
(or those passages which on the best grounds are pronounced to 
be such) betray no trace of the sixth century before Christ, and 
may well have been heard by Archilochus and Kallinus, — in 
some cases even by Arktinus and Hesiod, — as genuine Homeric 
Blatter. As far as the evidences on the case, as well internal as 
external, enable us to judge, we seem warranted in believing that 
the Iliad and Odyssey were recited substantially as they now 
stand, (always allowing for partial divergences of text, and inter- 
polations,) in 776 b. c, our first trustworthy mark of Gre- 
cian time. And this ancient date, — let it be added, — as it is 
the best-authenticated fact, so it is also the most important attri- 
bute of the Homeric poems, considered in reference to Grecian 
history. For they thus afford us an insight into the ante-histor- 
ical character of the Greeks, — enabling us to trace the sub- 
sequent forward march of the nation, and to seize instructive 
contrasts between their former and their later condition. 

Rejecting, therefore, the idea of compilation by Peisistratus, 
and referring the present state of the Iliad and Odyssey to a 
period more than two centuries earlier, the question still remains, 
by what process, or through whose agency, they reached that 
state ? Is each poem the work of one author, or of several ? If 
the latter, do all the parts belong to the same age ? What ground 
is there for believing, that any or all of these parts existed before, 
as separate poems, and have been accommodated to the place in 
which they now appear, by more or less systematic alteration ? 

The acute and valuable Prolegomena of Wolf, half a century 
ago, powerfully turned the attention of scholars to the necessity 
of considering the Iliad and Odyssey with reference to the age 
and society in which they arose, and to the material differences 
in this respect between Homer and more recent epic poets. 1 

of Aristarchus, ("mirificum ilium concentum revocatum Aristarcho impri* 
mis debemus") This is a very exaggerated estimate of the interference 
of Aristarchus : but at any rate the concentus itself was ancient and original, 
and Aristarchus only restored it, when it had been spoiled by intervening 
accidents ; at least, if we are to construe revocatum atrictly, which, perhaps, 
fs hardly consistent with Wolf's main theory. 
1 See Wolf, Prolegg. c. xii. p. xliii. " Nondum enim prorsus eject* * 

vol- n. Hoc 


Since tbat time, an elaborate study has been bestowed upon tht 
early manifestations of poetry (Sagen-poesie) among other na- 
tions; and the German critics especially, among whom this 
description of literature has been most cultivated, have selected 
it as the only appropriate analogy for the Homeric poems. Such 
poetry, consisting for the most part of short, artless effusious, 
with little of deliberate or far-sighted combination, has been 
assumed by many critics as a fit standard to apply for measuring 
the capacities of the Homeric age ; an age exclusively of speak- 
ers, singers, and hearers, not of readers or writers. In place of 
the unbounded admiration which was felt for Homer, not merely 
as a poet of detail, but as constructor of a long epic, at the time 
when Wolf wrote his Prolegomena, the tone of criticism passed 
to the opposite extreme, and attention was fixed entirely upon 
the defects in the arrangement of the Iliad and Odyssey. What- 
ever was to be found in them of symmetry or pervading system, 
was pronounced to be decidedly post-Homeric Under such pre- 
conceived anticipations, Homer seems to have been generally 
studied in Germany, during the generation succeeding Wolf, the 
negative portion of whose theory was usually admitted, though 
as to the positive substitute, — what explanation was to be given 
of the history and present constitution of the Homeric poems, — 
there was by no means the like agreement During the last 
ten years, however, a contrary tendency has manifested itself; 
the Wolfian theory has been reexamined and shaken by Nitzsch, 
who, as well as O. Miiller, Welcker, and other scholars, have 
revived the idea of original Homeric unity, under certain modifi- 
cations. The change in Gothe's opinion, coincident with this 
new direction, is recorded in one of his latest works. 1 On the 

explosa est eorum ratio, qui Homerum et Callimachum et Virgilium ct 
Nonnum et Miltonum eodera ammo legunt, nee quid uniuscujusque sctas 
ferat, expendcre legendo et computare laborant," etc 

A similar and earlier attempt to construe the Homeric poems with refer- 
ence to their age, is to be seen in the treatise called 11 Vero Omero of Vico, 
— marked with a good deal of original thought, but not strong in erudition 
(Opere di Vico, ed. Milan, vol. v. pp. 437-497). 

1 In the forty-sixth volume of his collected works, in the little treat!* 
* Homer i noch dnmal:" compare G. Lange, Ueber die Kykiischen Dichttr 
(Mainz 1837), Preface, p. vi. 


other hand, the original opinion of Wolf has also been repro- 
duced within the last five years, and fortified with several new 
observations on the text o the Iliad, by Lachmann. 

The point is thus still under controversy among able scholars, 
and is probably destined to remain so. For, in truth, our means 
of knowledge are so limited, that no man can produce arguments 
sufficiently cogent to contend against opposing preconceptions; 
and it creates a painful sentiment of diffidence when we read the 
expressions of equal and absolute persuasion with which the two 
opposite conclusions have both been advanced. 1 We have noth- 
ing to teach us the history of these poems except the poems 
themselves. Not only do we possess no collateral information 

1 ' Non esse totam Uiadem aut Odysseam unius poetse opus, ita extra 
dubitationem positam puto, at qui secus sentiat, eum non satis lectitasse ilia 
cannina contendam." (Godf. Hermann, Pnefat ad Odysseam, Lips. 1825, p. 
iv.) See the language of the same eminent critic in his treatise "Ueber 
Homer and Sappho," Opuscula, vol. v. p. 74. 

Lachmann, after having dissected the two thousand two hundred lines in the 
Iliad, between the beginning of the eleventh book, and line five hundred and 
ninety of the fifteenth, into four songs, (( in the highest degree different in 
their spirit," ( M ihrcm Geiste nach hochst verschicdene Lieder, w J tells us that 
whosoever thinks this difference of spirit inconsiderable, — whosoever dees 
not feel it at once when pointed out, — whosoever can believe that the parts 
as they stand now belong to ono artistically constructed Epos, — " will do 
well not to trouble himself any more either with my criticisms or with epic 
poetry, because he is too weak to understand anything about it," (" wcil er 
cu schwach ist etwas darin zu verstehen : ") Pernere Betrachtungen Ueber 
die Bias : Abhandl. Berlin. Acad. 1841, p. 18, $ xxiii. 

On the contrary, Ulrici, after having shown (or tried to show) that the 
composition of Homer satisfies perfectly, in the main, all the exigencies of 
an artistic epic, — adds, that this will make itself at once evident to all those 
who have any sense of artistical symmetry ; but that, for those to whom that 
sense is wanting, no conclusive demonstration can be given. He warns the 
latter, however, that they are not to deny the existence of that which their 
shortsighted vision cannot distinguish, for everything cannot be made clear to 
children, which the mature man sees through at a glance (Ulrici, Geschichtt 
dee Grieehischen Epos, Part i. ch. vii. pp. 260-261 ). Read also Payne Knight, 
Proleg. c. xxvii, about the insanity of the Wolfian school, obvious even tc 
the " homunculus e trivia" 

I have the misfortune to dissent from both Lachmann and Ulrici ; for It 
appears to me a mistake to pot the Clad and Odyssey on the same footrag 
at Ulrid does, and ae ie too faqpnty done ey otbere. 


respecting them or their authors, but we have no one to describe 
to us the people or the age in which they originated ; our knowl- 
edge respecting contemporary Homeric society, is coDected exclu- 
sively from the Homeric compositions themselves. We are 
ignorant whether any other, or what other, poems preceded them, 
or divided with them the public favor ; nor have we anything 
better than conjecture to determine either the circumstances 
under which they were brought before the hearers, or the condi- 
tions which a bard of that day was required to satisfy. On all 
these points, moreover, the age of Thucydides 1 and Plato seems 
to have been no better informed than we are, except in so far as 
they could profit by the analogies of the cyclic and other epic 
poems, which would doubtless in many cases have afforded valu- 
able aid. 

Nevertheless, no classical scholar can be easy without some 
opinion respecting the authorship of these immortal poems. And 
the more defective the evidence we possess, the more essential is 
it that all that evidence should be marshalled in the clearest 
order, and its bearing upon the points in controversy distinctly 
understood beforehand. Both these conditions seem to have 
been often neglected, throughout the long-continued Homeric 

To illustrate the first point: Since two poems are compre- 
hended in the problem to be solved, the natural process would be, 
first, to study the easier of the two, and then to apply the conclu- 
sions thence deduced as a means of explaining the other. Now, 
the Odyssey, looking at its aggregate character, is incomparably 
more easy to comprehend than the Iliad. Yet most Homeric 
critics apply the microscope at once, and in the first instance, to 
the Iliad. 

To illustrate the second point : What evidence is sufficient to 
negative the supposition that the Iliad or the Odyssey is a poem 
originally and intentionally one ? Not simply particular gaps and 

1 Plato, Aristotle, and their contemporaries generally, read the most bus 
picious portions of the Homeric poems as genuine (Nitzsch, Plan and (fang 
der Odyssee, in the Preface to his second vol. of Comments on the Odytsej 
pp. lx-Ixiv). 

Thucydides accepts the Hymn to Apollo as a composition by &• Mtffeoi 
of the Iliad. 


contradictions, though they be even gross and numerous ; but the 
preponderance of these proofs of mere unpi epared coalescence 
dyer the other proofs of designed adaptation scattered throughout 
the whole poem. For the poet (or the cooperating poets, if more 
than one) may have intended to compose an harmonious whole, 
but may have realized their intention incompletely, and left 
partial faults ; or, perhaps, the contradictory lines may have crept 
in through a corrupt text. A survey of the whole poem is 
necessary to determine the question ; and this necessity, too, has 
not always been attended to. 

If it had happened that the Odyssey had been preserved to us 
•lone, without the Iliad, I think the dispute respecting Homeric 
•unity would never have been raised. For the former is, in my 
judgment, pervaded almost from beginning to end by marks of 
designed adaptation; and the special faults which Wolf, W 
Muller, and B. Thiersch, 1 have singled out for the purpose of 
disproving such unity of intention, are so few, and of so liUle 
importance, that they would have been universally regarded as 
mere instances of haste or unskilfulness on the part of the poet, 
had they not been seconded by the far more . powerful battery 
opened against the Iliad. These critics, having laid down their 
general presumptions against the antiquity of the long epopee, 
illustrate their principles by exposing the many flaws and fissures 
in the Iliad, and then think it sufficient if they can show a few 
similar defects in the Odyssey, — as if the breaking up of Homeric 
unity in the former naturally entailed a similar necessity with 
regard to the latter ; and their method of proceeding, contrary to 
the rule above laid down, puts the more difficult problem in the 
foreground, as a means of solution for the easier. We can 
hardly wonder, however, that they have applied their observa 
tioos in the first instance to the Diad, because it is in every man'b 
esteem the more marked, striking, and impressive poem of the 
two, — and the character of Homer is more intimately identified 
with it than with the Odyssey. This may serve as an explana- 
tion of the course pursued ; but be the case as it may in respect 
to comparative poetical merit, it is not the less true, that, as an 

l Bernhard Thiersch, Ueber das Zeittlter and Vaterland des Homes 
(Halbcrstadt, 1832), Sinleitung, pp. 4-18. 


Aggregate, the Odyssey is more simple and easily understood, and, 
therefore, ought to come first in the order of analysis. 

Now, looking at the Odyssey by itself, the proofs of an unity 
of design seem unequivocal and everywhere to be found. A 
premeditated structure, and a concentration of interest upon one 
prime hero, under well-defined circumstances, may be traced from 
the firBt book to the twenty-third. Odysseus is always either 
directly or indirectly kept before the reader, as a warrior return- 
ing from the fulness of glory at Troy, exposed to manifold and 
protracted calamities during his return home, on which his whole 
soul is so bent that he refuses even the immortality offered by 
Calypsd ; — a victim, moreover, even after his return, to mingled 
injury and insult from the suitors, who have long been plundering 
his property, and dishonoring his house ; but at length obtaining, 
by valor and cunning united, a signal revenge, which restores him 
to all that he had lost. All the persons and all the events in 
the poem are subsidiary to this main plot : and the divine agency, 
necessary to satisfy the feeling of the Homeric man, is put forth 
by Poseiddn and AthenS, in both cases from dispositions directly 
bearing upon Odysseus. To appreciate the unity of the Odyssey, 
we have only to read the objections taken against that of the 
Iliad, — especially in regard to the long withdrawal of Achilles, 
not only from the scene, but from the memory, — together with 
the independent prominence of Ajax, Diomedes, and other heroes. 
How far we are entitled from hence to infer the want of premed- 
itated unity in the Iliad, will be presently considered ; but it is 
certain that the constitution of the Odyssey, in this respect, 
everywhere demonstrates the presence of such unity. Whatever 
may be the interest attached to Penelope, Teiemachus, or 
EumsBus, we never disconnect them from their association with 
Odysseus. The present is not the place for collecting the many 
marks of artistical structure dispersed throughout this poem ; but it 
may be worth while to remark, that the final catastrophe realized 
in the twenty-second book, — the slaughter of the suitors in the 
very house which they were profaning, — is distinctly and promi- 
nently marked out in the first and second books, promised by 
Teiresias in the eleventh, by Athftnd in the thirteenth, and by 
Helen in the fifteenth, and gradually matured by a series of 


suitable preliminaries, throughout the eight books preceding iu> 
occurrence. 1 Indeed, what is principally evident, and what has been 
often noticed, in the Odyssey, is, the equable flow both of the nar- 
rative and the events ; the absence of that rise and fall of interest 
which is sufficiently conspicuous in the Iliad. 

To set against these evidences of unity, there ought, at least, 
to be some strong cases produced of occasional incoherence or 
contradiction. But it is remarkable how little of such counter- 
evidence is to be found, although the arguments of Wolf, W. 
M iiller, and B. Thiersch stand so much in need of it They 
have discovered only one instance of undeniable inconsistency in 
the parts, — the number of days occupied by the absence of Tele- 
machus at Pylus and Sparta. That young prince, though repre- 
sented as in great haste to depart, and refusing pressing invita- 
tions to prolong his stay, must, nevertheless, be supposed to have 
continued for thirty days the guest of Menelaus, in order to bring 
his proceedings into chronological harmony with those of Odysseus, 
and to explain the first meeting of father and son in the swine- 
fold of Eumaeus. Here is undoubtedly an inaccuracy, (so Nitzsch 9 
treats it, and I think justly) on the part of the poet, who did not 
anticipate, and did not experience in ancient times, so strict a 
scrutiny ; an inaccuracy certainly not at all wonderful ; the 
matter of real wonder is, that it stands almost alone, and that 
there are no others in the poem. 

Now, this is one of the main points on which W. Miiller and 

1 Compare i, 295; ii. 145 (vijiroivoi Kev irreira dopuv b>Too$ev bXoio&e)\ 
xi. 118; xiii. 395; xv. 178; also xiv. 162. 

* Nitzsch, Plan and Gang der Odyssee, p. xliii, prefixed to the second voL 
of his Commentary on the Odysseis. 

"At carxninum primi auditores non adeo curiosi erant (observes Mr. 
Payne Knight, Prolog, c xxiii.), at ejasmodi reram rationes aut exqoirereni 
ant expenderent; neqne eorum fides e subtilioribus congraentiis omnino 
pendebat Monendi enim sunt etiom atqne etiam Homericornm studios!, 
veteres illos &oi&oi)c non lingua professoria inter viros criticos et grammati- 
cos, ant alios quoscunqne argutiarum captatores, carmina cantitasse, sed 
inter eos qui sensibns animorum libere, incaute, et effuse indulgerent," etc 
Chap, xxii-xxvii. of Mr. Knight's Prolegomena, are valuable to the same 
purpose, showing the " homines rndes et agrestes," of that day, as excellent 
judges of what fell under their senses and observation, but careless, creda 
Ions, and unobservant of contradiction, in matters which came oiuj ante 
the mind's eye. 


II. Thiersch rest their theory, — explaining the chraiotogioul 
confusion by supposing that the joarney of Telemaehus to PyUw 
and Sparta, constituted the subject of an epic originally separata 
(comprising the first four books and a portion of the fifteenth), 
and incorporated at second-hand with the remaining poem. And 
they conceive this view to be farther confirmed by the double 
assembly of the gods, (at the beginning of the first book as well 
as of the fifth,) which they treat as an awkward repetition, such 
as could not have formed part of the primary scheme of any epic 
poet. But here they only escape a small difficulty by running 
into another and a greater. For it is impossible to comprehend 
how the first four books and part of the fifteenth can ever have 
constituted a distinct epic; since the adventure* of Telemadras 
have no satisfactory termination, except at the point of confluence 
with those of his father, when the unexpected meeting and reeog* 
nition takes place under the roof of Eumeus, — nor can aay epic 
poem ever have described that meeting and recognition without 
giving some account how Odysseus came thither. Moreover, the 
first two books of the Odyssey distinctly lay the ground, and 
carry expectation forward, to the final catastrophe of the poem, 
— treating Telemachus as a subordinate person, and his expedi- 
tion as merely provisional towards an ulterior result. Nor can I 
agree with W. Muller, that the real Odyssey might well be sup- 
posed to begin with the fifth book. On the contrary, the exhibi 
tion of the suitors and the Ithakesian agora, presented to us in 
the second book, is absolutely essential to the full comprehension 
of the books subsequent to the thirteenth. The suitors are far 
too important personages in the poem to allow of their being first 
introduced in so informal a manner as we read in the sixteenth 
book: indeed, the passing allusions of AthGnfc (xiii. 810, 375) 
and Eumaeus (xiv. 41, 81) to the suitors, presuppose cognizance 
of them on the part of the hearer. 

Lastly, the twofold discussion of the gods, at the beginning of 
the first and fifth books, and the doable interference of Athene, 
far from being a needless repetition, may be shown to suit per- 
fectly both the genuine epical conditions and the unity of the 
J For although the final consummation, and the organiz*- 

1 W. M tiller is not corra t in saying that, m the first assembly of the gets, 
Zens promises something * hick he does not perform : Zens < 


Utm of measures against the suitors, was to be accomplished by 
Odysseus and Telemachus jointly, yet the march and adventures 
of the two, until the moment of their meeting in the dwelling of 
Eumaeus, were essentially distinct But, according to the reli- 
gions ideas of (h* old epic, the presiding direction of Athene 
was ueoesaary &? the safety and success of both of them. Her 
fust interference arouses and inspires the son, her second produces 
the liberation of the father, — constituting a point of union and* 
common origination for two lines of adventures, in both of which 
she takes earnest interest, but which aie necessarily for a time 
kept apart in order to coincide at the proper moment. 

It will thus appear that the twiee-repeated agora of the gods in 
file Odyssey, bringing home, as it does to one and the same divine 
agent, that double start which is essential to the seheme of the 
poem, consists better with the supposition of premeditated unity 
than with that of distinct self-existent parts. And, assuredly, the 
manner in which Telemachus and Odysseus, both by different 
roads, are brought into meeting and conjunction at the dwelling 
of Eumaeue, is something not only contrived, but very skilfully 
contrived. It is needless to advert to the highly interesting 
character of Eumaeus, rendered available as a rallying-point, 
though in different ways, both to the father and the son, over 
and above the sympathy which he himself inspires. 

If the Odyssey be not an original unity, of what self-existent 
parts can we imagine it to have consisted ? To this question it is 
difficult to imagine a satisfactory reply : for the supposition that 
Telemachus and his adventures may once have formed the subject 
of a separate epos, apart from Odysseus, appears inconsistent 
with the whole character of that youth as it stands in the poem, 
and with the events in which lie is made to take part. We could 
better imagine the distribution of the adventures of Odysseus 
himself into two parts, — one containing his wanderings and 
return, the other handling bis ill-treatment by the suitors, and his 

to send Hermis as messenger to Kalypso, in the first book, though AthdnA 
urges him to do so. Zeus, indeed, requires to be urged twice before lie die* 
tales to Kalyps6 the release of Odysseus, but he had already intimated, in 
{fee first book, that he felt great difficulty in protecting the hero, because of 
the wrath manifested Again&t him by Poseidon. 
TOt. II. 8 


final triumph. But though either of these two subject* might 
have been adequate to furnish out a separate poem, it is never* 
theless certain that, as they are presented in the Odyssey, the 
former cannot be divorced from the latter. The simple return 
of Odysseus, as it now stands in the poem, could satisfy no one 
as a final close, so long as the suitors remain in possession of his 
house, and forbid his reunion with his wife. Any poem which 
treated his wanderings and return separately, must have repre- 
sented his reunion with Penelope and restoration to his house, as 
following naturally upon his arrival in Ithaka, — thus taking little 
or no notice of the suitors. But this would be a capital mutilation 
of the actual epical narrative, which considers the suitors at home 
as an essential portion of the destiny of the much-suffering hero, 
not less than his shipwrecks and trials at sea. His return (sepa- 
rately taken) is foredoomed, according to the curse of Polyphe- 
mus, executed by Poseiddn, to be long deferred, miserable, solitary, 
and ending with destruction in his house to greet him j 1 and the 
ground is thus laid, in the very recital of his wanderings, for a 
new series of events which are to happen to him after his arrival 
in Ithaka. There is no tenable halting-place between the depar- 
ture of Odysseus from Troy, and the final restoration to his house 
and his wife. The distance between these two events may, 
indeed, be widened, by accumulating new distresses and impedi- 
ments, but any separate portion of it cannot be otherwise treated 
than as a fraction of the whole. The beginning and the end are 
here the data in respect to epical genesis, though the intermediate 
events admit of being conceived as variables, more or less 
numerous: so that the conception of the whole may be said 
without impropriety both to precede and to govern that of the 
constituent parts. 

The general result of a study of the Odyssey may be set 
down as follows: 1. The poem, as it now stands, exhibits 
unequivocally adaptation of parts and continuity of structure, 
whether by one or by several consentient hands : it may, perhaps, 

1 Odyss, ix. 534. — 

'O^c KOff&f i%&oi t tteoac &vb trdvraf traipovc, 

Nfldf in* d?.Aorpti7f , eifxn <T h irff/tara olicy — 

*flf i^ar 9 tixof**"*' (tha Cjctopa to Poseidon) nrf o" Utoi Kvavogofafr 


be a secondary formation, out of a preexisting Odyssey of smallei 
dimensions ; but, if so, the parts of the smaller whole must have 
been so far recast as to make them suitable members of the 
larger, and are noway recognizable by us. 2. The subject- 
matter of the poem not only does not favor, but goes far to ex- . 
elude, the possibility of the Wolfian hypothesis. Its events 

mot be so arranged as to have composed several antecedent 
substantive epics, afterwards put together into the present ag- 
gregate. Its authors cannot have been mere compilers of pre- 
existing materials, such as Peisistratus and his friends: they 
must have been poets, competent to work such matter as they 
found, into a new and enlarged design of their own. Nor can 
the age in which this long poem, of so many thousand lines, was 
turned out as a continuous aggregate, be separated from the 
ancient, productive, inspired age of Grecian epic. 

Arriving at such conclusions from the internal evidence of the 
Odyssey, 1 we can apply them by analogy to the Iliad. We learn 
something respecting the character and capacities of that early 
age which has left no other mementos except these two poems. 
Long continuous epics (it is observed by those who support the 
views of Wolf), with an artistical structure, are inconsistent with 
the capacities of a rude and non- writing age. Such epics (we may 
reply) are not inconsistent with the early age of the Greeks, and 
the Odyssey is a proof of it ; for in that poem the integration of 
the whole, and the composition of the parts, must have been 
simultaneous. The analogy of the Odyssey enables us to rebut 
that preconception under which many ingenious critics sit down 
to the study of the Iliad, and which induces them to explain all 
the incoherences of the latter by breaking it up into smaller 
unities, as if short epics were the only manifestation of poetical 

1 Wolf admits, in most unequivocal language, the compact and' artful 
structure of the Odyssey. Against this positive internal evidence, he sets 
the general presumption, that no such constructive art can possibly have 
belonged to a poet of the age of Homer: " De Odyssea maxime. cujtu 
admirabilis summa et com pages pro praeclarissimo monumento Grseci ingenfi 

habenda est Unde fit ut Odysseam nemo, cui omnino priscus vatei 

placeat, nisi perlectam e manu deponere queat At ilia are id ipsum est, 
quod vixacnevix qiridem cadere videtur in vatem, singulas tantum ihapsodiM 
decantantem," etc. (Prolegomen. pp. cxviii-cxx ; compare cxii.) 


power which the age admitted- There ought to be no reluctance 
in admitting a presiding scheme and premeditated unity of parts, 
in so far as the parts themselves point to each a conclusion. 

That the Iliad is not so essentially one piece as the Odyssey, 
every man agrees. It includes a much greater multiplicity of 
events, and what is yet more important, a greater multiplicity of 
prominent personages : the very indefinite title which it bears, 
«! contrasted with the speciality of the name, Odyssey, marks 
the difference at once. The parts stand out more conspicuously 
from the whole, and admit more readily of being felt and appre- 
ciated in detached recitation. We may also add, that it is f 
more unequal execution than the Odyssey, — often rising to a far 
higher pitch of grandeur,~but also, occasionally, tamer : the story 
does not move on continuously ; incidents occur without plausible 
motive, nor can we shut our eyes to evidences of incoherence 
and contradiction. 

To a certain extent, the Iliad is open to all these remarks, 
though Wolf and William Miiller, and above all Lachmann, ex- 
aggerate the case in degree. And from hence has been deduced 
the hypothesis which treats the parts in their original state as 
separate integers, independent of, and unconnected with, each 
other, and forced into unity only by the afterthought of a subse- 
quent age ; or sometimes, not even themselves as integers, bat m 
aggregates grouped together out of fragments still smaller,— 
short epics formed by the coalescence of still shorter songs. 
Now there is some plausibility in these reasonings, so long as the 
discrepancies are looked upon as the whole of the case. Bat in 
point of fact they are not the whole of the case : for it is not leas 
true, that there are large portions of the Iliad which present 
positive and undeniable evidences of coherence as antecedent 
and consequent, though we are occasionally perplexed by mcon- 
■isteneies of detail. To deal with these latter, is a portion of 
the duties of the critic But he is not to treat the Iliad as if 
inconsistency prevailed everywhere throughout its parts*; for 
teberenee of parts — symmetrical antecedence and consequeaoe 
— is discernible throughout the larger half of the poem. 

Now the Wolfian theory explains the gaps and contradictions 
throughout the narrative, bat it explains nothing else. If (at 
Lachmann thinks) the Iliad originally consisted of sixteen songs. 


m little substantive epics, (Lachinann's sixteen song* cover the 
#pace only as far as the 22d book, or the death of Hector, and 
two more songs would have to be admitted for the 23d and 24th 
books), — not only composed by different authors, but by each 1 
without any view to conjunction with the rest,— we have then 
no right to expect any intrinsic continuity between them ; and all 
that continuity which we now find must be «f extraneous origin. 
Where are we to look for the origin ? Laehmann follows Wolf 9 
in ascribing the whole constructive process to Peisistratus and 
his associates, at a period when the creative epical faculty is 
admitted to have died out But upon this supposition, Peisistra- 
tus (or his associates) must have done much more than omit, 
transpose, and interpolate, here and there j he must have gone 
far to rewrite the whole poem. A great poet might have recast 
preexisting separate songs into one comprehensive whole, but no 
mere arrangers or compilers would be competent to do so : and we 
are thus left without any means of accounting for that degree of 
continuity and consistence which runs through so large a portion 
of the Iliad, though not through the whole. The idea that ,the 
poem, as we read it, grew out of atoms not originally designed for 
the places which they now occupy, involves us in new and inex- 
tricable difficulties, when we seek to elucidate either the mode of 
coalescence or the degree of existing unity. 3 

1 Laehmann seems to admit one cose in which the composer of oae song 
manifests cognizance of another song, and a disposition to give what will 
form a sequel to it Hi* fifteenth song (the Patrokleia) lasts from xv. 59 j 
down to the end of the 17th book: the sixteenth song (including the four 
next books, fnscn eighteen to twenty-two inewvive) is a condonation of the 
fifteenth, bnt by a different poet. (Fernero Betrachtungen tiber die Ilia*, 
Abhandl. Berlin. Acad. 1841, sect xxvl xxviii. xxix. pp. 24, 34, 42.) 

This admission of premeditated adaptation to a certain extent breaks tip 
the integrity of the Wolfian hypothesis. 

9 The advocates of the Wolfian theory, appear to feel the difficulties which 
beset it ; for their language is wavering in respect to these supposed primary 
eoafttaient atoms. Sometimes Laehmann tells as, that h% original pieces 
nn ranch finer poetry than the Iliad as we now read it; at another time, 
that it cannot be now discovered what they originally were: nay, he farther 
admits, (as remarked m the preceding note,) that the poet of the sixteenth 
song had cognizance of the fifteenth. 

Bat if it be granted that the original constituent songs were so composed 
though by different poets, as tha* die more recent were adapted to the earlier 


Admitting then premeditated adaptation of parts to a certain 
extent as essential to the Iliad, we may jet inquire, whether it 
was produced all at once, or gradually enlarged, — whether bj 
one author, or by several ; and, if the parts be of different age, 
which is the primitive kernel, and which are the additions. 

Welcker, Lange, and Nitzsch 1 treat the Homeric poems as 
representing a second step in advance, in the progress of popular 
poetry. First, comes the age of short narrative songs ; next, 
wl en these have become numerous, there arise constructive minds 
who recast and blend together many of them into a larger aggrc* 
gate, conceived upon some scheme of their own. The age of the 
epos is followed by that of the epopee, — short, spontaneous effu- 
sions preparing the way, and furnishing materials, for the archi- 
tectonic genius of the poet It is farther presumed by the above- 
mentioned authors, that the pre- Homeric epic included a great 
abundance of such smaller songs, — a fact which admits of no 
proof, but which seems countenanced by some passages in Homer, 
and is in itself no way improbable. But the transition from such 
songs, assuming them to be ever so numerous, to a combined and 
continuous poem, forms an epoch in the intellectual history of the 
nation, implying mental qualities of a higher order than those 
upon which the songs themselves depend. Nor is it to be imag- 
ined that the materials pass unaltered from their first state of 
isolation into their second state of combination. They must of 
necessity be recast, and undergo an adapting process, in which 

with more or less dexterity and success, this brings us into totally different 
conditions of the problem. It is a virtual surrender of the Wolfian hypoth- 
esis, which, however, Lachmann both means to defend, and does defend 
with ability ; though his vindication of it has, to my mind, only the effect of 
exposing its inherent weakness by carrying it out into something detailed 
and positive. I will add, in respect to his Dissertations, so instructive as a 
microscopic examination of the poem, — 1. That I find myself constantly 
dissenting from t'j&t critical feeling, on the strength of which he cuts oat 
parts as interpolations, and discovers traces of the hand of distinct poets ; 3 
That his objections against the continuity of the narrative are often founded 
upon lines which the ancient scholiasts and Mr. Payne Knight had already 
pronounced to be interpolations; 8. That such of his objections as are 
founded upon lines undisputed, admit in many cases of a complete and, 
satisfactory reply. 

1 Lange, in his Letter to Goethe, Ueber die Einheit der Hiade, p. S3 (1836) 
Pitssch, Historia Homeri, fasciculus 2, Pnefat p. x. 


the genius of the organizing poet consists ; nor can we hope, by 
simply knowing them as they exist in the second stage, ever to 
divine how they stood in the first Such, in my judgment, is the 
right conception of tho Homeric epoch. — an organizing poetical 
mind, still preserving that freshness of observation and vivacity 
of details which constitutes the charm of the ballad. 

Nothing is gained by studying the Iliad as a congeries of frag- 
ments once independent of each other : no portion of the poem 
can be shown to have ever been so, and the supposition introduces 
difficulties greater than those which it removes. But it is not 
necessary to affirm that the whole poem a«\ we now read it, 
belonged to the original and preconceived pltu-. 1 In this respect, 
the Iliad produces, upon my mind, an impression totally different 
from the Odyssey. In the latter poem, the characters and inci- 
dents .are fewer, and the whole plot appears of one projection, 
from the beginning down to the death of the suitors : none of the 
parts look as if they had been composed separately, and inserted 
by way of addition into a preexisting smaller poem. But the Iliad, 
on the contrary, presents the appearance of a house built upon a 
plan comparatively narrow, and subsequently enlarged by succes- 
sive additions. The first book, together with the eighth, and the 
books from the eleventh to the twenty second, inclusive, seem to 
form the primary organization of the poem, then properly an 
Achilleis : the twenty-third and twenty-fourth books are, perhaps, 
additions at the tail of this primitive poem, which still leave it 
nothing more than an enlarged Achilleis. But the books from the 
second to the seventh, inclusive, together with the tenth, are of a 
wider and more comprehensive character, and convert the poem 

1 Even Aristotle, the great builder- up of the celebrity of Homer as to 
epical aggregation, found some occasions (it appears) on which he was obliged 
to be content with simply excusing,- without admiring, the poet (Poet 44 
rote akTuoif &ya&olc 6 iroujT^c rjdvvuv &$avi£et rd utottov.) 

And Hermann observes justly, in his acute treatise De Interpolationibut 
Homeri (Opuscula, torn. v. p. 53), — M Nisi admirabilis ilia Homericorum 
carminum suavitas lectorum animos quasi incantationibus quibusdam captoi 
teneret, non tam facile delitescerent, quae accuratius considerate, et multa 
minus apte quam quia jure postulet composite esse apparere necesse est" 

This treatise contains many criticisms on the structure of the Iliad, sonw 
if them very well founded, though there are many from which I dissent 


from an Achiileis into an Iliad. 1 The primitive frontispiece* 
inscribed with the anger of Achilles, and its direct consequences, 
yet remains, after it has ceased to be coextensive with the poem. 
The parts added, however, are not necessarily inferior in merit to 
the original poem : so far is this from being the case, that amongst 
them are comprehended some of the noblest efforts of the Grecian 
epic Nor are they more recent in date than the original ; strictly 
speaking, they must be a little more recent, but they belong to 
the same generation and state of society as the primitive Achiileis. 
These qualifications are necessary to keep apart different ques- 
tions, which, in discussions of Homeric criticism, are but too often 

If we take those portions of the poem which I imagine to have 
constituted the original Achiileis, it will be found that the sequence 
of events contained in them is more rapid, more unbroken, and 
more intimately knit together in the way of cause and effect, than 
in the other books. Heyne and Lachmann, indeed, with other 
objecting critics, complains of the action in them as being too 
much crowded and hurried, since one day lasts from the beginning 
of the eleventh book to the middle of the eighteenth, without any 
sensible halt in the march throughout so large a portion of the 
journey. Lachmann, likewise, admits that those separate songs, 
into which he imagines that the whole Iliad may be dissected, 
cannot be severed with the same sharpness, in the books subse- 
quent to the eleventh, as in those before it. 3 There is only one 

1 In reference to the books from the second to the seventh, inclusive, I 
agree with the observations of William Milller, Homerische Vorschule, Ab 
sennit viii. pp. 111-118. 

* Lachmann, Fernere Betrachtungen fiber die Ilias, Abbandlungen Berlin. 
Acad. 1841, p. 4. 

After having pointed oat certain discrepancies which he maintain* to prove 
different composing hands, he adds : " Nevertheless, we mast he careful 
not tc regard the single constituent songs in this part of the poem as being 
distinct and separable in a degree equal to those in the first half; for they 
all with one accord nannonise in one particular circumstance, which, with 
reference to the story of the Iliad, is not less important even than the anger 
of Achilles, viz. that the three most distinguished heroes, Agamemndn, Odys- 
seus, and Diomedes, all becc ne dUabled throughout the whole duration of 
the battles." 

Important for the story of the AJUIliis, I should say, not for that of tk# 


real halting-place from the eleventh book to the twenty-second.— . 
the death of Patroclus ; and this can never be conceived as the 
end of a separate poem,i though it is a capital step in the devel- 
opment of the Achilleis, and brings about that entire revolution 
in the temper of Achilles which was essential for the purpose of 
the poet It would be a mistake to imagine that there ever could 
have existed a separate poem called Patrocleia, though a part of 
the Iliad was designated by that name. For Patroclus has no 
substantive position: he is the attached friend and second of 
Achilles, but nothing else, — standing to the latter in a relation of 
dependence resembling that of Telemachus to Odysseus. And 
the way in which Patroclus is dealt with in the Iliad, is, (in my 
judgment,) the most dexterous and artistical contrivance in the 
poem, — that which approaches nearest to the neat tissue of the 
Odyssey. 9 

Iliad. This remark of Lachmann m highly illustrative for the distinction 
between the original and the enlarged poem. 

1 1 confess my astonishment that a man of so much genius and power of 
thought as M. Benjamin Constant, should have imagined the original Iliad 
to have concluded with the death of Patroclus, on the ground that Achillea 
then becomes reconciled with Agamemnon. See the review of B. Constant's 
work, De la Religion, etc., by O. Miiller, in the Heine Schriften of the latter, 
vol. it. p. 74. 

* He appears as the mediator between the insulted Achilles and the Greeks, 
manifesting kindly sympathies for the latter without renouncing his fidelity 
to the former. The wouuded Machaon, an object of interest to the whole 
camp, being carried off the field by Nestor, — Achilles, looking on from hit 
distant ship, sends Patroclus to inquire whether it be really Machaon ; which 
enables Nestor to lay before Patroclus the deplorable state of the Grecian 
host, as a motive to induce him and Achilles again to take arms. The 
compassionate feelings of Patroclus being powerfully touched, he is hasten- 
ing to enforce upon Achilles the urgent necessity of giving help, when he 
meets Eurypylus crawling out of the field, helpless with a severe wound, 
an3 imploring his succor. He supports the wounded warrior to his tent, 
and ministers to his suffering ; but before this operation is fully completed, 
the Grecian host has been totally driven back, and the Trojans are on the 
point of setting fire to the ships : Patroclus then hurries to Achilles to pro- 
claim the desperate peril which hangs over them all, and succeeds in obtain- 
ing his permission to take the field at the head of the Myrmidons. The 
way in which Patroclus is kept present to the hearer, as a prelude to his 
brilliant but short-tived display, when he comes forth in arms, — the con. 
trost between his characteristic gentleness and the ferocity of Achilles. - 

VOL. H. 8* 180CL 


The great and capital misfortune which prostrates the strength 
of the Greeks, and renders them incapable of defending them- 
selves without Achilles, is the disablement, by wounds, of Agar 
memnon, DiomSdds, and Odysseus ; so that the defence of the 
wall and of the ships is left only to heroes of the second magni- 
tude (Ajax alone excepted), such as Idomeneus, Leonteus, Poly- 
pcetes, Merionfcs, Menelaus, etc Now, it is remarkable that all 
these three first-rate chiefs are in full force at the beginning of 
the eleventh book : all three are wounded in the battle which that 
book describes, and at the commencement of which Agamemndn 
is full of spirits and courage: 

Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which Homer 
concentrates our attention in the first book upon Achilles as the 
hero, his quarrel with Agamemndn, and the calamities to the 
Greeks which are held out as about to ensue from it, through the 
intercession of Thetis with Zeus. But the incidents dwelt upon 
from the beginning of the second book down to the combat 
between Hector and Ajax in the seventh, animated and interesting 
as they are, do nothing to realize this promise. They are a 
6plendid picture of the Trojan war generally, and eminently 
suitable to that larger title under which the poem has been 
immortalized,— but the consequences of the anger of Achilles do 
not appear until the eighth book. The tenth book, or Doloneia, 
is also a portion of the Iliad, but not of the Achilleis : while the 
ninth book appears to me a subsequent addition, nowise harmo- 
nizing with that main stream of the Achilleis which flows from 
the eleventh book to the twenty-second. The eighth book ought 
to be read in immediate connection with the eleventh, in order to 
see the structure of what seems the primitive AchiUeis ; for there 
are several passages in the eleventh and the following books, 
which prove that the poet who composed them could not have 
had present to his mind the main event of the ninth book, — the 
outpouring of profound humiliation by the Greeks, and from 
Agamemndn, especially, before Achilles, coupled with formal 

and the natural train of circumstances whereby he is made the vehicle of 
reconciliation on the part of his offended friend, and rescue to his imperiled 
countrymen, — all these exhibit a degree of epical skill, in the author of the 
primitive Achill&s, to which nothing is found parallel in the added books of 
the Iliad 
Vol. 2 6 


offers to restore Bris&is, and pay the amplest compensation for 
past wrong. 1 The words of Achilles (not less than those of 

1 Observe, for example, the following passages : — 

1. Achilles, standing on the prow of his ship, sees the general army of 
Greeks undergoing defeat by the Trojans, and also sees Nestor conveying in 
his chariot a wounded warrior from the field. He sends Patroclos to find 
oat who the wounded man is: in calling forth Patroclos, he says (xi. 607),-- 

Ale MtvomdJty, r<p y*£> Kexapiapive dtyi^, 
Nvv olu irepl yovvaT* kpa arrjaecr&ai 'Axaiotoc 
Aioaopevovc * XP ei0> 7&P Ifcaverai oftcer* avetcroc. 

Heyne, in his comment, asks the question, not unnaturally, " Pcenituerat 
igitur asperitatis erga priorem legation em, an homo arrogans expectavcrat 
alteram ad se missam iri ? n I answer, neither one nor the other: the words 
imply that he had received no embassy at all. He is still the same Achilles who 
in the first book paced alone by the seashore, devouring his own soul under 
a sense of bitter affront, and praying to Thetis to aid his revenge: this 
revenge is now about to be realized, and he hails its approach with delight 
But if we admit the embassy of the ninth book to intervene, the passage 
becomes a glaring inconsistency for that which Achilles anticipates as 
future, and even yet as contingent, had actually occurred on the previous even- 
ing; the Greeks had supplicated at his feet, — they had proclaimed their intol- 
erable need, — and he had spurned them. The Scholiast, in his explanation 
of these lines, after giving the plain meaning, that " Achilles shows what he 
has long been desiring, to see the Greeks in a state of supplication to him," 
— seems to recollect that this is in contradiction to the ninth book, and tries 
to remove the contradiction, by saying " that he had been previously molli- 
fied by conversation with Phoenix," — ijdri de irpop.a'kax&elc Ijv U tuv boivi- 
koc Xoyuv, — a supposition neither countenanced by anything in the poet, 
nor sufficient to remove the difficulty. 

2. The speech of Poseiddn (xiii. 115) to encourage the dispirited Grecian 
heroes, in which, after having admitted the injury done to Achilles by Aga- 
memndn, he recommends an effort to heal the sore, and intimates u that the 
minds of good men admit of this healing process," ('A/U' aiceupe&a daaoov 
uKearai re fpevec la&Xuv,) is certainly not very consistent with the supposi- 
tion that this attempt to heal had been made in the best possible way, and 
that Achilles had manifested a mind implacable in the extreme on the 
evening before, — while the mind of Agamemnon was already brought to 
proclaimed humiliation, and needed no farther healing. 

3. And what shall we say to the language of Achilles and Patroclus, at 
the beginning of the sixteenth book, just at the moment when the danger 
has reached its maximum, and when Achilles is about to send forth hat 

Neither Nestor, when he invokes and instructs Patroclus as intercessor 
with Achilles (xi. 654-790), nor Patroclus himself, though in the extreme 


Patroclus and Nestor) in the eleventh and in the following book% 
plainly imply that the humiliation of the Greeks before him, for 

of anxiety to work upon the mind of Achilles, and reproaching him with 
hardness of heart, — ever bring to remembrance the ample atonement which 
had been tendered to him ; while Achilles himself repeats the original ground 
of quarrel, the wrong offered to htm in taking away Briseis, continuing the 
language of the first book ; then, without the least allusion to the atonement 
and restitution since tendered, he yields to his friend's proposition, just like 
a man whose wrong remained unredressed, but who was, nevertheless, forced 
to take arms by necessity (xvi. 60-43) : — 

'AvUA ra fihf vpoTervx&cu kuoofiev, ovff upa mjc yv 
'Ao/ccpxh Kexokwrdai hi <f>peaiv • r/roi I^tjv ye 
06 wplv fttivi&ftbv KaraTTuvae/iev, uXX* bnorav 6% 
Myof *pdf a+iKQTai &vtij re irroXtfioc re. 

I agree with the Scholiast and Heyne in interpreting tyrjv ye as equivalent 
to dtevoitfh/v, — not as referring to any express antecedent declaration. 

Again, farther on in the same speech, " The Trojans (Achilles says) now 
press boldly forward upon the ships, for they no longer see the blase of my 
helmet: but if Agamemnon were fiworaUy disponed towards me, they would 
presently run away and fill the ditches with their dead bodies" (71) : — 

Tttx<i Ktv <(>evyovTec kvavXovg 

HXfjaeiav vttdyuv, el fioi icpciow 'Ayapffivov 
'Hma eldetrj • vQv 6e ffrparov ufi+ipaxovrai. 
Now here again, if we take onr start from the first book, omitting the ninth, 
the sentiment is perfectly just. But assume the ninth book, and it becomes 
false and misplaced; for Agamemndn is then a prostrate and repentant 
man, not merely " favorably disposed" towards Achilles, but offering to pay 
any price for the purpose of appeasing him. 

4. Again, a few lines farther, in the same speech, Achilles permits Patro- 
clus to go forth, in consideration of the extreme peril of the fleet, but restricts 
him simply to avert this peril and do nothing more : " Obey my words, so 
that yon may procure for me honor and glory from the body of Greeks, and 
that they may send back to me the damsel, giving me ample presents besides 
when you have driven the Trojans from the ships, come back again "• - 

'Qf &v 1*01 rifufp fiejaXtfv teat Kvdoc &pou> 
Ilpdf frovrw Aavauv • &rikp ol veputaXMa icovpqv 
*A^> iinovaoouoL, wporl <T ayXaii dupa iropaeiv • 
'E* tty&v iXaoaCt Uvai iraXiv (84-87). 

Uow are we to reconcile this with the ninth book, where Achillea declares 
tu:tr he does not care for being honored by the Greeks, ix. 4041 In the 
<7;nuth of the affronted Achilles, of the first book, such words are apt enough: 
:.-• will grant succor, bat only to the extent necessary for the emergency, 
<iii<i ■:: turit *» way as to insure redrew hr his own wrong,-* which redress 


which he thirsts, is as yet future and contingent ; that no plenary 
apology has yet been tendered, nor any offer made of restoring 

he has no reason as yet to conclude that Agamemndn is willing to grant 
Bat the ninth book hat actually tendered to him everything which he hers 
demands, and even more (the daughter of Agamemnon in marriage, without 
the price usually paid for a bride, etc.) : Brijiis, whom now he is so anxious 
to repossess, was then offered in restitution, and he disdained the offer. Mr. 
Knight, in fret, strikes out these lines as spurious ; partly, because they con- 
tradict the ninth book, where Achilles has actually rejected what he hers 
thirsts for (" Dona cum puella jam antea oblata aspernatus erat, M ) -^partly 
because he thinks that they express a sentiment unworthy of Achilles ; ia 
which latter criticism I do not concur. 

5. We proceed a little farther to the address of Patroclus to the Myrmi- 
dons, as he is conducting them forth to the battle : " Fight bravely, Myrmi- 
dons, that we may bring honor to Achilles ; and that the wide-ruling Aga- 
memnon may know the mad folly which he committed, when he dishonored 
the bravest of the Greeks." 

To impress this knowledge upon Agamemndn was no longer necessary. 
The ninth book records his humiliating confession of it, accompanied by 
atonement and reparation. To teach him the lesson a second time, is to 
break the bruised reed, — to slay the slain. But leave oat the ninth book, 
and the motive is the natural one, — both for Patroclus to offer, and for the 
Myrmidons to obey : Achilles still remains a dishonored man, and to hum- 
ble the rival who has dishonored him is the first of all objects, as well with 
his friends as with himself. 

6. Lastly, the time comes when Achilles, in deep anguish for the death of 
Patroclus, looks back with aversion and repentance to the past To what 
point should we expect that his repentance would naturally turn ? Not to 
his primary quarrel with Agamemnon, in which he had been undeniably 
wronged, — but to the scene in the ninth book, where the maximum of atone- 
ment for the previous wrong is tendered to him and scornfully rejected. Yet 
when we turn to xviii 108, and xix. 55, 68. 270, we find him reverting to the 
primitive quarrel in the first book, just as if it had been the last incident ia 
his relations with Agamemndn: moreover, Agamemndn (xix. 86), in hi* 
speech of reconciliation, treats the past just in the same way, — deplores his 
original insanity in wronging Achilles. 

7. When we look to me prayers of Achilles and Thetis, addressed to Zens 
in the first book, we find that the consummation prayed for is, — honor to 
Achilles, — redress for the wrong offered to him,— victory to the Trojans 
until Agamemnon and the Greeks shall be made bitterly sensible of the 
wrong which they have dpne to their bravest warrior (i. 409-509). Now this 
consnmmatien is brought about in the ninth book. Achilles can get no more, 
nor does he ultimately get more, either in the way of redress to himself of 
remorseful humiliation of Agamemndn, than what is here tendered, 'The 
defeat which the Greeks suffer in the battle of the eighth book ( KiXoc MA*» ) 


Briseis ; while both Nestor and Patroclus, with all their wish te 
induce him to take arms, never take notice of the offered atone- 
ment ard restitution, but view him as one whose ground for 

has brought about the consummation. The subsequent and much more 
destructive defeats which they undergo are thus causeless : yet Zeus is repre- 
sented as inflicting them reluctantly, and only because they are necessary to 
honor Achilles (xiii 850 ; xv. 75, 235, 598 ; compare also viiL 372 and 475)* 

If we reflect upon the constitution of the poem, we shall see that the fun- 
damental sequence of ideas in it is, a series of misfortunes to the Greeks, 
brought on by Zeus for the special purpose of procuring atonement to 
Achilles and bringing humiliation on Agamemndn : the introduction of Pa- 
troclus superadds new motives of the utmost interest, but it is most harmo- 
niously worked into the fundamental sequence. Now the intrusion of the 
ninth book breaks up the scheme of the poem by disuniting the sequence - 
Agamemndn is on his knees before Achilles, entreating pardon and proffering 
reparation, yet the calamities of the Greeks become more and more dreadful. 
The atonement of the ninth book comes at the wrong time and in the wrong 

There are four passages (and only four, so far as I am aware) in which 
the embassy of the ninth book is alluded to in the subsequent books : one in 
xviii. 444-456, which was expunged as spurious by Aristarchus (see the 
Scholia and Knight's commentary, ad loc.) ; and three others iu the following 
book, wherein the gifts previously tendered by Odysseus as the envoy of 
Agamemn6n are noticed as identical with the gifts actually given in the 
nineteenth book. I feel persuaded that these passages (w. 140-141, 192* 
195, and 243 J are specially inserted for the purpose of establishing a connec- 
tion between the ninth book and the nineteenth. The four lines (192-195) 
are decidedly better away: the first two lines (140-141) are noway neces- 
sary; while the word x#<fdf (which occurs in both passages) is only rendered 
admissible by being stretched to mean nudius fortius (Heyne, ad loc.). 

I will only farther remark with respect to the ninth book, that the speech 
of Agamemndn (17-28), the theme for the rebuke of Diom6d§s and the ob- 
scure commonplace of Nestor, is taken verbatim from his speech in the 
second book, in which place the proposition, of leaving the place and flying, 
is made, not seriously, but as a stratagem (ii. 110, 118, 140). 

The length of this note can only be excused by its direct bearing upon 
the structure of the Iliad. To show that the books from the eleventh 
downwards are composed by a poet who has no knowledge of the ninth 
book, is, in my judgment, a very important point of evidence in siding us to 
understand what the original Achill&s was. The books from the second to 
the seventh inclusive are insertions into the Achilieis, and lie apart from it* 
plot, but do not violently contradict it, except in regard to the agora of the 
gods at the beginning of the fourth book, and the almost mortal wouna of 
SarpMon in his battle with Tlepolemus. But the ninth book overthrows the 
fundamental scheme of the poem. 


quarrel stands still the same as it did at the beginning. More- 
over, if we look at the first book, — the opening of the Achillea, 
— we shall see that this prostration of Agamemndn and the chief 
Grecian heroes before Achilles, would really be the termination 
of the whole poem ; for Achilles asks nothing more from Thetis, 
nor Thetis anything more from Zeus, than that Agamemndn and 
the Greeks may be brought to know the wrong they have done to 
their capital warrior, and humbled in the dust in expiation of it. 
We may add, that the abject terror in which Agamemndn appears 
in the ninth book, when he sends the supplicatory message to 
Achilles, as it is not adequately accounted for by the degree of 
calamity which the Greeks have experienced in the preceding 
(eighth) book, so it is inconsistent with the gallantry and high 
spirit with which he shines at the beginning of the eleventh. 1 
The situation of the Greeks only becomes desperate when the 
three great chiefs, Agamemndn, Odysseus, and Diom§d§s, are 
disabled by wounds; 9 this is the irreparable calamity which 
works upon Patroclus, and through him upon Achilles. The 
ninth book, as it now stands, seems to me an addition, by a 
different hand, to the original Achilldis, framed so as both to 
forestall and to spoil the nineteenth book, which is the real recon- 
ciliation of the two inimical heroes : I will venture to add, that it 
carries the pride and egotism of Achilles beyond even the largest 
exigences of insulted honor, and is shocking to that sentiment of 
Nemesis which was so deeply seated in the Grecian mind. We 
forgive any excess of fury against the Trojans and Hector, after 
the death of Patroclus ; but that he should remain unmoved by 
restitution, by abject supplications, and by the richest atoning 

1 Helbig ( Sittl. Zustande des Heldenalters, p. 30) says, " The conscious- 
ness in the bosom of Agamemnon that he has offered atonement to Achilles 
strengthens his confidence and valor/* &c. This is the idea of the critic, not 
of the poet. It does not occur in the Iliad, though the critic not unnaturally 
imagines that it must occur. Agamemndn never says, " I was wrong in 
provoking Achilles, but you see I have done everything which man could do 
to beg his pardon." Assuming the ninth book to be a part of the original 
conception, this feeling is so natural, that we could hardly fail to find it, at 
the beginning of the eleventh book, numbered among the motives of Agt 

* Iliad, xi. 659 ; xiv. 128: xvi. 25. 


presents, tendered from the Greeks, indicates an implarnbilkr 
such as neither the first book, nor the books between the eleventh 
and seventeenth, convey. 

It is with the Grecian agora, in the beginning of the second 
book, that the Iliad (as distinguished from the Achill&is) com- 
mences, — continued throug i the Catalogue, the muster of the two 
amies, the single combat between Menelaus and Paris, the 
renewed promiscuous battle caused by the arrow of Pandaras, 
the (Epipdlesis, or) personal circuit of Agamemndn round the 
army, the Aristeia, or brilliant exploits of Diom&des, the visit of 
Hector to Troy for the purposes of sacrifice, his interview wiufc 
Andromache, and his combat with Ajax, — down to the seventh 
book. All these are beautiful poetry, presenting to us the general 
Trojan war, and its conspicuous individuals under different points 
of view, but leaving no room in the reader's mind for the though* 
of Achilles. Now, the difficulty for an enlarging poet, was, to 
pass from the Acbiileis in the first book, to the Iliad m the 
second, and it will accordingly be found that here is an awkward- 
ness in the structure of the poem, which counsel on the poet'* 
behalf (ancient or modern) do not satisfactorily explain. 

In the first book, Zeus has promised Thetis, that he will pun- 
ish the Greeks for the wrong done to Achilles : in the beginning 
of the second book, he deliberates how he shall fulfil the promise, 
and sends down for that purpose " mischievous Oneirus " (the 
Dream-god) to visit Agamemnon in his sleep, to assure him that 
the gods have now with one accord consented to put Troy into 
his hands, and to exhort him forthwith to the assembling of his 
army for the attack. The ancient commentators were here per- 
plexed by the circumstance that Zeus puts a falsehood into the 
mouth of Oneirus. But there seems no more difficulty in explain- 
ing this, than in the narrative of the book of 1 Kings (chap. xxii. 
20), where Jehovah is mentioned to have put a lying spirit into 
the mauik of Ahab's prophets, — the r«al awkwardness is, that 
Oneirus and his falsehood produce no effect. For in the first 
place, Agamemnon takes a step very different from that which 
his dream recommends, — and in the next place, when the Gre- 
cian army is at length armed and goes fbrtl to battle, it does not 
experience defeat, (which would be the case if the exhortation of 
Oneirus really pirred mischievous.) but carries on a rnrncmfiil 


day s battle, chiefly through the heroism of Diomddes. Instead 
of arming the Greeks forthwith, Agamemnon convokes first a 
council of chiefs, and next an agora of the host. And though 
himself in a temper of mmd highly elate with the deceitful as- 
surances of Oneirus, he deliberately assumes the language of 
despair id addressing the troops, having previously prepared Nes- 
tor and Odysseus for his doing so, — merely in order to try the 
courage of the men, and with formal instructions, given to these 
two other chiefs, that they are to speak in opposition to him. 
Now this intervention of Zeus and Oneirus, eminently unsatisfac- 
tory when coupled with tbs incidents which now follow it, and 
making Zeus appear, but only appear, to realize his promise of 
honoring Achilles as well as of hurting the Greeks, — forms ex* 
actly the point of junction between the Achillas and the Iliad. 1 
The freak which Agamemndn plays off upon the temper of 
his army, though in itself childish, serves a sufficient purpose, not 
only became it provides a special matter of interest to be sub- 
mitted to the Greeks, but also because it calls forth the splendid 
description, so teeming with vivacious detail, of the sudden 
breaking up of the assembly after Agamemnon's harangue, and 
of the decisive interference of Odysseus to bring the men back, 
as well m to put down Thersit&s. This picture of the Greeks 
in agora, bringing out the two chief speaking and counselling 
heroes, was so important a part of the general Trojan war, that 
the poet has permitted himself to introduce it by assuming an 
inexplicable folly on the part of Agamemnon ; just as he has 
ushered in another fine scene in the third book, — the Teieho- 
skopy, or conversation, between Priam and Helen on the walls 
of Troy, — by admitting the supposition that the old kin& m 
the tenth year of the war, did not know the persons of Aga- 
memndn and the other Grecian chiefs. This may serve a* an 
expfamatkni of the delusion practised by Agamemnon towards 
h« assembled host ; but it does not at afl explain the tamo and 
empty intervention of Oneirus. 9 

* TW intervention of Oneirus ought rather to come as an immediate pre- 
■■■Mry ay book vifi. than to book u. The first roTty-seveit fines of book ii 
wosmi fiv on and read consistentry at the beginning of book trt, the events 
•f which book form a proper sequel to the mission of Onefru*. 

* O. Mailer (History of Greek Literature, ch. v. S 8,J doubts 


If the initial incident of the second book, whereby we pass out 
of the Achilleis into the Iliad, is awkward, so also the final inci- 
dent of the seventh book, immediately before we come back into 
the Achilleis, is not less unsatisfactory, — I mean, the construc- 
tion of the wall and ditch round the Greek camp. As the poem 
now stands, no plausible reason is assigned why this should be 
done. Nestor proposes it without any constraining necessity: 
for the Greeks are in a career of victory, and the Trojans are 
making offers of compromise which imply conscious weakness, — 
while Diom&des is so confident of the approaching ruin of Troy, 
that he dissuades his comrades from receiving even Helen her- 
self, if the surrender should be tendered. "Many Greeks have 
been slain," it is true, 1 as Nestor observes ; but an equal or 
greater number of Trojans have been slain, and all the Grecian 
heroes are yet in full force : the absence of Achilles is not even 
adverted to. 

Now this account of the building of the fortification seems to 

beginning of the second book was written u by the ancient Homer, or by one 
of the later Homerids :" he thinks the speech of Agamemnon, wherein he 
plays off the deceit upon his army, is u a copious parody (of the same words 
used in the ninth book) composed by a later Homerid, and inserted in tta 
room of an originally shorter account of the arming of the Greeks." He 
treats the scene in the Grecian agora as " an entire mythical comedy, full of 
fine irony and with an amusing plot in which the deceiving and deceived 
Agamemnon is the chief character." 

The comic or ironical character which is here ascribed to the second book 
appears to me fanciful and incorrect ; but Mailer evidently felt the awkward- 
ness of the opening incident, though his way of accounting for it is aot 
successful. The second book seems to my judgment just as serious as any 
part of the poem. 

I think also that the words alluded to by 0. Mtiller in the ninth book art 
a transcript of those in the second, instead of the reverse, as he believes,— 
because it seems probable that the ninth book is an addition made to the 
poem after the books between the first and the eighth had been already in- 
serted, — it is certainly introduced after the account of the fortification, 
contained in the seventh book, had become a part of the poem : see iz. 349. 
The author of the Embassy to Achilles fancied that that hero had been too 
long out of sight, and out of mind, — a supposition for which there was no 
room in the original Achill&s, when the eighth and eleventh books followed 
in immediate succession to the first, but which offers itself naturally to any 
tne on reading our pneent Iliad. 

1 Hiid, vii 827 


be an after-thought, arising out of the enlargement of the poem 
beyond its original scheme. The original Achilleis, passing at 
once from the first to the eighth, 1 and from thence to the eleventh 
book, might well assume the fortification, — and talk of it as a 
thing existing, without adducing any special reason why it was 
erected. The hearer would naturally comprehend and follow the 
existence of a ditch and wall round the ships, as a matter of 
course, provided there was nothing in the previous narrative to 
make him believe that the Greeks had originally been without 
these bulwarks. And since the Achilldis, immediately after the 
promise of Zeus to Thetis, at the close of the first book, went on 
to describe the fulfilment of that promise and the ensuing dis- 
asters of the Greeks, there was nothing to surprise any one in 
hearing that their camp was fortified. But the case was altered 
when the first and the eighth books were parted asunder, in order 
to make room for descriptions of temporary success and glory on 
the part of the besieging army. The brilliant scenes sketched 
in the books, from the second to the seventh, mention no fortifica- 
tion, and even imply its nonexistence ; yet, since notice of it 
occurs amidst the first description of Grecian disasters in the 
eighth book, the hearer, who had the earlier books present to his 
memory, might be surprised to find a fortification mentioned im- 
mediately afterwards, unless the construction of it were specially 
announced to have intervened. But it will at once appear, that 
there was some difficulty in finding a good reason why the 

1 Heyne treats the eighth book as decidedly a separate song, or epic ; a 
supposition which the language of Zeus and the agora of the gods at the 
beginning are alone sufficient to refute, in my judgment (Excursus I, ad lib. 
xi. vol. vi p. 269). This Excursus, in describing the sequence of events in 
the Iliad, passes at once and naturally from book eighth to book eleventh. 

And Mr. Payne Knight, when he defends book eleventh against Heyne, 
says, " Quae in undecima rhapsodia Iliadis narrata sunt, haud minus ex ante 
narratis pendent : neque rationem pugnss commissi, neque rerum in ea ges- 
tarum nexura atque ordinem, quisquam intelligere posset, nisi tram el 
secession Achillis, et victoriam quam Trojani inde consecuti erant, antea cog- 
aoeeet." (Prolegom. c. xxix.) 

Perfectly true : to understand the eleventh book, we must have before on 
toe first and the eighth (which are those that describe the anger an I with- 
drawal of Achilles, and the defeat which the Greeks experienc i s arose 
qoenee of it) ; we may dispense with the rest 


Greeks should begin to fortify at this juncture, and that to* pa* 
who discovered the gap might not be enabled to fill it up wriih 
gucoras. As the Greeks have got on, up to this moment, without 
the wall, and as we have heard nothing but tales of their success, 
why should they now think farther laborious precautions for 
security necessary? We will not ask, why the Trojans should 
aland quietly by and permit a wall to be built, since the trace 
was concluded expressly for burying the deadJ 

1 O. Mufter (WiL Greek Lherat ch. v. t 6) says, about this wall : « Kor 
b it until the Greeks are taught by the experience of the first day's fighting, that 
the Trojans can resist them in open battle, that the Greeks build the wall 

round their ships This appeared to Thucydidds so little conformable to 

historical probability, that, without regard to the authority of Hosier, In 
placed the building of these walls immediately after the landing.* 

It is to be lamented, I think, that Thucydides took upon him to determine 
the point at all as a matter of history ; but when he once undertook this, the 
account in me Biad was not of a nature to give him much satisfaction, nor 
does the reason assigned by M filler make it better. It is implied in Mailer's 
reason that, before the first day's battle, the Greeks did net believe that the 
Trojans could resist them in open battle: the Trojans (according to him) 
never had maintained the field, so long as Achilles was up and fighting on the 
Grecian side, and therefore the Greeks were quite astonished to find now, for 
the first time, that they could do so. 

Now nothing can be more at variance with the tenor of the second and 
following books than this supposition. The Trojans come forth readily and 
fight gallantly; neither Agamemnon, nor Nestor, nor Odysseus consider 
them as enemies who cannot hold front ; and the circuit of exhortation by 
Agamemn6n (Epipdlesis), so strikingly described in the fourth book, proves 
that he does not anticipate a very easy victory. Nor does Nestor, in pro- 
posing the construction of the wall, give the smallest hint that the power of 
the Trojans to resist in the open field was to the Greeks an unexpected 

The reason assigned by Mailer, then, is a fancy of his own, proceeding 
from the same source of mistake as others among his remarks ; because he 
tries to find, in the books between the first and eighth, a governing reference 
to Achilles (the point of view of the Achillas), which those books distinctly 
refuse. The Achill&s was a poem of Grecian disasters up to the time when 
Achilles sent forth Patroclus ; and during those disasters, it might suit the 
poet to refer by contrast to the past time when Achilles was active, and to 
say that then the Trojans did not dare even to present themselves in battle- 
array in the field, whereas now they were assailing the ships. Bnt the aathor 
of books ii. to vii. has no wish to glorify Achilles : he gives us a picture of 
the Trojan war generally, and describes the Trojans, not only as 1 
equal enemiee, bnt well known by the Greeks themselves te to so. 


The tenth book, or Doloneia, wm considered by some of the 
ancient scholiasts, 1 and has been confidently set forth by the 
modern Wolfian critics, as originally a separate poem, inserted by 
Peisistrstns into the Iliad. How it can ever have been a separate 
poem, I do not understand. It is framed with great specialty for 
the antecedent circumstances under which it occurs, and would 
suit for no other place ; though capable of being separately 
recited, inasmuch as it has a definite beginning and end, like the 
story of Nisus and Enryahis in the JEaeML But while distinctly 
presupposing and resting croon the incidents in the eighth book, 
and in fine 88 of the ninth, (probably, the appointment of senti- 
nels on the part of the Greeks, as weti of the Trojans, foamed the 
close of the battle described in the eighth book,) it has not the 
plightest bearing upon the events of the eleventh or the follow- 
ing books : it goes to make up the general picture of the Trojan 
war, but lies quite apart from the Acfeilfeis. And this is one 
mark of a portion subsequently inserted, — that, though fitted on 
to the parts which precede, it has no influence on those which 

If the proceedings of the combatants on the plain of Troy, 
between the first and the eighth, book, have no reference either 
to Achilles, or to an Achilleis, we find Zeus in Olympus still 
more completely putting that hero out of the question, at the 
beginning of the fourth book. He is in this last-mentioned pas- 
sage the Zeus of the Iliad, not of the Achilleis Forgetful of his 
promise to Thetis, in the first book, he discusses nothing but the 
question of continuance or termination of the war, and manifests 
anxiety only for the salvation of Troy, in opposition to the miso- 
Trojan goddesses, who prevent him from giving effect to the 
victory of Menelaus over Paris, and the stipulated restitution of 
Helen, — in which case, of coarse, the wrong offered to Achilles 
would remain unexpmted. An attentive comparison wOl render 
it evident that the poet who composed the discussion among the 
gods, at the beginning of the fourth book, has not been enteral to 
put himself in harmony either with the Zeus of the fint book, or 
with the Zeus of the eighth* 

r of no Qrsoon watt, as it now stands described, is an i 
. ad Iliad, z. 1. 


So soon as we enter upon the eleventh book, th* march of fthtf 
poem becomes quite different We are then in a series c£ events, 
each paving the way for that which follows, and all conducing to 
the result promised in the first book, — the reappearance of 
Achilles, as the only means of saving the Greeks from ruin, — 
preceded by ample atonement, 1 and followed by the maximum 
both of glory and revenge. The intermediate career of Patro- 
clus introduces new elements, which, however, are admirably 
woven into the scheme of the poem, as disclosed in the first booJL 
I shall not deny that there are perplexities in the detail of 
events, as described in the battles at the Grecian wall, and before 
the ships, from the eleventh to the sixteenth books, but they 
appear only cases of partial confusion, such as may be reasonably 
ascribed to imperfections of text : the main sequence remains 
coherent and intelligible. We find no considerable events which 
could be left out without breaking the thread, nor any incon- 
gruity between one considerable event and another. There is 
nothing between the eleventh and twenty-second books, which 
is at all comparable to the incongruity between the Zeus of 
die fourth book and the Zeus of the first and eighth. It 
may, perhaps, be true, that the shield of Achilles is a super- 
added amplification of that which was originally announced in 
general terms, — because the poet, from the eleventh to the 
twenty-second books, has observed such good economy of his 
materials, that he is hardly likely to have introduced one par- 
ticular description of such disproportionate length, and having so 
little connection with the series of events. But I see no reason 
for believing that it is an addition materially later than the rest 
of the poem. 

It must be confessed, that the supposition here advanced, in 
reference to the structure of the Iliad, is not altogether free from 
difficulties, because the parts constituting the original Achillas* 

1 Agamemndn, after deploring the misguiding influence of At6, wUofc 
Uaoed him to do the original wrong to Achilles, says (xix. 88-137),— 

'AAA' tort* 6aadfinv *<" p*v fptvac l&tero Zf«r, 
*A^» k&iXu hptcrai, dofievci r' &irepeUri* &iroiva, etc 

9 The supposition of a smaller original Iliad, enlarged by successive addl 
dons to the present dimensions, and more or less interpolated (we moat 


Have been more or less altered or interpolated, to suit the addi- 
tions made to it, particularly in the eighth book. But it presents 
fewer difficulties than any oth^r supposition, and it is the only 
means, so far as I know, of explaining the difference between 
one part of the Iliad and another ; both the continuity of struc- 
ture, and the conformity to the opening promise, which are 
manifest when we read the books in the order L viiL jri. to xxii, 
as contrasted with the absence of these two qualities in books ii. 
to vii. ix. and x. An entire organization, preconceived from 
the beginning, would not be likely to produce any such disparity, 
nor is any such visible in the Odyssey ; l still less would the result 

distinguish enlargement from interpolation, — the insertion of a new rhapsody 
from that of a new line), seems to be a sort of intermediate compromise, 
towards which the opposing views of Wolf, J. EL Voss, Nitasch, Hermann, 
and Boeckh, all converge. Baumgarten-Crusius calls this smaller poem* an 

Wolf, Preface to the Goschen edit, of the Iliad, pp. xii-xxiii ; Voss, Anti* 
Symbolik, part ii. p. 234 ; Nitzsch, Histor. Homeri, Fasciculus L p. 112 ; and 
Vorrede to the second volume of his Comments on the Odyssey, p. xxvi : 
"In the Iliad (he there says) many single portions may very easily bo 
imagined as parts of another whole, or as having been once separately sung." 
(See Baomgarten-Crusius, Preface to his edition of W. Mailer's Homer 
ische Vorschule, pp. xlv-xlix.) 

Nitzsch distinguishes the Odyssey from the Iliad, and I think justly, in 
respect to this supposed enlargement The reasons which warrant us in 
applying this theory to the Iliad have no bearing upon the Odyssey. If there 
ever was an Ur-Odyssee, we have no means of determining what it cop- 

1 The remarks of 0. Muller on the Iliad (in his History of Greek Litera- 
ture) are highly deserving of perusal : with much of them I agree, but there 
is also much which seems to me unfounded. The range of combination, and 
the far-fetched narrative stratagem which he ascribes to the primitive author, 
are in my view inadmissible (chap. v. $ 5-11: — 

" The internal connection of the Iliad (he observes, f 6) rests upon the 
union of certain parts , and neither the interesting introduction, describing 
the defeat of the Greeks up to the burning of the ship of Protesilaus, nor the 
torn of affairs brought about by the death of Patroclus, nor the final pacifi- 
cation of the anger of Achilles, could be spared from the Iliad, when the 
fruitful seed of such a poem had once been sown in the soul of Homer, and 
had begun to develop its growth. But the plan of the Iliad iM certainly very 
much extended beyond what was actually necessary j and In particular, the 
preparatory part, consisting of the attempts on the part of the other herott to 
«ompen*jte fir the absence of Achilles, has, it must be owned, been drawn out 


be explained by supposing integers originally separate, and 
breeght together without any designed organization. And it ie 

to a disproportionate length, so that the suspicion Hint there were later inser- 
tions of importance applies with greater probabtlily to the first than to ke 

last books A design manifested ifetelf at m early period to make this 

poem complete in itself, so that all the subject*, dtsseriptions, and actions, 
which could atone give interest to a poem on the entire tear, might find a 
place within the* limits of its composition. For this purpose, it is not im- 
probable that many lays of earlier bards, who had sung single adventures of 
the Trojan war, were laid under contribution, and the finest parts of them 
incorporated in the new poem." 

These remarks of'O. Mailer intimate what is (in my judgment) the right 
view, inasmuch as they recognise an extension of the plan of the poem 
beyond its original limit, manifested by insertions in the first half; and it is 
to be observed that, in his enumeration of those parts, the union of which is 
necessary to the internal connection of the Iliad, nothing is mentioned ex- 
cept what is comprised in books i. viil xL to xxii or xxiv. But his descrip 
tion of tt the preparatory part," as tt the attempts of the other heroes to compensate 
fir the absence of Achilles? is noway borne out by the poet himself. From 
the second to the seventh book, Achilles b scarcely alluded to *, moreove% the 
Greeks do perfectly well without him. This portion of the poem displays, 
not " the insufficiency of all the other heroes without Achilles," as Muller 
had observed In the preceding section, but the perfect sufficiency of the Greeks 
under Dibmedes, Agamemndn, etc to make head against Troy ; it is only 
in the eighth book that their insufficiency begins to be manifested, and only 
in the eleventh book that it is consummated by the wounds of the three 
great heroes. Dtomedes is, in fact, exalted to a pitch of glory in regard 
to contests with the gods, which even Achilles himself never obtains after- 
wards, and Helenus the Trojan puts him above Achilles (vi. 99) in terrific 
prowess. Achilles is mentioned two or three times as absent, and Agamem- 
ndn, in his speech to the Gtecian agora, regrets the quarrel (ii. 377), but we 
never hear any such exhortation as, " Let us do our best to make up for the 
absence of Achilles," — not even in the Epipdlesis of Agamemndn, where it 
would most naturally be found. " Attempts to compensate for the absence 
of Achilles," must, therefore, be treated as the idea of the critic, not of the 

Though O. Muller has glanced at the distinction between the two parts 
of the poem (an original part, having chief reference to AchiUes and the 
Greeks; and a superinduced part, having reference to the entire war), he has 
not conceived it clearly, nor carried it out consistently. If we are to distin- 
guish these two points of view at all, we ought to draw the lines at the end 
of the first book and at the beginning of the eighth, thus regarding the inter- 
medfato six books as belonging to the picture of the entire war (or the Iliad 
at distinguished from the Achillas) : the point of view of the Achillels, 
dropped at the end of meant book, it resumed at the beginning of the eighth 


between these three suppositions that our choke has to be made. 
A scheme, and a large scheme too, most unquestionably be 
atautted as the bask of any sufficient hypothesis. But the 

The natural fitting together of these two parts is noticed in the comment of 
Ueyne, ad viii. 1 : w Caterum nunc Jupiter aperte solvit Thetidi promista, 
dam reddit causam Trojanoram bello superiorem, at Achillis desideriam 
Achivos, et pcanitentia injuria ei illat® Agamemnonem inoessat (cf. L 5) 
Nam qua adhuc narrata snot, partim continebantar in fortuna belli utrinquu 

tentata partim valebant ad narrationem variandam," etc The first 

and the eighth books belong to one and the same point of view, while all 
the intermediate books belong to the other. Bat O. Muller seeks to prove 
that a portion of these intermediate books belongs to one common point of 
view with the first and eighth, though be admits that they have boon en- 
larged by insertions. Here I think he is mistaken. Strike out anything 
which can be reasonably allowed for enlargement in the books between the 
first and eighth, mid the same difficulty will still remain in respect to the 
remainder ; for alt the incidents between those two points are brought out in 
a spirit altogether indifferent to Achilles or hi* anger. The Zeus of the 
fourth book, as contrasted with Zeus in the first or eighth, marks the differ- 
ence ; and this description of Zeus is absolutely indispensable as the con- 
necting link between book iii. on the one side and books iv. and v. on the 
other. Moreover, the attempt of O. Muller, to force upon the larger portion 
of what is between the first and eighth books the point of view of the 
Achillels, is never successful: the poet docs not exhibit in those books 
u insufficient efforts of ether heroes to compensate for the absence of Achilles," 
but a general and highly interesting picture of the Trojan war, with promi- 
nent reference to the original ground of quarrel. In this picture, the duel 
between Paris and Menelaus forms naturally the foremost item, — but how 
far-fetched is the reasoning whereby O. Mailer brings that striking recital 
within the scheme of the Achillea I " The Greeks and Trojans are for the 
first time struck by an idea, which might have occurred m the previous nine 
years, if the Greeks, when assisted be Achilles, had not, from confidence in their 
superior strength, considered every compromise as unworthy of them,— namely, 
to decide the war by a single combat between the authors of it" Here the 
caaaaRty of Achilles is dragged in by main force, and unsupported either by 
any actual statement in the poem or by any reasonable presumption ; for it 
b the Trojans who propose the single combat, and we are not told that they 
had ever proposetkit before, though they would have had stronger reasons 
for proposing it during the presence of Achilles than during his absence. 

O. Muller himself remarks (\ 7), " that from the second to the seventh 
book Zeus appears as it were to have forgotten his resolution and his prom- 
ise to Thetis" In other words, the poet, during this part of the poem, drops 
die point of view of the Achillels to take up that of the more comprehensive 
Oiad : me Aehfllsis reappears in book viii, — again disappears in book x. 
- and is resumed from book xi. to the end of the poem. 

w~ n. * J 3<w> 




r ) 
to bo 
oept v. 
lion ot 
the Bee- 
not w tl. 
under Pi- 
rn the ein 
in the elc 
great hero 
to contests 
wards, and 
prowess. /* 
n6n, in his >■ 
never hear n 
absence of A 
would most i 
of Achilles." i 

Though O. ■ 
of the poem ( 
Greeks; and a .- 
not conceived it 
gnish these two 
of the first book . 
mediate six book 
m distinguished i 
topped at the eml 







Achilleis would have been a long poem, half the length of the 
present Iliad, and probably not less compact in its structure than 
the Odyssey. Moreover, being parted off only by an imaginary 
line from the boundless range of the Trojan war, it would admit 
of enlargement more easily, and with greater relish to hearers, 
than the adventures of one single hero ; while the expansion 
would naturally take place by adding new Grecian victory, — 
since the original poem arrived at the exaltation of Achilles only 
through a painful series of Grecian disasters. That the poem 
under these circumstances should have received additions, is no 
very violent hypothesis : in fact, when we recollect that the 
integrity both of the Achill&s and of the Odyssey was neither 
guarded by printing nor writing, we shall perhaps think it less 
wonderful that the former was enlarged, 1 than that the latter was 
not. Any relaxation of the laws of epical unity is a small price 
to pay for that splendid poetry, of which we find so much 
between the first and the eighth books of our Iliad. 

The question respecting unity of authorship is different, and 
more difficult to determine, than that respecting consistency of 
parts, and sequence in the narrative. A poem conceived on a 
comparatively narrow scale may be enlarged afterwards by its 
original author, with greater or less coherence and success : the 

1 This tendency to insert new homogeneous matter by new poets into 
poems already existing, is noticed by M. Fauriel, in reference to the Romans 
of the Middle Ages : — 

" C'est an phenomene remarquable dans l'histoire de la poesie epique, 
que cette disposition, cette tendance constante du gout populaire a amalgamer, 
a lier en nne seule et merae composition le plus possible des composition* 
diverges, — cette disposition persiste chez un peuple, tant que la poesie con- 
serve an reste de vie ; tant qu'elle s'y transmet par la tradition et qu'elle y 
circule a l'aide da chant ou des recitations publiques. Elle cesse partout ou 
la poesie est one fois fixee dans les livres, et n'agu plus que par la lecture, 
— cette derniere epoqae est pour ainsi dire, celle de la proprie'te' poe'tique — 
celta ou chaqne poete pretend a une existence, a une gloire, personnelles ; et 
ou la petfsie cesse d'etre nne esp6ce de tre'sor commun dont le peuple jouit 
et dispose a sa maniere, sans s'inquieter des individus qui le lui ont fait." 
(Fauriel, Sor les Romans Chevaleresques, le^on 5 mo, Revue des Dens 
Monde*, vol. xiii. p. 707.) 

M. Fauriel thinks that the Shah Nameh of Ferdusi was an amalgamation 
of epic poems originally separate, and that probably tho Mahabharat was te 
altfo lib. 708). 











Faust of Goethe affords an exanple even in our own generation. 
On the other hand, a systematic poem may well have been con- 
ceived and executed by prearranged concert between several 
poets ; among whom probably one will be the governing mind, 
though the rest may be effective, and perhaps equally effective, 
in respect to execution of the parts. And the age of the early 
Grecian epic was favorable to such fraternization of poets, of 
which the Gens called Homerids probably exhibited many speci- 
mens. In the recital or singing of a long unwritten poem, many 
bards must have conspired together, and in the earliest times the 
composer and the singer were one and the same person. 1 Now 
the individuals comprised in the Homerid Gens, though doubtless 
very different among themselves in respect of mental capacity, 
were yet homogeneous in respect of training, means of observa- 
tion and instruction, social experience, religious feelings and 
theories, etc.," to a degree much greater than individuals in 
modern times. Fallible as our inferences are on this point, 
where we have only internal evidence to guide us, without any 
contemporary points of comparison, or any species of collateral 
information respecting the age, the society, the poets, the hearers, 
or the language, — we must nevertheless, in the present case, 
take coherence of structure, together with consistency in the tone 
of thought, feeling, language, customs, etc, as presumptions of 
one author; and the contrary as presumptions of severalty; 
allowing, as well as we can, for that inequality of excellence 
which the same author may at different times present 

1 The remarks of Boeckh, upon the possibility of such cooperation of poeti 
towards one and the same scheme are perfectly just : — 

" Atqui quomodo componi a variis auctoribus succeasu temporum rhapso- 
dise potuerint, quae post prima initia direct® jam ad idem consilium et quam 

yocant nnitatem carminis sint missis istonun declamataonibns qui 

pepuli nniversi opus Homorura esse jactant turn potissimum inteliige- 

lur, ubi geutis civilis Homeridarum propriam et peculiarem Homericaa 
poesin fuisse, veteribus ipsis si non testibus, at certe ducibus, concedeton 

Qua quum ita sint, non erit adco difficile ad intelligendum, quomodo, 

pott prima initia ab egregio vate facta, in gente sacrorum et artis comma- 
nione sociata, mult® rhapsodise ad unum potuerint consilium dirigi " (Index 
Lection. 1834, p. 12.) 

I transcribe this passage from Gicse (Ueber den JEolischen Diakkt, f> 
1ST), not having been able to s«e the essay of which it forms a part 


2fcyw, the case made out against single-headed authorship «t 
the Odyssey, appears to me very weak ; and those who dispute 
it, are guided more by their d priori rejection of ancient epical 
unity, than by any positive evidence which the poem itself affords. 
It is otherwise with regard to the Iliad. Whatever presumptions 
a disjointed structure! several apparent inconsistencies of parts, 
and large excrescence of actual matter beyond the opening 
promise, can sanction, — may reasonably be indulged against tL 
supposition that this poem all proceeds from a single author. 
There is a difference of opinion on the subject among the best 
critics, which is, prohably, not destined to be adjusted, since so 
much depends partly upon critical feeling, partly upon the general 
reasonings, in respect to ancient epical unity, with which a man 
sits down to the study. For the champions of unity, such as Mr. 
Payne Knight, are very ready to strike out numerous and often 
considerable passages as interpolations, thus meeting the objec- 
tions raised against unity of authorship, on the ground of special 
inconsistencies. Hermann and Boeckh, though not going the 
length of Lachmann in maintaining the original theory of Wolf, 
agree with the latter in recognizing diversity of authors in the 
poem, to an extent overpassing the limit of what can fairly be 
called interpolation. Payne Knight and Nitzsch are equally per- 
suaded of the contrary. Here, then, is a decided contradiction 
among critics, all of whom have minutely studied the poems 
since the Wolfian question was raised. And it is such critics 
alone who can be said to constitute authority ; for the cursory 
i*eader, who dwells upon the parts simply long enough to relish 
their poetical beauty, is struck only by that general sameness of 
coloring which Wolf himself admits to pervade the poem. 1 

Having already intimated that, in my judgment, no theory of 
the structure of the poem is admissible which does not admit an 
original and preconcerted Achilleis, — a stream which begins at 
the first book and ends with the death of Hector, in the twenty* 
second, although the higher parts of it now remain only in the 
condition of two detached lakes, the first book and the eighth, — 
I reason upon the same basis with respect to the authorship* 

1 Wolf, Prolegom. p. cxxxviii. " Quippe in universum idem wrens est 
omnibus libris ; idem habitus sententiarum, orationis, rramerennm," etc 


Assuming continuity of structure as a presumptive proo£ the 
whole of this Achilleis must be treated as composed by one 
author. Wolf, indeed, affirmed, that he never read the poem 
continuously through without being painfully impressed with the 
inferiority 1 and altered style of the last six books, — and Lach- 
mann carries this feeling farther back, so as to commence with 
the seventeenth book. If I could enter fully into this sentiment, 
I should then be compelled, not to deny the existence of a precon 
coived scheme, but to imagine that the books from the eighteenth 
to the twenty-second, though forming part of that scheme, or 
Achill&is, had yet been executed by another and an inferior poet 
But it is to be remarked, first, that inferiority of poetical merit, to 
a certain extent, is quite reconcilable with unity of authorship ; 
and, secondly, that the very circumstances upon which Wolfs 
unfavorable judgment is built, seem to arise out of increased 
difficulty in the poet's task, when he came to the crowning cantos 
of his designed Achilleis. For that which chiefly distinguishes 
these books, is, the direct, incessant, and manual intervention of 
the gods and goddesses, formerly permitted by Zeus, — and the 
repetition of vast and fantastic conceptions to which such super- 
human agency gives occasion ; not omitting the battle of Achilles 
against Skamander and Simois, and the burning up of these rivers 
by Hephaestus. Now, looking at this vein of ideas with the eyes 
of a modern reader, or even with those of a Grecian critic of the 
literary ages, it is certain that the effect is unpleasing : the gods, 
sublime elements of poetry when kept in due proportion, are here 
somewhat vulgarized. But though the poet here has not suc- 
ceeded, and probably success was impossible, in the task which 
he has prescribed to himself, — yet the mere fact of his under- 
taking it, and the manifest distinction between his employment 
of divine agency in these latter cantos as compared with the 

1 Wolf, Prolegomen. p. cxxxvii. " Equidem certe quotes in continent! 
lectione ad istas partes (i. e. the last six books) dereni, nmnquam bob in 
lis talia qnadam sensi, qua) nisi ilia tarn mature oum ceteris ooeiaisaent, 
qwowis pignore contendam, dudam ab erndrns detect* et imimailiriiia, faisse, 
immo amlta ejus generis, ut cum nunc 'O/arpMurara habean fr , si tamtam- 
aodo in Hymnis legerentur, ipsa sola eos snspicionibiis vo&tiaf i 
essent." Compare the sequel, p. czzzriii, • uW nerri deficient «t < 
, —Jejunum et frigidum in locis multis," etc. 


preceding, seems explicable only on the supposition that they mt 
the latter cantos, and come in designed sequence, as the contin- 
uance of a previous plan. The poet wishes to surround the 
coming forth of Achilles with the maximum of glorious and 
terrific circumstance ; no Trojan enemy can for a moment hold 
out against him: 1 the gods must descend to the plain of Troy and 
fight in person, -while Zeus, who at the beginning of the eighth 
book, had forbidden them to take part, expressly encourages them 
to do so at the beginning of the twentieth. If, then, the nine- 
teenth book (which contains the reconciliation between Achilles 
and Agamemnon, a subject naturally somewhat tame) and the 
three following books (where we have before us only the gods, 
Achilles, and the Trojans, without hope or courage) are inferior 
in execution and interest to the seven preceding books (which 
describe the long-disputed and often doubtful death-struggle 
between the Greeks and Trojans without Achilles), as Wolf and 
other critics affirm, — we may explain the difference without sup- 
posing a new poet as composer ; for the conditions of the poem 
had become essentially more difficult, and the subject more 
unpromising. The necessity of keeping Achilles above the level, 
even of heroic prowess, restricted the poet's means of acting upon 
the sympathy of his hearers. 9 

1 Iliad, xx. 25. Zeus addresses the agora of the gods, — 
'AfxfOTipouTL <P ap/ryer*, fartf voof karlv ixdarov • 
El yap *AxiAArif olof hcl Tpueaoi /laxelrai, 
Ofcfe (iivw& i£ovet iroSoKea TlyXeiuva* 
Kal Si fiiv /cat irpoo&ev toroTpofieeaKov dp&vrec • 
NtJv <P bre &) real {hpbv fraipov x£er<u alv&c, 
Aeidu fi% tcai relxof imlp fidpov igaXarcafy. 
The formal restriction pot upon the gods by Zens at the beginning of the 
eighth book, and the removal of that restriction at the beginning of the 
twentieth, are evidently parts of one preconceived scheme. 

It is difficult to determine whether the battle of the gods and goddesses in 
book xxi. (385-590) is to be expunged as spurious, or only to be blamed as 
of inferior merit ( u improbanda tan turn, non resecanda — hoc enim est ilrad, 
quo pleramque nunma criseos Homeric® redit," as Heyne observes in 
another place, Obss. Iliad, xviii. 444). The objections on the score of non. 
Homeric locution are not forcible (see P. Knight, ad be.), and the scene 
belongs to that vein of conception which animates the poet in the dosing act 
of his Achillea. 
• While admitting that these last books of the Iliad *re not equal ni 

books n-vn of the iliad. 199 

The last two books of the Iliad may have formed part of the 
original Achilleis. But the probability rather is, that they are 
additions ; for the death of Hector satisfies the exigencies of a 
coherent scheme, and we are not entitled to extend the oldest 
poem beyond the limit which such necessity prescribes. It has 
been argued on one side by Nitzsch and O. Miiller, that the mind 
could not leave off with satisfaction at the moment in which 
Achilles sates his revenge, and while the bodies of Fatroclus 
and Hector are lying unburied, — also, that the more merciful 
temper which he exhibits in the twenty-fourth book, must always 
have been an indispensable sequel, in order to create proper sym- 
pathy with his triumph. Other critics, on the contrary, have 
taken special grounds of exception against the last book, and have 
endeavored to set it aside as different from the other books, both 

interest with those between the eleventh and eighteenth, we may add that 
they exhibit many striking beauties, both of plan and execution, and one in 
particular may be noticed as an example of happy epical adaptation. The 
Trojans are on the point of ravishing from the Greeks the dead body of 
Patroclus, when Achilles (by the inspiration of Herd and Iris) shows himself 
unarmed on the Grecian mound, and by his mere figure and voice strikes 
such terror into the Trojans that they relinquish the dead body. As soon as 
night arrives, Folydamas proposes, in the Trojan agora, that the Trojans 
shall retire without farther delay from the ships to the town, and shelter 
themselves within the walls, without awaiting the assault of Achilles armed 
on the next morning. Hector repels this counsel of Polydamas with ex- 
pressions, — not merely of overweening confidence in his own force, even 
against Achilles, — but also of extreme contempt and harshness towards the 
giver ; whose wisdom, however, is proved by the utter discomfiture of the 
Trojans the next day. Now this angry deportment and mistake on the part 
of Hector is made to tell strikingly in the twenty-second book, just before 
his death. There yet remains a moment for him to retire within the walls, 
and thus obtain shelter against the near approach of his irresistible enemy, 
but he is struck with the recollection of that fatal moment when he repelled 
the counsel which would have saved bis countrymen : "If I enter the town, 
Polydamas will be the first to reproach me, as having brought destruction 
upon Troy on that fatal night when Achilles came forth, and when I 
resisted his better counsel" (Compare xviii. 250-315; xxii. 100-110; and 
Aristot. Ethic. Hi. 8.) 

In a discussion respecting the structure of the Iliad, and in reference to 
arguments which deny all designed concatenation of parts, it is not out of 
place to notice this affecting touch of poetry belonging to those books which 
a*e reproached as the feeblest. 


in tone and language. To a certain extent, the peculiarities of 
the last book appear to me undeniable, though it is plainly a 
designed continuance, and not a substantive poem. Some weight 
also is doe to the remark about the twenty-third book, that 
Odysseus and Diomed&s, who have been wounded and disabled 
daring the fight, now reappear in perfect force, and contend in 
the games : here is no case of miraculous healing, and the incon- 
sistency is more likely to have been admitted by a separate 
enlarging poet, than by the schemer of the Achilleis. 

The splendid books from the second to v. 322 of the seventh, 1 
are equal, in most parts, to any portion of the Achillas, and are 
pointedly distinguished from the latter by the broad view which 
they exhibit of the general Trojan war, with all its principal 
personages, localities, and causes, — yet without advancing the 
result promised in the first book, or, indeed, any final purpose 
whatever. Even the desperate wound inflicted by Tlepolemus 
on Sarpftdon, is forgotten, when the latter hero is called forth in 
the subsequent Achill&s. 5 * The arguments of Lachmann, who 
dissects these six books into three or four separate songs, 3 carry 
no conviction to my mind ; and I see no reason why we should 
not consider all of them to be by the same author, bound together 
by the common purpose of giving a great collective picture which 
may properly be termed an Iliad. The tenth book, or Doloneia, 
though adapted specially to the place in which it stands, agrees 
with the books between the first and eighth in belonging only to 
the general picture of the war, without helping forward the 
march of the Achilleis ; yet it seems conceived in a lower vein, 
in so far as we can trust our modern ethical sentiment. One is 

1 The latter portion of the seventh book if spoiled by the very unsatisfac- 
tory addition introduced to explain the construction of the wail and ditch : 
all the other incidents (the agora and embassy of the Trojans, the truce for 
burial, the arrival of wine-ships from Lemnos, etc) suit perfectly with the 
scheme of the poet of these books, to depict the Trojan war generally 

• Unless, indeed, we are to imagine the combat between Tlepolemus and 
Sarpedon, and that between Glaukus and Diom&Ua, to be separate songs ; 
and they are among the very few passages in the Iliad which are completely 
separable, implying no special antecedents. 

' Compare also Heyne, Excursus ii. sect ii. ad Iliad, xxiv. vol vifi 
p. 789. 


unwilling to believe that the author of the fifth book, or Aristei* 
of Diom£d3s, would condescend to employ tbe hero whom he 
there so brightly glorifies, — the victor even over Arte himself— 
in slaughtering newly-arrived Thracian sleepers, without any 
large purpose or necessity. 1 The ninth book, of which I have 
already spoken at length, belongs to a different vein of conception, 
and seems to me more likely to have emanated from a separate 

While intimating these views respecting the authorship of the 
Iliad, as being in my judgment the most probable, I must repeat 
that, though the study of the poem carries to my mind a sufficient 
conviction respecting its structure, the question between unity and 
plurality of authors is essentially less determinable. The poem 
consists of a part original, and other parts superadded ; yet it is 
certainly not impossible that the author of the former may 

1 Subsequent poets, seemingly thinking that the naked story, (of Dtom&lfe 
slaughtering Rhesus and his companions in their sleep,) as it now stands in 
the Iliad, was too displeasing, adopted different ways of dressing it up. 
Thus, according to Pindar (ap. Schol. Iliad, x. 435), Rhesus fought one day 
as the ally of Troy, and did such terrific damage, that the Greeks had no 
other means of averting total destruction from his hand on the next dny, 
except by killing him daring the night. And the Euripidean drama, called 
Bhisus i though representing the latter as a new-comer, yet puts into the 
month of Athene the like overwhelming predictions of what he would do on 
the coming day, if suffered to lire ; so that to kill him in the night is the 
only way of saving the Greeks (Eurip. Rhfis. 602) : moreover, RhSsus him- 
self is there brought forward as talking with such overweening insolence, 
that the sympathies of man, and the envy of the gods, are turned against 
him (ib. 458). 

But the story is best known in the form and with the addition (equally 
unknown to the Iliad) which Virgil has adopted. It was decreed by fate that, 
if the splendid horses of Rhesus were permitted once either to taste tba 
Trojan provender, or to drink of the river Xanthus, nothing could preserve 
the Greeks from ruin (JEneid, i. 468, with Servius, adloc.) : — 

" Nee procul hinc Rhesi niveis tenloria velis 
Agnoscit lacrymans : primo qu» prodita somno 
Tydides multa vastabat cssde crucntus : 
Ardentesque avertit equos in castra, priusquam 
Pabnla gnstassent TrojsB, Xanthumque bibissenL" 

AH these versions are certainly improvements upon the story as it stands fe 
At Iliad. 



himself have composed the latter ; and such would be my belief 
if I regarded plurality of composers as an inadmissible idea. On 
this supposition, we must conclude that the poet, while anxious 
for the addition of new, and for the most part, highly interesting 
matter, has not thought fit to recast the parts and events in such 
manner as to impart to the whole a pervading thread of consensus 
and organization, such as we see in the Odyssey. 

That the Odyssey is of later date than the Iliad, and by a 
different author, seems to be now the opinion of most critics, 
especially of Payne Knight 1 and Nitzsch ; though 0. Muller leans 
to a contrary conclusion, at the same time adding that he thinks 
the arguments either way not very decisive. There are consid- 
erable differences of statement in the two poems in regard to 
some of the gods : Iris is messenger of the gods in the Iliad, and 
Hermes in the Odyssey : JEolus, the dispenser of the winds in 
the Odyssey, is not noticed in the twenty-third book of the Iliad, 
but, on the contrary, Iris invites the winds, as independent gods, 
to come and kindle the funeral pile of Patroclus ; and, unless we 
are to expunge the song of Demodokus in the eighth book of the 
Odyssey, as spurious, Aphrodite there appears as the wife of 
Hephaestus, — a relationship not known to the Iliad. There are 
also some other points of difference enumerated by Mr. Knight 
and others, which tend to justify the presumption that the author 
of the Odyssey is not identical either with the author of the 
Achilleis or his enlargers, which G. Hermann considers to be a 
point unquestionable. 9 Indeed, the difficulty of supposing a long 
coherent poem to have been conceived, composed, and retained, 
without any aid of writing, appears to many critics even now, 
insurmountable, though the evidences on the other side, are, in 
my view, sufficient to outweigh any negative presumption thus 
suggested. But it is improbable that the same person should 
nave powers of memorial combination sufficient for composing two 
such poems, nor is there any proof to force upon us such a suppo- 

Presuming a difference of authorship between the two poems, 

1 Mr. Knight places tne Iliad abo&t two centuries, and the Odyssey one 
century, anterior to Hesiod : a century between the two poem* f Prolegg. 4 

• Hermann, PnefaL ad Odysu p. vii. 


I feel less convinced about the supposed juniority of the Odyssej. 
The discrepancies in manners and language in the one and the 
other, are so little important, that two different persons, in the 
same age and society, might well be imagined to exhibit as great 
or even greater. It is to be recollected that the subjects of the 
two are heterogeneous, so as to conduct the poet, even were he 
the same man, into totally different veins of imagination and 
illustration. The pictures of the Odyssey seem to delineate the 
same heroic life as the Iliad, though looked at from a distinct 
point of view : and the circumstances surrounding the residence 
of Odysseus, in Ithaka, are just such as we may suppose him to 
have left in order to attack Troy. If the scenes presented to us 
are for the most part pacific, as contrasted with the incessant 
fighting of the Iliad, this is not to be ascribed to any greater 
sociality or civilization in the real hearers of the Odyssey, but to 
the circumstances of the hero whom the poet undertakes to 
adorn: nor can we doubt that the poems of Arktinus and 
Leschgs, of a later date than the Odyssey, would have given us 
as much combat and bloodshed as the Iliad. I am not struck by 
those proofs of improved civilization which some critics affirm the 
Odyssey to present : Mr. Knight, who is of this opinion, never- 
theless admits that the mutilation of Melanthius, and the hanging 
up of the female slaves by Odysseus, in that poem, indicate 
greater barbarity than any incidents in the fights before Troy.' 
The more skilful and compact structure of the Odyssey, has been 
often considered as a proof of its juniority in age : and in the case 
of two poems by the same author, we might plausibly contend 
f ,hat practice would bring with it improvement in the combining 
acuity. But in reference to the poems before us, we must rec- 
ollect, first, that in all probability the Iliad (with which the 
comparison is taken) is not a primitive but an enlarged poem, 
and that the primitive Achilleis might well have been quite as 
coherent as the Odyssey ; secondly, that between different 
authors, superiority in structure is not a proof of subsequent 
composition, inasmuch as, on that hypothesis, we should be com 
pelled to admit that the later poem of Arktinus would be an 
knprovement upon the Odyssey ; thirdly, that, even if it were so* 

1 Knight, Prolegg. 1, c. Odyss. xxii. 465-478. 


we could only infer that the author of the Odyssey fad heard the 
Achilleis or the Iliad ; we could not infer that h« liTed one Of 
two generations afterwards. 1 

On the whole, the balance of probabilities ceeuw in favor of 
distinct authorship for the two poems, but the same age,— and 
that age a very early one, anterior to the first Olympiad. And 
they may thus be used as evidences, and contemporary evidences, 
for the phenomena of primitive Greek civilization ; while they 
also show that the power of constructing long premeditated epics, 
without the aid of writing, is to be taken as a characteristic of 
the earliest known Greek mind. This was the point controverted 
by Wolf, which a full review of the case (in my judgment) 
decides against him : it is, moreover, a valuable result for the 
historian of the Greeks, inasmuch as it marks out to him the 
ground from which he is to start in appreciating their ulterior 
progress. 9 

1 The arguments, upon the faith of which Payne Knight and other critics 
have maintained the Odyssey to be younger than the Iliad, are well stated 
and examined in Bernard Thiersch, — Qusastio de Diversa Iliadis et Odys 
seee JEtate, — in the Anhang (p. 306) to his work Ueber das Zeitalter und 
Vaterland des Homer. 

He shows all such arguments to oe very inconclusive j though the grounds 
upon which he himself maintains identity of age between the two appear to 
me not at all more satisfactory (p. 327) : we can infer nothing to the point 
from the mention of Telemachus in the Iliad. 

Welcker thinks that there is a great difference of age, and an evident 
difference of authorehip, between the two poems (Der Episch. Kyklvs, 
p. 295). 

0. Mullet admits the more recent date of the Odyssey, but considers it 
u difficult and hazardous to raise upon this foundation any definite conclu- 
sions as to the person and ago of the poet" (History of the Literature of 
Ancient Greece, ch. v. s. 13.) 

* Dr. Thirlwall has added to the second edition of his History of Greece 
a valuable Appendix, on the early history of the Homeric poems (vol. i. pp. 
S00-516); which contains copious information respecting the discrepant 
opinions of German critics, with a brief comparative examination of their 
reasons. I could have wished that so excellent a judge had superadded, to 
hii enumeration of the views of others, an ampler exposition of his own. 
Dr. Thirlwall seems decidedly convinced upon that which appears to me the 
most important point in the Homeric controversy: " That before the appear* 
ance of the earliest of the poems of the Epic Cycle, the Hiad and Odyssey, 
even if they did not exist precisely in their present form, had at least reached 


Whatever there may be of truth in the different conjectures of 
eriticB respecting the authorship and structure of these unrivalled 
poems, we are not to imagine that it is the perfection of then 
epical symmetry which has given them their indissoluble hold 
upon the human mind, as well modern as ancient There is some 
tendency in critics, from Aristotle downwards, 1 to invert the 
order of attributes in respect to the Homeric poems, so as to dwell 
most on recondite excellences which escape the unaided reader, 
and which are even to a great degree disputable. But it is given 
to few minds (as Goethe has remarked 3 ) to appreciate fully the 
mechanism of a long poem ; and many feel the beauty of the sep- 
arate parts, who have no sentiment for the aggregate perfection 
of the whole. 

Nor were the Homeric poems originally addressed to minds of 
the rarer stamp. They are intended for those feelings which 
the critic has in common with the unlettered mass, not for that 
enlarged range of vision and peculiar standard which he has 
acquired to himself. They are of all poems the most absolut ly 
and unreservedly popular : had they been otherwise, they could 

their present compass, and were regarded each as a complete and well-defined 
whole, not as a fluctuating aggregate of fugitive pieces." (p. 509.) 

This marks out the Homeric poems as ancient both in the items and in 
the total, and includes negation of the theory of Wolf and Lachmann, who 
contend that, as a total, they only date from the age of Peisistratus. It is 
then safe to treat the poems as unquestionable evidences of Grecian antiquity 
(meaning thereby 776 b. a), which we could not do if we regarded all con- 
gruity of parts in the poems as brought about through alterations of 
Peisistratus and his friends. 

There is also a very just admonition of Dr. Thirlwall (p. 516) as to the 
difficulty of measuring what degree of discrepancy or inaccuracy might or 
might not have escaped the poet's attention, in an age so ija perfectly known 
to ua, 

1 There are just remarks on this point in Heyne*s Excursus, ii. sect 2 and 
4, ad II. xxiv. vol. viil pp. 771-800. 

a " Wenig Deutsche, und vielleicht nur wenige Menschen ailer neuern 
Nationen, haben Gefuhl fur ein sesthetisches Ganzes : sie loben und tadelu 
nor slellenweise, sie entziicken sich nur stellenweise." (Goethe, Wilhelm 
Meister : I transcribe this from Wekker's JEschyl. Trilogie, p. 306.) 

What ground there is for restricting this proposition to moda-n at ooa> 
I with andmt nation*. I am unable to conceive. 


not have lived so 1 ng in the mouth of the rhapsodes, and the 
ear and memory of ffle people : and it was then that their influ- 
ence was first acquired, never afterwards to he shaken. Their 
beauties belong to the parts taken separately, which revealed 
themselves spontaneously to the listening crowd at the festival, — 
far more than to the whole poem taken together, which could 
hardly be appreciated unless the parts were dwelt upon and suf- 
fered to expand in the mind. The most unlettered hearer of 
those times could readily seize, while the most instructed reader 
can still recognize, the characteristic excellence of Homeric nar- 
rative, — its straightforward, unconscious, unstudied simplicity, — 
its concrete forms of speech 1 and happy alternation of action 

1 The Kivovfieva dvo/utra of Homer were extolled by Aristotle ; see Schol. 
ad Iliad, i. 481 ; compare Dionys. Halicarn. De Compos. Verbor. c 20. 
dart (ii}dh> vfilv diafipeiv ytvopeva rd. npayfiara fj \ey6fieva 6pav. Respect- 
ing the undisguised bursts of feeling by the heroes, the Scholiast ad Iliad, i 
849 tells us, — troifiov rd qpoiKov irpbc danpva, — compare Euripid. Helen. 
959, and the severe censures of Plato, Republ. ii. p. 388. 

The Homeric poems were the best understood, and the most widely 
popular of all Grecian composition, even among the least instructed per* 
sons, such (for example) as the semibarbarians who had acquired the Greek 
language in addition to their own mother tongue. (Dio ChrysosL Or. xviil 
vol. i. p. 478 ; Or. liii. vol. ii. p. 277, Reisk.) Respecting the simplicity and 
perspicuity of the narrative style, implied in this extensive popularity, Por- 
phyry made a singular remark : he said, that the sentences of Homer really 
presented much difficulty 'and obscurity, but that ordinary readers fancied 
they understood him, " because of the general clearness which appeared to 
run through the poems." (See the Prolegomena of Villoison's edition of 
the Iliad, p. xli.) This remark affords the key to a good deal of the Homeric 
criticism. There doubtless were real obscurities in the poems, arising from 
altered associations, customs, religion, language, etc., as well as from cor- 
rupt text ; but while the critics did good service in elucidating these diffi- 
culties, they also introduced artificially many others, altogether of their own 
creating. Refusing to be satisfied with the plain and obvious meaning, they 
•ought in Homer hidden purposes, elaborate innuendo, recondite motives 
even with regard to petty details, deep-laid rhetorical artifices (see a sped* 
men in Dionys. Hal. Ars Rhetor, c. 15, p. 316, Reiske; nor is even Aristotle 
exempt from similar tendencies, Schol. ad Iliad, iii. 441, x. 198), or a sub- 
stratum of philosophy allegorized. No wonder that passages, quite perspic- 
uous to the vulgar reader, seemed difficult to them. 

There could not be so sure a way of missing the real Homer as by search- 
ing for him in these devious recesses. He is essentially the poet of the 


with dialogue, — its vivid pictures of living agents, alwayi 
dearly and sharply individualized, whether in the commanding 
proportions of Achilles and Odysseus, in the graceful presence 
of Helen and Penelope, or in the more humble contrast of Eu- 
maeu8 and Melanthius ; and always, moreover, animated by the 
frankness with which his heroes give utterance to all theii 
transient emotions and even all their infirmities, — its constant 
reference to those coarser veins of feeling and palpable motives 
which belong to all men in common, — its fulness of graphic 
details, freshly drawn from the visible and audible world, and 
though often homely, never tame, ror trenching upon that limit 
of satiety to which the Greek mind was so keenly alive, — lastly, 
its perpetual junction of gods and men in the same picture, and 
familiar appeal to ever-present divine agency, in harmony with 
the interpretation of nature at that time universal. 

It is undoubtedly easier to feel than to describe the impressive 
influence of Homeric narrative : but the time and circumstances 
under which that influence was first, and most powerfully felt, 
preclude the possibility of explaining it by comprehensive and 
elaborate comparisons, such as are implied in Aristotle's remarks 
upon the structure of the poems. The critic who seeks the 
explanation in the right place will not depart widely from the 
point of view of those rude auditors to whom the poems were 
originally addressed, or from the susceptibilities and capacities 
common to the human bosom in every stage of progressive cul- 
ture. And though the refinements and delicacies of the poems, 
as well as their general structure, are a subject of highly interest- 
ing criticism, — yet it is not to these that Homer owes his wide- 
spread and imperishable popularity. Still less is it true, as the 
well-known observations of Horace would lead us to believe, 

broad highway and the market-place, touching the common sympathies and 
satisfying the mental appetencies of his countrymen with unrivalled effect; 
but exempt from ulterior views, either selfish or didactic, and immersed in 
the same medium of practical life and experience, religiously construed, as 
his auditors. No nation has ever yet had so perfect and touching an expo- 
sition of its early social mind as the Iliad and Odyssey exhibit 

In the verbal criticism of Homer, the Alexandrine fterati seem to havt 
made a very great advance, as compared with the glossographers who pre- 
ceded them. ( See Lehrs, De Studiis Aristarchi, Dissert, ii. p. 42.) 


that Homer is a teacher of ethical wisdom akin and superior to 
Chrysippos or Grantor. 1 No didactic purpose is to be found m 
the Iliad and Odyssey; a philosopher may doubtless extract, 
from the incidents and strongly marked characters which it con- 
tains, much illustrative matter for his exhortations, — but ' 
ethical doctrine which he applies must emanate from his own 
reflection. The homeric here manifests virtues or infirmities, 
fierceness or compassion, with the same straightforward and 
simple-minded vivacity, unconscious of any ideal standard by 

1 Horat Epist L 2, v. 1-26 : — 

u Sirennm voces, et Circes pocnla nosti : 
Que si cam sociis stultas cupidusque bibisset, 
Vixissct canis immundus, vel arnica Into sus." 

Horace contrasts the folly and greediness of the companions of Ulysses, in 
accepting the refreshments tendered to them by Circe, with the self-com- 
mand of Ulysses himself in refusing them. Bat in the incident as descrilied 
m the original poem, neither the praise nor the blame, here implied, finds 
any countenance. The companions of Ulysses follow the universal practice 
in accepting hospitality tendered to strangers, the fatal consequences of 
which, in their particular case, they could have no ground for suspecting; 
while Ulysses is preserved from a similar fate, not by any self-command of 
his own, but by a previous divine warning and a special antidote, which had 
not been vouchsafed to the rest (see Odyss. x. 285). And die incident of 
the Sirens, if it is to be taken as evidence of anything, indicates rather the 
absence, than the presence, of self-command on the part of Ulysses. 

Of the violent mutations of text, whereby the Grammatici or critics tried 
to efface from Homer bad ethical tendencies (we must remember that many 
of these men were lecturers to youth), a remarkable specimen is afforded by 
Venet. Schol. ad Iliad, ix. 453 ; compare Plutarch, de Aodiendis Poetis, p. 
95. Phoenix describes the calamitous family tragedy in which he himself 
had been partly the agent, partly the victim. Now that an Homeric hero 
should confess guilty proceedings, and still more guilty designs, without any 
expression of shame or contrition, was insupportable to the feelings of the 
critics. One of them, Aristodemus, thrust two negative particles into one 
of the lines ; and though he thereby mined not only the sense bat the metre, 
his emendation procured for him universal applause, because he had main 
tained the innocence of the hero (real oh fidvov ffidoiufirjvev^ *AA£ *ai triply, 
u? eixnpri Ttipfjaac rdv rjpua). And Aristarchus thought the case s*> alarm- 
ing, that he struck out from the text four lines, which have only been pie- 
served to us by Plutarch ('O ftsv 'Api<rr*px<K IfcA* rd hn/ tout*, • ofli* 
4 etc). See the Fragment of Dioscorides (nepl rw trap* 'Opjpp Ne/stw| 
iB Dfctoft Fragmenta Historicor. Gracor. vol. ii. p. 199. 


which his conduct is to be tried ; l nor can we trace in the poet 
any ulterior function beyond that of the inspired organ of the 
Muse, and the nameless, but eloquent, herald of lost adventures 
out of the darkness of the past 

1 u C'est an tableau ideal, a coup sur, que celai de la socilttf Grecque 
dans les chants qni portent le nom d'Homere : et poortant cette socie'te' y 
est tout© entiere reproduite, avec la rusticity la ferocite* de ses mceurs, sea 
bonnes et ses maavaises passions, sans dessein de fair© particolierement 
ressortir, de celebrer tel on tel de ses metrites, de ses a vantages, on de laisser 
dans l'ombre ses vices et ses maux. Ce melange da bien et da mal, da fort 
et da faible, — cette simultaneity d'idees et de sentimens en apparence con- 
traires, — cette varie*te", cette incoherence, ce deVeloppement inegal de la 
nature et de la destinee humaine, — c'est precise'ment la ce qn'il 7 a de plus 
potftiqae, car c'est le fond meme des choses, c'est la vents' sur lliomme et le 
monde : et dans les peintares ideales qa'en veulent faire la poesie, le roman 
et mflme lliistoire, cet ensemble, si divers et poortant si harmonieox, doit te 
retroaver: sans quoi l'ideal veritable y manqne aossi biea qae U realiteV 
(Qaiso^ Coars d'Histoire Moderns Laera 7mo, vol. L p. id*.) 






Greece Proper lies between the 36th and 40th parallels of 
north latitude, and between the 21st and 26th degrees of east 
longitude. Its greatest length, from Mount Olympus to Cape 
Taenarus, may be stated at 250 English miles ; its greatest 
breadth, from the western coast of Akarnania to Marathon in 
Attica, at 180 miles ; and the distance eastward from Ambrakia 
across Pindus to the Magnesian mountain Homole* and the 
mouth of the Peneius is about 120 miles. Altogether, its area 
is somewhat less than that of Portugal. 1 In regard, however, 
to all attempts at determining the exact limits of Greece proper, 
we may remark, first, that these limits seem not to have been 
very precisely defined even among the Greeks themselves ; and 
next, that so large a proportion of the Hellens were distributed 
Among islands and colonies, and so much of their influence upon 
'he world in general produced through their colonies, as to 

1 Compare Strong, Statistics of the Kingdom of Greece, p. 2 ; and Kroe* 
Hellas, vol L ch. 3, p. 196. 


render the extent of their original domicile a matter of com- 
paratively little moment to verify. 

The chain called Olympus and the Cambunian mountains, 
ranging from east and west, and commencing with the -<Egean 
sea or the gulf of Therma, near the 40th degree of north 
latitude, is prolonged under the name of Mount Lingon, until it 
touches the Adriatic at the Akrokeraunian promontory. The 
country south of this chain comprehended all that in ancient 
times was regarded as Greece, or Hellas proper, but it also com* 
prehended something more. Hellas proper, 1 (or continuous 
Hellas, to use the language of Skylax and Dikaearchus) was 
understood to begin with the town and gulf of Ambrakia : from 
thence, northward to the Akrokeraunian promontory, lay the 
land called by the Greeks Epirus, — occupied by the Chaonians, 
Molossians, and Thesprotians, who were termed Epirots, and 
were not esteemed to belong to the Hellenic aggregate. This at 
least was the general understanding, though jEtolians and Akar- 
nanians, in their more distant sections, seem to have been not less 
widely removed from the full type of Hellenism than the Epirots 
were ; while Herodotus is inclined to treat even Molossians and 
Thesprotians as Hellens. 9 

At a point about midway between the iEgean and Ionian seas, 
Olympus and Lingon are traversed nearly at right angles by the 
still longer and vaster chain called Pindus, which stretches in a 
line rather west of north from the northern side of the range of 
Olympus : the system to which these mountains belong seems to 
begin with the lofty masses of greenstone comprised under the name 
of Mount Scardus, or Scordus, (Schardagh,) 3 which is divided on!/ 

1 Dikwarch, 31, p. 460, cd. Fuhr: — 

*H d' 'EAXdf and ttjs ' elvai doxel 
Maxima cvvexfc fd irepac • ahr^ <T ipxerai 
'Efrt rdv irorafwv Tlrjveibv, «f ^iXiag ypufci, 
"Opoc re Mayvffiuv x Ofi6\fjv KeicXqfiivav. 
Skylax, c. 95. — ^kpfipaKia — kvTev&ev &pxertu $ 'E&tof *owtxto 
ukjffii Uqueiav nurapov, kq2 'OftoXiov MayvTjrtKfc irfAwf, $ ion wapd rto 

• Herod, i. 146 : ii. 56. The Molossian Alkon passes for a Hellen (Herod 

* Tht mountain systems in the ancient Macedonia and Ulyricum, north 


t>j the narrow cleft, containing the river Drin, from the limestone 
of the Albanian Alps. From the southern face of Olympus, 
Findus strikes off nearly southward, forming the boundary be- 
tween Thessaly and Epiras, and sending forth about the 39th 
degree of latitude the lateral chain of Othrys, — which latter taxes 
Sin easterly course, forming the southern boundary of Thessaly, 
and reaching the sea between Thessaly and the northern coast 
of EubcBa. Southward of Othrys, the chain of Pindus, under the 
name of Tymphrestus, still continues, until another lateral chain, 
called (Eta, projects from it again towards the east, — forming 
the lofty coast immediately south of the Maliac gulf, with the 
narrow road of Thermopylae between the two, — and terminating 
at die Euboean strait. At the point of junction with (Eta, the 
chain of Pindus forks into two branches ; one striking to the 
westward of sooth, and reaching across iEtolia, under the names 
of Arakynthus, Kurius, Korax, and Taphiassus, to the promon- 
tory called Antirrhion, situated on the northern side of th9 
narrow entrance of the Corinthian gulf, over against the cor- 
responding promontory of Bhion in Peloponnesus ; the othci 
tending south-east, and forming Parnassus, Helicon, and Kithas- 
rdn ; indeed, iEgaleus and Hymettus, even down to the south- 
ernmost cape of Attica, Sunium, may be treated a* a continuance 
of this chain. From the eastern extremity of (Eta, also, a range 
of hills, inferior in height to the preceding, takes its departure in 
a south-easterly direction, under the various names of Kn&mis, 
Ptoon, and Teumgssus. It is joined with Kithaerdn by the lateral 
communication, ranging from west to east, called Parties ; while 

of Olympus, have been yet but imperfectly examined : see Dr. Griesebach, 
Keiso durch Rmnelien and nach Brussa im Jahre 1839, vol. ii. ch. 13, p. 114, 
teqq. (Gotring. 1841), which contains much instruction respecting the real 
relations of these mountains as compared with the different ideas and repre- 
sentations of them. The words of Strabo (lib. vii. Excerpt 3, ed. Tzschucke), 
that Scardus, Obelus, Rhodopd, and Hsemus extend in a straight line from 
the Adriatic to the Euxine, are incorrect 

See Leake's Travels in Northern Greece, vol. i. p. 335: the pass of 
Tschangon, near Castoria (through which the river Devol passes frosm 
(he eastward to fall into the Adriatic on the westward), is the only cleft 
Id this long chain from the -'rer Drin 'a the north down to the centre of 


the celebrated Pentelikus, abundant in marble quarries, consti- 
tutes its connecting link, to the south of Parnes with the chain 
from Kithseron to Sunium. 

From the promontory of Antirrhion, the line of mountains 
crosses into Peloponnesus, and stretches in a southerly direction 
down to the extremity of the peninsula called Taenarus, now 
Cape Matapan. Forming the boundary between Elis with Mes- 
eenia on one side, and Arcadia with Laconia on the other, it 
bears the successive names of Olenus, Panachaikus, Pholoe, 
Erymanthus, Lykaeus, Parrhasius, and Taygetus. Another series 
of mountains strikes off from Kithaer6n towards the south-west, 
constituting, under the names of Geraneia and Oneia, the rugged 
and lofty Isthmus of Corinth, and then spreading itself into 
Peloponnesus. On entering that peninsula, one of its branches 
tends westward along the north of Arkadia, comprising the 
Akrokorinthus, or citadel of Corinth, the high peak of KyllenS, 
the mountains of Aroanii and Lampeia, and ultimately joining 
Erymanthus and Pholoe, — while the other branch strikes south- 
ward towards the south-eastern cape of Peloponnesus, the for 
midable Cape Malea, or St Angelo, — and exhibits itself under 
the successive names of Apesas, Artemisium, Parthenium, 
Parn6n, Thornax, and Zarex. 

From the eastern extremity rf Olympus, in a direction rather 
to the eastward of south, stretches the range of mountains first 
called Ossa, and afterwards Pelion, down to the south-eastern 
corner of Thessaly. The long, lofty, and naked back-bone of the 
island of Euboea, may be viewed as a continuance both of this 
chain and of the chain of Othrys : the line is farther prolonged 
by a series of islands in the Archipelago, Andros, Tenos, Myk- 
onos, and Naxos, belonging to the group called the Cyclades, or 
islands encircling the sacred centre of Delos. Of these Cyclades, 
others are in like manner a continuance of the chain which reaches 
to Cape Sunium, — Keds, Kythnos, Seriphos, and Siphnos join on 
to Attica, as Andros does to Euboea. And we might even con- 
sider the great island of Krete a? a prolongation of the system of 
mountains which breasts the winds and waves at Cape Malea, the 
island of Kythera forming the intermediate link between them. 
Skiathus, Skopelus, and Skyrus, to the north-east of Eutxea, also 


mark themselves out as outlying peaks of the range oomprehena 
ing Pelion and Euboea. 1 

By this brief sketch, which the reader will naturally compare 
with one of the recent maps of the country, it will be seen that 
Greece proper is among the most mountainous territories in 
Europe. For although it is convenient, in giving a systematic 
view of the face of the country, to group the multiplicity of 
mountains into certain chains, or ranges, founded upon approxi- 
mative uniformity of direction ; yet, in point of fact, there are so 
many ramifications and dispersed peaks, — so vast a number of 
hills and crags of different magnitude and elevation, — that a 
comparatively small proportion of the surface is left for level 
ground. Not only few continuous plains, but even few contin- 
uous valleys, exist throughout all Greece proper. The largest 
spaces of level ground are seen in Thessaly, in -flStolia, in the 
western portion of Peloponnesus, and in Boeotia ; but irregular 
mountains, valleys frequent but isolated, land-locked basins and 
declivities, which often occur, but seldom last long, form the 
character of the country.* 

The islands of the Cyclades, Euboea, Attica, and Laconia, 
consist for the most part of micaceous schist, combined with and 
often covered by crystalline granular limestone.3 The centre 

1 For the general sketch of the mountain system of Hellas, see Krase, Hellas, 
vol. i. ch. 4, pp. 280-290 ; Dr. Cramer, Geog. of An. Greece, vol. i. pp. 3-8. 

Respecting the northern regions, Epirus, Illyria, and Macedonia, O. M61- 
ler, in hit short bat valuable treatise Ueber die Makedoner, p. 7 (Berlin, 
1825), may be consulted with advantage. This treatise is annexed to the 
English translation of his History of the Dorians by Mr. G. C. Lewis. 

' Oat of the 47,600,000 stromas (= 12,000,000 English acres) included in 
the present kingdom of Greece, 26,500,000 go to mountains, rooks, rivers, 
lakes, and forests, — and 21, 000,000 to arable land, vineyards, olive and car 
rant grounds, etc By arable land is meant, land fit for cultivation ; for a 
comparatively small portion of it is actually cultivated at present (Strong, 
Statistics of Greece, p. 2, London, 1842). 

The modern kingdom of Greece does not include Thessaly. The epithet 
KotXbc (hollow) is applied to several of the chief Grecian states, — ko&$ 
*HA*c, koiM) AoKedaifiuv, xoiXbv 'Apvof, etc. 

Kopiv&oc 6+pvQ re teal Ko&aivrrai, Strabo, viii. p. 381. 

The fertility of Boeotia is noticed in Strabo, ix. p. 400, and in the valuable 
fragment of Diksaarchus, B/oc 'EAAddof, p. 140, ed. Fuhr. 

* For the geological and miDaralogical character of Greece, see the nmr 


and west of Peloponnesus, as well as the country north of the 
Corinthian gulf from the gulf of Ambrakia to the strait of Eubase\ 
present a calcareous formation, varying in different localities aa 
to color, consistency, and hardness, but, generally, belonging or 
approximating to the chalk : it is often very compact, but is dis- 
tinguished in a marked manner from the crystalline limestone 
above mentioned. The two loftiest summits in Greece 1 (both, 
however, lower than Olympus, estimated at nine thousand seven 
hundred feet) exhibit this formation, — Parnassus, which attains 
eight thousand feet, and the point of St. Elias in Taygetua, which 
is not less than seven thousand eight hundred feet Clay-slate, 
and conglomerates of sand, lime, and clay, are found in many 
parts : a close and firm conglomerate of lime composes the Isth- 
mus of Corinth : loose deposits of pebbles, and calcareous breccia* 
occupy also some portions of the territory. But the most impor 
tant and essential elements of the Grecian soil, consist of the 
diluvial and alluvial formations, with which the troughs and 
basins are filled up, resulting from the decomposition of the older 
adjoining rocks. In these reside the productive powers of the 
country, and upon these the grain and vegetables for the subsis- 
tence of the people depend. The mountain regions are to a great 
degree barren, destitute at present of wood or any useful vegetsV 
ion, though there is reason to believe that they were better 
wooded in antiquity : in many parts, however, and especially in 
iEtolia and Akarnania, they afford plenty of timber, and In all 
parts, pasture for the cattle during summer, at a time when the 
plains are thoroughly burnt up. 2 For other articles of food, 

undertaken by Dr. Fiedler, by orders of the present government of Greece, 
in 1834 and the following years (Reise dnrch alle Theile des Konigreicha 
Griechenland in Anftrag der K G. Begierang in den Jahren 1834 bis 1487, 
especially vol. ii. pp. 513-530). 

Professor Boss remarks upon the character of the Greek limestone, — 
hard and intractable to the mason, —Jagged and irregular in its fracture,— 
as having first determined in early times the polygonal style of architecture, 
which has been denominated (he observes) Cyclopian and Pelatgic, without 
the jeast reason for either denomination (Seise in den Griech. Inseln, toL I 
p. ao;. 

* Griesebacn, Beisen durch Bumelien, voL ii. ch. 13, p. 124. 

*In passing through the ▼alley between (Eta and Parnassus, §***£ 
toward* Elateia, Fiedler observes the striking change in the character e/th* 

BfVEBS. 2|7 

dependence must be had on the valleys, which are occasionally of 
singular fertility. The low ground of Thessaly, the valley of 
the Kephisus, and the borders of the lake Kopais, in Bodotia, the 
western portion of Elis, the plains of Stratus on the confines of 
Akarnania and iEtolia, and those near the river Pamisus in 
Messenia, both are now, and were in ancient times, remarkable 
for their abundant produce. 

Besides the scarcity of wood for fuel, there is another serious 
inconvenience to which the low grounds of Greece are exposed, 
— the want of a supply of water at once adequate and regular.) 
Abundance of rain falls during the autumnal and winter months, 
little or none during the summer ; while the naked limestone of 
the numerous hills, neither absorbs nor retains moisture, so that 
the rain runs off as rapidly as it falls, and springs are rare.* 
Most of the rivers of Greece are torrents in early spring, and dry 
before the end of the summer : the copious combinations of the 
ancient language, designated the winter torrent by a special and 
separate word. 3 The most considerable rivers in the country are, 
the Peneius, which carries off all the waters of Thessaly, finding 
an exit into the JEgean through the narrow defile which parts 
Ossa from Olympus, — and the Achelous, which flows from Pin* 
dus in a south-westerly direction, separating JEtolia from Akar 
nania, and emptying itself into the Ionian sea: the Euenus alsc 

country: "Romelin (te. Akarnania, JBtolia, Osolian Lokris, etc.), woody 
well-watered, and covered with a good soil, ceases at once and precipitously; 
while craggy limestone mountains, of a white-grey color, exhibit the cold 
character of Attica and the Morea.* (Fiedler, Reise, i p. 213.) 

The Homerie Hymn to Apollo conceives even the w66iov nvpftfopm, 
of Thebes as having in its primitive state been covered with wood (v. 837). 

The best timber used by the ancient Greeks came from Macedonia, the 
Euxine, and the Propontis : the timber of Mount Parnassus and of Eubcsn 
was reckoned very bad ; that of Arcadia better (Theophrast. ▼. 2, I j iii. 9). 

1 See Fiedler, Reise, etc vol i. pp. 84, 219, 362, etc. 

Both Fiedler and 8trong (Statistics of Greece, p. 169) dwell with great 
reason upon the inestimable value of Artesian wells for the country. 

9 Roes, Reise anf den Griechiachen Jnseln, vol. l letter 2, p. 12. 

* The Greek language seems to stand singular in the expression X*tp<*t> 
ffovc, — the Wadyt of Arabia manifest the like alternation, of extreme tem- 
porary fulness and violence, with absolute dryness (Kriegk, 8chriftai sjcw 
aUgemeinen Erdkunde, p. 201, Leipzig, 1840). 

TOJ- U. 10 


takes its rise at a more southerly part of the same mountain 
chain, and falls into the same sea more to the eastward. The 
rivers more to the southward are unequal and inferior. Ke- 
phisus and Asdpus, in Boeotia, Alpheius, in Elis and Arcadia, 
Pamisus in Messenia, maintain each a languid stream throughout 
the summer ; while the lnachus near Argos, and the Kephisus 
and Hissus near Athens, present a scanty reality which falls short 
still more of their great poetical celebrity. Of all those rivers 
which have been noticed, the Acheldus is by far the most impor- 
tant The quantity of mud which its turbid stream brought 
down and deposited, occasioned a sensible increase of the land at 
its embouchure, within the observation of ThucydidSs. 1 

But the disposition and properties of the Grecian territory, 
though not maintaining permanent rivers, are favorable to the 
multiplication of lakes and marshes. There are numerous 
hollows and inclosed basins, out of which the water can find nc 
superficial escape, and where, unless it makes for itself a subter- 
ranean passage through rifts in the mountains, it remains either 
as a marsh or a lake according to the time of year. In Thessaly, 
we find the lakes Ness6nis and Boebeis-; in iEtolia, between the 
Acheldus and Eugnus, Strabo mentions the lake of Trichdnis, 
besides several other lakes, which it is difficult to identify indi- 
vidually, though the quantity of ground covered by lake and 
marsh is, as a whole, very considerable. In Boeotia, are situated 
the lakes Kopai's, HylikS, and Harma; the first of the three 
formed chiefly by the river Kephisus, flowing from Parnassus on 
the north-west, and shaping for itself a sinuous course through 
the mountains of Phokis. On the north-east and east^ the lake 
Kopai's is bounded by the high land of Mount Ptdon, which 
intercepts its communication with the strait of Euboea. Through 

r» limestone of this mountain, the water has either found or 
urced several subterraneous cavities, by which it obtains a partial 
,^ress on the other side of the rocky hill, and then flows into the 
strait The Katabothra, as they were termed in antiquity, yet 
exist, but in an imperfect and half-obstructed condition. Even 
in antiquity, however, they never fully sufficed to carry off th« 
surplus waters of the Kephisus ; for the remains are still found 

1 Thucydid. it. 102. 


of an artificial tunnel, pierced through the whole breadth of the 
rock, and with perpendicular apertures at proper intervals to lei 
in the air from above. This tunnel — one of the most interest- 
ing remnants of antiquity, since* it must date from the prosperous 
days of the old Orchomenus, anterior to its absorption into the 
Boeotian league, as well as to the preponderance of Thebes,— is 
now choked up and* rendered useless. It may, perhaps, have 
been designedly obstructed by the hand of an enemy, and the 
scheme of Alexander the Great, who commissioned an engineer 
from Chalkis to reopen it, was defeated, first, by discontents in 
Boeotia, and ultimately by his early death. 1 

The Katabothra of the lake Kopai's, are a specimen of the 
phenomenon so frequent in Greece, — lakes and rivers finding for 
themselves subterranean passages through the cavities in the 
limestone rocks, and even pursuing their unseen course for a 
considerable distance before they emerge to the light of day. In 
Arcadia, especially, several remarkable examples of subterranean 
water communication occur ; this central region of Peloponnesus 
presents a cluster of sach completely inclosed valleys, or basins. 9 

1 Strabo, ix. p. 407. 

* Colonel Leake observes (Tiavels in Morea, vol. iii. pp. 45, 153-155), 
* The plain of Tripolitza (anciently that of Tegea and Mantineia) is by far 
the greatest of that cluster of valleys in the centre of Peloponnesus, each of 
which is so closely shut in by the intersecting mountains, that no outlet if 
afforded to the waters except through the mountains themselves," etc. Re- 
specting the Arcadian Orchomenus, and- its inclosed lake with Katabothra, 
fee the same work, p. 103 ; and the mountain plains near Corinth, p. 263. 

This temporary disappearance of the rivers was familiar to the ancient 
observers — ol Karamvofievot rtiy irordfiuv. ( Aristot. Meteorolog. L 13. Dio- 
idr. xv. 49. Strabo, vi. p. 271 ; viii. p. 389, etc.) 

Their familiarity with this phenomenon was in part the source of some 
geographical suppositions, which now appear to us extravagant, respecting 
the long subterranean and submarine course of certain rivers, and their re* 
appearance at very distant points. Sophokles said that the Inachus of Altar- 
nania joined the Inachus of Argolis: Ibykus the poet affirmed that the 
Asdpus, near Sikyon, had its source in Phrygia ; the river Inopus of the little 
faland of Delos was alleged by others to be an effluent from the mighty 
Nile ; and the rhetor Zdilus, in a panegyrical oration to the inhabitants of 
Teuedos. went the length of assuring them that the Alpheius in Elis had its 
source in their island (Strabo, vi. p. 271 ). Not only Pindar and other poets 
(Antigon. Caryst c 155), but also the historian Timssus (Timsri Frag. 117 


It will be seen from these circumstances, that Greece, con- 
sidering lis limited total extent, offers but little motive, and still 
less of convenient means, for internal communication among its 
Tarioufl inhabitants. 1 Each village, or township, occupying iti 

ed. Goller), and Pausanias, alio, with the greatest confidence (t. 7, 2), believed 
that the fountain Arethusa, at Syracuse, wag nothing else bnt the reappear* 
anee of the river Alpheios from Peloponnesus : this was attested by the 
actual fact that a goblet or cup (fiahTj), thrown into the Alpheios, had come 
up at the Syracnsan fountain, which Timnus professed to have verified, — 
but even the arguments by which Strabo justifies his disbelief of this tale, 
show how powerfully the phenomena of the Grecian rivers acted upon his 
mind. " If (says he, L c.) the Alpheius, instead of flowing into the sea, fell 
into some chasm in the earth, there would be some plausibility in supposing 
that it continued its subterranean course as far as Sicily without mixing 
with the sea: but since its junction with the sea is matter of observation, 
and since there is no aperture visible near the shore to absorb the 1 water of 
the river {arofta rd naranlvop rb fcvfia tov irorupov), so it is plain that the 
water cannot maintain its separation and its sweetness, whereas the spring 
Arethusa is perfectly good to drink." I have translated here the sense 
rather than the words of Strabo; bat the phenomena of " rivers falling into 
chasms and being drunk up," for a time, is exactly what happens in Greece. 
It did not appear to Strabo impossible that the Alpheius might traverse this 
great distance underground ; nor do we wonder at this, when we learn that 
a more able geographer than he (Eratosthenes) sup|>osed that the marshes 
df Rhinokolura, between the Mediterranean and the Red sea, were formed 
by the Euphrates and Tigris, which flowed underground for the length of 
6000 stadia or furlongs (Strabo, xvi. p. 741; Seidel. Fragm. Eratosth. p. 
194): compare the story about the Euphrates passing underground, and 
m reappearing in Ethiopia as the river Kile (Pausan. ii. 5, 3). This disap- 
pearance and reappearance of rivers connected itself, in the minds of ancient 
physical philosophers, with the supposition of vast reservoirs of water in the 
inierior of the earth, which were protruded upwards to the surface by some 
gaseous force (see Seneca, Nat Quest, vi. 8). Pomponius Mela mentions 
an idea of some writers, that the source of the Nile was to be found, not in 
our (oUovfievT}) habitable section of the globe, but in the Antichthon, or 
southern continent, and that it flowed under the ocean to rise up in Ethiopia 
(Mela, L 9, 55). 

These views of the ancients, evidently based upon the analogy of Grecian 
rivers, are well set forth by M. Letronne, in a paper on the situation of the 
Terrestrial Paradise, as represented by the Fathers of the Church ; cited in 
A von Humboldt, Examen Critique de l'Histoire de la Geographic, etc, 
vol.iii. pp. 118-130. 

1 u Upon the arrival of the king and regency in 1833 (observes Mr. Strong), 
no carriage-roads existed in Greece ; nor were they, indeed, mnch wanted 
oreviously, as d>wn to that period not a carriage, waggon, or cart, or an; 


plain frith the inclosing moan tains, 1 supplied its own mair* rants 
whilst the transport of commodities by land was sufficiently 
difficult to discourage greatly any regular commerce with 
neighbors. In so far as the face of the interior country was 
concerned, it seemed aa if nature had been disposed, from tha 
beginning, to keep the population of Greece sodally and politi- 
cally disunited, — by providing so many hedges of separation, 
and so many boundaries, generally hard, sometimes impossible, 
to overleap. One special motive to intercourse, however, arose 
out of this very geographical constitution of the country, and it* 
endless alternation of mountain and valley. The difference of 
climate and temperature between the high and low grounds is 
very great ; the harvest is secured in one place before it is ripe 
in another, and the cattle find during the heat of summer shelter 
and pasture on the hills, at a time when the plains are burnt up.* 
The practice of transferring them from the mountains to the 
plain according to the change of season, which subsists still as it 

other description of vehicles, was to be found in the whole country. The 
traffic in general wu carried on by means of boats, to which the long indented 
fine of the Grecian coast and its numerous islands afforded every facility. 
Between the seaports and the interior of the kingdom, the communication 
was effected by means of beasts of burden, such as mutes, horses, and camels." 
(Statistics of Greece, p. 33.) 

This exhibits a retrograde march to a point lower than the description ji 
the Odyssey, where Telemachus and Puis i strut us drive their chariot from 
Pylus to Sparta. The remains of tho ancient roads are still seen in many 
parts of Greece (Strong, p. 34). 

1 Dr. Clarke's description deserves to be noticed, though his warm eulogies 
on the fertility of the soil, taken generally, are not borne out by later ob- 
served : u The physical phenomena of Greece, differing from those of any 
other country, present a series of beautiful plains, successively surrounded 
by mountains of limestone ; resembling, although upon a larger scale, and 
rarely accompanied by volcanic products, the craters of the Phlegrssan fields. 
Everywhere, their level surfaces seems to have been deposited by water; 
gradually retired or evaporated ; they consist for the most part of the richest 
•oil, and their produce is yet proverbially abundant In this manner, stood 
tho cities of Argoe, Sikyon, Corinth, Megara, Eleusis, Athena, Thebes, Am- 
phioia, Orehomenns, Charonea, Lebadea, Larista, Pella, and many others." 
(Dr. Clarke's Travels, voL u. ch. 4, p. 74.) 

• Sir W. Goll found, in the month of March, summer in tho low plains of 
spring in Laoonia, winter in Arcadia (Journey hi Greece, pf 


did in ancient times, \a intimately connected with the structure 
of the country, and mvist from the earliest period have brought 
about communication among the otherwise disunited villages. 1 

Such difficulties, however, in the internal transit by land, were 
to a great extent counteracted by the large proportion of coast, 
and the accessibility of the country by sea. The prominences 
and indentations in the line of Grecian coast, are hardly less 
remarkable than the multiplicity of elevations and depressions 
which everywhere mark the surface. 2 The shape of Pelopon- 
nesus, with its three southern gulfs, (the Argolic, Laconian, and 
Messenian,) was compared by the ancient geographers to the 
leaf of a plane-tree : the Pagasaean gulf on the eastern side of 
Greece, and the Ambrakian gulf on the western, with their nar- 
row entrances and considerable area, are equivalent to internal 

1 The cold central regiou for mountain plain, — bpoiridiov) of Tripolitza, 
differs in climate from the maritime regions of Peloponessus, as much as 

the south of England from the south of France No appearance of 

spring on the trees near Tegea, though not more than twenty-four miles 

from Argos Cattle are sent from thence every winter to the maritime 

plains of Elos in Laconia (Leake, Trav. in More*, vol. i. pp. 88, 98, 197). 
The pasture on Mount Olono (boundary of Elis, Arcadia, and Achaia) it 
hot healthy until June (Leake, vol. ii. p. 119) ; compare p. 348, and Fiedler, 
Beise, i p. 314. 

See also the Instructive Inscription of Orchomenus, in Boeckh, Staats 
haushaltung der Athener, t. ii. p. 380. 

The transference of cattle, belonging to proprietors in one state, for tem- 
porary pasturage in another, is as old as the Odyssey, and is marked by 
various illustrative incidents : see the cause of the first Messenian war 
(Diodor. Fragm. viii. vol. iv. p. 23, ed. Wess ; Pausan. iv. 4, 2). 

* " Universa autem (Peloponnesus), velut pensante sequorum incursu 
natura, in montes 76 extollitor." (Plin. H. N. iv. 6.) 

Strabo touches, in a striking passage (ii. pp. 121-122), on the in0«ence 
of the sea in determining the shape and boundaries of the land : his obser- 
vations upon the great superiority of Europe over Asia and Africa, in re- 
spect of intersection and interpenetration of land by the sea- water are remark- 
able : 4 f*b> ovv "Evpomj iroXvaxn^vsaraTii naadv kori, etc. He does not 
especially name the coast of Greece, though his remarks have a more exact 
bearing upon Greece than upon any other country. And we may copy a 
passage out of Tacitus (Agricol. c 10), written in reference to Britain, wttoa 

applies far more precisely to Greece : " nusquam latins dominari mare 

Dec litore tenus accrescere aut resorberi. sed infiuere penitus et ambire, • 
fuoi$ gtimn atqut montibus tweri tdut s* mo." 


lakes : Xenophon boasts of the double sea which embraces so 
large a proportion of Attica, Ephorus of the triple sea, by which 
Boeotia was accessible from west, north, and south, — the Eu« 
boean strait, opening a long line of country on both sides to 
coasting navigation. 1 But the most important of all Grecian 
gulfs are the Corinthian and the Saronic, washing the northern 
and north-eastern shores of Peloponnesus, and separated by the 
narrow barrier of the Isthmus of Corinth. The former, espe- 
cially, lays open JEtolia, Phokis, and Boeotia, as well as the 
whole northern coast of Peloponnesus, to water approach. Co- 
rinth, in ancient times, served as an entrepdt for the trade 
between Italy and Asia Minor, — goods being unshipped at 
Lechaeum, the port on the Corinthian gulf, and carried by land 
across to Cenchrese, the port on the Saronic : indeed, even the 
merchant-vessels themselves, when not very large, 9 were con- 
veyed across by the same route. It was accounted a prodigious 
advantage to escape the necessity of sailing round Cape Malea : 
and the violent winds and currents which modern experience 
attests to prevail around that formidable promontory, are quite 
sufficient to justify the apprehensions of the ancient Greek 
merchant, with his imperfect apparatus for navigation. 3 

1 Xenophon, De Vectigal. c 1 j Ephor. Frag. 67, ed. Marx; Stephan. By*. 

* Pliny, H. N. iv. 5, about the Isthmus of Corinth : u Lech®® hinc, Cen 
chress Mine, angustiarum termini, longo et ancipiti navium ambitu (t. & 
round Cape Malea), quas magnitude* plaustris transvehi prohibet: quam ob 
causam perfodere navigabili alveo angustias eas tentavere Demetrius rex, 
dictator Caesar, Cains princeps, Domitius Nero, — infausto (ut omnium exitu 
patuit) incepto." 

The dtohcdct less than four miles across, where ships were drawn across, 
if their size permitted, stretched from Lechaeum on the Corinthian gulf, to 
Schomus, a little eastward of Cenchrese, on the Saronic gulf ( Strabo, viii. p. 
580). Strabo (viii. p. S35) reckons the breadth of the dtoA/cd? at forty stadia 
(about 4| English miles); the reality, according to Leake, is 34 English 
miles (Travels in Morea, vol. iii. ch. xxix. p. 297). 

3 The north wind, the Etesian wind of the ancients, blows strong in the 
JEgean nearly the whole summer, and with especially dangerous violence at 
three points, — under Karystos, the southern cape of Eubcea, near Cape 
Malea, and in the narrow strait between the islands of T6nos, Mykonos, 
and De"lo8 (Ross, Reisen auf den Griechischen Inseln, vol. i. p. 20). Set 
ate Colonel Leake's account of the terror of the Greok boatmon, from the 


It will thus appear that there was no part of Greece proper 
which could be considered as out of reach of the sea, while most 
parts of it were convenient and easy of access : in fact, the Arca- 
dians were the only large section of the Hellenic name, (we may 
add the Doric, Tetrapolis, and the mountaineers along the chain 
of Pindus and Tymphr&stus) who were altogether without a 
seaport 1 But Greece proper constituted only a fraction of the 
entire Hellenic world, during the historical age : there were the 
numerous islands, and still more numerous continental colonies, 
all located as independent intruders on distinct points of the 
coast, 2 in the Euxine, the JEgean, the Mediterranean, and the 
Adriatic ; and distant from each other by the space which sepa- 
rates Trebizond from Marseilles. All these various cities were 
comprised in the name Hellas, which implied no geographical 
continuity : all prided themselves on Hellenic blood, name, 
religion, and mythical ancestry. As the only communication 

galea and currents round Mount Athos : the canal cat by Xerxes through 
the isthmus was justified by sound reasons (Travels in Northern Greece, 
toL lit c. 24, p. 145). 

1 The Periplus of Skylax enumerates every section of the Greek name, 
with the insignificant exceptions noticed in the text, as partaking of the line 
of coast; it even mentions Arcadia (c 45), because at that time Lepreum 
had shaken off the supremacy of Elis, and was confederated with the Area 
dians (about 360 b. c.) : Lepreum possessed about twelve miles of coast 
which therefore count as Arcadian. 

' Cicero (De Bepublica, ii. 2-4, in the Fragments of that lost treatise, ed 
Maii) notices emphatically both the general maritime accessibility of Grecian 
towns, and the effects of that circumstance on Grecian character: " Quod 
de Corintho dixi, id baud scio an liceat de cuncta GraBcia yerissime dicere. 
Nam et ipsa Peloponnesus fere tota in mari est : nee prater Phliuntios ulli 
rant, quorum agri non contingant mare : et extra Peloponnesum JEnianca 
et Dores et Dolopes soli absunt a mari. Quid dicam insulas Graacia, on* 
fluctibus cincts natant psane ipssa aimul cum civitatium institatis et mod- 
bus 1 Atque hflec quidem, ut supra dixi, veteris sunt Grseciss. Coloniamm 
rero quae est deducta a Graiis in Asiam, Thradam, Italiam, Sicilian), Afti* 
cam, prater unam Magnesiam, quam unda non alluat 1 Ita barbaronua 
agris quasi adtexta qussdam videtur ora esse Grsscisa." 

Compare Cicero, EpistoL ad Attic, vi 2, with the reference to Dik»archus, 
who agreed to a great extent in Plato's objections against a maritime ails 
(Be Legg. iv. p. 706; also, Aristot Politic viL 5-6). The sea (says Plato) 
la indeed a salt and bitter neighbor (paXa ye ufr> &vt<*c diftvpoy xai *utfi* 
ytirovy/ia), though convenient for purposes of daily use. 


between them was maritime, so the sea, important, even if we 
look to Greece proper exclusively, was the sole channel for 
transmitting ideas and improvements, as well as for maintaining 
sympathies — social, political, religious, and literary — throughout 
these outlying members of the Hellenic aggregate. 

The ancient philosophers and legislators were deeply im- 
pressed with the contrast between an inland and a maritime city: 
in the former, simplicity and uniformity of life, tenacity of 
ancient habits, and dislike of what is new or foreign, great force 
of exclusive sympathy, and narrow range both of objects and 
ideas ; in the latter, variety and novelty of sensations, expansive 
imagination, toleration, and occasional preference for extraneous 
customs, greater activity of the individual, and corresponding 
mutability of the state. This distinction stands prominent in 
the many comparisons instituted between the Athens of Perikles 
and the Athens of the earlier times down to Soldn. Both Plato 
and Aristotle dwell upon it emphatically, — and the former 
especially, whose genius conceived the comprehensive scheme 
of prescribing beforehand and insuring in practice the whole 
course of individual thought and feeling in his imaginary com- 
munity, treats maritime communication, if pushed beyond the 
narrowest limits, as fatal to the success and permanence of any 
wise scheme of education. Certain it is, that a great difference 
of character existed between those Greeks who mingled much 
in maritime affairs, and those who did not The Arcadian may 
stand as a type of the pure Grecian landsman, with his rustle 
and illiterate habits, 1 — his diet of sweet chestnuts, barley-cakes, 
and pork (as contrasted with the fish which formed the chief 
seasoning for the bread of an Athenian,) — his superior courage 
and endurance, — his reverence for Lacedaemonian headship as 

1 Hekatttos, Fragm. 'ApicadiKbv delrrvov. . . .ftu£ac kclI fata icpia. Herodot 

i. 64. JlaXavTjipayoi avdpe?. Theocrit Id. vii. 106. — 

YJjp fikv raOd* &p&$c , w ITdv ft Xe, firj ri rv iratdef 
'AptcadtKol axiXXaiGiv ford nXevpac re Kail fyiovf 
TavUa pooTiadoiev 6re icpea tvt&<L napeiq • 
Ei & ttXXuq vevaatf jcarcl ftb> XP™ 1 navr* bvv%tcct 
Acucvofievoc Jtvuaaio, etc. 

The alteration ofXtoi, which is obviously oat of place, in the scholia on fn* 

pawage, to hnoi, appears unquestionable. ' 

vol. n. 10* lfioo> 


an old and customary influence, — his sterility of intellect and 
imagination, as well as his slackness in enterprise, — his un- 
changeable rudeness of relations with the gods, which led him 
to scourge and prick Pan, if he came back empty-handed from 
the chase; while the inhabitant of Phdkaea or Miletus exem- 
plifies the Grecian mariner, eager in search of gain, — active, 
skilful, and daring at sea, but inferior in stedfast bravery on 
land, — more excitable in imagination as well as more mutable 
in character, — full of pomp and expense in religious manifesta- 
tions towards the Ephesian Artemis or the Apollo of Branchidae ; 
with a mind more open to the varieties of Grecian energy and 
to the refining influences of Grecian civilization. The Pelopon- 
nesians generally, and the Lacedaemonians in particular, ap- 
proached to the Arcadian type, — while the Athenians of the 
fifth century b. c. stood foremost in the other; superadding to it, 
however, a delicacy of taste, and a predominance of intellectual 
sympathy and enjoyments, which seem to have been peculiar to 

The configuration of the Grecian territory, so like in many re- 
spects to that of Switzerland, produced two effects of great moment 
upon the character and history of the people. In the first place, 
it materially strengthened their powers of defence : it shut up the 
country against those invasions from the interior, which succes* 
sively subjugated all their continental colonies ; and it at the same 
time rendered each fraction more difficult to be attacked by the 
rest, so as to exercise a certain conservative influence in assuring 
the tenure of actual possessors : for the pass of Thermopylae, 
between Thessaly and Phokis, that of Kith«r6n, between Boeotia 
and Attica, or the mountainous range of Oneion and Geraneia 
along the Isthmus of Corinth, were positi which an inferior 
number of brave men could hold against a much greater force of 
assailants. But, in the next place, while it tended to protect 
each section of Greeks from being conquered, it also kept them 
politically disunited, and perpetuated their separate autonomy. 
It fostered that powerful principle of repulsion, which disposed 
even the smallest township to constitute itself a political unit 
apart from the rest, and to resist all idea of coalescence with 
others, either amicable or compulsory. To a modern reader, 
accustomed to largo political aggregations, and securities for good 


government through the representative system, it requires a 
certain mental effort to transport himself back to a time when 
even the smallest town clung so tenaciously to its right of self- 
legislation. Nevertheless, such was the general habit and feel- 
ing of the ancient world, throughout Italy, Sicily, Spain, and 
GrauL Among the Hellenes, it stands out more conspicuously, 
for several reasons, — first, because they seem to have pushed the 
multiplication of autonomous units to an extreme point, seeing 
that even islands not larger than Peparethos and Amorgos had two 
or three separate city communities ; l secondly, because they pro- 
duced, for the first time in the history of mankind, acute system- 
atic thinkers on matters of government, amongst all of whom the 
idea of the autonomous city was accepted as the indispensable basis 
f politii al speculation ; thirdly, bemuse this incurable subdivision 
proved finally the cause of their ruin, in spite of pronounced 
intellectual superiority over their conquerors : and lastly, because 
incapacity of political coalescence did not preclude a powerful and 
extensive sympathy between the inhabitants of all the separate 
cities, with a constant tendency to fraternize for numerous pur- 
poses, social, religious, recreative, intellectual, and sestheticaL 
For these reasons, the indefinite multiplication of self-governing 
towns, though in truth a phenomenon common to ancient Europe, 
as contrasted with the large monarchies of A^sia, appears more 
marked among the ancient Greek* than elsewhere: and there 
cannot be any doubt that they owr it, in a considerable degree, 
to the multitude of insulating bovrdaries which the configuration 
of their country presented* 

Nor is it rash to suppose that the same causes may have tended 
to promote that unborrowed intellectual development for which 
they stand so conspicuous. General propositions respecting the 
working of climate and physical agencies upon character are, 
indeed, treacherous ; for our knowledge of the globe is now suffi- 
cient to teach us that heat and cold, mountain and plain, sea and 
land, moist and dry atmosphere, are all consistent with the 
greatest diversities of rwdent men: moreover, the contrast 
between the population of Greece itself, for the seven centuries 
preceding the Christian era, and the Greeks of more modera 

* Skyiax, PeripL 59. 


times, is alone enough to inculcate reserve in such speculations 
Nevertheless, we may venture to note certain improving influ- 
ences, connected with their geographical position, at a time when 
they had no books to study, and no more advanced predecesson 
to imitate. We may remark, first, that their position made them 
at once mountaineers and mariners, thus supplying them with 
great variety of objects, sensations, and adventures ; next, that 
each petty community, nestled apart amidst its own rocks, 1 was 
sufficiently severed from the rest to possess an individual life and 
attributes of its own, yet not so far as to subtract it from the sym- 
pathies of the remainder; so that an observant Greek, com* 
mercing with a great diversity of half countrymen, whose language 
he understood, and whose idiosyncrasies he could appreciate, had 
access to a larger mass of social and political experience than any 
other man in so unadvanced an age could personally obtain. The 
Phoenician, superior to the Greek on ship-board, traversed wider 
distances, and saw a greater number of strangers, but had not the 
same means of intimate communion with a multiplicity of fellows 
in blood and language. His relations, confined to purchase and 
sale, did not comprise that mutuality of action and reaction which 
pervaded the crowd at a Grecian festival. The scene which here 
presented itself, was a mixture of uniformity and variety highly 
stimulating to the observant faculties of a man of genius, — who 
at the same time, if he sought to communicate his own impres- 
sions, or to act upon this mingled and diverse audience, was 
forced to shake off what was peculiar to his own town or commu- 
nity, and to put forth matter in harmony with the feelings of alL 
It is thus that we may explain, in part, that penetrating appre- 
hension of human life and character, and that power of touching 
sympathies common to all ages and nations, which surprises us so 
much in the unlettered authors of the old epic. Such periodical 
intercommunion of brethren habitually isolated from each other, 
was the only means then open of procuring for the bard a diver- 
sified range of experience and a many-colored audience ; and it 
was to a great degree the result of geographical causes. Perhaps 
among other nations such facilitating causes might have been 

>Ooero,ae Orator. L 44. ^IAacamfllsmmafperriniltianib^riort ai^ 


(bond, jet without producing any result comparable to the Iliad 
and Odyssey. But Homer was, nevertheless, dependent upon 
the conditions of his age, and we can at least point out those 
peculiarities in early Grecian society, without which Homeric 
excellence would never have existed, — the geographical position 
il one, the language another. 

In mineral and metallic wealth, Greece tf as not distinguished. 
Gold was obtained in considerable abundance in the island of 
Siphnos, which, throughout the sixth century b. c, was among 
the richest communities of Greece, and possessed a treasure- 
chamber at Delphi, distinguished for the richness of its votive 
offerings. At that time, gold was so rare in Greece, that the 
Lacedaemonians were obliged to send to the Lydian Croesus, in 
order to provide enough of it for the gilding of a statue. 1 It 
appears to have been more abundant in Asia Minor, and the 
quantity of it in Greece was much multiplied by the opening of 
mines in Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus, and even some parts of 
Thessaly. In the island of Thasos, too, some mines were reopened 
with profitable result, which had been originally begun, and sub- 
sequently abandoned, by Phoenician settlers of an earlier century. 
From these same districts, also, was procured a considerable 
amount of silver ; while, about the beginning of the fifth century 
b. c, the first effective commencement seems to have been made 
of turning to account the rich southern district of Attica, called 
Laureion. Copper was obtained in various parts of Greece, 
especially in Cyprus and Euboea, — in which latter island was 
also found the earth called Cadmia, employed for the purification 
of the ore. Bronze was used among the Greeks for many pur- 
poses in which iron is now employed : and even the arms of the 
Homeric heroes (different in this respect from the later historical 
Greeks) are composed of copper, tempered in such a way as to 
impart to it an astonishing hardness. Iron was found in Eubooa, 
Boeotia, and Melos, — but still more abundantly in the moon- 

1 Herodot L 52 ; iil 57 ; ri. 46-1 85. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, 
b. i. ch. 3. 

The fold and silver offering* sent to the Delphian temple, even from the 
Uoiaarie times (II. be. 405) downwards, were numerous and ralnable; 
especially those dedicated by Croesus, who (Herodot. L 17-52) teems to 
hare surpassed all predecessors. 


tainoiis region tl the Laconian Taygetus. There is, however 
no part of Greece where the remains of ancient metallurgy 
appear now so conspicuous, as the island of Seriphos. The 
excellence and varieties of marble, from Pentelikus, Hymettus, 
Paros, Karystus, etc, and other parts of the country, — so essen- 
tial for the purposes of sculpture and architecture, — is well 
known. 1 

Situated under the same parallels of latitude as the coast of 
Asia Minor, and the southernmost regions of Italy and Spain, 
Greece produced wheat, barley, flax, wine, and oil, in the earliest 
times of which we have any knowledge ; 2 though the currants, 
Indian corn, silk, and tobacco, which the country now exhibits, 
are an addition of more recent times. Theophrastus and other 
authors, amply attest the observant and industrious agriculture 
prevalent among the ancient Greeks, as well as the care with 
which its various natural productions, comprehending a great 
diversity of plants, herbs, and trees, were turned to account. The 
cultivation of the vine and the olive, — the latter indispensable 
to ancient life, not merely for the purposes which it serves at 
present, but also from the constant habit then prevalent of anoint- 
ing the body, — appears to have been particularly elaborate ; and 
the many different accidents of soil, level, and exposure, which 
were to be found, not only in Hellas proper, but also among the 
scattered Greek settlements, afforded to observant planters mate- 
rials for study and comparison. The barley-cake esems to have 
been more generally eaten than the wheaten loaf,* 3 but one o; 

1 Strata, x. p. 447 ; xiv. pp. 680-684. Stephan. By*, v. AMi^of , Acuce ■ 
'Sai/iuv. Erase, Hellas, ch. iv. vol. i. p. S28. Fiedler, Reisen in Griechen- 
land, vol ii. pp. 118-559. 

* Note to second edition. — In my first edition, I had asserted that cotton 
grew in Greece in the time of Pansanias, — following, though with some 
doubt, the judgment of some critics, that (Ivocbc meant cotton. I now 
believe that this was a mistake, and have expunged the passage. 

■ At the repast provided at the public cost for those who dined in the 
Prytaneium of Athens, Sol6n directed barley-cakes for ordinary days, wheaten 
bread for festivals (Athenssus, iv. p. 137). 

The milk of ewes and goats was in ancient Greece preferred to that of 
eows (Aristot. Hist. Animal, iii. 15, 5-7) ; at present, also, cow's-milk and 
butter is considered unwholesome in Greece, and is seldom or never i 
(Erase, Hellas, vol. i. ch. 4, p. 368). 


otbei of them, together with vegetables and fish, (sometimes fresh) 
but more frequently salt,) was the common food of the population ; 
the Arcadians fed much upon pork, and the Spartans also con- 
sumed animal food ; but by the Greeks, generally, fresh meat 
seems to have been little eaten, except at festivals and sacrifices. 
The Athenians, the most commercial people in Greece proper, 
though their light, dry, and comparatively poor soil produced 
excellent barley, nevertheless, did not grow enough corn for their 
own consumption : they imported considerable supplies of corn 
from Sicily, from the coast of the Euxine, and the Tauric Cher- 
sonese, and salt-fish both from the Fropontis and even from 
Grades :* the distance from whence these supplies came, when we 
take into consideration the extent of fine corn-land in Boeotia and 
Thessaly, proves how little internal trade existed between the 
various regions of Greece proper. The exports of Athens 
consisted in her figs and other fruit, olives, oil, — for all of which 
she was distinguished, — together with pottery, ornamental man- 
ufactures, and the silver from her mines at Laureion. Salt-fish, 
doubtless, found its way more or less throughout all Greece ; 9 but 
the population of other states in Greece lived more exclusively 
upon their own produce than the Athenians, with less of purchase 
and sale, 3 — a mode of life assisted by the simple domestic econ- 

1 Theophrast Caus. Fl. ix. 2 ; Demosthen. adv. Leptin. c. 9. That salt- 
fish from the Propontis and from Gaues was sold in the markets of Athens 
daring the Peloponnesian war, appears from a fragment of the Marikas of 
Eupolis (Tr. 23, ed. Meineke ; Stephan. Byz. v. TuSeipa) : — 
Uorep' J/i/ rb rapixoc, Qpvyiov fj Tadeipucov ; 
The Phoenician merchants who brought the salt-fish from Grades took 
back with them Attic pottery for sale among the African tribes of the coast 
of Morocco (Sky lax, Peripl. c.109). 
* Simonid&, Fragm. 109, Gaisford. — 

Upoa&e pkv apf cj/Mioiv ix" v Tpijxeiav aaiXkav 
'Ix&vc if 'Apyovf elc Teyeav tyepov, etc. 

The Odyssey mentions certain inland people, whe knew nothing either of 
the sea, or of ships, or the taste of salt : Paosanias looks for them in Epirns 
(Odyss. xi. 121 ; Pausan. i. 12, 3). 

3 Airrovpyol re yap elat UeXoirowvtrioi (says Per jkles, in his speech to the 
Athenians, at the commencement of the Peloponnuiian war, Thucyd. i. 141) 
Mi ovre ISig oire kv koivQ xPVfM a l<* T w abToig 9 etc., — &vdp*c yeopyoi mi 
e* faAacwuM, etc. (ib. c 14&) 


oroy universally prevalent, in whi-sh the women no only carded 
and spun all the wool, but also wove out of it the clothing and 
bedding employed in the family. Weaving was then considered 
as much a woman's business as spinning, and the same feeling 
and habits stall prevail to the present day in modern Greece, 
where the loom is constantly seen in the peasants' cottages, and 
always worked by women. 1 

The climate of Greece appears to be generally described by 
modern travellers in more favorable terms than it was by the 
ancients, which is easily explicable from the classical interest, 
picturesque beauties, and transparent atmosphere, so vividly 
appreciated by an English or a German eye. Herodotus, 9 Hip- 
pocrates, and Aristotle, treat the climate of Asia as far more 
genial and favorable both to animal and vegetable life, but at the 
same time more enervating than that of Greece : the latter, they 
speak of chiefly in reference to its changeful character and diversi- 
ties of local temperature, which they consider as highly stimulant 
to the energies of the inhabitants. There is reason to conclude 
that ancient Greece was much more healthy than the same terri- 
tory is at present, inasmuch as it was more industriously culti- 
vated, and the towns both more carefully administered and better 
supplied with water. But the differences in respect of health- 
iness, between one portion of Greece and another, appear always 
to have been considerable, and this, as well as the diversities of 
climate, affected the local habits and character of the particular 
sections. Not merely were there great differences between 
the mountaineers and the inhabitants of the plains, 3 — between 
Lokrians, iEtolians, Phokians, Dorians, CEueans, and Arcadians, 
on one hand, and the inhabitants of Attica, Boeotia, and £Ua» OB 

1 In Egypt, the men sat at home and wove, while the women did out-door 
business : both the one and the other excite the surprise of Herodotus and 
Sophokles (Herod, ii. 35 ; Soph. (Ed. Col. 340). 

For the spinning and weaving of the modern Greek peasant women, set 
J.eake, Trav. Morea, vol. i. pp. 13, 18, 223, etc. ; Strong, Stat p. 185. 

'Herodot. i. 142; Hippocrat De Afre, Loc et Aq. c. lfMSj Aristot 
Polit Tii. 6, 1. 

' Tto mountaineers of JBtotia are, at this tins, unable to come down ln«o 
As marshy plain of Wracaori, without being taken ill after a few days 
(Fiedler, Raise in Griech. ft. p. 184). 


the other, — but each of the various tribes which went to compose 
'these categories, had its peculiarities ; and the marked contrast 
between Athenians and Boeotians was supposed to be represented 
by the light and heavy atmosphere which they respectively 
breathed. Nor was this all : for, even among the Boeotian aggre- 
gate, every town had its own separate attributes, physical as well 
an moral and political i 1 Ordpus, Tanagra, Thespi®, Thebes, 
Authedon, Haliartus, Koroneia, Onchfcstus, and Plataea, were 
known to Boeotians each by its own characteristic epithet : and 
Dikasarchus even notices a marked distinction between the inhab- 
itants of the city of Athens and those in the country of Attica. 
Sparta, Argos, Corinth, and Sikydn, though all called Doric, had 
each its own dialect and peculiarities. All these differences; 
depending in part upon climate, site, and other physical consid- 
erations, contributed to nourish antipathies, and to perpetuate 
that imperfect cohesion, which has already been noticed as an 
indelible feature in Hellas. 

The Epirotic tribes, neighbors of the jEtolians and Akarna 
nians, filled the space between Pindus and the Ionian sea until 
they joined to the northward the territory inhabited by the pow- 
erful and barbarous IUyrians. Of these Hlyrians, the native 
Macedonian tribes appear to have been an outlying section, 
dwelling northward of Thessaly and Mount Olympus, eastward 
of the chain by which Pindus is continued, and westward of the 
river Axius. The Epirots were comprehended under the various 
denominations of Chaonimis, Molossians, Thesprotians, Kosso- 
pseans, Amphilochians, Athamanes, the iEthikee, Tymphaei, 
Orestae, Parorsei, and Atintunes, 9 — most of the latter being 
small communities dispersed about the mountainous region of 

1 Dikiearch. Fragm. p. 145, ed. Fnhr — B/of 'EXXadoc. 'loroprioi & ol 
Boturoi rd kot* airovq virupxovra I6ia uKATjpijfiaTa Xeyovref Tavra — T%v 
uh> cUnxpoKepSeiav icaroiKeiv h 'Qpoirty, rbv 61 <p$6vov iv Tavaypfy Hjv 
mtoveuciav h Qe<rrriai{ t t%v i(3ptv iv Qqftaic, r%v n?.eove£iav kv 'Av&qdovL, 
ri)p irepiepyiav Iv Kopoveip, kv YVkaraiais t%v 6Xa£6veiav, rdv xvperbv kv 
O\x?,o7(t) t r^v itvai(r&7jciav iv 'kXuipry. 

Aboot the distinction between 'Kdrivaloi and 'Arri/coZ, see the same work, 
p. 141. 

• Strata, vii. pp. 322, 324, 326 , Thucydid. ii. 68. Theopompni (ap 
Btrab. 1. c) reckoned 14 Epirotic bfhn. 


Pindus. There was, however, much confusion in the appii 
cation of the comprehensive name Epirot, which was a title 
given altogether by the Greeks, and given purely upon geo- 
graphical, not upon ethnical considerations. Epirus seems at 
first to have stood opposed to Peloponnesus, and to have signified 
the general region northward of the gulf of Corinth; and in 
this primitive sense it comprehended the iEtolians and Akarna- 
nians, portions of whom spoke a dialect difficult to understand, 
and were not less v'.dely removed than the Epirots from Hel- 
lenic habits. 1 The oracle of Dodona forms the point of ancient 
union between Greeks and Epirots, which was superseded by 
Delphi, as the civilization of Hellas developed itself. Nor is it 
less difficult to distinguish Epirots from Macedonians on the one 
hand, than from Hellenes on the other; the language, the dress, 
and the fashion of wearing the hair being often analogous, while 
the boundaries, amidst rude men and untravelled tracts, were 
very inaccurately understood. 9 

In describing the limits occupied by the Hellens in 776 B. c, 
we cannot yet take account of the important colonies of Leu- 
kas and Ambrakia, established by the Corinthians subsequently 
on the western coast of Epirus. The Greeks of that early time 
seem to comprise the islands of Kephallenia, Zakynthus, Ithaka, 
and Dulichium, but no settlement, either inland or insular, 
farther northward. 

They include farther, confining ourselves to 776 B. c, the 
great mass of islands between the coast of Greece and that of 
Asia Minor, from Tenedos on the north, to Rhodes, Krete, and 
Kythera southward ; and the great islands of Lesbos, Chios, 
Samos, and Euboea, as well as the groups called the Sporader. 
and the Cyclades. Respecting the four considerable islands 
nearer to the coasts of Macedonia and Thrace, — Lemnos, Imbros, 
Samothrace, and Thasos, — it may be doubted whether they 

1 Herodot i. 146, ii. 56, vi. 127. 

* Strabo, vii. p. 327. 

Several of the Epirotic tribes were dtytocraoi, — spoke Greek in addition 
to their native tongue. 

See, on all the inhabitants of these regions, the excellent dissertation of 
0. Miiller above quoted, Ueber die Makedoner ; appended to the first y 
of the English translation of his History of the Dorians. 


were at that time Hellenized. The Catalogue of the Iliad includes, 
under Agamemndn, contingents from JEgina, Euboea, Krete, 
Karpathus, Kasus, K6s, and Rhodes: in the oldest epical tes- 
timony which we possess, these islands thus appear inhabited by 
Greeks ; but the others do not occur in the Catalogue, and are 
never mentioned in such manner as to enable us to draw any 
inference* Euboea ought, perhaps, rather to be looked upon as 
a portion of Grecian mainland (from which it was only separated 
by a strait narrow enough to be bridged over) than as an island. 
But the last five islands named in the Catalogue are all either 
wholly or partially Doric : no Ionic or JEolic island appears in 
it : these latter, though it was among them that the poet sung, 
appear to be represented by their ancestral heroes, who came 
from Greece proper. 

The last element to be included, as going to make up the 
Greece of 776 b. c, is the long string of Doric, Ionic, and 
Molla settlements on the coast of Asia Minor, — occupying a 
«pace bounded on the north by the Troad and the region of Ida, 
and extending southward as far as the peninsula of Knidus. 
Twelve continental cities, over and above the islands of Lesbos 
and Tenedos, are reckoned by Herodotus as ancient JEolic foun- 
dations, — Smyrna, Kyme, Larissa, Neon-Teichos, Temnos, 
Killa, Notium, -dEgircessa, Pitana, -ZEgse, Myrina, and Gryneia. 
Smyrna, having been at first jEolic, was afterwards acquired 
through a stratagem by Ionic inhabitants, and remained per- 
manently Ionic. Phokaea, the northernmost of the Ionic settle- 
ments, bordered upon iEolis : Klazomenae, Erythrse, Teds, 
Lebedos, Kolophdn, Prien£, Myus, and Miletus, continued the 
Ionic name to the southward. These, together with Samos and 
Chios, formed the P anionic federation. 1 To the south of Mile** 
tus, after a considerable interval, lay the Doric establishments of 
Myndus, Halikarnassus, and Knidus: the two latter, together 
with the island of Kos and the three townships in Rhodes, 
constituted the Doric Hexapolis, or communion of six cities, 
concerted primarily with a view to religious purposes, but pro- 
ducing a secondary effect analogous to political federation. 

Sneh, then, is the extent of Hellas, as it stood at the com* 

1 Herodot i. 143-1 5C 


mencement of the recorded Olympiads. To draw a picture even 
for this date, we possess no authentic materials, and are obliged 
to ante-date statements which belong to a later age: and this 
consideration might alone suffice to show how uncertified are aQ 
delineations of the Greece of 1183 b. a, the supposed epoch of 
the Trojan war, four centuries earlier. 



The territory indicated in the last chapter — south of Motint 
Olympus, and south of the line which connects the city of Am- 
brakia with Mount Pindus, — was occupied during the historical 
period by the central stock of the Hellens, or Greeks, from which 
their numerous outlying colonies were planted out. 

Both metropolitans and colonists styled themselves Hellens, 
and were recognized as such by each other ; all glorying in the 
name as the prominent symbol of fraternity; — all describing 
non-Hellenic men, or cities, by a word which involved associa* 
tions of repugnance. Our term barbarian, borrowed from this 
latter word, does not express the same idea; for the Greeks 
spoke thus indiscriminately of the extra-Hellenic world, with all 
its inhabitants j 1 whatever might be the gentleness of their char* 
acter, and whatever might be their degree of civilization. The 
rulers and people of Egyptian Thebes, with their ancient and 
gigantic monuments, the wealthy Tynans and Carthaginians, the 
phil-Hellene Arganthonius of Tartessus, and the well-disciplined 
patricians of Borne (to the indignation of old Cato, 9 ) were all 

1 See the protest of Eratosthenes against the continuance of the classifica- 
tion into Greek and Barbarian, after the latter word had come to imply 
rudeness (ap Strata. IL p. 66 ; Eratosth. Fragm. Seidel. p. 66). 

* Cato, Fragment ed. Lion. p. 46 ; ap. Plin. H. N. xxii. 1. A remarkable 
ftztrect from Cato's letter to his son, intimating his strong antipathy to Ike 


comprised in it. At first, it seemed to have expressed more of 
repugnance than of contempt, and repugnance especially towards 
the sound of a foreign language. 1 Afterwards, a feeling of their 
own superior intelligence (in part well justified) arose among the 
Greeks, and their term barbarian was used so as to imply a low 
state of the tomper and intelligence ; in which sense it was 
retained by the semi-Hellenized Romans, as the proper antithesis 
to their state of civilization. The want of a suitable word, cor- 
responding to barbarian, as the Greeks originally used it, is so 
inconvenient in the description of Grecian phenomena and senti- 
ments, that I may be obliged occasionally to use the word in its 
primitive sense. 

The Hellens were all of common blood and parentage,— 
were all descendants of the common patriarch Hellen. Jn treat- 
ing of the historical Greeks, we have to accept this as a datum : 
it represents the sentiment under the influence of which they 
moved and acted. It is placed by Herodotus in the front rank, 
as the chief of those four ties which bound together the Hellenic 
aggregate: 1. Fellowship of blood ; 2. Fellowship of language; 

3. Fixed domiciles of gods, and sacrifices, common to all; 

4. Like manners and dispositions* 

2%ese (say the Athenians, in their reply to the Spartan envoys, 
in the very crisis of the Persian invasion) u Athens will never 
disgrace herself by betraying." And Zeus Hellenius was recog- 

Greeks ; he proscribes their medicine altogether, and admits only a slight 
taste of their literature : " Qnod bonura sit eoram literas inspioere, non per 

discere Jurarunt inter se, Barbaras necare omnes medicina, sed hoc 

ipsum mercede faciunt, ut fides its sit et facile disperdant Kos quoque 
dictitant Barbaras et spurios, nosque magis qoam alios, Opicos appellation© 

1 KapCw ijyrjaaro pappaoofrl/vov, Homer, Iliad, ii. 867. Homer does not 
ase the word papfiapoi, or any words signifying either a Hellen generally or 
a non- Hellen generally (Thncyd. i. 3). Compare Strabo, viii. p. 370; and 
ziT. p. 662. 

Ovid reproduces the primitive sense of the word /?ap/?apo£, when he speaks 
of himself as an exile at Tomi (Trist. v. 10-37): — 

" Barbaras hie ego ssan, quia Don intelligor ulli." 

The Egyptians had a word in theh language, the exact equivalent of Mp 
fapof in this sense (Herod, ii. 158). 


nized as the god watching over and enforcing the fraternity thai 
constituted. 1 

Hekataeus, Herodotus, and ThucydidSs, 9 all believed that then 
had been an ante-Hellenic period, when different languages, 
mutually unintelligible, were spoken between Mount Olympus 
and Cape Malea. However this may be, during the historical 
times the Greek language was universal throughout these limits, 
— branching out, however, into a great variety of dialects, which 
were roughly classified by later literary men into Ionic, Doric. 
iEolic, and Attic But the classification presents a semblance of 
regularity, which in point of fact does not seem to have been 
realized; each town, each smaller subdivision of the Hellenic 
name, having peculiarities of dialect belonging to itself. Now 
the lettered men who framed the quadruple division took notice 
chiefly, if not exclusively, of the written dialects, — those which 
had been ennobled by poets or other authors ; the mere spoken 
idioms were for the most part neglected. 3 That there was no 
such thing as one Ionic dialect in the speech of the people called 
Ionic Greek, we know from the indisputable testimony of Herodo- 
tus, 4 who tells us that there were four capital varieties of speech 
among the twelve Asiatic towns especially known as Ionic Oi 

1 Herod. viiL 144 rd 'EXXyviicbv kbv bfiatfiov re ical oftoyXooaov, kcu 

Qeuv Idpvfiard re Koivd, not tivoiai, 7]-&ea re dfiorpoira • ruv icpodorac yevio 
tiai 'Atirjvaiovc oi>K hv ev tyoi. (lb. x. 7.) Hfielc de, A/a re < EaAj7WO» 
alSetr&ivTeCf *aX r^v *EX/la<5a deivbv irotevpevot irpodovvai, etc 

Compare Dikaarch. Fragm. p. 147, ed. Fuhr; and Thucyd. iii. 59, — rd 

KOtvd. rdv 'EXXfjvuv vofiipa deoi>e rot>c dftofiofiiovc koX Koivoty rfiv 

'EXXqvu*' • also, the provision about the koivcL lepd, in the treaty between 
Sparta and Athens (Thuc. v. 18; Strabo, ix. p. 419). 

It was a part of the proclamation solemnly made by the Enmolpicta, 
prior to the celebration of the Elensinian mysteries, " All non-Hellens to 
keep away," — elpyeadcu r&v UpCtv (Isocrates, Orat iv. Panegyr. p. 74). 

* Hekat». Fragm. 356, ed. Klanscn : compare Strabo, vii. p. 321 ; Herod. 
L 57 ; Thncyd. i. 3, — icard iroXetc re, baot aXXffXuv ovvieaav, etc. 

1 u Antiqui grammati a eas tantnm dialectos spectabant, quibus scriptores 
nsi essent: ceteras, quae non vigebant nisi in ore populi, non notabant,* 
(Ahrens, De Dialecto JBolica, p. 2.) The same has been the case, to ■ 
great degree, even in the linguistic researches of modern times, thongb 
printing now affords such increased facility for the registration of PopnUtf 

4 Herod, i. 142. 


course, the varieties would have been much more numerous if 
lie had given us the impressions of his ear in Euboea, the Cy- 
clades, Massalia, Rhegium, and Olbia, — all numbered as Greeks 
and as Ionians. The Ionic dialect of the grammarians was an 
extract from Homer, Hekatseus, Herodotus, Hippocrates, etc; 
to what living speech it made the nearest approach, amidst those 
divergences which the historian has made known to us, we cannot 
tell. Sapphd and Alkaeus in Lesbos, Myrtis and Korinna in 
Boeotia, were the great sources of reference for the Lesbian and 
Boeotian varieties of the JEolic dialect, — of which there was a 
third variety, untouched by the poets, in Thessaly. 1 The analogy 
between the different manifestations of Doric and iEolic, as well 
as that between the Doric generally and the iEolic generally, 
contrasted with the Attic, is only to be taken as rough and 

But all these different dialects are nothing more than dialects, 
distinguished as modifications of one and the same language, and 
exhibiting evidence of certain laws and principles pervading 
them all. They seem capable of being traced back to a certain 
ideal mother-language, peculiar in itself and distinguishable from, 
though cognate with, the Latin ; a substantive member of what 
has been called the Indo-European family of languages. This 
truth has been brought out, in recent times, by the comparative 
examination applied to the Sanscrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, German, 
and Lithuanian languages, as well as by the more accurate 
analysis of the Greek language itself to which such studies have 
given rise, in a manner much more clear than could have been 
imagined by the ancients themselves. 2 It is needless to dwell 
upon the importance of this uniformity of language in holding to- 
gether the race, and in rendering the genius of its most favored 
members available to the civilization of all. Except in the rarest 
eases, the divergences of dialect were not such as to prevent 

1 Respecting the three varieties of the JEohc dialect, differing considerably 
each other, see the valuable work, of Ahrens, De Dial. tEoI. sect 2, 32, 

■ The work of Albert Giese, Ueber den JSolischen Dialekt (unhappily 
Dot finished, on account of the early death of *he author,) presents an iagt> 
Dions specimen of such analysis 


every Greek from understanding, and being understood by, ewy 
other Greek, — a fact remarkable, when we consider how i 
of their outlying colonists, not having taken out women in 
emigration, intermarried with non-Hellenic wives. And the 
perfection and popularity of their early epic poems, was here of 
inestimable value for the diffusion of a common type of language, 
and for thus keeping together the sympathies of the Hellenic 
world. 1 The Homeric dialect became the standard followed by 
all Greek poets for the hexameter, as may be seen particularly 
from the example of Hesiod, — who adheres to it in the main, 
though his father was a native of the JEolic Kymg, and be himself 
resident at Askra, in the JEolic Boeotia, — and the early iambic 
and elegiac compositions are framed on the same model. Intel- 
lectual Greeks in all cities, even the most distant outcasts from 
the central hearth, became early accustomed to one type of 
literary speech, and possessors of a common stock of legends, 
maxims, and metaphors. 

That community of religious sentiments, localities, and sacri- 
fices, which Herodotus names as the third bond of onion among 
the Greeks, was a phenomenon, not (like the race and the lan- 
guage) interwoven with their primitive constitution, but of gradual 
growth. In the time of Herodotus, and even a century earlier, 
it was at its full maturity : but there had been a period when no 
religious meetings common to the whole Hellenic body existed. 
What are called the Olympic, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian 
games, (the four most conspicuous amidst many others analogous,) 
were, in reality, great religious festivals, — for the gods then gave 
their special sanction, name, und presence, to recreative meetings, 
— the closest association then prevailed between the feelings of 
common worship and the sympathy in common amusement.* 

1 See the interesting remarks of Dio Chrysostom on the attachment of the 
inhabitants of Olbia (or Borysthenes) to the Homeric poems : most of them, 
he says, could repeat the Iliad by heart, though their dialect waa partially 
barbarized, and the city in a sad state of rain (Dio Chrysost. Orat xxxri p. 
78, Reisk). 

* Plato, Legg. ii. 1, p. 653 ; Kratylas, p. 406 ; and Dionys. Hal. An Bho 
tone. c. 1-2, p. 226, — 9edc f&v ye nov tram* watnjc famtHtaovv **nry*p*X 
*iycp£>v Kdt hrCnntw ciov OXvuniuv uh>, 'OXimorioc Z»f • voO S r* IWAaC 


Though this association is now no longer recognised, it is, never* 
theless, essential that we should keep it fully before us, if we 
desire to understand the life and proceedings of the Greeks. To 
Herodotus and his contemporaries, these great festivals, then 
frequented by crowds from every part of Greece, were of over- 
whelming importance and interest ; yet they had once been purely 
local, attracting no visitors except from a very narrow neighbor* 
hood. In the Homeric poems, much is said about the common 
gods, and about special places consecrated to and occupied by 
several of them : the chiefs celebrate funeral games in honor of 
a deceased father, which are visited by ccmpetitors from different 
parts of Greece, but nothing appears to manifest public or town 
festivals open to Grecian visitors generally. 1 And, though the 
rocky Pytho, with its temple, stands out in the Iliad as a place 
both venerated and rich, — the Pythian games, under the super- 
intendence of the Amphiktyons, with continuous enrolment of 
victors, and a Pan-Hellenic reputation, do not begin until after 
the Sacred War, in the 48th Olympiad, or 586 B. c 9 

The Olympic games, more conspicuous than the Pythian, as 
well as considerably older, are also remarkable on another ground! 

Apollo, the Muses, and Dionysus are ZweopTaoraX teal fyyxopevral (Homer 
Hymn to ApolL 146). The same view of the sacred games is given by 
Livy, in reference to the Romans and the Volsci (it 36-37) : u 6e, nt eon- 
sceleratos c-ontaminatosque, ab ludis, festu diebus, caetu qmdammodo Iiominttm 

Deorumque, abactos esse ideo nos ab sede pforam, casta, concilioqne 

abigi." It is carious to contrast this with the dislike and repugnance of 
Tartallian: " Idololatria omnium ludorum mater est, — quod euim specta 
cnlam sine idolo, qais ladas sine sacrificio ? " (De Spectaculis, p. 369.) 

1 Iliad, xxiii. 630-679. The games celebrated by Akastus, in honor c4 
Pelias, were famed in the old epic (Pausan. v. 17, 4; Apollodor. L 9, 28). 

* Strabo, ix. p. 421 ; Pausan. x. 7, 3. The fin* Pythian games celebrated 
by the Amphiktyons, after the Sacred War, carried with them a substantial 
reward to the victor (an uyuv xP T H* aTLT *lt) » but m the next, or second Py th- 
an games, nothing was given bat an honorary reward, or wreath of laurel 
leaves (ay&v art^avinic) : the first coincide with Olympiad 48, 3 ; the second 
with Olympiad 49, 3. 

Compare Schol. ad Pindar. Pyth. Argument : Panama, x. 37, 4-6 ; Kranse, 
Die Pythien, Nemeen, nod Isthmian, sect 3, 4, 6. 

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo, is composed at a time earlier than me 
9acred War, whrtn Krissa is flourishing; earlier then the Pythian games, m 
Calfttvatcd by the Amphiktyons. 

vol UL 11 lfioe 


inasmuch as they supplied historical computers with the oldest 
backward record of continuous time. It was in the year 776 
R. c, that the Eleians inscribed the name of their countryman, 
Koroebus, as victor in the competition of runners, and that they 
began the practice of inscribing in like manner, in each Olympic, 
or fifth recurring year, the name of the runner who won the 
prize. Even for a long time after this, however, the Olympic 
games seem to have remained a local festival ; the prize being 
uniformly carried off, at the first twelve Olympiads, by some 
competitor either of Elis or its immediate neighborhood. The 
Nemean and Isthmian games did not become notorious or fre- 
quented until later even than the Pythian. SolOn, 1 in his legis- 
lation, proclaimed the large reward of five hundred drachms for 
every Athenian who gained an Olympic prize, and the lower sum 
of one hundred drachms for an Isthmiac prize. He counts the 
former, as Pan- Hellenic rank and renown, an ornament even to 
the city of which the victor was a member, — the latter, as par- 
tial, and confined to the neighborhood. 

Of the beginnings of these great solemnities, we cannot pre 
same to speak, except in mythical language : we know them only 

1 Plutarch, Soldn, 23. The Isthmian Agon was to a certain extern a 
festival of old Athenian origin ; for among the many legends respecting its 
first institution, one of the most notorious represented it as having been 
founded by Theseus after his victory over Sinis at the Isthmus (see Sohol. 
ad Pindar. Isth. Argument.; Pausan. ii. 1, 4), or over Skeirdn (Plutarch, 
Theseus, c. 25). Plutarch says that they were first established by Theseus 
as funeral games for Skeirdn, and Pliny gives the same story (H. N. vii 97) 
According to Hellanikus, the Athenian The6rs at the Isthmian games had 
a privileged place, (Plutarch, /. c). 

There is, therefore, good reason why Solon should single out the Isth 
mioniksB as persons to be specially rewarded, not mentioning the Pythion 
ike and Nemeonikae, — the Nemean and Pythian games not having the* 
acquired Hellenic importance. Diogenes Lafirt. (i. 55) says that Soldo 
provided rewards, not only for victories at the Olympic and Isthmian, but 
also uvaXoyov iirt tuv dJUuv, which Erause (Pythien, Nemeen und Isthmien, 
sect 3, p. 13) supposes to be the truth: I dunk, very improbably. The 
•harp invective of Timokreon against Themistocles, charging him among 
other things with providing nothing but cold meat at the Isthmian gamef 
( } \<r&pol <F hravdoKcve yehoioc JWXP& K P^ a napexuv, Plutarch. Themistoe r 
SI), seems to imply that the Athenian visitors, whom the Theors were calle 
apon to take care of at those games, were numerous. 
Vol. 2 8 


in tlunr comparative maturity. But the habit of common sacri 
floe, on a small scale, and between near neighbors, is a part of 
the earliest habits of Greece. The sentiment of fraternity, 
between two tribes or villages, first manifested itself by sending a 
sacred legation, or Thedria, 1 to offer sacrifice at each other's fes- 
tivals, and to partake in the recreations which followed ; thus 
establishing a truce with solemn guarantee, and bringing them- 
selves into direct connection each with the god of the other under 
his appropriate local surname. The pacific communion so 
fostered, and the increased assurance of intercourse, as Greece 
gradually emerged from the turbulence and pugnacity of the 
heroic age, operated especially in extending the range of this 
ancient habit : the village festivals became town festivals, largely 
frequented by the citizens of other towns, and sometimes with 
special invitations sent round to attract Thedrs from every 
Hellenic community, — and thus these once humble assemblages 
gradually swelled into the pomp and immense confluence of the 
Olympic and Pythian games. The city administering such holy 
ceremonies enjoyed inviolability of territory during the month 
of their occurrence, being itself under obligation at that time 
to refrain from all aggression, as well as to notify by heralds 9 
the commencement of the truce to all other cities not in avowed 
hostility with it. Elis imposed heavy fines upon other towns — 
even on the powerful Lacedaemon — for violation of the Olympic 
truce, on pain of exclusion from the festival in case of non- 

Sometimes this tendency to religious fraternity took a form 
called an Amphiktyony, different from the common festival. A 

1 In many Grecian states (as at JEgina, Mantineia, Troezen, Thasos, etc.) 
these Thedrs formed a permanent college, and seem to have been invested 
with extensive functions in reference to religions ceremonies: at Athens, 
they were chosen for the special occasion (see Thucyd. v. 47; AristoteL 
Polit v. 8,3; O. Mailer, ^Eginetica, p. 135; Demosthen. de Fals. Leg. p. 

* About the sacred truce, Olympian, Isthmian, etc., formally announced 
by two heralds crowned with garlands sent from the administering city, and 
with respect to which many tricks were played, see Thucyd. v. 49 ; Xenophon, 
Hellen. iv. 7, 1-7 ; Plutarch, Lycurg. 23; Pindar, Isthm. ii. 35, — anovdo^f 
pot — KapvKes upav — Thucyd. viii. 9-10, is also peculiarly instructive fat 
I to the practice and the feeling. 


certain number of towns entered into an exclusive religion* 
partnership, for the celebration of sacrifices periodically to the 
god of a particular temple, which was supposed to be the common 
property, and under the common protection of all, though one of 
the number was often named as permanent administrator ; while 
all other Greeks were excluded. That there were many religious 
partnerships of this sort, which have never acquired a place in 
history, among the early Grecian villages, we may, perhaps, 
gather from the etymology of the word, (Amphiktyons 1 desig- 
nates residents around, or neighbors, considered in the point of 
view of fellow-religionists,) as well as from the indications pre- 
served to us in reference to various parts of the country. Thu* 
there was an Amphiktyony* of seven cities at the holy island 
of Kalauria, close to the harbor of Troezen. Hermione, Epi- 
daurus, iEgina, Athens, Prasiae, Nauplia, and Orchomenus, 
jointly maintained the temple and sanctuary of Poseid6n in that 
island, (with which it would seem that the city of TroezSn, though 
close at hand, had no connection,) meeting there at stated periods, 
to offer formal sacrifices. These 6even cities, indeed, were not 
immediate neighbors, but the speciality and exclusiveness of 
their interest in the temple is seen from the fact, that when the 
Argeians took Nauplia, they adopted and fulfilled these religious 
obligations on behalf of the prior inhabitants : so, also, did the 
Lacedaemonians, when they had captured Prasiae. Again, in 
Triphylia, 3 situated between the Pisatid and Messenia, in the 
western part of Peloponnesus, there was a similar religious 
meeting and partnership of the Triphylians on Cape Samikon, 
at the temple of the Samian Poseiddn. Here, the inhabitants 
of Makiston were intrusted with the details of superintendence, 
as well as with the duty of notifying beforehand the exact time 
of meeting, (a precaution essential amidst the diversities and 
irregularities of the Greek calendar,) and also of proclaiming 
what was called the Samian truce, — a temporary abstinence 
from hostilities, which bound all Triphylians during the holy 
period. This latter custom discloses the salutary influence of 
such institutions in presenting to men's minds a common oigeot 

1 Pindar, Isthm. Hi. 36 (iv. 14); Nem. ri. 40. 

* fttrabo, viil p. 374 a Strabo. viiL p. 343; Patwan v. ft, L 


of reverence, common dirties, aud common enjoy met to; thus 
generating sympathies and feelings of mutual obligation amidst 
petty communities not less fierce than suspicious. 1 So, too, the 
twelve chief Ionic cities in and near Asia Minor, had their Pan- 
Ionic Amphiktyony peculiar to themselves : the six Doric cities, 
in and near the southern corner of that peninsula, combined for 
the like purpose at the temple of the Triopian Apollo ; and the 
feeling of special partnership is here particularly illustrated by 
the met, that Halikarnassus, one of the six, was formally extruded 
by the remaining five, in consequence of a violation of the rules. 9 
Inere was also an Amphiktyonic union at Onchestus in BoBotia, 
in the venerated grove and temple of Poseidon.* 3 of whom it 
consisted, we are not informed. These are some specimens of 
the sort of special religious conventions and assemblies which 
seem to have been frequent throughout Greece. Nor ought we 
to omit those religious meetings and sacrifices which were com- 
mon to all the members of one Hellenic subdivision, such as the 
Pam-Bosotia to all the Boeotians, celebrated at the temple of the 
Itonian Athene near Koroneia,* — the common observances, 
rendered to the temple of Apollo Pythaeus at Argos, by all those 
neighboring towns which had once been attached by this religious 

1 At loikos, ob the north coast of the Golf of Pagasse, and at the borders 
of the Magnates, Thessalians, and Acheeans of Phthiotis, was celebrated a 
periodical religious festival, or pancgyris, the title of which we are prevented 
from making out by the imperfect ; ou of Strabo's text (Strabo, ix. 436). It 
stands in the text as printed in Tzschucke's edition, y £vrai>&a 6e /cat rt/v 
RvXaiKTjv icavrjyvpiv, cvver£?>ovv. The mention of RvXaiici} iravqyvpic, which 
»ndacte as only to the Amphiktyonic convocations of Thermopylae and 
Delphi is here unsuitable ; and the best or Parisian MS. of Strabo present! 
a gap (one among the many which embarrass the ninth book) in the place 
of the word IIuAai'/c^v. Dutneil conjecture* lifv D 'Mok^v mwjryvptv, deriv- 
ing the name from the celebrated funeral games of the old epic celebrated 
by Akastns in honor of his lather Pelias. Grosskard (in his note on the 
passage) approves the conjecture, but it seems to me not probable that a 
Grecian panegyris would be named after Pelias. IfyAZaxTv, in reference to 
the neighboring mountain and town of Pelion, might perhaps be teas ob» 
jecoonable (see Dikaarch. Fragm. pp. 407-400, ed. Eaar.), bat we enanf 
determine with certainty. 

• Herod, i. ; Dionye. Hal rv. 25. 

• Strabo, ix. p. 412; Homer. Hymn. Apoll. 232. 
4 Strabo, ix. p. 411. 


thread to the Argeians, — the similar periodical ceremonies 
frequented by all who bore the Achaean or iEtolian name, — and 
the splendid and exhilarating festivals, so favorable to the diffu- 
sion of the early Grecian poetry, which brought all Ionian* at 
stated intervals to the sacred island of Deloa. 1 This latter class 
of festivals agreed with the Amphiktyony, in being of a special 
and exclusive character, not open to all Greeks. 

But there was one amongst these many Amphiktyonies, which, 
chough starting from the smallest beginnings, gradually expanded 
into so comprehensive a character, and acquired so marked a 
predominance over the rest, as to be called The Amphiktyonic 
Assembly, and even to have been mistaken by some authors for 
a sort of federal Hellenic Diet Twelve sub-races, out of the 
number which made up entire Hellas, belonged to this ancient 
Amphiktyony, the meetings of which were held twice in every 
year : in spring, at the temple of Apollo at Delphi ; in autumn, 
at Thermopylae, in the sacred precinct of D&m&ter Amphiktyonis. 
Sacred deputies, including a chief called the Hieromn&mon, and 
subordinates called the Pylagora, attended at these meetings 
from each of the twelve races : a crowd of volunteers seem to 
have accompanied them, for purposes of sacrifice, trade, or 
enjoyment. Their special, and most important function, con- 
sisted in watching over the Delphian temple, in which all the 
twelve sub-races had a joint interest; and it was the immense 
wealth and national ascendency of this temple, which enhanced 
to so great a pitch the dignity of its acknowledged adminis- 

The twelve constituent members were as follows : Thessalians, 
Boeotians, Dorians, Ionians, Perrhaebians, Magnetes, Lokrians, 
(Etceans, Achajans, Phokians, Dolopes, and Malians. 9 All are 

1 Thucyd. iii. 104; v. 55. Pausan. vii. 7, 1 ; 24, 3. Polyb. v. 8; ii. 54. 
Homer. Hymn. A poll. 146. 

According to what seems to have been the ancient and sacred tradition, 
the whole of the month Karneins was a time of peace among the Dorians; 
tough this was often neglected in practice at the time of the Peloponnesian 
war (Thuc v. 54). But it may be doubted whether there was any festival 
of Karneia common to all the Dorians : the Karneia at Sparta seems to 
awe been a Lacedemonian festival. 

9 The list of the Amphiktyonic constituency is differently given by JEs 


counted as races, (if we treat the Hellenes as a race, we moat 
call these sub-races,) no mention being made of cities : l all count 
equally in respect to voting, two votes being given by the depu- 
ties from each of the twelve : moreover, we are told that, in 
determining the deputies to be sent, or the manner in which the 
votes of each race should be given, the powerful Athens, Sparta, 
and Thebes, had no more influence than the humblest Ionian, 
Dorian, or Boeotian city. This latter fact is distinctly stated by 
iEschines, himself a pylagore sent to Delphi by Athens. And 
so, doubtless, the theory of the case stood : the votes of the Ionic 
races counted for neither more nor less than two, whether given 
by deputies from Athens, or from the small towns of Erythrae and 
Pri€n6 ; and, in like manner, the Dorian votes were as good in 
the division, when given by deputies from Bceon and Kytinion 
in the little territory of Doris, as if the men delivering them had 
been Spartans. But there can be as little question that, in 
practice, the little Ionic cities, and the little Doric cities, pretended 
to no share in the Amphiktyonic deliberations. As the Ionic 
vote came to be substantially the vote of Athens, so, if Sparta 
was ever obstructed in the management of the Doric vote, it must 
have been by powerful Doric cities like Argos or Corinth, not 
by the insignificant towns of Doris. But the theory of Amphik- 
tyonic suffrage, as laid down by -Machines, however little realized 
in practice during his day, is important, inasmuch as it shows tn 
full evidence the primitive and original constitution. The first 
establishment of the Amphiktyonic convocation dates from a 
time when all the twelve members were on a footing of equal 
independence, and when there were no overwhelming cities 
(such as Sparta and Athens) to cast in the shade the humbler 
members, — when Sparta was only one Doric city, and Athena 
only one Ionic city, among various others of consideration, not 
much inferior. 

There are also other proofs which show the high antiquity of 

chines, by Harpokration, and by Pausanias. Tittmann (Ueber den Amphifc* 
tyoaischen Bund, sect. 3, 4, 5) analyzes and compares their various state 
meats, and elicits the catalogue given in the text. 
1 JEschines, De Fals. Legat. p. 280, c. 36. — Karwi&fii?oa(uiv & f#it 

dtideco, rd. fierkxovra tov iepov koI tovtup tdeifa Uaorw foVff M 

ftftov yev6uevov, rd fUyiorov r£ k%arrovt^ etc 


this Amphiktyonic convocation. JEschines gives us an extra* 
from the oath which had been taken by the sacred deputies, who 
attended on behalf of their respective races, ever since its first 
establishment, and which still apparently continued to be taken 
in his day. The antique simplicity of this oath, and of the con- 
ditions to which the members bind themselves, betrays the early 
age in which it originated, as well as the humble resources of 
those towns to which it was applied. 1 "We will not destroy 
any Amphiktyonic town, — we will not cut off any Amphiktyonic 
town from running water," — such are the two prominent obliga- 
tions which jEsehines specifies out of the old oath. The second 
of the two carries us back to the simplest state of society, and 
to towns of the smallest size, when the maidens went out with 
their basins to fetch water from the spring, like the daughters 
frf Keleos at E leu sis, or those of Athens from the fountain of 
KaHtrrhoe.* We may even conceive that the special mention 
of this detail, in the covenant between the twelve races, is bor- 
rowed literally from agreements still earlier, among the villages 
or little towns m which the members of each race were distrib* 
a ted. At any rate, it proves satisfactorily the very ancient data 
Co which the commencement of the Amphiktyonic convocation 
■Mist be referred. The belief of jEschines (perhaps, also, the 
belief -general m his time) was, that it commenced simultaneously 
with the first foundation of the Delphian temple, — an event 
of which we have no historical knowledge ; but there seems rea- 
son to suppose that its original establishment is connected with 
Thermopylae and Demeter Amphtktyonis, rather than with 
Delphi aad Apollo. The special surname by which Demetdr 
and her temple at Thermopylae was known, 3 — the temple of the 
hero Amphiktyon which stood at its side, — the word Fylas, 
which obtained footing in the language to designate the half- 
yearly meeting of the deputies both at Thermopyfo and at 

1 JEschin. Fate. Legat p. 279, c 35: 'Afta 6t H ipxK *u&1#9* rfr, 
srioiv tov lepov, k<u rifv npwTyv avvodov yevofxevrjv row 'A/c^ucrvmw, cat 
foif Jpcovf <ti/ruv aveyvuv, h> ok kvopKov f/v rois ipxaioq fiifdepiap «ifttt 
f£v ' Kp+iKTwn'iduv wwowrov icoiyativ ptfl vidrw vapor uuuv clpfttm, aftc. 

* Homer, Iliad, vL 457. Homer, Hyrmn *> ltf«tter, 1)0, 107, ltO. Be 
m4*& Ti. 137. Thucyd. ii. 15. 

' *taodot rii. SOO ; Iivy, xxxi. aa. 


Delphi, — these indications point to Thermopylae (the real een* 
tral point for all the twelve) as the primary place of meetings 
and to the Delphian half-year as something secondary and super- 
added. On soch a matter, however, we cannot go beyond a 

The hero Amphiktyon, whose temple stood at Thermopylae, 
parsed in mythical genealogy for the brother of Hellen. And it 
may be affirmed, with truth, that the habit of forming Amphikty 
onie unions, and of frequenting each other's religious festivals 
was the great means of orating and fostering the prirnitivt 
feeling of brotherhood among the children of Hell€n, in those 
early times when rudeness, insecurity, and pugnacity did so 
much to isolate them. A certain number of salutary habits and 
sentiments, such as that which the Amphiktyonic oath embodies, 
in regard to abstinence from injury, as well as to mutual protec- 
tion, 1 gradually found their way into men's minds : the obligations 
thus brought into play, acquired a substantive efficacy of their 
own, and the religious feeling which always remained connected 
with them, came afterwards to be only one out of many complex 
agencies by which the later historical Greek was moved Athens 
and Sparta in the days of their might, and the inferior dtws in 
relation to them, played: each their own political game, in which 
religious considerations will be found to bear only a subordinate 

The special function of the Amphiktyonic council, so far at 
we know it, consisted in watching over the safety, the interests, 
and the treasures of the Delphian temple. " If any one shall 
plunder the proper ty of the god, or shall be cognisant thereof, or 
shall take treacherous counsel against the things in the temple, 
we will punish him with foot, and hand, and voice, and by every 
means, in our power." 80 ran the old Amphiktyonic oath, with 

1 Tft* festival of the Amarynthia in Enboea, held at the temple of Artemis 
of Amarynthos, was frequented by the Ionic Chalcis and Eretria as well at 
by tm> Dryopic Karysttis. In a combat proclaimed between Chalcis and 
Bretri*, to- settle the question about the possession of the plain of Lelantuittj 
b was stipulated that no missile weapons should be used by either party 
this agreement was inscribedSnd recorded in the temple of Artemis (Strata 
B. p. 448 ; Livy, xzxr. 38). 


an energetic imprecation attached to it. 1 And there are 
examples in which the council 3 construes its functions so largely 
as to receive and adjudicate upon complaints against entire cities, 
for offences against the religious and patriotic sentiment of the 
Greeks generally. But for the most part its interference relates 
directly to the Delphian temple. The earliest case in which it is 
brought to our view, is the Sacred War against Kirrha, in the 
16th Olympiad, or 595 b. c, conducted by Eurylochus, the Thes 
salian, and Kleisthenes of Sikyon, and proposed by Solon of 
Athens £ we find the Amphiktyons also, about half a century 
afterwards, undertaking the duty of collecting subscriptions 
throughout the Hellenic world, and making the contract with 
the Alkmasonids for rebuilding the temple after a conflagration. 4 
But the influence of this council is essentially of a fluctuating 
and intermittent character. Sometimes it appears forward to 
decide, and its decisions command respect ; but such occasions 
are rare, taking the general course of known Grecian history ; 
while there are other occasions, and those too especially affecting 
the Delphian temple, on which we are surprised to find nothing 
said about it In the long and perturbed period which Thucydi 
des describes, he never once mentioned the Amphiktyons, though 
the temple and the safety of its treasures form the repeated sub- 

1 <£schin. De Fab*. Legal c. 35, p. 279: compare adv. Ktesiphont c. 34 
p. 406. 

* See the charge which JEschines alleges to have been brought by the 
Lokrians of Amphissa against Athens in the Amphiktyonic Council (adv. 
Ktesiphont c. 38, p. 409). Demosthenes contradicts his rival as to the fact 
of the charge having been brought, saying that the Amphisseans had not 
given the notice, customary and required, of their intention to bring it : a 
reply which admits that the charge might be brought (Demosth. de Corona, 
c.43, p. 277). 

The Amphiktyons offer a reward for the life of Ephialtes, the betrayer of 
the Greeks at Thermopylae ; they also erect columns to the memory of the 
fallen Greeks in that memorable strait the place of their half-yearly meeting 
(Herod, vii. 213-228). 

* JSschin. adv. Ktesiph. 1, c Plutarch, Soldn. c. xi, who refers to Aris- 
totle kv rg tuv \Iv&iovtK<Jv avaypaffi — Pausan. x. 37, 4 ; Schol. ad Pindar 
Nem. ix. 2. Tdf 'Aft^tKTVovtKuc di/caf, &<mi nofam jrpdc irofatc eloiv (Strabo 
ix. p. 420). These Amphiktyonic arbitrations, however are of rue occur 
fence in history, and very common' y abased. 

* Herodot ii. 180 v. 62. 


jecti as well of dispute as of express stipulation between Athens 
and Sparta : moreover, among the twelve constituent members 
of the council, we find three — the Perrhaebians, the Magnates, 
and the Achaeans of Phthia — who were not even independent, 
but subject to the Thessalians, so that its meetings, when they 
were not matters of mere form, probably expressed only the feel- 
ings of the three or four leading members. When one or more 
of these great powers had a party purpose to accomplish against 
others, — when Philip of Macedon wished to extrude one of the 
members in order to procure admission for himself, — it became 
convenient to turn this ancient form into a serious reality, and we 
shall see the Athenian JEschines providing a pretext for Philip 
to meddle in favor of the minor Boeotian cities against Thebes, 
by alleging that these cities were under the protection of the old 
Amphiktyonic oath. 9 

It is thus that we have to consider the council as an element 
in Grecian affairs, — an ancient institution, one amongst many 
instances of the primitive habit of religious fraternization, but 
wider and more comprehensive than the rest, — at first, purely 
religious, then religious and political at once; lastly, more the 
latter than the former, — highly valuable in the infancy, but 
unsuited to the maturity of Greece, and called into real working 
only on rare occasions, when its efficiency happened to fall in 
with the views of Athens, Thebes, or the king of Macedon. In 
such special moments it shines with a transient light which af- 
fords a partial pretence for the imposing title bestowed on it by 
Cicero, — " commune Graeciae concilium:" 3 but we should com- 

1 Thucyd. L 112, iv. 118, v. 18. The Phokians in the Sacred War (b. c 
354) pretended that they had an ancient and prescriptive right to the admin 
istration of the Delphian temple, under accountability to the general body 
of Greeks for the proper employment of its possessions, — thus setting aside 
the Amphiktyons altogether (Diodor. xvi 27). 

* .JSschin. de Fals. Legat p. 280, c. 36. The party intrigues which moved 
the council in regard to the Sacred War against the Phokians (b. c. 355) 
may be seen in Didorus, xvi. 23-28, seq. 

* Cicero, De Invention, ii. 23. The representation of Dionysius of Hali 
karnassus (Ant. Rom. iv. 25) overshoots the reality still more. 

About the common festivals and Amphiktyones of the Hellenic world 
generally, see Wachsmuth, Hellenische Altcrthumskunde, vol. i. sect. 22, 
94, 25 ; also, C F.- Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech. 8taatsaIterthQmer sect 


pletery misinterpret Grecian history if we regarded it as a fed- 
aral council, habitually directing or habitually obeyed. Had taara 
existed any such u commune concilium " of tolerable wisdom aad 
patriotism, and had the tendencies of the Hellenic mind bean 
capable of adapting themselves to it, the whole course of later 
Grecian history would probably have been altered ; the Mace- 
donian kings would have remained only as respectable neighbors, 
borrowing civilization from Greece, and expending their military 
energies uj>on Thracians and Illyrians ; while united Hellas might 
even have maintained her own territory against the conquering 
legions of Borne. 

The twelve constituent Amphiktyonic races remained unchanged 
until the Sacred War against the Phokians (b. c. 355), after 
which, though the number twelve was continued, the Phokians 
were disfranchised, and their votes transferred to Philip of Mace- 
don. It has been already mentioned that these twelve did not 
exhaust the whole of Hellas. Arcadians, Eleans, Pisans, Minyse, 
Dryopes, iEtolians, all genuine Hellens, are not comprehended 
in it ; but all of them had a right to make U6e of the temple of 
Delphi, and to contend in the Pythian and Olympic games. The 
Pythian games, celebrated near Delphi, were under the superin- 
tendence of the Amphiktyons, 1 or of some acting magistrate chosen 
by and presumed to represent them : like the Olympic games, 
they came round every four years (the interval between one 
celebration and another being four complete years, which the 
Greeks called a Pentaetens) : the Isthmian and Nemean games 
recurred every two years. In its first humble form, of a compe- 
tition among bards to sing a hymn in praise of Apollo, this festi- 
val was doubtless of immemorial antiquity ; 9 but the first exten* 

1 Plutarch, Sympos. vii. 5, 1. 

* In this early phase of the Pythian festival, it ii said to have been cele- 
brated every eight years, marking what we should call an Octaettris, and 
what the early Greeks called an Ennaeteris (Ceasorinos, De Die Natali, c 
18). This period is one of considerable importance in reference to the prin- 
ciple of the Grecian calendar, for ninety-nine lunar months coincide very 
nearly with eight solar years. The discovery of this coincidence is ascribed 
by Censorinns to Kleostratns of Tenedos, whose age is not directly known : 
he must be anterior to Meton, who discovered the cycle of nineteen solai 
years, bat (I imagine) not much anterior. In spite of the authority of Idefei 
it seesms to me not proved, nor can I believe, that this octennial period with it* 


ttioft of it into Pan-Hellenic notoriety (as I have already remark- 
ed), the first multiplication of the subjects of competition, and 
the first introduction of a continuous record of the conquerors, 
date only from the time when it came under the presidency oi 
the Ainphiktyons, at the close of the Sacred War against Xirrha. 
What is called the first Pythian contest coincides with the third 
year of the 48th Olympiad, or 585 b. c. From that period for* 
ward, the games become crowded and celebrated : but the date 
just named, nearly two centuries after the first Olympiad, is a 
proof that the habit of periodical frequentation of festivals, by 
numbers and from distant. parts, grew up but slowly in the Gre- 
cian world. 

The foundation of the temple of Delphi itself reaches far be- 
yond all historical knowledge, forming one of the aboriginal in- 
stitutions of Hellas. It is a sanctified and wealthy place, even in 
l he Iliad : the legislation of Lykurgus at Sparta is introduced 
under its auspices, and the earliest Grecian colonies, those of 
Sicily and Italy in the eighth century b. a, are established in 
consonance with its mandate. Delphi and Dodona appear, ii. 
the most ancient circumstances of Greece, as universally vene- 
rated oracles and sanctuaries : and Delphi not only receives honors 
and donations, but also answers questions, from Lydians, Phry- 
gians, Etruscans, Romans, etc. : it is not exclusively Hellenic 
One of the valuable services which a Greek looked for from this 
and other great religious establishments was, that it should resolve 
his doubts in cases of perplexity, — • that it should advise him 
whether to begin a new, or to persist in an old project, — that it 
should foretell what would be his fate under given circumstances, 
and inform him, if suffering under distress, on what conditions 

solar and lunar coincidence was known to the Greek* in the earliest times of 
their mythical antiquity, or before the year 600 b. c. See Ideler, Handbuc-h 
der Chronologic, vol. L p. S66 ; vol. ii. p. 607. The practice of the Eleiana to 
celebrate the Olympic games alternately after forty-nine and fifty lunar months, 
though attested for a later time by the Scholiast on Pindar, is not proved to 
be old. The fact that there were ancient octennial recurring festivals, docs 
not establish a knowledge of the properties of the octaeteric or ennacteric 
period : nor does it seem to me- thai the details of the TUnotian da+vTjfapLoy 
described in Preclos ap. Photium, sect. 339, an very ancient See, on the 
old mythical Oc ta e wri s, O. Mullet, Orchomenos SI 8, «•«., and Kianse. Dit 
Pythiea, Nemeen, nnd Isthmien, sect 4, p. 22. 


the gods would grant him relief. The three priestesjes of Do* 
dona with their venerable oak, and the priestess of Delphi sit- 
ting on her tripod under the influence of a certain gas or vapor 
exhaling from the rock, were alike competent to determine these 
difficult points : and we shall have constant occasion to notice in 
this history, with what complete faith both the question was put 
and the answer treasured up, — what serious influence it often 
exercised both upon public and private proceeding. 1 The hex- 
ameter verses, in which the Pythian priestess delivered herself, 
were, indeed, often so equivocal or unintelligible, that the most 
serious believer, with all anxiety to interpret and obey them, 
often found himself ruined by the result ; yet the general faith 
in the oracle was noway shaken by such painful experience. For 
as the unfortunate issue always admitted of being explained upon 
two hypotheses, — either that the god had spoken falsely, or that 
his meaning had not been correctly understood, — no man of 
genuine piety ever hesitated to adopt the latter. There were 
many other oracles throughout Greece besides Delphi and Do- 
dona : Apollo was open to the inquiries of the faithful at Ptdon 
in Boeotia, at Abas in Phokis, at Branchidae near Miletus, at 
Patara in Lykia, and other places : in like manner, Zeus gave 
answers at Olympia, Poseiddn at Taenarus, Amphiaraus at Thebes, 
Amphilochus at Mallas, etc. And this habit of consulting the 

1 See the argument of Cicero in favor of divination, in the first book of 
his valuable treatise De Divinatione. Chrysippus, and the ablest of the stoic 
philosophers, both set forth a plausible theory demonstrating, a priori, the 
probability of prophetic warnings deduced from the existence and attributes 
of the gods : if you deny altogether the occurrence of such warnings, so 
essential to the welfare of man, you must deny either the existence, or the 
foreknowledge, or the beneficence, of the gods (c 38). Then the veracity of 
the Delphian oracle had been demonstrated in innumerable instances, of 
which Chrysippus had made a large collection : and upon what other sap- 
position could the immense credit of the oracle be explained (c 19) f " Col- 
legit innumerabilia oracula Chrysippus, et nullum sine locuplete teste et 
anctore : qua quia nota tibi sunt, relinquo. Defendo unum hoc : nunquam 
illud oraculum Delphis tarn celebre clarumque fuisset, neque tantis donii 
refertum omnium populorum et regum, nisi omnis etas oraculorum illorum 

reritatem esset experta Maneat id, quod negari non potest, nisi omnen 

historiam perrerterimus, moltis ssecufis verax fuisse id oraculmr." Cicero 
admits that it had become less trustworthy in his time, and tries to explain 
Ibis decline of prophetic power : compare Plutarch, De Defect. Often). 


oracle formed part of the still more general tendency of the 
Greek mind to undertake no enterprise without having first as- 
certained how the gods viewed it, and what 'measures they were 
likely to take. Sacrifices were offered, and the interior of the 
victim carefully examined, with the same intent : omens, prodi- 
gies, unlooked-for coincidences, casual expressions, etc, were all 
construed as significant of the divine wilL To sacrifice with a 
view to this or that undertaking, or to consult the oracle with the 
same view, are familiar expressions 1 embodied in the language. 
Nor could any man set about a scheme with comfort, until he 
had satisfied himself in some manner or other that the gods were 
favorable to it. 

The disposition here adverted to is one of those mental analo- 
gies pervading the whole Hellenic nation, which Herodotus indi- 
cates. And the common habit among all Greeks, of respectfully 
listening to the oracle of Delphi, will be found on many occasions 
useful in maintaining unanimity among men not accustomed to 
obey the same political superior. In the numerous colonies espe- 
cially, founded by mixed multitudes from distant parts of Greece, 
the minds of the emigrants were greatly determined towards cor- 
dial cooperation by their knowledge that the expedition had been 
directed, the cekist indicated, and the spot either chosen or ap- 
proved, by Apollo of Delphi Such in most cases was the fact: 
that god, according to the conception of the Greeks, " takes de- 
light always in the foundation of new cities, and himself in person 
lays the first stone." 9 

These are the elements of union — over and above the com- 
mon territory, described in the last chapter — with which the 
historical Hellens take their start : community of blood, language, 
religious point of view, legends, sacrifices, festivals^ and also 
(with certain allowances) of manners and character. The anal 

1 Xenophon, Anabas. vil 8, 20 : '0 dl 'Aoidartic <fcofoaf , 6n iraXtv i ir* 
airbv re&vpevoc eltf Eevofdv, ££atriiferat, etc Xenoph. Hellen. iii 3, 
92: pi) xp90Ti7pui(e90ai rode *EAAi7vaf kf 'EXXsivov iroAepp,— -compare 
Iliad, yii. 450. 

1 Callimach. Hymn. Apoll. 55, with Spanheim's note ; Cicero, De Divinat 

9 See this point strikingly illustrated by Plato, Repub. v. pp. *70-471 
(e. 16), and Isocrates, Panegyr. p. 102 


ogy of manners and character between the rude inhabitants of 
the Arcadian Kynsstha 1 and the polite Atiens, was indeed ac- 
companied with wide- differences: yet if we compare the two 
with foreign contemporaries, we shall find certain negative char* 
acteristics, of much importance, common to both. In no city 
of historical Greece did there prevail either human sacrifices,* 
— or deliberate mutilation, such as cutting off the nose, ears, 
hands, feet, etc, — or castration, — or selling of children into 
slavery,— or polygamy, — or the feeling of unlimited obedience 
towards one man : all customs which might be pointed out as 
existing among the contemporary Carthaginians, Egyptians, Per- 
sians, Thracians, 3 etc. The habit of running, wrestling, boxing, 
etc^ in gymnastic contests, with the body perfectly naked, — 
was common to all Greeks, having been first adopted as a Lace- 
dsemonian fashion in the fourteenth Olympiad : Thucydides and 
Herodotus remark, that it was not only not practised, but even 
regarded as unseemly, among non-Hellens.* Of such customs, 
indeed, at once common to all the Greeks, and peculiar to them 

1 Respecting the Arcadian Kynaetha, *ee the remarkable observation* of 
Polybius iv. 17-23. 

* See above, vol. L ch. vi. p. 136 of this History. 

' For examples and evidences of these practices, see HerodoU il. 162 ; the 
•imputation of the nose and ears of Patarbemis, by Apries, king of Egypt 
(Xenophon, Anab. i. 9-13). There were a largo number of men deprived 
of hands, feet, or eyesight, in the satrapy of Cyras the yonnger, who had 
inflicted all these severe punishments for the prevention of crime, — he did 
not (says Xenophon) Buffer criminals to scoff at him (ela «arayeA£i>). The 
ttcrofti) was carried on at Sardis (Herodot iii. 49), — 600 ira&Stf Urofuai 
formed a portion of the yearly tribute paid by the Babylonians to the court 
of Susa (Herod, iii 92). Selling of children for exportation by the Thra- 
cians (Herod, v. 6) ; there is some trace of this at Athens, prior to the Solo- 
nian legislation (Plutarch, Soldn, 23), arising probably out of the cruel 
state of the law between debtor and creditor. For the sacrifice of childrea 
to Eronus by the Carthaginians, in troubled times, (according to the lan- 
guage of Ennias, u Posni soliti sues sacrificare puellos") Didor. xx. U ; xiij. 
86. Porphyr. de Abstinent iL 56 : the practice is abundantly illustrated ia 
Mover's Die Religion der Phoaixier, pp. 298-804. 

Aman blames Alexander for cutting off the nose and ears of the Satan 
3easus, saying thai it was an act altogether kuAaric, (t. e. noa-HellealcJ 
(Exp. Al iv. 7, 6.) About the oeBatr/ibc #«wr:>«% nepl rbv daatXfu Is 
Asia, sea Strata, xi. p. 526. 

• Thucvd. i 6 ; Herodot L 10, 


m distinguished from others, we cannot specify a great number | 
bat we may see enough to convince ourselves that there did really 
exist, in spite of local differences, a general Hellenic sentiment 
and character, which counted among the cementing causes of an 
union apparently so little assured. 

For we must recollect that, in respect to political sovereignty, 
complete disunion was among their most cherished principles. 
The only eoorce of supreme authority to which a Greek felt 
respect and attachment, was to be sought within the walls of bin 
own city. Authority seated in another city might operate upon 
bis fears, — might procure for him increased security and advan- 
tages, as we shall have occasion hereafter to show with regard to 
Athens and her subject allies, — might even be mildly exercised, 
and inspire no special aversion : but, still, the principle of it was 
repugnant to the rooted sentiment of bis mind, and be is always 
found gravitating towards the distinct sovereignty o£ his own 
bould, or ekklesia. This is a disposition common both to democ- 
racies and oligarchies, and operative even among the different 
towns belonging to the same subdivision of the Hellenic name,— 
Acfagesans, Phokians, Boeotians, etc. The twelve Achaean cities 
are harmonious allies, with a periodical festival which partakes 
of the character of a congress, — but equal and independent 
political communities : the Boeotian towns, under the presidency 
of Thebes, their reputed metropolis, recognize certain common 
obligations, and obey, on various particular matters, chosen offi- 
cers named boeotarchs, — but we shall see, in this, as in other 
cases, the centrifugal tendencies constantly manifesting them- 
selves, and resisted chiefly by the interests and power of Thebes 
That great, successful, and fortunate revolution, which merged 
the several independent political communities of Attica into the 
single unity of Athens, took place before the time of authentic 
history: it is connected with the name of the hero Theseus, 
but we know not how it was effected, while its comparatively 
large size and extent, render it a signal exception to Hellenic 
tendencies generally. 

Political disunion — sovereign authority within the city walls 
— thus formed a settled maxim in the Greek mind. The rela- 
tion between one city and another was an international relation, 

tol. n. 17oc 


not a relation subsisting between members of a common political 
aggregate. Within a few miles from his own city-walls, an 
Athenian found himself in the territory of another city, wherein 
he was nothing more than an alien, — where he could not acquire 
property in house or land, nor contract a legal marriage with any 
native woman, nor sue for legal protection against injury, except 
through the mediation of some friendly citizen. The right of 
intermarriage, and of acquiring landed property, was occasionally 
granted by a city to some individual non-freeman, as matter of 
6pecial favor, and sometimes (though very rarely) reciprocated 
generally between two separate cities. 1 But the obligations 
between one city and another, or between the citizen of the one 
and the citizen of the other, are all matters of special covenant, 
agreed to by the sovereign authority in each. Such coexistence 
of entire political severance with so much fellowship in other 
ways, is perplexing in modern ideas, and modern language is not 
well furnished with expressions to describe Greek political 
phenomena. We may say that an Athenian citizen was an alien 
when he arrived as a visitor in Corinth, but we can hardly say 
that he was a foreigner ; and though the relations between Cor- 
inth and Athens were in principle international, yet that word 
would be obviously unsuitable to the numerous petty autonomies 
of Hellas, besides that we require it for describing the relations 
of Hellenes generally with Persians or Carthaginians. We are 
compelled to use a word such as interpolitical, to describe the 
transactions between separate Greek cities, so numerous in the 
course of this history. 

As, on the one hand, a Greek will not consent to look for sove- 
reign authority beyond the limits of his own city, so, on the other 
hand, he must have a city to look to : scattered villages will not 
satisfy in his mind the exigencies of social order, security, and 
dignity. Though the coalescence of smaller towns into a larger 
is repugnant to his feelings, that of villages into a town appears 
to him a manifest advance in the scale of civilization. Such, at 
least, is the governing sentiment of Greece throughout the his- 
torical period; for there was always a certain portion of the 

1 Ariatot. Polit. in. 6. 12. It is unnecessary to refer to the mary inscrip- 
tions which confer upon seme individual non-freeman the right of imYapia 
■ad eyKTfj0:c 


Hellenic aggregate — the rudest and least advanced among them 
— who dwelt in unfortified villages, and upon whom the citizen 
of Athens, Corinth, or Thebes, looked down as inferiors. Such 
village residence was the character of the Epirots 1 universally, 
and prevailed throughout Hellas itself, in those very early and 
even ante-Homeric times upon which Thucydid&s looked back 
as deplorably barbarous; — times of universal poverty and inse- 
curity, — absence of pacific intercourse, — petty warfare and 
plunder, compelling every man to pass his life armed, — endless 
migration without any local attachments. Many of the consid- 
erable cities of Greece are mentioned as aggregations of pre- 
existing villages, some of them in times comparatively recent 
Tegea and Mantineia in Arcadia, represent, in this way, the 
confluence of eight villages, and five villages respectively ; Dyme 
in Achaia was brought together out of eight villages, and Elis in 
the same manner, at a period even later than the Persian inva- 
sion ;2 the like seems to have happened with Megara and Tan* 
agra. A large proportion of the Arcadians continued their 
village life down to the time of the battle of Leuktra, and it 
suited the purposes of Sparta to keep them thus disunited; a 
policy which we shall see hereafter illustrated by the dismember- 
ment of Mantineia (into its primitive component villages), which 
Agesilaus carried into effect, but which was reversed as soon as 
the power of Sparta was no longer paramount, — as well as by 
the foundation of Megalopolis out of a large number of petty 
Arcadian towns and villages, one of the capital measures ot 
Epameinondas. 3 As this measure was an elevation of Arcadian 

1 Skylax, Peripl. c. 28-33 ; Thucyd. iL 80. See Dio Chrysostom, Or. 
xlvii. p. 225, yoI. ii. ed. Reisk, — paXXov fypvOvro diouuela&ai *ard Kupac, roi( 
0apQupoi( dfioiovg, $ oxvpa noXectc koI bvofia k%civ. 

* Strata, viii. pp. 337, 342, 386 ; Pausan. viii. 45, 1 ; Plutarch, Quart 
Groec. c. 17-37. 

* Pausan. viii. 27, 2-5 ; Diod. xv. 72 : compare Arist Polit ii. 1,5. 

The description of the SioUiacc of Mantineia is in Xenophon, Hellea. v. 
8, 6-8 : it is a flagrant example of his philo-Laconian bias. We see by the 
ease of the Phokians after the Sacred War, (Diod or. *vi 60; Pausan. x. 9, 
8,) how heavy a punishment this dtoiiuoic was. Compare, alto, the instructive 
speech of the Akanthian envoy Kleigenes, at Sparta, when he mroked the 
Lacedaemonian interference for the purpose of crushing the incipient feder- 
ation, or junction of towns into a common political aggregate, which *m 


importance, so the reverse proceeding — the breaking up of 4 
city into its elementary villages — was not only a sentence of 
privation and suffering, but also a complete extinction of Grecian 
rank and dignity. 

The Ozolian Lokrians, the iEtolians, and the Akarnanians 
maintained their separate village residence down to a still later 
period, preserving along with it their primitive rudeness and 
disorderly pugnacity. 1 Their villages were unfortified, and 
defended only by comparative inaccessibility ; in case of need, 
they fled for safety with their cattle into the woods and mountains. 
Amidst such inauspicious circumstances, there was no room foi 
that expansion of the social and political feelings to which pro- 
tected intramural residence and increased numbers gave birth; 
there was no consecrated acropolis or agora, — no ornamented tem- 
ples and porticos, exhibiting the continued offerings of successive 
generations, 3 — no theatre for music or recitation, no gymnasium 
for athletic exercises, — none of those fixed arrangements, for 
transacting public business with regularity and decorum, which the 
Greek citizen, with his powerful sentiment of locality, deemed 
essential to a dignified existence. The village was nothing 
more than a fraction and a subordinate, appertaining as a limb 
to the organized body called the city. But the city and the state 

growing up round Olynthus (Xeii. Helton, v. 2, 11-2). The wise and 
admirable conduct of Olynthus, and the reluctance of the neighboring cities 
to merge themselves in this union, are forcibly set forth ; also, the interest 
of Sparta in keeping all the Greek towns disunited. Compare the descrip- 
tion of the treatment of Capua by the Romans (Livy, xxvl 16). 

1 Thucyd. i. 5 ; iii. 94. Xenoph. Hellen. iv. 6, 5. 

* Pausanias, x 4, 1 ; his remarks on the Phokian rr6A<f Panopeus indicate 
what he included in the idea of a iroAif : elye dvopdaai tic noXiv koX tw* 
rove, ole ye obit apxela t ov yvpvuoiov iariV OO {fatpov, ovk uyopdv tyovoiv, 
abx fcfop KaTepxopevov if Kpijvriv - &ZX& h *▼<•><•«. kf&tuc Kard rdf tcaXufiai 
paXurra rdf h> roZf dpeoiv, evrav&a oUotoa*, fast £%*adjp?. fytu? 6e bpet ye 
*% xfy°C el*™ airolc etc roi>c dpopow;, not If ToV oW&oyov owedpovc kqI 
Cfbroi vifiirovoi rdv Qcjklkov. 

The fuxpd noXiofiara of the Pelasgians on the peninsula of Mount Athos 
(Thucyd. ir. 109) seem to have been something between villages and cities. 
When the Phokians, after the Sacred War, were deprived of their cities and 
forced into villages by the Amphiktyons, the order was that no village should 
contain more than fifty houses, and that no village should be within the dls 
once of a furlong of any other (Diodor. xvi 60). 


me in his mind, and in his language, one and the same. While 
no organization leas than the city can satisfy the exigencies 1 «f 
an intelligent freeman, the city is itself a perfect and self-sufficient 
whole, admitting no incorporation into any higher political unity. 
It deserves notice that Sparta, even in the days of her greatest 
power, was not (properly speaking) a city, but a mere agglut* 
nation of five adjacent villages, retaining unchanged its old- 
fashioned trim : lor the extreme defensibility of its frontier and the 
military prowess of its inhabitants, supplied the absence of walls, 
while the discipline imposed upon the Spartan, exceeded in rigor 
and minuteness anything known in Greece. And thus Sparta, 
though less than a city in respect to external appearance, was 
more than a city in respect to perfection of drilling and fixity 
of political routine. The contrast between the humble appear- 
ance and the mighty reality, is pointed out by Thucydidds.* The 
inhabitants of the small territory of Pisa, wherein Olympia is 
situated, had once enjoyed the honorable privilege of adminis- 
tering tine Olympic festival. Having been robbed of it, and 
subjected by the more powerful Eleians, they took advantage oi 
various movements and tendencies among the larger Grecian 
powers to try and regain it ; and on one of these occasions, we 
find their claim repudiated because they were villagers, and 
unworthy of so great a distinction. 3 There was nothing to be 
called a city in the Pisatid territory. 

In going through historical Greece, we are compelled to 
accept the Hellenic aggregate with its constituent elements as a 
primary fact to start from, because the state of our information 
does not enable us to ascend any higher. By what circumstances, 
or out of what preexisting elements, this aggregate was brought 
together and modified, we find no evidence entitled to credit. 
There are, indeed, various names which are affirmed to designate 
ante-Hellenic inhabitants of many parts of Greece, — the Pelasgi, 

1 Aristot Polit i 1, 8, $ <T U vXeiwv > ptiv xoivuvia riXetoc irofcc £ d} 
rraaijc txovoa n&p<*C 1% abrapKeiac. Compare also iii. 6, 14 j and Plato, 
Legg. vw. p 846. 

* Tbmcyd. L 10. afire frnmmo&doqc s&leuf, ofoe Upolf mi canmuraaifc 
icoXvreXtoi xgaioapivqi, *or«l *u/m£ & iy naXaiy rifc 'EAAadqf 

* Xenophtt, Brilan. iii 2, 31. 


the Leleges, the Kuretes, the Kaukones, the Aones, the Tern- 
mikes, the Hyantes, the Telchines, the Boeotian Thracians, the 
Teleboae, the Ephyri, the Phlegyae, etc. These are names 
belonging to legendary, not to historical Greece, — extracted out 
of a variety of connecting legends, by the logographers and subse- 
quent historians, who strung together out of them a supposed 
history of the past, at a time when the conditions of historical 
evidence were very little understood. That these names desig- 
nated real nations, may be true, but here our knowledge ends. 
We have no well-informed witness to tell us their times, theii 
limits of residence, their acts, or their character ; nor do we know 
how far they are identical with or diverse from the historical 
Hellens, — whom we are warranted in calling, not, indeed, the first 
inhabitants of the country, but the first known to us upon any tol- 
erable evidence. If any man is inclined to call the unknown ante- 
Hellenic period of Greece by the name of Pelasgic, it is open to 
him to do so ; but this is a name carrying with it no assured 
predicates, noway enlarging our insight into real history, nor 
enabling us to explain — what would be the real historical 
problem — how or from whom the Hellens acquired that stock 
of dispositions, aptitudes, arts, etc., with which they begin their 
career. Whoever has examined the many conflicting systems 
respecting the Pelasgi, — from the literal belief of Clavier, 
Larcher, and Raoul Eochette, (which appears to me, at least, the 
most consistent way of proceeding,) to the interpretative and 
half-incredulous processes applied by abler men, such as Niebuhr, 
or O. Muller, or Dr. Thirlwall, 1 — will not be displeased with my 

1 Larcher, Chronologie d'Herodote, ch. viii. pp. 215, 274; Raoul Rochette, 
Histoire des Colonies Grecqaes, book i. ch. 5 ; Niebuhr, Romische Geschichte, 
toI. i. pp. 26-64, 2d ed. (the section entitled Die Oenotrer nnd Pelasger); 
O. Muller, Die Etrusker, vol. i. (Einleitung, ch. ii. pp. 75-100) ; Dr. Thirl- 
wall, History of Greece, vol. i. ch. ii. pp. 36-64. The dissentient opinions of 
Kruse and Mannert may be found in Erase, Hellas, vol. i. pp. 398-425 ; 
Mannert, Geographic der Griechen and Romer, part viii. Introduce p. 4, 

Niebuhr pots together all the mythical and genealogical traces, many of 
them in the highest degree vague and equivocal, of the existeuce of Pelasgi 
in various localities ; and then, summing up their cumulative effect, asserts 
/"not at an hypothesis, but with full historical conviction, 1 ' p. 54) "that 
there was a time when the Pelasgians, perhaps the most extended people in 


resolution to decline bo insoluble a problem. No attested facte 
are now present to us — none were present to Herodotus and 
Thucydides, even in their age — on which to build trustworthy 
affirmations respecting the ante-Hellenic Pelasgians. And where 
such is the case, we may without impropriety apply the remark 
of Herodotus, respecting one of the theories which he had heard 
for explaining the inundation of the Nile by a supposed con* 
nection with the circumfluous Ocean, — that "the man who 
carries np his story Into the invisible world, passes out of the 
range of criticism." 1 

As far as our knowledge extends, there were no towns or vil- 
lages called Pelasgian, in Greece proper, since 776 b. c. But 
there still existed in two different '.'aces, even in the age of 
Herodotus, people whom he believed to be Pelasgians. One 
portion of these occupied the towns of Plakia and Sky lake* near 
Kyzikus, on the Propontis ; another dwelt in a town called Kres- 
tdn, near the Thermaic gulf. 9 There were, moreover, certain 
other Pelasgian townships which he does not specify, — it seems, 
indeed, from Thucydides, that there were some little Pelasgian 
townships on the peninsula of Athos. 3 Now, Herodotus acquaints 
us with the remarkable fact, that the people of Krestdn, those of 
Plakia and Skylake, and those of the other unnamed Pelasgian 
townships, all spoke the same language, and each of them re 
ipectively a different language from their neighbors around them* 

all Europe, were spread from the Po and the Arno to the Bhyndakus," (near 
Kyzikus,) with only an interruption in Thrace. What is perhaps the most 
remarkable of all, is the contrast between his feeling of disgust, despair, and 
aversion to the subject, when he begins the inquiry (" the name Pelasgi" he 
•ays, " is odious to the historian, who hates the spurious philology out of which the 
pretences to knowledge on the subject of such extinct people arise? p. 28), and the 
loll confidence and satisfaction with which he concludes it 

1 Herodot ii 23 : 'O <5e nepl rov 'Queavov tlirac, he bfavic rov uv&ov 
tveveUae, oi)K fy" tteyx * 

* That Krestdn is the proper reading in Herodotus, there seems every 
reason to believe — not Kroton, as Dionys. Hal. represents it (Ant Rom. 
L 26) — in spite of the authority of Niebuhr in favor of the latter. 

* Thacyd. iv. 109. Compare the new Fragment* of Strata, lib. vii edited 
from the Vatican MS. by Kramer, and since by Tafel (Tubingen, 1844), 
Itet 84, p. 26,— Qxyoav 61 rffv Xe^dvi^ov TaOrrjv tuv Ik Arfupw UeXacM 
yftr rtvsc, elc wevte 6tnpijfuvoi nolio/tara • KAwdf , 'OAofwfbv, 'A«ft>66o«a 

264 histobt of Greece. 

Ha informs us, moreover, that their language was a barbarous ft. * 
a non-Hellenic) language ; and this fact he quotes as an evidence 
to prove that the ancient Pelasgian language was a barbarous 
language, or distinct from the Hellenic. He at the same time 
states expressly that he has no positive knowledge what language 
the ancient Pelasgians spoke, — one proof, among others, that no 
memorials nor means of distinct information concerning that 
people, could have been open to him. 

This is the one single fact, amidst so many conjectures con- 
cerning the Pelasgians, which we can be said to know upon the 
testimony of a competent and contemporary witness : the few town* 
ships — scattered and inconsiderable, bnt all that Herodotus in his 
day knew as Pelasgian — spoke a barbarous language. And upon 
such a point, he must be regarded as an excellent judge. If, then, 
(infers the historian,) all the early Pelasgians spoke the same 
language as those of Krestdn and Plakia, they must have changed 
their language at the time when they passed into the Hellenie 
aggregate, or became Hellens. Now, Herodotus conceives that 
aggregate to have been gradually enlarged to its great actual size 
by incorporating with itself not only the Pelasgians, but several 
other nations once barbarians ; l the Hellens having been origi- 
nally an inconsiderable people. Among those other nations 
once barbarian, whom Herodotus supposes to have become 
HeDenized, we may probably number the Leleges ; and with 
respect to them, as well as to the Pelasgians, we have contem- 
porary testimony proving the existence of barbarian Leleges in 
later times. Philippus, the Karian historian, attested the pres- 
ent existence, and believed in the past existence, of Leleges 
in his country, as serfs or dependent cultivators under the 
Karians, analogous to the Helots in Laconia, or the Penestae in 
Thesealy.* We may be very sure that there were no Hellens 
— no men speaking the Hellenic tongue — standing in suea a 
relation to the Karians. Among those many barbaric-speaking 

1 Herod. L 57. *po*K*x<*n*° n » «*<V «** &U«* tfvfev fintftpm 

. vL p. 871. +fttinrvf h> r£ irepi Kapdv gal ktlmpm mfipkp 
tan, gmrmUfa ro*r A«wrtqynwrfcw Ettaraf «ot rvir Oifi«*ii»if w mimrn ^ 
to2 K«pif tarn rot; AiAefiv *r oUtnuc »¥«*« iro A« i re « •! Mv. 


i whom Herodotus believed to have changed their language 
and passed into Helkns, we may, therefore, fairly consider the 
Lelcges to have been included. Fcr next to the Pelasgians and 
Pelasgus, the Leleges and Lelex figure most conspicuously in 
the legendary genealogies; and both together cover the larger 
portion of the Hellenic soil. 

Confining myself to historical evidence, and believing that no 
assured results can be derived from the attempt to transform 
legend into history, I accept the statement of Herodotus with 
confidence, as to the barbaric language spoken by the Pelasgians 
of his day ; and I believe the same with regard to the historical 
Leleges, — but without presuming to determine any tiling in 
regard to the legendary Pelasgians and Leleges, the supposed 
ante-Hellenic inhabitants of Greece. And I think this course 
more consonant to the laws of historical inquiry than that which 
comes recommended by the high authority of Dr. Thirlwall, who 
softens and explains away the statement of Herodotus, until it is 
made to mean only that the Pelasgians of Plakia and Krestdn 
spoke a very bad Greek. The affirmation of Herodotus is dis- 
tinct, and twice repeated, that the Pelasgians of these towns, 
and of his own time, spoke a barbaric language ; and that word 
appears to me to admit of but one interpretation. 1 To suppose 

1 Herod. L 57. Hlvriva be yXoaoav leaav ol UeXaayot t obit *x u uTpeiciut 
elnai. el 6e xpeuv hart reKpaipoftevoig Xiyeiv rolat vvv in kovoi HeXaayuv, 

r£n> inrep Tvpoijvuv Kptforuva noXiv oUebvruv koI t%v UXaxtyv re seal 

ZKvXaKrjv UeXaayuv oIkujuvtov tv 'EAXfjowavTip *al baa uXXa TLeXao- 

yutk bbvra irtfucrpara rb obvofia fieri flaXe m el rovrotm del Xiyeiv, foav ol 
UeXaayol fiapfiapov y"kuoaav levnc- £i roiwv ijv koX nav toiovto rb UeXaa- 
yitov, rb 'Attik6i> b&voc, ibv Uekaoyucdv &/ta ry fierafioXy rg kc 'EM.yvaf 
*al rip yXuaaav peTepa&e • Kai yap by aire ol Kpijaruviyrai ovbaftoiat tup 
vOv o+iaiQ vepiouceovrw hoi bfibyXuoaoi, oire ol HXaKiqvoi • ofiot be, 6p6- 
yXuaaoi. bijfovat be, bri rbv r/veUavro yXuaarj^ x a P aKT V P& per a 
(tawovrec e( ravra rd x^P l( h tovtqv Ixovoi tv +vXa*y. 

In the next chapter, Herodotus again calls the Pelasgian nation (3vp 

Respecting this language, heard by Herodotus at Kreston and Plakia, Dx. 
TWriwall obserres (chap. ii. p. 60), " This language Herodotus describes a» 
barbarous, and it is on this fact he grounds his general conclusion as to the 
•jacfant Pelasgian tongue. But he has not entered into any details that 
ssight hare served to ascertain the manner or degree in which it differed 
feosn the Greek. Still, die expressions he uses would have appeared to 

TOL. XI. 1* 


that a man, who, like Herodotus, had heard almost every variety 
of Greek, in the course of his long travels, as well as Egyptian, 

imply that it was essentially foreign, had he not spoken quite as strongly in 
another passage, where it is impossible to ascribe a similar meaning to his 
words. When he is enumerating the dialects that prevailed among the 
Ionian Greeks, he observes that the Ionian cities in Lydia agree not at all in 
their tongue with those of Karia; and he applies the very same term to these 
dialects, which he had before used in speaking of the remains of the Pelaa* 
gian language. This passage affords a measure by which we may estimate 
the force of the word barbarian in the former. Nothing more can be safely 
inferred from it, than that the Pelasgian language which Herodotus heard on 
the Hellespont, and elsewhere, sounded to him a strange jargon ; as did the 
dialect of Ephesus to a Milesian, and as tho Bolognese does to a Florentine. 
This fact leaves its real nature and relation to the Greek quite uncertain - 
and we are the less justified in building on it, as the history of Pelasgian 
settlements is extremely obscure, and the traditions which Herodotus reports 
on that subject have by no means equal weight with statements made from 
his personal observation." (Thirl wall, History of Greece, ch. ii. p. 60, 2d edit) 

In the statement delivered by Herodotus (to which Dr. Thirlwall here 
refers) about the language spoken in the Ionic Greek cities, the historian 
had said (L 142), — Vkwaoav 6h ov ttjv ahr^jv oirqt vevopUaai, aXka Tpoirovf 
reoaepac wapayuyeuv. Miletus, Myus, and Prifine, — to ry Kapiy KaroiKrjv- 
rat Kara rai>ra diaXeyo/ievai <J<pi. Ephesus, Kolophon, etc, — afoot al voXei* 
rfat wporepov "Kex^^yai. dpoXoyeovai Kara yX&aoav oi)6hf % ofl 6e dpofuvi- 
ova i. The Chians and Erythrssans, — Kara ruvrb didteyovraii Xdfiioi 6i 
iir % tuVruv fioivoi. Ovrot x a P aKT VP e C yhwoaris ricrcrepec yiyvovrat. 

The words ytetoow x a P aKT ^P ("distinctive mode of speech ") are common 
to both these passages, but their meaning in the one and in the other is to 
be measured by reference to the subject-matter of which the author is speak- 
ing, as well as to the words which accompany them, — especially the word 
puppapoc in the first passage. Nor can I think (with Dr. Thirlwall) that the 
meaning of pupfiapoc is to be determined by reference to the other two 
words: the reverse is, in my judgment, correct. Bappapoc is a term definite 
and unequivocal, but yhuaoTis x a P aKT %P varies according to the comparison 
which you happen at the moment to be making, and its meaning is here 
determined by its conjunction with fiupfiapoc. 

When Herodotus was speaking of the twelve Ionic cities in Asia, he 
might properly point out the differences of speech among them as so many 
different x a P aKT VP^ yhoooris ■ the limits of difference were fixed -by the 
knowledge which his hearero possessed of the persons about whom he wee 
speaking ; the Ionians being all notoriously Hellens. So an author, describ- 
ing Italy, might say that Bolognese, Romans, Neapolitans, Genoese, etc. had 
different x a P aKT VP e C yteuwiK i it being understood that the difference wee 
such as might subsist among persons ail Italians. 
But there is also a x a P aKT ^IP ytemnit of Greek generally (a 


Phoenician, Assyrian, Lydian, and other languages, did not know 
how to distinguish bad Hellenic from non-Hellenic, is, in mj 
judgment, inadmissible ; at any rate, the supposition is not to bt 
adopted without more cogent evidence than any which is here 

As I do not presume to determine what were the antecedent 
internal elements out of which the Hellenic aggregate was formed, 
•o I confess myself equally uninformed with regard to its external 
constituents. Kadmus, Danaus, Kekrops, — the eponyms of the 
Kadmeians, of the Danaans, and of the Attic Kekropia, — present 
themselves to my vision as creatures of legend, and in that charac- 
ter I have already adverted to them. That there may have been 
very early settlements in continental Greece, from Phoenicia and 
Egypt, is nowise impossible ; but I see neither positive proof, nor 
ground for probable inference, that there were any such, though 
traces of Phoenician settlements in some of the islands may doubt- 
less be pointed out. And if we examine the character and 
aptitudes of Greeks, as compared either with Egyptians or Phoeni- 
cians, it will appear that there is not only no analogy, but an 
obvious and fundamental contrast : the Greek may occasionally 
be found as a borrower from these ultramarine contemporaries, 
but he cannot be looked upon as their offspring or derivative- 
Nor can I bring myself to accept an hypothesis which implies 
(unless we are to regard the supposed foreign emigrants as very 

made of its various dialects and diversities), as contrasted with Persian, 
Phoenician, or Latin, — and of Italian generally, as contrasted with German 
or English. It is this comparison which Herodotus is taking, when he 
describes the language spoken by the people of Kr&tdn and Plakia, and 
Mrhich he notes by the word puppapov as opposed to 'EXXrjvucov : it is with 
reference to this comparison that x a P aKT ^P yAtwtyf , in the fifty-seventh 
chapter, is to be construed. The word PapPapog is the usual and recognized 
antithesis of 'EXtyv, or 'EXXtjvikoc. 

It is not the least remarkable part of the statement of Herodotus, that 
the language spoken at Krest6n and at Plakia was the same, though the 
places were so far apart from each other. This identity of itself shows that 
be meant to speak of a substantive language, not of a " strange jargon." 

I think it, therefore, certain that Herodotus pronounces the Pelasgians of 
his day to speak a substantive language different from Greek ; but wbethet 
differing from it in a greater or less degree (e. g. in the degree of Latin of 
ftf Phcenician), we have no means of deciding. 


few in number, in which case the question loses most of its in* 
portance) that the Hellenic language — the noblest among the 
many yarieties of human speech, and possessing within itself a 
pervading symmetry and organization — is a mere confluence of 
two foreign barbaric languages (Phoenician and Egyptian) with 
two or more internal barbaric languages, — Pelasgian, Lelegian, 
etc In the mode of investigation pursued by different historians 
into this question of early foreign colonies, there is great differ* 
<nce (as in the case of the Pelasgi) between the different authors, 
— from the acquiescent Euemerism of Baoul Rochette to the 
refined distillation of Dr. Thirlwall, in the third chapter of his 
History. It will be found that the amount of positive knowledge 
which Dr. Thirlwall guarantees to his readers in that chapter is 
extremely inconsiderable ; for though he proceeds upon the gene- 
ral theory (different from that which I hold) that historical mat- 
ter may be distinguished and elicited from the legends, yet whan 
the question arises respecting any definite historical result, his 
canon of credibility is too just to permit him to overlook the 
absence of positive evidence, even when all intrinsic incredibility 
is removed. That which I note as Terra Incognita, is in his view 
a land which may be known up to a certain point ; but the map 
which he draws of it contains so few ascertained places as to 
differ very little from absolute vacuity. 

The most ancient district called Hellas is affirmed by Aristotle 
to have been near Ddddna and the river Acheldus, — a description 
which would have been unintelligible (since the river does not 
now near D6dona), if it had not been qualified by the remark, 
that the river had often in former times changed its course. He 
states, moreover, that the deluge of Deukaiion took place chiefly 
in this district, which was in those early days inhabited by the 
Sein, and by the people then called Graeci, but now Hellenes. 1 
The Selli (called by Pindar, Helli) are mentioned in the Iliad as 
the ministers of the Dodonaaan Zeus, — u men who slept en ih*> 
ground, and never washed their feet ;" and Hwiod, in one of tfaf* 
lost poems (the Eoiai), speaks of the fat land and rich pastures 
of the land called Hellopia, wherein Dddona was situated. 9 On 

1 ArfgtoteL Meteorol. i. 14. 

* Homer, Iliad, xri. 234; Hesiod, Fragm. 149, ed. MarktschtttVl ; to 
phokL Trachra. 1174; Strata. viL n. 328, 


what authority Aristotle made his statement, we do not knowi 
bat the general feeling of the Greeks was different, — connecting 
Deukalidn, Hellen, and the Hellenes, primarily and specially 
with the territory called Achaia Phthidtis, between Mount 
Othrys and (Eta. Nor can we either affirm or deny his asser- 
tion that the people in the neighborhood of Dodona were called 
Graeci before they were called Hellenes. There is no ascertained 
instance of the mention of a people called Greed, in any author 
earlier than this Aristotelian treatise ; for the allusions to Alkman 
and Sophokles prove nothing to the point 1 Nor can we explain 
how it came to pass that the Hellenes were known to the Romans 
only under the name of Gfosdci, or GraiL But the name fey which 
a people is known to foreigners is often completely dtfereut from 
its own domestic name, and we are not less at a Joes to assign the 
reason, how the Rasena of Etruria came to be known to the 
Romans by the name of Tuscans, or Etruscans. 



Having in the preceding chapter touched upon the Greeks 
in their aggregate capacity, I now come to describe sepa- 
rately the portions of which this aggregate consisted, as they 
present themselves at the first discernible period of history. 

1 Stephen. Byz. t. I><z/«6f . — TpaUtc <fc naph r£> 'AAx/idw al r&v *EXXfr 
vov fWtpec, Kai irapb Io+okXci h Uoifumv. korl 6k $ pero*vUwp*f, # rft 
Tpal£ eb&eiac k?>Ijic tariv. 

The word rpaiKec, in Alkman, meaning " the mothers of the Hellenes, ' 
may well be only a dialectic variety of ypdef, analogous to kX$Z and Jpvff, 
far Kiel?, hpvis, etc. ( Ahrens, De Dialecto Dorica, sect 11, p. 91 ; and sect 
•1, p. 948), perhaps declined like ywalnec. 

Tie term used by Sophokles, if we may believe Photins, was not Tpaiicbc, 
tat VaiKo? (Photins, p. 480, 15; Dindorf, Fragment Soph. 988: otmparv 
45* < Eustathins (p. 890) seems undecided between the two 


It has already been mentioned that the twelve races or subdi- 
visions, members of what is called the Amphiktyonic convocation, 
were as follows : — 

North of the pass of Thermopylae, — Thessalians, Perrhaebians 
Magnates, Achaeans, Melians, JEnianes, Dolopes. 

South of the pass of Thermopylae, — Dorians, Ionians, Boco- 
.ians, Lokrians, Phokians. 

Other Hellenic races, not comprised among the Amphik 
tyons, were — 

The JEtolians and Akarnanians, north of the gulf of Corinth. 

The Arcadians, Eleians, Pisatans, and Triphylians, in the cen- 
tral and western portion of Peloponnesus : I do not here name 
the Achaeans, who occupied the southern or Peloponnesian coast 
of the Corinthian gulf, because they may be presumed to have 
been originally of the same race as the Phthiot Achaeans, and 
therefore participant in the Amphiktyonic constituency, though 
their actual connection with it may have been disused. 

The Dryopes, an inconsiderable, but seemingly peculiar sub- 
division, who occupied some scattered points on the sea-coast, — 
Hermione" on tho Argolic peninsula; Styrus and Karystus in 
Euboea ; the island of Kythnus, etc. 

Though it may be said, in a general way, that our historical 
discernment of the Hellenic aggregate, apart from the illusions of 
legend, commences with 776 b. c, yet, with regard to the larger 
number of its subdivisions just enumerated, we can hardly be 
said to possess any specific facts anterior to the invasion of 
Xerxes in 480 b. c. Until the year 560 b c, (the epoch of 
Croesus in Asia Minor, and of Peisi stratus at Athens,) the his- 
tory of the Greeks presents hardly anything of a collective 
character : the movements of each portion of the Hellenic world 
begin and end a tart from the rest. The destruction of Kirrha 
by the Amphiktyons is the first historical incident which brings 
into play, in defence of the Delphian temple, a common Hellenic 
feeling of active obligation. 

But about 560 b. c., two important changes are seen to come 
into operation, which alter the character of Grecian history, — 
extricating it out of its former chaos of detail, and centralizing 
its isolated phenomena : 1. The subjugation of the Asiatio 
Greeks by Lydia and by Persia, followed by their struggles for 


emancipation, — wherein the European Greeks became impli- 
cated, first as accessories, and afterwards as principals. 2. The 
combined action of the large mass of Greeks under Sparta, as 
their most powerful state and acknowledged chief, succeeded by 
the rapid and extraordinary growth of Athens, the complete 
development of Grecian maritime power, and the struggle 
between Athens and Sparta for the headship. These two causes, 
though distinct in themselves, must, nevertheless, be regarded as 
working together to a certain degree, — or rather, the second 
grew out of the first. For it was the Persian invasions of 
Greece which first gave birth to a wide-spread alarm and antipa- 
thy among the leading Greeks (we must not call it Pan-Hellenic, 
since more than half of the Amphiktyonic constituency gave 
earth and water to Xerxes) against the barbarians of the East, 
and impressed them with the necessity of joint active operations 
under a leader. The idea of a leadership or hegemony of col 
lective Hellas, as a privilege necessarily vested in some one 
state for common security against the barbarians, thus became 
current, — an idea foreign to the mind of Soldn, or any one of 
the same age. Next, came the miraculous development of 
Athens, and the violent contest between her and Sparta, which 
should be the leader ; the larger portion of Hellas taking side 
with one or the other, and the common quarrel against the Per- 
sian being for the time put out of sight. Athens is put down, 
Sparta acquires the undisputed hegemony, and again the anti- 
barbaric feeling manifests itself, though faintly, in the Asiatic 
expeditions of Agesilaus. But the Spartans, too incompetent 
either to deserve or maintain this exalted position, are over- 
thrown by the Thebans, — themselves not less incompetent, with 
the single exception of Epameinondas. The death of that single 
man extinguishes the pretensions of Thebes to the hegemony, 
and Hellas is left, like the deserted PenelopS in the Odyssey, 
worried by the competition of several suitors, none of whom is 
strong enough to stretch the bow on which the prize depends. 1 
Such a manifestation of force, as well as the trampling down of 

1 Xenophon, Hellen. vii. 5, 27 ; Demosthenes, De Coron. c. 7, p. 23) — 
MXa tic h* &*P lTO S Ka * na P^ tovtoic mal napd roif £AAo<? "YXKyotv ipif ui 


the competing suitors, is reserved, not for any legitimate H*Uenk 
arm, but for a semi-Hellenized 1 Macedonian, "brought op at 
Pella," and making good his encroachments gradually from the 
north of Olympus. The hegemony of Greece thus passes forever 
out of Grecian hands ; but the conqueror finds his interest in 
rekindling the old sentiment under the influence of which k had 
first sprung up. He binds to him the discordant Greeks, by the 
force of their ancient and common antipathy against the Great 
King, until the desolation and sacrilege once committed by 
Xerxes at Athens is avenged by annihilation of the Persian 
empire. And this victorious consummation of Pan-Hellenic 
antipathy, — the dream of Xenophon* and the Ten Thousand 
Greeks after the battle of Kunaxa, — the hope of Jason of 
Pherae, — the exhortation of Isokrates, 3 — the project of Philip, 
and the achievement of Alexander, — while it manifests the 
irresistible might of Hellenic ideas and organization in the then 
existing state of the world, is at the same time the closing scene 
of substantive Grecian life. The citiaen-feelings of Greece 
become afterwards merely secondary forces, subordinate to the 
preponderance of Greek mercenaries under Macedonian order, 
and to the rudest of all native Hellene,— the iEtoliaa mean* 
taineer8. Some few individuals are indeed found, even in the 
third century b. a, worthy of the best times of Hellas, and the 
Achaean confederation of that century is an honorable attempt 
to contend against irresistible difficulties : but en the whole, 
that free, social, and political march, which gives so much 
interest to the earlier centuries, is irrevocably banished lrom 
Greece after the generation of Alexander the Great. 

The foregoing brief sketch will show that, taking the period 
fiom Croesus and Peisistratua down to the generation of Alex- 
ander (560-300 b. c), the phenomena of Hellas generally, and 

1 Demosthen. de Coron. c 21, p. 247. 

• Xenophon, Anabas. iil 2, 25-26. 

* Xenophon, Hellen. vi. 1, 12 j Isocrates, Orat ad Philipp., Orat v. ». 107. 
This dfeeomte of Isokratfs is composed expressly for the purpose of calling 
on Philip to pot himself at the head of united Greece against the Persians 
the Oratio It, called Panegyric*, recommends a combination of all Greeks 
far the same purpose, but under the Hegemony of Athens, putting i 
intestine differences: see Orat. ir. pp. 45*68. 


her relations both foreign and inter-political, admit of being 
grouped together in masses, with continued dependence on one 
or a few predominant circumstances. They may be said to 
constitute a sort of historical epopee, analogous to that which 
Herodotus has constructed out of the wars between Greeks and 
barbarians, from the legends of Id and Eurdpa down to the 
repulse of Xerxes. But when we are called back to the period 
between 776 and 560 b. c, the phenomena brought to our know] 
edge are scanty in number, — exhibiting few common feelings or 
interests, and no tendency towards any one assignable purpose. 
To impart attraction to this first period, so obscure and unprom- 
ising, we shall be compelled to consider it in its relation with the 
second ; partly as a preparation, partly as a contrast. 

Of the extra-Peloponnesian Greeks north of Attica, during 
these two centuries, we know absolutely nothing ; but it will be 
possible to furnish some information respecting the early condi- 
tion and struggles of the great Dorian states in Peloponnesus, 
and respecting the rise of Sparta from the second to the first 
place in the comparative scale of Grecian powers* Athens 
becomes first known to us at the legislation of Drako and the 
attempt of Kyldn (620 B. c.) to make himself despot; and we 
gather some facts concerning the Ionic cities in Euboea and Asia 
Minor, during the century of their chief prosperity, prior to the 
reign and conquests of Croesus. In this way, we shall form to 
ourselves some idea of the growth of Sparta and Athens, — of 
the short-lived and energetic development of the Ionic Greeks, 
— and of the slow working of those causes which tended to 
bring about increased Hellenic intercommunication, — as con- 
trasted with the enlarged range of ambition, the grand Pan* 
Hellenic ideas, the systematized party-antipathies, and the 
intensified action, both abroad and at home, which grew out of 
the contest with Persia. 

There are also two or three remarkable manifestations which 
will require special notice during this first period of Grecian 
history: 1. The great multiplicity of colonies sent fiwth by 
individual cities, and the rise and pr o g ie oo of these several 
colonies ; 2. The num1>er of despots who arose in the various 
Grecian cities ; 3. The lyric poetry; 4 The rudiments of that 

tol. n. 12" 18oc 


which afterwards ripened into moral philosophy, as nuuufested 
in gnomes, or aphorisms, — or the age of the Seven Wise Men. 

But before I proceed to relate those earliest proceedings (un- 
fortunately too few) of the Dorians and Ionians during the his- 
torical period, together with the other matters just alluded to, it 
will be convenient to go over the names and positions of those 
other Grecian states respecting which we have no information 
during these first two centuries. Some idea will thus be formed 
of the less important members of the Hellenic aggregate, pre- 
vious to the time when they will be called into action. We 
begin by the territory north of the pass of Thermopylae, 

Of the different races who dwelt between this celebrated pass 
and the mouth of the river Peneius, by far the most powerful and 
important were the Thessalians. Sometimes, indeed, the whole 
of this area passes under the name of Thessaly, — since nomi- 
nally, though not always really, the power of the Thessalians 
extended over the whole. We know that the Trachinian Hera- 
kleia, founded by the Lacedaemonians in the early years of the 
Peloponnesian war, close at the pass of Thermopylae, was plant- 
ed upon the territory of the Thessalians. 1 But there were also 
within these limits other races, inferior and dependent on the 
Thessalians, yet said to be of more ancient date, and certainly 
not less genuine subdivisions of the Hellenic name. The Perr- 
haebi 2 occupied the northern portion of the territory between the 
lower course of the river Peneius and Mount Olympus. The 
Magnates 3 dwelt along the eastern coast, between Mount Ossa 
and Pelion on one side and the JEgean on the other, compris- 
ing the south-eastern cape and the eastern coast of the gulf of 
Pagasae as far as Idlkos. The Achaeans occupied the territory 
called Phthidtis, extending from near Mount Pindus on the west 
to the gulf of Pagasae on the east, 4 — along the mountain chain 

1 Thucyd. Hi. 93. 0/ Qeaaa?jol h> Awupei 5vtec t&v ravr^ xupiuv, *a* <!>v 
tnl rg yy forffeno (Herakleia), etc. 

■ Herodot. vil 173 ; Strata, ix. pp. 440-441. Herodotus notices the para 
over the chain of Olympus or the Cambnnian mountains by which Xerxes 
and his army passed out of Macedonia into Perrhsshia ; see the description 
of the pass and the neighboring country in Leake, Travels in Northern 
Greece, ch. xxviii. vol. Ui. pp. 338-348 ; compare Iivy, xlii. 53. 

9 BkyUx, Periplus, c 66 ; Herodot vii. 183-188. 

« SkyUx, Peripl. c. 64 ; Strabo, ix. pp. 433-434. Sophokles included the 

Vol. 2 9 


of Othrys with its lateral projections northerly into the rhessa* 
lian plain, and southerly even to its junction with (Eta. The 
three tribes of the Malians dwelt between Achaea Phthiotis and 
Thermopylae, including both Trachin and Herakleia. Westward 
of Achaea Phthi6tis, the lofty region of Pindus or Tymphrestus, 
with its declivities both westward and eastward, was occupied 
by the Dolopes. 

All these five tribes, or subdivisions, — Perrhaebians, Magnetes, 
Achaeans of Phthi6tis, Malians, and Dolopes, together with cer- 
tain Epirotic and Macedonian tribes besides, beyond the boun- 
daries of Pindus and Olympus, — were in a state of irregular 
dependence upon the Thessalians, who occupied the central plain 
or basin drained by the Peneius. That river receives the streams 
from Olympus, from Pindus, and from Othrys, — flowing through 
a region which was supposed by its inhabitants to have been 
once a lake, until Poseidon cut open the defile of Tempe, through 
which the waters found an efflux. In travelling northward from 
Thermopylae, the commencement of this fertile region — the am- 
plest space of land continuously productive which Hellas presents 
— is strikingly marked by the steep rock and ancient fortress of 
Thaumaki ; l from whence the traveller, passing over the moun- 
tains of Achaea Phthiotis and Othrys, sees before him the plains 
and low declivities which reach northward across Thessaly to 
Olympus. A narrow strip of coast — in the interior of the gulf 
of Pagasae, between the Magnetes and the Achaeans, and con- 
taining the towns of Amphanaeum and Pagasae 2 — belonged to 

territory of Trachin in the limits of Phthiotis (Strata, I.e.). Herodotus 
considers Phthiotis as terminating a little north of the river Spercheius 
(vii. 198). 

1 See the description of Thaumaki in Livy, xxxii. 4, and in Dr. Holland's 
Travels, ch. xvii. vol. ii. p. 112, — now Thomoko. 

* Sk/'ax, Peripl. c. 65. Hesychios (v. Hayaairr^ , Kno?Jhjv) seems to 
reckon Pagasss as AchsBan. 

About the towns in Thessaly, and their various positions, see Manned 
Geograph. der Gr. and Romer, part vii. book iii. ch. 8 and 9. 

There was an ancient religious ceremony, celebrated by the Delphians 
•very ninth year (Ennaeteris) : a procession was sent from Delphi to the 
pu» of TempS, consisting of well-born youths under an archi-thedr, who 
represented the proceeding ascribed by an old legend to Apollo ; that god 
nia beHeved to have gone thither to receive expiation after the slaughter of 


this proper territory of Thessaly, but its great expansion waft 
inland : within it were situated the cities of Pherae, Pharsalua, 
Skotussa, Larissa, Krannon, Atrax, Pharkadon, Trikka, Metro- 
polis, Pelinna, etc 

The abundance of com and cattle from the neighboring plains 
sustained in these cities a numerous population, and above all a 
proud and disorderly noblesse, whose manners bore much resem- 
blance to those of the heroic times. They were violent in their 
behavior, eager in armed feud, but unaccustomed to political 
discussion or compromise ; faithless as to obligations, yet at the 
same time generous in their hospitalities, and much given to the 
enjoyments of the table. 1 Breeding the finest horses in Greece, 
they were distinguished for their excellence as cavalry ; but their 
infantry is little noticed, nor do the Thessalian cities seem to 
have possessed that congregation of free and tolerably equal citi 
sens, each master of his own arms, out of whom the ranks of 

the serpent Pytho : at least, this was one among several discrepant legends. 
The chief youth plucked and brought back a branch from the sacred laurel at 
Tempi, as a token that he had fulfilled his mission : he returned by u the 
sacred road," and broke his fast at a place called Aeimnac* near Tjariasa. A 
solemn festival, frequented by a large concourse of people from the sur- 
rounding regions, was celebrated on this occasion at Temp6, in honor of 
Apollo Tempeites ('Airhovvi Teprwrp, in the JEolic dialect of Thessaly : see 
Inscript. in Boeckh, Corp. Ins. No. 1767). The procession was accompanied 
by a flute- player. 

See Plutarch, Qusest Grate, ch. ari. p. 292 ; De Mnstea, ch. xiv. p. 1136, 
JKlian, V. ELiii. 1 : Stephan. Byi. y. Actinuuf. 

It is important to notice these religious processions as establishing inter- 
course and sympathies between the distant members of Hellas: but the 
inferences which 0. Mailer (Dorians, b. it 1, p. 222) would build upon them, 
as to the original seat of the Dorians and the worship of Apollo, are not to 
be trusted. 

1 Plato, Krito, c. 15, p. 53. kicei yap d% nXeiartf ura^ia koi (ucoXaaia (com- 
pare the beginning of the Mendn) — a remark the more striking, since he 
had just before described the Boeotian Thebes as a well-regulated city, 
though both Diksearchus and Polynias represent it in their times as so much 
the contrary. 

See also Demosthen. Olynth. i. c. 9, p. 16, cont Aristokrat c 2f , p. 657; 
Schol. Eurip. Phoeniss. 1466; Theopomp. Fragment 54-178, ed. Didotf 
Aristophanes, Plut 521. 

The march of political affairs in Thessaly is understood from Xa&Offe 
Btfen. vi. I : compare Anabas. L 1, 10, and Thucyd. ir 78. 


hoplites -were constituted, — the warlike nobles, such as the Alan- 
afa at Larissa, or the Skopadae at Krannon, despising everything 
but equestrian service for themselves, furnished, from their ex- 
tensive herds on the plain, horses for the poorer soldiers. These 
The? salian cities exhibit the extreme of turbulent oligarchy, oo« 
casionally trampled down by some one man of great rigor, but 
little tempered by that sense of political communion and rever- 
ence for established law, which was found among the better 
cities of Hellas. Both in Athens and Sparta, so different in 
many respects from each other, this feeling will be found, if not 
indeed constantly predominant, yet constantly present and ope- 
rative. Both of them exhibit a contrast with Larisea or Phene 
not unlike that between Rome and Capua, — the former, with 
her endless civil disputes constitutionally conducted, admitting 
the joint action of parties against a common foe ; the latter, with 
her abundant soil enriching a luxurious oligarchy, and impelled 
according to the feuds of her great proprietors, the Magii, Blossii, 
ind Jubellii. 1 

The Thessalians are, indeed, in their character and capacity 
is much Epirotic or Macedonian as Hellenic, forming a sort of 
'ink between the two. For the Macedonians, though trained in 
Aftertimes upon Grecian principles by the genius of Philip and 
Alexander, so as to constitute the celebrated heavy-armed pha- 
lanx, were originally ^even in the Peloponnesian war) distin- 
guished chiefly for the excellence of their cavalry, like the Thes- 
salians; 9 while the broad-brimmed hat, or kausia, and (the short 
spreading-mantle, or chlamys, were common to both. 

We are told that the Thessalians were originally emigrants 
from Thesprotia in Epirus, and conquerors of the plain of the 
Peneius, which (according to Herodotus) was then called JSoiis, 
and which they found occupied by the Pelasgi. 3 It may be 
doubted whether the great Thessalian families, — such as the 
Aleuada? of Larissa. descendants from HeraklSs, and placed by 

1 See Cicero, Orat in Pison. c. 11 ; De Leg. Agrar. conk RuUnm, e 

• Compare the Thessalian cavalry as described by Polybius, iv. 8, with tat 
Macedonian as described by Thncydides, ii. 100. 

* Uerodot. vii. 176 ; Thucyd i 12. 


Pindar on the same level as the Lacedaemonian kings 1 — wodU 
have admitted this Thesprotian origin ; nor does it coincide with 
the tenor of those legends which make the eponym, Thessalus, 
son of Herakles. Moreover, it is to be remarked that the lan- 
guage of the Thessalians was Hellenic, a variety of the JEoMc 
dialect; 9 the same (so far as we can make out) as that of the 
people whom they must have found settled in the country at 
their first conquest. If then it be true that, at some period ante- 
rior to the commencement of authentic history, a body of Thes- 
protian warriors crossed the passes of Pindus, and established 
themselves as conquerors in Thessaly, we must suppose them to 
have been more warlike than numerous, and to have gradually 
dropped their primitive language. 

In other respects, the condition of the population of Thessaly, 
such as we find it during the historical period, favors the supposi- 
tion of an original mixture of conquerors and conquered : for it 
seems that there was among the Thessalians and their dependents 
a triple gradation, somewhat analogous to that of Laconia. First, 
a class of rich proprietors distributed throughout the principal 
cities, possessing most of the soil, and constituting separate oli- 
garchies, loosely hanging together. 3 Next, the subject Achaeans, 
Magnates, Perrhsebi, differing from the Laconian Perioeki in 
this point, that they retained their ancient tribe-name and sepa- 
rate Amphiktyonic franchise. Thirdly, a class of serfs, or depen- 
dent cultivators, corresponding to the Laconian Helots, who, till- 
ing the lands of the wealthy oligarchs, paid over a proportion of 
its produce, furnished the retainers by which these great fami- 
lies were surrounded, served as their followers in the cavalry, 
and were in a condition of v Manage, — yet with the important 
reserve, that they could not be sold out of the country, 4 that they 

1 Pindar, Pyth. x. init with the Scholia, and the valuable comment of 
Boeckh, in reference to the Aleuadse ; Schneider ad Aristot, Polit y. 5, 9 j 
and the Essay of Buttmann, Von dem Geschlecht dcr Aleaaden, art xxii. 
vol. ii. p. 254, cf the collection called " Mythol >gas." 

9 Ahrens, De Dialect. JEolica, c. 1, 2. 

• See Aristot Polit. ii. 6, 3 ; Thucyd. ii. 99-.00. 

• The words ascribed by Xenophon (Hellcn. vi. 1, 11) to Jason of Phem 
M well M to Theocritus (xvi. 34), attest the numbers and vigor of the The*- 
Milan PenettSB, and the great wealth of the Aleuad® and Skopad». Botfc 
time familws acquired celebrity from the verses of Simonides : he was pa 


bad a permanent tenure in the soil, and that they maintained among 
one another the relations of family and village. This last mention- 
ed order of men, in Thessaly called the Penestss, is assimilated 
by all ancient authors to the Helots of Laconia, and in both cases 
the danger attending such a social arrangement is noticed by 
Plato and Aristotle. For the Helots as well as the Penestse had 
their own common language and mutual sympathies, a separate 
residence, arms, and courage ; to a certain extent, also, they pos- 
sessed the means of acquiring property, since we are told that 
some of the Penes tse were richer than their masters. 1 So many 
means of action, combined with a degraded social position, gave 
rise to frequent revolt and incessant apprehensions. As a general 
rule, indeed, the cultivation of the soil by slaves, or dependents, 
for the benefit of proprietors in the cities, prevailed throughout 
most parts of Greece. The rich men of Thebes, Argos, Athens, 
or Elis, must have derived their incomes in the same manner ; 
but it seems that there was often, in other places, a larger in 
termixture of bought foreign slaves, and also that the number, 
fellow-feeling, and courage of the degraded village population 
was nowhere so great as in Thessaly and Laconia. Now the 
origin of the Penestae, in Thessaly, is ascribed to the conquest oi 

tronized aod his muse invoked by both of them ; see j£lian, V. H. xii. 1 ; 
Ovid, Ibis, 512; Quintilian, xi. 2, 15. Pindar also boasts of his friendship 
with Thorax the Aleuad (Pyth. x. 99). 

The Thessalian uvdpairo6i<TTa1 y alluded to in Aristophanes (Plntus, 521), 
most have sold men out of the country for slaves, — either refractory Penes* 
ts, or Perrhabian, Magnetic, and Achaean freemen, seized by violence : the 
Athenian comic poet Mnesimachns, in jesting on the voracity of the Pharsa- 
lians, exclaims, ap. Athena, x. p. 418 — 

ipd nov 
* 6kt%v KaTe<rfriovoi iroXiv 'A^aftctfv ; 

PagasaB was celebrated as a place of export for slaves (Hermippus ap. 
Athena. L 49). 

Menon of Pharsalus assisted the Athenians against Amphipolis with 200, 
»r 300 w Penestce, on horseback, of his own" — (Ilevcarcuf idiot?) Demos- 
then, irepl 2wrof. c. 9, p. 173, cont Aristokrat c. 51, p. 687. 

1 Archemachos ap. Athena, vi. p. 264 ; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 777 ; Aristot 
Polit ii. 6, 8 ; vii. 9, 9 ; Dionys. Halic. A. R. ii. 84. 

Both Plato and Aristotle insist on the extreme danger of having mime* 
oas slaves, fellow-countrymen and of one language — (dfiopvXot, dpoftwet 
Kat piurai aX)J}7*>v). 


the territory by the Thesprotians, as that of the Helots in L» 
conia is traced to the Dorian conquest The victors in both 
countries are said to have entered into a convention with the 
vanquished population, whereby the latter became serfs and 
tillers of the land for the benefit of the former, but were at the 
same time protected in their holdings, constituted subjects of the 
state, and secured against being sold away as slaves. Even in 
the Thessalian cities, though inhabited in common by Thessalian 
proprietors and their Fenestae, the quarters assigned to each 
were to a great degree separated: what was called the Free 
Agora could not be trodden by any Penest, except when specially 
summoned. 1 

Who the people were, whom the conquest of Thessaly by the 
Thesprotians reduced to this predial villanage, we find differently 
stated. According to Theopompus, they were Perrhaebians and 
Magnates ; according to others, Pelasgians ; while Archemachus 
alleged them to have been Boeotians of the territory of Ante, 9 
— some emigrating, to escape the conquerors, others remaining 
and accepting the condition of serfs. But the conquest, assuming 
it as a fact, occurred at far too early a day to allow of om 
making out either the manner in which it came to pass, or the 
state of things which preceded it The Pelasgians whom 
Herodotus saw at Krestdn are affirmed by him to have been the 
descendants of those who quitted Thessaly to escape 3 the invading 
Thesprotians ; though others held that the Boeotians, driven on 
this occasion from their habitations on the gulf of Pagasae near 
the Achaeans of Phthiotis, precipitated themselves on Orchome- 
nus and Boeotia, and settled in it, expelling the Minyae and 
the Pelasgians. 

1 Aristot. Polit vii. 11, 2. 

'Theopompus and Archemachus pp. 264-26t*. compare 
Thttcyd. ii. 12; Steph. Byz. v. 'Apvq — the converse of this story in Strabo, 
be. pp. 401-411, of the Thessalian Arnfi being settled from Boeotia. Thai 
the villains or Penest* were completely distinct from the circumjacent de- 
pendents, — Achsaans, Magnates, Ferrhsabians, we see by Aristot. Polit. ii. 6, 
8. They had their eponymous hero Penestes, whose descent was traced to 
Thessalas son of Herakles ; they were thus connected with the mythical 
fcther of the nation (Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 1271). 

1 Herodot i. 5": compare vii. 17$. 


Passing over the legends on this subject, and confining our- 
lelves to historical time, we find an established quadruple di\ kion 
of Thessaly, said to have been introduced in the time of Alcua-, 
the ancestor (real or mythical) of the powerful Aleuadae, — 
Thessalidtis, Pelasgidtis, Histiaeotis, Phthiotis. 1 In Phthidtii 
were comprehended the Achseans, whose chief towns were Meli- 
t<ea, Itonus, Thebae, Phthidtides, Alos, Larissa, Kremaste, and 
Pteleon, on or near the western coast of the gulf of Pagasae. 
Histisdtis, to the north of the Peneius, comprised the Perrha> 
bians, with numerous towns strong in situation, but of no great 
size or importance ; they occupied the passes of Olympus' 3 and 
are sometimes considered as extending westward across Pindus. 
Pelasgidtis included the Magnates, together with that which was 
called the Pelasgic plain, bordering on the western side of Pelio:i 
and Ossa. 3 Thessalidtis comprised the central plain of Thessaly 
and the upper course of the river Peneius. This was the political 
classification of the Thessalian power, framed to suit a time 
whep the separate cities were maintained in harmonious action 
by favorable circumstances, or by some energetic individual 
ascendency ; for their union was in general interrupted and dis- 
orderly, and we find certain cities standing aloof while the rest 
went to war. 4 Though a certain political junction, and obliga- 
tions of some kind towards a common authority, were recognized 
in theory by all, and a chief, or Tagus,* was nominated to enforce 

' Hellanikus, Fragm. 28, ed. Didot; Harpocration, v. Terpapx'tai the quad- 
ruple division was older than Hekataras (Steph. By*, v. Kpavvuv). 

Hekatanu connected the Perrhsebians with the genealogy of Mo\ua through 
Tyro, the daughter of Salm6neus: they passed as AloXetc (Hekataeus, Frag 
334, ed. Didot j Stephan. Byz. v. QuXawa and Towot). 

The territory of the city of HUtiaea (in the north part of the island o! 
Eubcea) was also called HistisBotia. The doable occurrence of this name 
(no uncommon thing in aacient Greece) seems to have given rise to the 
statement, that the Perrhsebi had subdued the northern parts of Eubcea, and 
carried over the inhabitants of the Eubcean Histissa captive into the north 
wtst of Thessaly (Strabo, ix. p. 497, x. p. 446). 

•Pliny, H.N.W. 1; Strabo, ix. p. 440. 

* Strabo, ix. p. 443. 

4 Diodor xviii. 11 ; Thncyd. il xs. 

• The Inscription No. 1770 in Boeckh*s Corpus Inscript contains a lettei 
of the Reman consul, Titus Quinctius Flamininua, addressed to the city oJ 


obedience, — yet it frequently happened that the disputes of th« 
cities azfsong themselves prevented the choice of a Tagus, of 
drove him out of the country ; and left the alliance little more 
than nominal. Larissa, Pharsalus,* and Pherse, — each with its 
cluster of dependent towns as adjuncts, — seem to have been 
nearly on a par in strength, and each torn by intestine faction, 
so that not only was the supremacy over common dependents 
relaxed, but even the means of repelling invaders greatly en- 
feebled. The dependence of the Perrhaebians, Magnetes, 
Achaeans, and Malians, might, under these circumstances, be 
often loose and easy. But the condition of the Penestse — who 
occupied the villages belonging to these great cities, in the cen- 
tral plain of Pelasgiotis and Thessalidtis, and from whom the 
AJeuadae and Skopadse derived their exuberance of landed prod- 
uce — was noway mitigated, if it was not even aggravated, by 
such constant factions. Nor were there wanting cases in which 
the discontent of this subject-class was employed by members of 
the native oligarchy, 9 or even by foreign states, for the purpose 
of bringing about political revolutions. 

" When Thessaly is under her Tagus, all the neighboring people 
pay tribute to her ; she can send into the field six thousand cav- 
alry and ten thousand hoplites, or heavy-armed infantry," 3 ob- 
served Jason, despot of Phere, to Polydamas of Pharsalus, in 
endeavoring to prevail on the latter to second his pretensions to 
that dignity. The impost due from the tributaries, seemingly 
considerable, was then realized with arrears, and the duties upon 

Kyretiss (north of Atrax in Perrhsebia). The letter is addressed, KvpeTtiai 
rote rayotf nal rg irotet, — the title of Tagi seems thus to have been given 
to the magistrates of separate Thessalian cities. The Inscriptions of Thau- 
maki (No. 1773-1774) have the title ap^ovrcf, not rayoi. The title raydi 
was peculiar to Thessaly (Pollux, i. 128). 

1 Xenophon, Hellen. vl 1, 9; Diodor. xiv. 82; Thucyd. i. 8. Herod, vii. 
6, calls the Aleuad® QeaaaXlrjc paai^i/ec, 

* Xenophon, Mcmorab. L 2, 24 j Hellenic, ii. 3, 37. The loss of the comedy 
called IldXcic of Eupolis (see Meineke, Fragm. Comicor. Groc p. 513) prob- 
ably prevents ns from understanding the sarcasm of Aristophanes (Veep. 
1263) about the irapanpiopeia of Amynias among the Penesta of Pharsalus ; 
but the incident there alluded to can have nothing to do with the prooee4 
lags of Kritias, touched upon by Xenophon 

1 Xenophon, Hellen. vi. 1, 9-12 


imports at the harbors of the Pagasaean gulf, imposed for the 
benefit of the confederacy, were then enforced with strictness; 
but the observation shows that, while unanimous Thessaly was 
very powerful, her periods of unanimity were only occasional. 1 
Among the nations which thus paid tribute to the fulness of 
Thessalian power, we may number not merely the Perrhaebi, 
Magnetes, and Achaeans of Phthidtis, but also the Malians and 
Dolopes, and various tribes of Epirots extending to the west- 
ward of Pindus.s We may remark that they were all (except 
the Malians) javelin-men, or light-armed troops, not serving in 
rank with the full panoply; a fact which, in Greece, counts as 
presumptive evidence of a lower civilization : the Magnates, too, 
had a peculiar close-fitting mode of dress, probably suited to move- 
ments in a mountainous country. 3 There was even a time whep 
the Thessalian power threatened to extend southward of Ther- 
mopylae, subjugating the Phokians, Dorians, and Lokrians. So 
much were the Phokians alarmed at this danger, that they had 
built a wall across the pass of Thermopylae, for the purpose of 
more easily defending it against Thessalian invaders, who are 
reported to have penetrated more than once into the Phokian 
valleys, and to have sustained some severe defeats. 4 At what 
precise time these events happened, we find no information ; but 
it must have been considerably earlier than the invasion of 
Xerxes, since the defensive wall which had been built at Ther- 
mopylae, by the Phokians, was found by Leonidas in a state of 
ruin. But the Phokians, though they no longer felt the neces- 
sity of keeping up this wall, had not ceased to fear and hate the 
Thessalians, — an antipathy which will be found to manifest 
itself palpably in connection with the Persian invasion. On the 

1 Demosthen. Olynth. i. c. 3, p. 15 ; ii. c. 5. p. 21. The orator had occasion 
to denounce Philip, as having got possession of the public authority of th* 
Thessalian confederation, partly by intrigue, partly by force ; and we thai 
hear of the Xtfiives and the uyopai, which formed the revenue of the con- 

* Xenophon (Hellen. vi. 1, 7) numbers the Mapatcol among these tribal* 
lies along with the Dolopes: the Maraces are named by Pliny (EH ff 
I), also, along with the Dolopes, but we do not know where they dwelt 

* Xenophon, Hellen. vi. 1, 9 ; Pindar, Pyth. iv. 30. 

* Herodot vii. 176; viii. 27-28. 


whole, the resistance of the Phokians was successful, for the 
power of the Thessalians never reached southward of the pass. 1 
It will be recollected that these different ancient races, Per- 
rhaebi, Magnetes, Achaeans, Malians, Dolopes, — thougn tribu- 
taries of the Thessalians, still retained their Amphiktyonic 
franchise, and were considered as legitimate Hellenes : all except 
the Malians are, indeed, mentioned in the Iliad. We shall rarely 
liave occasion to speak much of them in the course of this his- 
t *>ry : they are found siding with Xerxes (chiefly by constraint) 
in his attack of Greece, and almost indifferent in the struggle 
between Sparta and Athens. That the Achseans of Phthidtia 
are a portion of the same race as the Achaeans of Peloponnesus 
it seems reasonable to believe, though we trace no historical 
evidence to authenticate it. Achsea Phthi6tis is the seat of 
Hellen, the patriarch of the entire race, — of the primitive 
Hellas, by some treated as a town, by others as a district of some 
breadth, — and of the great national hero, Achilles. Its con* 
nection with the Peloponnesian Achaeans is not unlike that of 
Doris with the Peloponnesian Dorians. 3 We have, also, to 
notice another ethnical kindred, the date and circumstances of 
which are given to us only in a mythical form, but which seems, 
nevertheless, to be in itself a reality, — that of the Magnates on 
Pelion and Ossa, with the two divisions of Asiatic Magnetes, or 
Magnesia, on Mount Sipylus and Magnesia on the river Marau- 
der. It is said that these two Asiatic homonymous towns were 
founded by migrations of the Thessalian Magnates, a body of 
whom became consecrated to the Delphian god, and chose a new 
abode under his directions. According to one story, these emi- 
grants were warriors, returning from the Siege of Troy ; accord- 
ing to another, they sought fresh seats, to escape from the 
Thesprotian conquerors of Thessaly. There was a third story, 
according to which the Thessalian Magnates themselves were 
represented as colonists 3 from Delphi. Though we can elicit no 

1 The story of invading Thessalians at Keressos, near Leuktra in Boeotia, 
(Paosan ix. 13, 1,) is not at all probable. 

1 One story was, that these Achaeans of Phthia went into Peloponnesai 
with Pelops, and settled in Laconia (Strabo, viii. p. 365). 

• Aristoteles ap. Athena iv. p. 173 Coaon, Narrat. 29, Strubo, xir. p 

(ET\EANS.-jENIANE8. 285 

distinct matter of fact from these legends, we may, nevertheless, 
admit the connection of race between the Thessalian and the 
Asiatic Magnates, as well as the reverential dependence of both, 
manifested in this supposed filiation, on the temple of Delphi 
Of the Magnates in Krete, noticed by Plato as long extinct in 
Dis time, we cannot absolutely verify even the existence. 

Of the Malians, ThucydidSs notices three tribes (ytvtj) a* 
existing in his time, — the Paralii, the Hieres (priests), and the 
Trachinii, or men of Trachin :> it is possible that the second oi 
the two may have been possessors of the sacred spot on which 
the Amphiktyonic meetings were held. The prevalence of the 
hoplites or heavy-armed infantry among the Malians, indicates 
that we are stepping from Thessalian to more southerly Hellenic 
habits : the Malians recognized every man as a qualified citizen, 
who either had served, or was serving, in the ranks with his full 
panoply. 9 Yet the panoply was probably not perfectly suitable 
to the mountainous regions by which they were surrounded ; for, 
at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, the aggressive moun- 
taineers of the neighboring region of (Eta, had so harassed and 

Hoeck (Kreta, b. iii. vol. ii. p. 409) attempts (unsuccessfully, in my judg- 
ment) to reduce these stories into the form of substantial history. 

1 Thucyd.iii. 98. The distinction made by Sky lax (c. 61) and Diodorns 
(xviii. 11) between WjXtelc and Mafcefr — the latter adjoining the former 
on the north — appears inadmissible, though Letronne still defends it (Peo- 
ple de Marcien d'HeYaclee, etc., Paris, 1839, p. 212). 

Instead of TAaXielc, we ought to read Aapielc, as 0. Miiller observes (Do* 
nans, i. 6, p. 48). 

It is remarkable that the important town of Lamia (the modern Zeitmn) 
is not noticed either by Herodotus, Thncydtdea, or Xenophon ; Skylax is 
the first who mentions it. The route of Xerxes towards Thermopyla lay 
along the coast from Alos. 

The Lamieis (assuming that to be the correct reading) occupied the north- 
ern coast of the Maliac gulf, from the north bank of the Sperchetus to the 
town of Echinus ; in which position Dr. Cramer places the Mffceif UapaXf 
— an error, I think (Geography of Greece, vol. i. p. 486). 

It is not improbable that Lamia first acquired importance during the 
course of those events towards the close of the Pek>ponnesiaii war, when the 
LacedsMnonians, in defence of Herakleia, attacked the Achmms of Phthidnt, 
and even expelled the (Btssans for a time from their seats (see Thacyd. tW 
S; Diodor. xtv. TO). 

' Arfctot. Polit iv. 10, 10. 


overwhelmed them in war, that they were forced to throw them 
•elves on the protection of Sparta ; and the establishment of the 
Spartan colony of Herakleia, near Trachin, was the result of 
their urgent application. Of these mountaineers, described under 
the general name of (Etaeans, the principal were the JEnianes, 
(<* Enienes, as they are termed in the Homeric Catalogue, as 
well as by Herodotus), — an ancient Hellenic 1 Amphiktyonic 
race, who are said to have passed through several successive 
migrations in Thessaly and Epirus, but who, in the historical 
times, had their settlement and their chief town, Hypata, in the 
upper valley of the Spercheius, on the northern declivity of 
Mount (Eta. But other tribes were probably also included in 
the name, such as those JEtolian tribes, the Bomians and Kalli- 
ans, whose high and cold abodes approached near to the Maliac 
gulf. It is in this sense that we are to understand the name, as 
comprehending all the predatory tribes along this extensive 
mountain range, when we are told of the damage done by tht 
(Etaeans, both to the Malians on the east, and to the Dorians on 
the south : but there are some cases in which the name (Etaeans 
seems to designate expressly the. -^Enianes, especially when they 
are mentioned as exercising the Amphiktyonic franchise. 9 

The fine soil, abundant moisture, and genial exposure of the 
southern declivities of Othrys, 3 — especially the valley of the 
6percheius, through which river all these waters pass away, and 
which annually gives forth a fertilizing inundation, — present a 
marked contrast with the barren, craggy, and naked masses of 
Mount (Eta, which forms one side of the pass of Thermopylae. 
Southward of the pass, the Lokrians, Phpkians, and Dorians, 
occupied the mountains and passes between Thessaly and B030- 

1 Plutarch, Question. Graec p. 294. 

* ThucycL iii. 92-97 ; viii. 3. Xenoph. Hellen. i. 2, 18 ; in another passage 
Xenophon expressly distinguishes the (Etasi and the -ZEnianes (Hellen. iii 
S, 6). Diodor. xir. 38. JEschines, De Fals. Leg. c 44, p. 290. 

1 About the fertility as well as the beauty of this valley, see Dr. Holland's 
Travels, ch. xvii vol. ii. p. 108, and Forchhammer (Hellenika, Griechenland, 
fan Neuen das Alte, Berlin, 1837). I do not concur with the latter in his 
attempts to resolve the mythes of H&rakles, Achilles, and others, into physi- 
cal phenomena ; but his descriptions of local scenery and attributes are i 
livid and masterly. 


da. The coast opposite to the western side of Euboea, from the 
neighborhood of Thermopylae, as far as the Boeotian frontier at 
Antheddn, was possessed by the Lokrians, whose northern fron 
tier town, Alpeni, was conterminous with the Malians. There 
was, however, one narrow strip of Phokis — the town of Daph- 
nus, where the Phokians also touched the Eubcean sea — which 
broke this continuity, and divided the Lokrians into two sections, 
— Lokrians of Mount Kngmis, or Epiknemidian Lokrians, and 
Lokrians of Opus, or Opuntian Lokrians. The mountain called 
Knemis, running southward parallel to the coast from the end 
of CEta, divided the former section from the inland Phokians 
and the upper valley of the Kephisus : farther southward, joining 
continuously with Mount Ptdon by means of an intervening 
mountain which is now called Chlomo, it separated the Lokrians 
of Opus from the territories of Orchomenus, Thebes, and Anth§- 
ddn, the north-eastern portions of Boeotia. Besides these two 
sections of the Lokrian name, there was also a third, completely 
separate, and said to have been colonized out from Opus, — the 
Lokrians surnamed Ozolae, — who dwelt apart on the western 
side of Phokis, along the northern coast of the Corinthian gulf 
They reached from Amphissa — which overhung the plain of 
Krissa, and stood within seven miles of Delphi — to Naupaktus, 
near the narrow entrance of the gulf; which latter town was 
taken from these Lokrians by the Athenians, a little before the 
Peloponnesian war. Opus prided itself on being the mother-city 
of the Lokrian name, and the legends of Deukalidn and Pyrrha 
found a home there as well as in Phthidtis. Alpeni, Nikaea, 
rhronium, and Skarpheia, were towns, ancient but unimportant, 
of the Epiknemidian Lokrians ; but the whole length of this 
Lokrian coast is celebrated for its beauty and fertility, both by 
indent and modern observers. 1 

1 Strabo, ix. p. 425 ; Forchhammer, Hellenika, pp. 11-12. Kynus is some- 
limes spoken of as the harbor of Opas, bat it was a city of itself as old as 
the Homeric Catalogue, and of some moment in the later wars of Greece, 
irhen military position came to be more varied than legendary celebrity 
(Livy, xxTiii. 6; Pansan. x. 1, 1 ; Skylax, c. 61-62) ; the latter counts Thro* 
ninm and Knemis or Knemides as being Phokian, not Lokrian ; which they 
were for a short time, dnring the prosperity of the Phokians, at the beginning 
of the Sacred War, though not permanently (iEschin. Fals. Legat. c. 42. d 


The Phokian* were bounded on the north by the little tent 
lories called Doris and Dryopia, which separated them from the 
Maliana,— on the north-east, east, and south-west, by the dif- 
ferent branches of Lokrians, — and on the south-east, by the 
Boeotians. They touched the Eubosan sea, (as has been men- 
tioned) at Daphnus, the point where it approaches nearest to 
their chief town, Elateia ; their territory also comprised most part 
of the lofty and bleak range of Parnassus, as far as its southerly 
termination, where a lower portion of it, called Kirphis, pro- 
jects into the Corinthian gulf, between the two bays of An- 
tikyra and Krissa; the latter, with its once fertile plain, lay 
immediately under the sacred rock of the Delphian Apollo. 
Both Delphi and Krissa originally belonged to the Phokian 
race, but the sanctity of the temple, together with Lacedemonian 
aid, enabled the Delphians to set up for themselves, disavowing 
their connection with the Phokian brotherhood. Territorially 
speaking, the most valuable part of Phokis 1 consisted in the 
valley of the river Kephisus, which takes its rise from Parnassus, 
not far from the Phokian town of Lilaea, passes between (Eta 
and Knfcmis on one side, and Parnassus on the other, and enters 
Bosotia near Chseroneia, discharging itself into the lake Kdpais. 
It was on the projecting mountain ledges and rooks on each side 
jf this river, that the numerous little Phokian towns were situ- 
ated. Twenty-two of them were destroyed and broken up into 
villages by the Amphiktyonic order, after the second Sacred 
War ; Abe (one of the few, if not the only one, that was spared) 
being protected by the sanctity of its temple and oracle. Of 
these cities, the most important was Elateia, situated on the left 
bank of the Kephisus, and on the road from Lokxis into Phokis, in 
the natural march of an army from Thermopylae into Boeolia. 
The Phokian towns 9 were embodied in an ancient confederacy, 

46). This Mires as one presumption about the age of the Periplna of Sky- 
lax (see the notes of Klausen ad Skyi. p. 269). These Lokrian towns lay 
along the important road from Thermopylae to Elateia and Bosotia (Paosan 
fiL 15, 2; Liry, xxxiii. 3) 

1 Paaaan. x. 33, 4. 

•Pnasan. x. 5, 1; Demosth. Fate. Leg. c 29-98; Dfodor. xvL 6% with 
to note of Wesscling 

Hie tenth book of Paosanias, thoagh the larger half of it is devote* ts 


which held its periodical meetings at a temple between Daulis 
and Delphi. 

The little territory called Doris and Dryopis, occupied the 
southern declivity of Mount CEta, dividing Phokis on the north 
an 1 north-west, from the JEtolians, jEnianes, and Malians. That 
which was called Doris in the historical times, and which 
reached, in the time of Herodotus, nearly as far eastward as the 
Maliac gulf, is said to have formed a part of what had been once 
called t>ryopis ; a territory which had comprised the summit of 
CEta as far as the Spercheius, northward, and which had been 
inhabited by an old Hellenic tribe called Dryopes. The Dorians 
acquired their settlement in Dryopis by gift from H&rakles, who> 
along with the Malians (so ran the legend), had expelled the 
Dryopes, and compelled them to find for themselves new seats 
at Hermiong, and Asine, in the Argolic peninsula of Pelopon- 
nesus, — at Styra and Karystus in Euboea, — and in the island 
of Kythnus j 1 it is only in these five last-mentioned places, that 
history recognizes them. The territory of Doris was distributed 
into four little townships, — Pindus, or Akyphas, Bceon, Kytinion, 
and Erineon, — each of which seems to have occupied a separate 
valley belonging to one of the feeders of the river Kephisus, — 
the only narrow spaces of cultivated ground which this " small 
and sad " region presented. 9 In itself, this tetrapolis is so insig- 
nificant, that we shall rarely find occasion to mention it ; but it 
acquired a factitious consequence by being regarded as the me- 
tropolis of the great Dorian cities in Peloponnesus, and receiving 
on that ground special protection from Sparta. I do not here 
touch upon that string of ante-historical migrations — stated by 

Delphi, tells us ail that we know respecting the less important towns of 
Phokis. Compare also Dr. Cramer's Geography of Greece, vol. ii. sect. 10; 
and Leake's Travels in Northern Greece, vol. ii. ch. 13. 

Two funeral monuments of the Phokian hero Schedius (who commands 
the Phokian troops before Troy, and is slain in the Iliad) marked the two 
extremities of Phokis, — one at Daphnus on the Eubcean sea, the other at 
Autikyra on the Corinthian gulf (Strabo, ix. p. 425 ; Pausan. x. 36, 4). 

1 Herodot viii. 81, 43, 46 ; Diodor. iv. 57 ; Aristot ap. Strabo, viii. p. 373. 

0. Mtiller (History of the Dorians, book L ch. ii.) has given all that can 
be known about Doris and Dryopis, together with some matters which appeal 
to me very inadequately authenticated. 

* UoXetg fi'Kpal Kal "kvnpoxuooij Strabo, lx. p. 427 

tol. n *• 19oc 


Herodotus, and illustrated by the ingenuity as well as deoo. ated 
by the fancy of 0. Muller — through which the Dorians are 
affiliated with the patriarch of the Hellenic race, — moving 
originally out of Phthidtis to Histiaedtis, then to Pindus, and 
lastly to Doris. The residence of Dorians in Doris, is a fact 
which meets us at the commencement of history, like that o£ the 
Thokians and Lokrians in their respective territories. 

We next pass to the JEtolians, whose extreme tribes covered 
the bleak heights of (Eta and Korax, reaching almost within 
sight of the Maliac gulf, where they bordered on the Dorians and 
Malians, — while their central and western tribes stretched along 
the frontier of the Ozolian Lokrians to the flat plain, abundant in 
marsh and lake, near the mouth of the Euenus. Jn the time of 
Herodotus and Thucydides, they do not seem to have extended 
so far westward as the Achelous ; but in later times, this latter 
river, throughout the greater part of its lower course, divided 
them from the Akamanians r 1 on the north, they touched upon 
the Dolopians, and upon a parallel of latitude nearly as far north 
as Ambrakia. There were three great divisions of the iEtolian 
name, — the Apoddti, Ophioneis, and Eury tanes, — each of which 
was subdivided into several different village tribes. The north- 
ern and eastern portion of the territory 2 consisted of very high 
mountain ranges, and even in the southern portion, the mountains 
&rakynthus, Kurion, Chalkis, Taphiassus, are found at no great 
distance from the sea ; while the chief towns in -3£tolia, Kalyddn, 
Pleuron, Chalkis, — seem to have been situated eastward of the 
Euenus, between the last-mentioned mountains and the sea. 9 
The first two towns have been greatly ennobled in legend, but 

' Herod, vii. 126; Thucyd. ii. 102. 

* JSec the difficult journey of Fiedler from Wrachori northward by Karpe- 
nitz, and then across the north-western portion of the mountains of the an- 
cient Eury tanes (the southern continuation of Mount Tymphr&stus and (Eta), 
into the upper valley of the Spercheius (Fiedler's Reise in Griechenland, voL 
i. pp. 177-191 ), a part of the longer journey from Missolonghi to Zeitun. 

Skylax (c. 35) reckons ^Etolia as extending inland as far as the bounda- 
ries of the JEnianes on the Spercheius — which is quite correct — JEtoYn 
Epiktltus — fi^xpt Tf/c Oiraiac, Strabo, x. p. 450. 

• Strabo, x. pp. 459-460. There is, however, great uncertainty about dw 
position of these ancient towns : compare Kruss, Hellas, vol. iii. ch. xi. pp 
1*5-255, and Brandst&ter, Geschichte des JEtolischen Landes, pp. 121-184. 


are little named in history ; while, on the contrary, Thermus, the 
chief town of the historical JEtolians, and the place where the 
aggregate meeting and festival of the JEtolian name, for the 
choice of a Pan-JEtolic general, was convoked, is not noticed by 
any one earlier than Ephorus. 1 It was partly legendary renown, 
partly ethnical kindred (publicly acknowledged on both sides) with 
the Eleians in Peloponnesus, which authenticated the title of the 
JEtolians to rank as Hellens. But the great mass of the Apodoti, 
Eurytanes, and Ophioneis in the inland mountains, were so rude 
in their manners, and so unintelligible 9 in their speech (which, 
however, was not barbaric, but very bad Hellenic,) that this title 
might well seem disputable, — in point of fact it was disputed, in 
later times, when the i£tolian power and depredations had 
become obnoxious nearly to all Greece. And it is, probably, to 
this difference of manners between the jEtolians on the sea-coast 
and those in the interior, that we are to trace a geographical 
division mentioned by Strabo, into ancient iEtolia, and iEtolia 
Epiktetus, or acquired. When or by whom this division was 
introduced, we do not know. It cannot be founded upon any 
conquest, for the inland JEtolians were the most unconquerable 
of mankind : and the affirmation which Ephorus applied to the 
whole JEtolian race, — that it had never been reduced to sub- 
jection by any one, — is, most of all, beyond dispute concerning 
the inland portion of it. 3 

Adjoining the Italians were the Akarnanians, the western- 
most of extra-Peloponnesian Greeks. They extended to the 
Ionian sea, and seem, in the time of Thucydid€s, to have occupied 

1 Ephorus, Fragm. 29, Marx. ap. Strabo, p. 463. The situation of Ther- 
mus, " the acropolis as it were of all .AStolia," and placed on a spot almost 
unapproachable by an army, is to a certain extent, though not wholly, capa- 
ble of being determined by the description which Poly bi us gives of the rapid 
march of Philip and the Macedonian army to surprise it The maps, both 
of Kruse and Kiepert, place it too mnch on the north of the lake Trichoma t 
the map of Fiedler notes it, more correctly, to the east of that lake (Polyb 
". 7-8 ; compare Brandstftter, Geschichte des Mto\, Landes, p. 133). 

x Thucyd. iii. 102. — AyvoxTroraroi Si yXCxroav elai, not bpfyayoi &c Xi 
yovrat. It seems that Thucydides had not himself seen or converses! 
with them, bnt he does not call them fiappapoi. 

* Ephorus, Fragment 29, ed. Marx. ; Skymn. Chilis, v. 471 ; Strata, z. p 


both banks of the river Acheldus, in the lower part of its con ne, 
— though the left bank appears afterwards as belonging to the 
JEtolians, so that the river came to constitute the boundary, often 
disputed and decided by arms, between them. The principal 
Akarnanian towns, Stratus and CEniadse, were both on the right 
bank ; the latter on the marshy and overflowed land near ks 
mouth. Near the Akamanians, towards the gulf of Ambrakia, 
were found barbarian, or non-Hellenic nations, — the Agneans 
and the Amphilochians : in the midst of the latter, on the shores 
of the Ambrakian gulf, the Greek colony, called Argos Amphi- 
lochicum, was established. 

Of the five Hellenic subdivisions now enumerated, — Lo- 
krians, Phokians, Dorians (of Doris), <32tolians,and Akamanians 
(of whom Lokrians, Phokians, and ^Etolians are comprised in 
the Homeric catalogue), — we have to say the same as of those 
north of Thermopylae : there is no information respecting them 
from the commencement of the historical period down to the 
Persian war. Even that important event brings into action only 
the Lokrians of the Eubcean sea, the Phokians, and the Dorians : 
we have to wait until near the Peloponnesian war, before we 
require information respecting the Ozolian Lokrians, the JEto- 
lians, and the Akamanians. These last three were unquestionably 
the most backward members of the Hellenic aggregate. Though 
not absolutely without a central town, they lived dispersed in 
villages, retiring, when attacked, to inaccessible heights, perpetu- 
ally armed and in readiness for aggression and plunder wherevei 
they found an opportunity. 1 Very different was the condition of 
the Lokrians opposite Euboea, the Phokians, and the Dorians. 
These were all orderly town communities, small, indeed, and 
poor, but not less well administered than the average of Grecian 
townships, and perhaps exempt from those individual violences 
which so frequently troubled the Boeotian Thebes or the great 
cities of Thessaly. Timaeus affirmed (contrary, as it seems, to 
the supposition of Aristotle) that, in early times, there were no 

1 IhucyiL L 6; iii. 94. Aristotle, however, included, in his large collection 
of U.oXireiai % an 'A/capvavw HoXirtia as well as an AiruZuv UeXirei* 
(Artetotelifl Roram Publicaram Reliqiiae, ed. Neumann, p. 102; Strabo vfi 

r 391). 


, slaves either among the Lokrians or Phokians, and that the 
work required to be done for proprietors was performed by poor 
freemen ; l a habit which is alleged to hare been continued until 
the temporary prosperity of the second Sacred War, when the 
plunder of the Delphian temple so greatly enriched the Pho- 
kian leaden. But this statement is too briefly given, and too 
imperfectly authenticated, to justify any inferences. 

We find in the poet Alkman (about 610 b. a), the Erysi- 
chsean, or Ealydonian shepherd, named as a type of rude rus- 
ticity, — the antithesis of Sardis, where the poet was born. 9 
And among the suitors who are represented as coming forwari 
to claim the daughter of the SikyonianKLeisthenes in marriage, 
there appears both the Thessalian Diaktorides from Krannon, a 
member of the Skopad family, — and the iEtolian Maids, brother 
of that Titormus who in muscular strength surpassed all his con- 
temporary Greeks, and who had seceded from mankind into the 
inmost recesses of iBtolia: this jEtolian seems to be set forth as 
a sort of antithesis to the delicate Smindyridds of Sybaris, the 
most luxurious of mankind. Herodotus introduces these charac- 
frs into his dramatic picture of this memorable wedding. 3 

Between Phokis and Lokris on one side, and Attica (from 
which it is divided by the mountains Kithserdn and Parn&s) on 
the other, we find the important territory called Bceotia, with it? 
ten or twelve autonomous cities, forming a sort of confederacy 
under the presidency of Thebes, the most powerful among them. 
Even of this territory, destined during the second period of this 
history, to play a part so conspicuous and effective, we know 
nothing during the first two centuries after 776 b. o. We first 
acquire some insight into it, on occasion of the disputes between 
Thebes and Plataea, about the year 520 b. c. Orchomenus, on 
the north-west of the lake Kopai's, forms throughout the histori- 
cal times one of the cities of the Boeotian league, seemingly the 
second after Thebes. But I have already stated that the Orcho- 

1 Timssus, Fragm. xvii ed. Go Her; Polyb. xii 6-7; Athensras, vi p 

* Thk brief fragment of the Tlap&eveia of Alkman Is preserved by Ste 
pan*. By*. ('Eptwfrf), and alluded to by Strata, x. p. 460 : see Welrkat 
alkm. Pragm. xi. and Bergk, Alk. Fr. xii . 

'Heradot vi. 137. 


menian legends, the Catalogue, and other allusions in Homer, and 
the traces of past power and importance yet visible in the his- 
torical age, attest the early political existence of Orchomenus 
and its neighborhood apart from Boeotia. 1 The Amphiktyony in 
which Orchomenus participated, at the holy island of Kalauria 
near the Argolic peninsula, seems to show that it must once have 
possessed a naval force and commerce, and that its territory must 
have touched the sea at Halae and the lower town of Larymna, 
near the southern frontier of Lokris ; this sea is separated by a 
very narrow space from the range of mountains which join Knemis 
and Ptdon, and which inclose on the east both the basin of Orcho- 
menus, Aspledon, and Kopse, and the lake Kdpais. The migration 
of the Boeotians out of Thessaly into Boeotia (which is repre- 
sented as a consequence of the conquest of the former country by 
the Thesprotians) is commonly assigned as the compulsory force 
which Boeotized Orchomenus. By whatever cause, or at what- 
ever time (whether before or afW 776 b. c.) the transition may 
have been effected, we find Orchomenus completely Boeotian 
throughout the known historical age, — yet still retaining its local 
Minyeian legends, and subject to the jealous rivalry 9 of Thebes, 
as being the second city in the Boeotian league. The direct road 
from the passes of Phokis southward into Boeotia went through 
Chaeroneia, leaving Lebadeia on the right, and Orchomenus on 
the left hand, and passed the south-western edge of the lake 

1 See an admirable topographical description of the north part of Boeotia, 
— the lake Kdpais and its environs, in Forchhammer's Hellenika, pp. 159- 
186, with an explanatory map. The two long and laborious tunnels con- 
structed by the old Orchomenians for the drainage of the lake, as an aid to 
the insufficiency of the natural Katabothra, are there very clearly laid down : 
one goes to the sea, the other into the neighboring lake Hylika, which is 
surrounded by high rocky banks and can take more water without overflow- 
ing. The lake Kopafs is an inclosed basin, receiving all the water from 
Doris and Phokis through the Eephisus. A copy of Forchhammer's map 
will be found at the end of the present volume. 

Forchhammer thinks that it was nothing but the similarity of the name 
Itonea (derived from Iria^ a willow-tree) which gave rise to the tale of as 
emigration of people from the Thessalian to the Boeotian Itone 1 (p. 148). 

The Homeric Catalogue presents Kopae, on the north of the lake, as Bow 
nan, bat not Orchomenus nor Aspl6d6n (Iliad, ii. 502). 

9 Bee O. Mfiller, Orchnmenos, cap. xx. p. 418, mq. 


Kopais near the towns of Koroneia, Alalkomenae, and Haliarlu**, 
— all situated on the mountain Tilphdssion, an outlying ridge 
connected with Helicon by the intervention of Mount Leibe 
thrius. The Tilphossseon was an important military post, com- 
manding that narrow pass between the mountain and the lake 
which lay in the great road from Phjkis to Thebes. 1 The ter- 
ritory of this latter city occupied the greater part of central 
Boeotia, south of the lake K6pai's ; it comprehended Akraephia 
and Mount Ptdon, and probably touched the Eubcean sea at the 
village of Salganeus south of Antheddn. South-west of Thebes, 
occupying the southern descent of lofty Helicon towards the 
inmost corner of the Corinthian gulf, and bordering on the south- 
eastern extremity of Phokis with the Phokian town of Bulis, 
stood the city of Thespiae. Southward of the Asdpus, between 
that river and Mount Kithaeron, were Platsea and Tanagra ; in 
the south-eastern corner of Boeotia stood Oropus, the frequent 
subject of contention between Thebes and Athens ; and in the 
road between the Eubcean Chalkis and Thebes, the town of 

From our first view of historical Boeotia downward, there 
appears a confederation which embraces the whole territory: 
and during the Peloponnesian war, the Thebans invoke " the 
ancient constitutional maxims of the Boeotians " as a justification 
of extreme rigor, as well as of treacherous breach of the peace, 
against the recusant Platteans. 2 Of this confederation, the 
greater cities were primary members, while the lesser were 
attached to one or other of them in a kind of dependent union. 
Neither the names nor the number of these primary members 
can be certainly known: there seem grounds for including 
Thebes, Orchomenus, Lebadeia, Kordneia, Haliartus, Kopse, 
Antheddn, Tanagra, Thespiae, and Plataea before its secession. 3 

1 See Demosthen. De Fals. Legat. c. 43-45. Another portion of this nar- 
row road is probably meant by the pass of Koroneia — rd irepl Kopuvctav 
arevH (Diodor. xv. 52*, Xenoph. Hellen. iv. 3, 15) — which Epameinondas 
occupied to prevent the invasion of Kleombrotus from Phokis. 

1 Thncyd. ii. 2 — icard. t& iraTpia rdv iravruv Bolwtuv : compare the 
speech of the Thebans to the Lacedaemonians after the rapture of PlaUea, 
O. 61, 65, 66. 

1 Thncyd. iv. 91 ; C. F. Hermann, Griechischo Staats Alterthumer, feci 


Aknephia, with the neighboring Mount Ptoon and its oracle, 
Skdlus, Glisas, and other places, were dependencies of Thebes: 
Ch&roneia, Aspledon, Holmdnes, and Hyettus, of Orchomenus : 
Siphs, Leuktra, Ker&sus, and Thisbe, of Theepiie. 1 Certain 
generals or magistrates, called Boeobirchs, were chosen annually 
to manage the common affairs of the confederation. At the time 
of the battle of Delium in the Peloponnesian war, they were 
eleven in number, two of them from Thebes ; but whether this 
number was always maintained, or in what proportions the choice 
was made by the different cities, we find no distinct information. 
There were likewise, during the Peloponnesian war, four different 
senates, with whom the Boeotarchs consulted on matters of im- 
portance ; a curious arrangement, of which we have no explana- 
tion. Lastly, there was the general concilium and religious 
festival, — the Pamboeotia, — held periodically at Kordneia. Such 
were the forms, as far as we can make them out, of the Boeotian 
confederacy ; each of the separate cities possessing its own senate 
and constitution, and having its political consciousness as an 
autonomous unit, yet with a certain habitual deference to the fed- 
eral obligations. Substantially, the affairs of the confederation 
will be found in the hands of Thebes, managed in the interests 
of Theban ascendency, which appears to have been sustained by 
no other feeling except respect for superior force and bravery. 
The discontents of the minor Boeotian towns, harshly repressed 
and punished, form an uninviting chapter in Grecian history. 

One piece of information we find, respecting Thebes singly and 
apart from the other Boeotian towns anterior to the year 700 B. o. 
Though brief, and incompletely recorded, it is yet highly valuable} 
as one of the first incidents of solid and positive Grecian history. 
Diokles, the Corinthian, stands enrolled as Olympic victor in the 
13th Olympiad, or 728 b. a, at a time when the oligarchy called 
Bacchiadae possessed the government of Corinth. The beauty 
of his person attracted towards him the attachment of Philolaus, 
one of the members of this oligarchical body, — a 

!79: Herodot ▼. 79; Boeckh, Commentat. ad Inacript. Boeoac. ap. Corp. 
Ins. Gr. part v. p. 726. 

1 Herodot viii. 135 ; ix. 15-43. Pansan ix. 13, 1 ; ix. S3, 3; ix. 34, 3 
lx. 32, 1-4. Xenophon, Heilen. vi. 4,3-4: compare 0. Mttllar, 
boa, eaa. xx. p. 403 


which Grecian mannera did not proscribe ; bat it also proroked 
an incestuous passion on the part of his own mother, Halcjone, 
from which Dioklds shrank with hatred and horror. He aban- 
doned forever his native city and retired to Thebes, whither he 
was followed by Philolaus, and where both of them lived and 
died. Their tombs were jet shown in the time of Aristotle, 
close adjoining to each other, jet with an opposite frontage; that 
df Philolaus being so placed that the inmate could command a 
view of the lofty peak of his native city, while that of Dickies 
was so disposed as to block out all prospect of the hateful spot 
That which preserves to us the memory of so remarkable an 
incident, is, the esteem entertained for Philolaus by the Thebant, 
— a feeling so profound, tlfat they invited him to make laws for 
them. We shall have occasion to point out one or two similax 
cases, in which Grecian cities invoked the aid of an intelligent 
stranger ; and the practice became common, among the Italian 
republics in the Middle Ages, to nominate a person not belonging 
to their city either as podesta or as arbitrator in civil dissensions. 
It would have been highly interesting to know, at length, what 
laws Philolaus made for the Thebans ; but Aristotle, with his 
usual conciseness, merely alludes to his regulations respecting the 
adoption of children and respecting the multiplication of offspring 
in each separate family. His laws were framed with the view 
to maintain the original number of lots of land, without either 
subdivision or consolidation ; but by what mean3 the purpose was 
to be fulfilled we are not informed. 1 There existed a law at 

1 Aristot. Polit. ii. 9, 6-7. Hofio&eTTjc <*' airolc (to the Thebans) lyiviro 
♦tA<Waof irepi r' aXkuv rivov koI irepl rye ircudoirouac, oi>( koXovolv laelvoi 
V&/I0VC QertKobc * koI to$t j iarlv iS'iv? far' imeivov vevofioderrjftfvov, &nuc 6 
aptdfibf oobirai tuv KXrjpuv, A perplexing passage fellows within three 
lines of this, — QtXoXaov 6h Idtov i<mv 7 row oitrt&v ivo/uiXooic, — which 
raises two questions : first, whether Philolaus can really be meant in the 
second passage, which talks of what is Idtov to Philolaus, while the first pas- 
sage had already spoken of something idioc vcvofioQerqiievr" by the same 
person. Accordingly, Gottling and M. Barthelemy St. Hnatie follow om 
of the M88. by writing tdteov m place of iiXoXaov. Next* what is tat 
Meaning of dvopaXooic ? 0- Miiller (Dorians, ch. x. fl, p. 909) considers il 
to mean a " fresh equalization, just as avadao/tbf means a fresh division," 
adopting the translation of Victorias and Schldsser. 

The point can hardly be decisively settled-, bat if this translation of d» 


Thebes, which perhaps may have been part of the scheme of 
Philolaus, prohibiting exposure of children, and empowering a 
father, under the pressure of extreme poverty, to bring his new- 
bom infant to the magistrates, who sold it for a price to any 
citizen-purchaser, — taking from him the obligation to bring it 
up, but allowing him in return, to consider the adult as his slave. 1 
From these brief allusions, coming to us without accompanying 
illustration, we can draw no other inference, except that the great 
problem of population — the relation between the well-being of 
the citizens and their more or less rapid increase in numbers- 
had engaged the serious attention even of the earliest Grecian 
legislators. We may, however, observe that the old Corinthian 
legislator, Pheiddn, (whose precise date cannot be fixed) is stated 
by Aristotle, 2 to have contemplated much the same object as that 
which is ascribed to Philolaus at Thebes; an unchangeable num- 
ber both of citizens and of lots of land, without any attempt to 
alter the unequal ratio of the lots, one to the other. 



We now pass from the northern members to the heart and 
head of Greece, — Peloponnesus and Attica, taking the former' 
first in order, and giving as much as can be ascertained re- 
specting its early historical phenomena. 

The traveller who entered Peloponnesus from Boeotia during 
the youthful days of Herodotus and Thucydides, found an array 

uatuaic be correct, there is good ground for preferring the word QaXeov to 
ttXoXaav ; since the proceeding described wonld harmonize better with the 
Ideas of Phaleas (Aristot PoL ii. 4, 3). 

1 jElian, V. H. ii. 7. 

• Aristot Polit ii. 3, 7. This Pheiddn seems different from Pheiddn of 
Argos, as far as we are enabled to judge- 


j£ powerful Doric cities conterminous to each other, and begin 
ling at the isthmus of Corinth. First came Megara, stretching 
across the isthmus from sea to sea, and occupying the high and 
rugged mountain-ridge called Geraneia; next Corinth, with its 
strong and conspicuous acropolis, and its territory including 
Mount Oneion as well as the portion of the isthmus at once most 
level and narrowest, which divided its two harbors called Le- 
chaeum and Kenchreae. Westward of Corinth, along the Corin- 
thian gulf, stood Sikydn, with a plain of uncommon fertility, 
between the two towns : southward of Siky6n and Corinth were 
Phlius and KLeonae, both conterminous, as well as Corinth, with 
Argos and the Argolic peninsula. The inmost bend of the 
Argolic gulf, including a considerable space of flat and marshy 
ground adjoining to the sea, was possessed by Argos ; the Ar- 
golic peninsula was divided by Argos with the Doric cities of 
Epidaurus and Trcezen, and the Dryopian city of HermionG, the 
latter possessing the south-western corner. Proceeding south- 
ward along the western coast of the gulf, and passing over the 
little river called Tanos, the traveller found himself in the do- 
minion of Sparta, which comprised the entire southern region of 
the .peninsula from its eastern to its western sea, where the river 
Neda flows into the latter. He first passed from Argos across 
the difficult mountain range called Parnon (which bounds to the 
west the southern portion of Argolis), until he found himself in 
the valley of the river CEnus, which he followed until it joined 
the Eurotas. In the larger valley of the Eurotas, far removed 
from the sea, and accessible only through the most impracticable 
mountain roads, lay the five un walled, unadorned, adjoining 
villages, which bore collectively the formidable name of Sparta. 
The whole valley of the Eurotas, from Sk iritis and Beleminatis 
at the border of Arcadia, to the Laconiaii gulf, — expanding in 
several parts into fertile plain, especially near to its mouth, 
where the towns of Gythium and Helos were found, — belonged 
to Sparta ; together with the cold and high mountain nnge to 
the eastward, which projects into the promontory of Malea,— and 
the still loftier chain of Taygetus to the westward, which ends 
in the promontory of Tenants; On the other side of Taygetus, 
on the banks of the river Pamisus, which there flows into the 
Messenian gulf, lay the plain of Messene\ the richest land in the 


peninsula. This plain had once yielded its ample produce to the 
free MeaseniAns Dorians, resident in the towns of Stenyklerus 
and Andania. But in the time of which we speak, the name of 
Messenians was borne only by a body of brave but homeless 
exiles, whose restoration to the land of their forefathers over 
passed even the exile's proverbially sanguine hope. Their land 
was confounded with the western portion of Laconia, which 
reached in a south-westerly direction down to the extreme point 
of Cape Akritas, and northward as far as the river Neda. 

Throughout his whole journey to the point last mentioned, 
from the borders of Boeotia and Megaris, the traveller would only 
step from one Dorian state into another. But on crossing from 
the south to the north bank of the river Neda, at a point near 
to its mouth, he would find himself out of Doric land altogether : 
first, in the territory called Triphylia, — next, in that of Pisa, or 
the Pisatid, — thirdly, in the more spacious and powerful state 
called Elis ; these three comprising the coast-land of Peloponne- 
sus from the mouth of the Neda to that of the Larissoa. The 
Triphylians, distributed into a number of small townships, the 
largest of which was Lepreon, — and the Pisatans, equally des- 
titute of any centralizing city, — had both, at the period of 
which we are now speaking, been conquered *y fr*ir more 
powerful northern neighbors of Elis, who enjoyed the advantage 
of a spacious territory united under one government § the mid- 
dle portion, called the Hollow Elis, being for die most part 
fertile, though the tracts near the sea were more sandy and 
barren. The Eleians were a section of JEtolkm emigrants 
into Peloponnesus, but the Pisatans and Triphylians had both 
been originally independent inhabitants of the peninsula, — the 
latter being affirmed to belong to the same race as the Minyao 
who had occupied the ante-Boeotian Orchomenos : both, too, bore 
the ascendency of Elis with perpetual murmur and occasional 

Crossing the river Larissus, and pursuing the northern coast 
of Peloponnesus fiouth of the Corinthian gulf, the traveller would 
pass into Achaia, — a name which designated the narrow strip of 
level land, and the projecting spurs and declivities, between that 
golf and the northernmost mountains of the peninsula, — Skollis, 
Erymanthus, Aroania, Krathis, and the towering eminence called 


KjVhA. Achaean cities, — twelve in number at least, if not 
mof 3, — divided this long strip of land amongst them, from tta 
moQth of the Larissus and the north-western Cape Araxus on 
one side, to the western boundary of the Sikyonian territory on 
the other. According to the accounts of the ancient legends and 
the belief of Herodotus, this territory had once been occupied by 
Ionian inhabitants whom the Achseans had expelled. 

In making this journey, the traveller would have finished the 
circuit of Peloponnesus ; but he would still have left untrodden 
the great central region, inclosed between the territories just 
enumerated, — approaching nearest to the sea on the borders of 
Triphylia, but never touching it anywhere. This region was 
Arcadia, possessed by inhabitants who are uniformly represented 
as all of one race, and all aboriginal. It was high and bleak, 
full of wild mountain, rock, and forest, and abounding, to a de- 
gree unusual even in Greece, with those land-locked basins from 
whence the water finds only a subterraneous issue. It was dis- 
tributed among a large number of distinct villages and cities* 
Many of the village tribes, — the Maenalii, Parrhasii, Azanes, 
etc., occupying the central and the western regions, were num- 
bered among the rudest of the Greeks: but along its eastern 
frontier there were several Arcadian cities which ranked de- 
servedly among the more civilized Peloponnesians. Tegea, Man- 
tlneia, Orchomenus, Stymphalus, Pheneus, possessed the whole 
eastern frontier of Arcadia from the borders of Laconia to those 
of Sikydn and Pell3n€ in Achaia : Phigaleia at the south west- 
ern corner, near the borders of Triphylia, and Heraea, on tl* 
north bank of the Alpheius, near the place where that river quits 
Arcadia to enter the Pisatis, were also towns deserving of notice. 
Towards the north of this cold and thinly-peopled region, near 
Pheneos, was situated the small town of Nonakris, adjoining to 
which rose the hardly accessible crags where the rivulet of Styx 1 

1 Herodot. vi. 74 ; Pausan. viii. 18, 2. See the description and print of the 
river 8tyx, and the neighboring rocks, in Fiedler's Reise durch Griechenlaad, 
?cl. i. p. 400. 

He describes a scene amids; these rocks, in 1826, when the troops of 
Ibrahim Pasha were in the Morea, which realizes the fearful pictures of war 
after the manner of the ancient Gauls, or Thracians. A crowd of fire 1 
i Grteks, of every age and sex, had found she'ter in a grassy and 1 


flowed down : a point of common feeling for all Arcadians, from 
the terrific sanction which this water was understood to impart 
to their oaths. 

The distribution of Peloponnesus here sketched, suitable to 
the Persian invasion and the succeeding half century, may also 
be said (with some allowances) to be adapted to the whole inter- 
val between about B. c. 550-370 ; from the time of the conquest 
of Thyreatis by Sparta to the battle of Leuktra. But it is not 
the* earliest distribution which history presents to us. Not pre- 
suming to criticize the Homeric map of Peloponnesus, and going 
back only to 776 b. c, we find this material difference, — thai 
Sparta occupies only a very small fraction of the large territory 
above described as belonging to her. Westward of the summit of 
Mount Taygetus are found another section of Dorians, independ- 
ent of Sparta : the Messenian Dorians, whose city is on the hill 
of Stenyklerus, near the south-western boundary of Arcadia, and 
whose possessions cover the fertile plain of MessSne along the 
river Pamisus to its mouth in the Messenian gulf: it is to be noted 
that Messene was then the name of the plain generally, and that 
no town so called existed until after the battle of Leuktra. Again, 
eastward of the valley of the Eurotas, the mountainous region 
and the western shores of the Argolic gulf down to Cape Malea 
are also independent of Sparta ; belonging to Argos, or rather 
to Dorian towns in unison with Argos. All the great Dorian 
towns, from the borders of the Megarid to the eastern frontier 
of Arcadia, as above enumerated, appear to have existed in 776 
B. c. : Achaia was in the same condition, so far as we are able 
to judge, as well as Arcadia, except in regard to its southern 
frontier, conterminous with Sparta, of which more will hereafter 
be said. In respect to the western portion of Peloponnesus, 
Klis (properly so called) appears to have embraced the 

gpot embosomed amidst these crags, — few of them armed. They were 
pursued by five thousand Egyptians and Arabians : a very small resistance, 
in such ground, would have kept the troops at bay, but the poor men either 
could not or would not offer it They were forced to surrender : the young* 
est and most energetic cast themselves headlong from the rocks and per- 
ished : three thousand prisoners were carried away captive, and sold far 
•laves at Corinth, Patras, and Modon : all those who were unfit for salei 
massacred on the spot by the Egyptian troops. 


territory in 776 b. c. as in 550 b. c. : but the Pisatid had beea 
recently conquered, and was yet imperfectly subjected by the 
Eleians; while Triphylia seems to have been quite independ- 
ent of them. Respecting the south-western promontory of Pelo- 
ponnesus down to Cape Akritas, we are altogether without infor- 
mation : reasons will hereafter be given for believing that it did not 
at that time form part of the territory of the Messenian Dorians. 

Of the different races or people whom Herodotus knew in 
Peloponnesus, he believed three *to be aboriginal, — the Arca- 
dians, the Achaeans, and the Kynurians. The Achaeans, though 
belonging indigenously to the peninsula, had yet removed from 
the southern portion of it to the northern, expelling the previous 
Ionian tenants : this is a part of the legend respecting the Dorian 
conquest, or Return of the Herakleids, and we can neither verify 
nor contradict it. But neither the Arcadians nor the Kynurians 
had ever changed their abodes. Of the latter, I have not before 
spoken, because they were never (so far as history knows them) 
an independent population. They occupied the larger portion l 
of the territory of Argolis, from Orneae, near the northern 3 or 
Phliasian border, to Thyrea and the Thyreatis, on the Laconian 
border : and though belonging originally (as Herodotus imagines 
rather than asserts) to the Ionic race — they had been so long 
subjects of Argos in his time, that almost all evidence of their 
ante-Dorian condition had vanished. 

But the great Dorian states in Peloponnesus — the capital 
powers in the peninsula — were all originally emigrants, accord- 
ing to the belief not only of Herodotus, but of all the Grecian 
world : so also were the JEtolians of Elis, the Triphylians, and 
the Dryopes at Hermione and Asine. All these emigrations 
are so described as to give them a root in the Grecian legendary 
world: the Triphylians are traced back to Lemnos, as the off- 
spring of the Argonautic heroes, 3 and we are too uninformed 

1 This is the only way of reconciling Herodotus (viii. 73) with Thucydi- 
des (iv. 56, and t. 41). The original extent of the Kynnrian territory is a 
point on which neither of them had any means of very cc rrect information , 
but there is no occasion to reject the one in favor of the other. 

* Herod, viii. 73. OZ 6i Kwovpioi, avrox&ovec kovre^ doiciovoi uovv<h 
thai 'luvei • indedopiewTai 6h t too re 'Apyeivv apxopevot kou tov xp° vo * 
iovrtc 'O/m fjrai kcH nepioiKOi. ■ Herodot. iv. 145-1 44 


about them to venture upon any historical guesses. But respect 
ing the Dorians, it may perhaps be possible, by examining the 
first historical situation in which they are presented to us, to offer 
some conjectures as to the probable circumstances under which 
they arrived. The legendary narrative of it has already been 
given in the first chapter of this volume, — that great mythical 
event called the Return of the Children of Herakles, by which 
the first establishment of the Dorians in the promised land of 
Peloponnesus was explained to the full satisfaction of Grecian 
faith. One single armament and expedition, acting by the special 
direction of the Delphian god, and conducted by three brothers, 
lineal descendants of the principal Achaoo- Dorian heroes through 
Hyllus, (the eponymus of the principal tribe,)— the national 
heroes of the preexisting population vanquished and expelled, 
and the greater part of the peninsula both acquired and parti- 
tioned at a stroke, — the circumstances of the partition adjusted 
to the historical relations of Laconia and Messenia, — the friend- 
ly power of JEtoli&n Elis, with its Olympic games as the bond 
of union in Peloponnesus, attached to this event as an appendage, 
in the person of Oxylus, — all these particulars compose a narra- 
tive well calculated to impress the retrospective imagination of a 
Greek. They exhibit an epical fitness and sufficiency which it 
would be unseasonable to impair by historical criticism. 

The Alexandrine chronology sets down a period of 328 years 
from the Return of the Herakleids to the first Olympiad (1104 
B. a- 776 B. c,), — a period measured by the lists of the kings 
of Sparta, on the trustworthiness of which some remarks have 
already been offered. Of these 828 years, the first 250, at the 
least, are altogether barren of facts ; and even if we admitted 
them to be historical, we should have nothing to recount except 
a succession of royal names. Being unable either to guarantee 
the entire list, or to discover any valid test for discriminating the 
historical and the non-historical items, I here enumerate the 
Lacedaemonian kings as they appear in Mr. Clinton's Fasti Ilel- 
lenici. There were two joint kings at Sparta, throughout nearij 
all the historical time of independent Greece, deducing their 
descent from Herakles through Eurysthenes and Proxies, tha 
twin 6ons of Aristodemus; the latter being one of those three 



Herakleid brothers to whom the conqiest of the peninsula £d 
ascribed : — 

Line of Ewrytithents. 

Eurysthenes reigned 42 yean. 

AgU " 31 " 

Echestratus " 35 " 

Labdtas tt 37 « 

Doryssus u 29 M 

Agosilaus rt 44 u 

Archelaus tt 60 « 

Teleklns « 40 * 

Alkamenes tt 10 " 


Line of ProkU*. 

Prokles reigned 51 jeans 

Sous w — 

Eurypon u — • 

Prytanis " 49 * 

Eunomas ........ u 45 k 

Charilans u 60 " 

Nikander to 38 «* 

Theopompus .... " 10 ,% 

Both Theopompus and Alkamen&s reigned considerably longei 
but the chronologiste affirm that the year 776 b. c. (or the firtl 
Olympiad) occurred in the tenth year of each of their reigns. It 
is necessary to add, with regard to this list, that there are some 
material discrepancies between different authors even as to tht 
names of individual kings, and still more as to the duration of 
their reigns, as may be seen both in Mr. Clinton's chronology 
and in Mulleins Appendix to the History of the Dorians:. 1 The 
alleged sum total cannot be made to agree with the items without 
great license of conjecture. O. Mil Her observes, 9 in reference to 
this Alexandrine chronology, " that our materials only enable ua 
to restore it to its original state, not to verify its correctness.** 

1 Herodotus omits Sons between Frokle* and Eurypon, and inserts Poly- 
dektds between Prytanis and Eunomus: moreover, the accounts of the 
Lacedaemonians, as he states them, represented Lykurgus, the law-giver, as 
ancle and guardian of Labdtas, of the Ewysthenid house, — while Simonides 
made him son of Prytanis, and others made him son of Eunomus, of the 
Proldid line: compare Herod, i. 65 ; viii. 131. Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 2. 

Some excellent remarks on this early series of Spartan kings will be found 
in Mr. G. C. Lewis's article in the Philological Museum, vol. ir. pp. 4 2-4 a 
in a review of l)r. Arnold on the Spartan Constitution. 

Compare also Larcher, Chronofogie dUeVodote. ch. 13, pp. 484-614. He 
lengthens many of the reigns considerably, in order to suit the earlier epoch 
which he assigns to the capture of Troy and the Return of the Herakloids 

9 History of the Dorians, vol. ii Append, p. 442. 

YOI.H. 20ot 


In point of fact they are insufficient even for the former purpos*, 
as the dissensions among learned critics attest. 

We have a succession of names, still more barren of facts, in 
the case of the Dorian sovereigns of Corinth. This city had its 
o*n line of Herakleids, descended from Heraklta, but not through 
Hyllus. Hippotes, the progenitor of the Corinthian Herakleids, 
was reported in the legend to have originally joined the Dorian 
invaders of the Peloponnesus, but to have quitted them in conse- 
quence of having slain the prophet Kara us. 1 The three brothers, 
when they became masters of the peninsula, sent for Allies, the 
son of Hippotes, and placed him in possession of Corinth, over 
which the chronologists make him begin to reign thirty years 
after the Herakleid conquest. His successors are thus given * « - 

Aletes reigned 38 yean, 

Ixion » 38 u 

Ageias « 37 « 

Frymnis M 35 tt 

Bacchis « 85 « 

Ageias « 30 « 

Eudemus ■ 25 « 

AristomfidSs u 85 tt 

Agemon « 16 « 

Alexander M 25 • 

Telestes u 12 « 

Automenfis « 1 a 


1 This story — that the heroic ancestor of the great Corinthian Bacchiadsi 
had slain the holy man Karnus, and had been punished for it by long ban- 
ishment and privation — leads to the conjecture, that the Corinthians did not 
celebrate the festival of the Karneia, common to the Dorians generally. 

Herodotus tells us, with regard to the Ionic cities, that all of them cele- 
brated the festival of Apaturia, except Ephesus and Kolophon ; and that 
these two cities did not celebrate it, " because of a certain reason of murder 
committed," — obroi yap fiovvot 'lotvov ototc ayovaiv 'Airarovpia* seal ovtoi 
card +6vov rtva vtfrfiv (Herod. L 147). 

The murder of Karnos by Hippotes was probably the fovov exiplttc which 
fttfbftde the Corinthians fronr celebrating the Karneia; at least, this supposi- 
tion gives so the legend a special pertinence which is otherwise wanting to 
H Beapectmg the Karneia and Hyacinthia, see Schoell De Origine Orssci 
, pp. 70-78. Tubingen, 1828. 

wm% Tartan Angular customs connected with the Grecian fefltivaU 
Vol. 2 10 


Such was the celebrity of Bacchis, we are told, that those who 
succeeded him took the name of Bacchiads in place of Aletiads 
or Herakleids. One year after the accession of AutomenSs, the 
family of the Bacchiads generally, amounting to 200 persons, 
determined to abolish royalty, to constitute themselves a standing 
oligarchy, and to elect out of their own number an annual Pry- 
tanis. Thus commenced the oligarchy of the Bacchiads, which 
lasted for ninety years, until it was subverted by Kypselus in 
657 B.C. 1 Reckoning the thirty years previous to the begin- 
ning of the reign of Aletes, the chronologists thus provide an 
interval of 447 years between the Return of the Herakleids and 
the accession of Kypselus, and 357 years between the same 
period and the commencement of the Bacchiad oligarchy. The 
Bacchiad oligarchy is unquestionably historical ; the conquest of 
the Herakleids belongs to the legendary world ; while the inter- 
val between the two is filled up, as in so many other cases, by a 
mere barren genealogy. 

When we jump this vacant space, and place ourselves at the 
first opening of history, we find that, although ultimately Sparta 
came to hold the first place, not only in Feloponnedts, but in all 
Hellas, this was not the case at the earliest moment of which we 
have historical cognizance. Argos, and the neighboring towns 
connected with her by a bond of semi-religious, semi-political 
onion, — Sikydn, Phlius, Epidaurus, and Troezgn, — were at first 
of greater power and consideration than Sparta ; a fact which 
the legend of the Herakleids seems to recognize by making Te- 

which it was usual to account for by some legendary tale. Thus, no native 
of Elis ever entered himself as a competitor, or contended for the prize, at 
the Isthmian games. The legendary reason given for this was, that HSrakles 
had waylaid and slain (at Kleonee) the two Molionid brothers, when they 
were proceeding to the Isthmian games as Theors or sacred envoys from the 
Eleian king Augeas. Redress was in vain demanded for this outrage, and 
Moliond, mother of the slain envoys, imprecated a curse upon the Eleians 
generally if they should ever visit the Isthmian festival. This legend is the 
fovov <7K7rt}Hc, explaining why no Eleian runner or wrestler was ever known 
to contend tb are (Pausan. ii. 15, 1 j v. 2, 1-4. Ister, Fragment 46, ed. 

1 Diodor. Fragm. lib. vii. p. 14, with the note of Wesaeling. Strata (viiL 
p. 878) states the Bacchiad oligarchy to have lasted nearly two hundred 


menu* the eldest brother of the three. And Herodotus 
ns that at one time all the eastern coast of Peloponnesus down Id 
Cape Melea, including the island of Cythera, all which came 
afterwards to constitute a material part of Laconia, had belonged 
to Argos. 1 Down to the time of the first Messenian war, the 
comparative importance of the Dorian establishments in Pelo- 
ponnesus appears to have been in the order in which the legend 
placed them, — Argo6 first, 9 Sparta second, Measeng third. Ik 
will be seen hereafter that the Argeians never lost the recollec- 
tion of this early preeminence, from which the growth of Sparta 
had extruded them ; and the liberties of entire Hellas were more 
than once in danger from their disastrous jealousy of a more for- 
tunate competitor. 

At a short distance of about three miles from Argos, and at 
the exact point where that city approaches nearest to the sea, 8 
was situated the isolated hillock called Tementon, noticed both by 
Strabo and Pausanias. It was a small village, deriving both its 
name and its celebrity from the chapel and tomb of the hero 
Temenus, who was there worshipped by the Dorians ; and the 
statement which Pausanias heard was, that Temenus, with his 
invading Dorians, had seized and fortified the spot, and employed 
it as an armed post to make war upon Tisttmenus and the Achav 
ana. What renders this report deserving of the greater attention, 
is, that the same thing is affirmed with regard to the eminence 
called Solygeiua, near Corinth : this too was believed to be the 
place which the Dorian assailants had occupied and fortified against 

1 Herodot. L 82. The historian adds, besides Cythera, «o2 oi foiical tQ» 
wijauv. What other islands are meant, I do not distinctly understand. 

* So Plato (Leg?- iii. p. 692), whose mind is full of the old my the -and the 
tripartite distribution of Peloponnesus among the Herakleids, — y <T av 9 
itpurcvovaa iv role rare aflpovotf roiq ireot ri/v diavoprjv. 17 nepi rd 'Apyto^ 

* Pausan. iL *8, 1 ; Strata, viii. p. 368. Professor Boss observes, inspect- 
ing^ the line of coast near Argos, u The sea-side is thoroughly flat, and tier 
the most part marshy ; only at the single point where Argos comes nearest 
to the coast, — between the mouth, now choked by sand, of the united Inachai 
and Charadrus, and the efflux of the Erasinus, overgrown with weeds and 
bulrushes, — stands an eminence of some elevation and composed of firmm 
earth, upon which the ancient Temenion was placed." (Beiseu ha Pelopan 
net, vol. i. sect 5, p. 149, Berlin, 1841.) 


(he preexisting Corinthians in the city. Situated dose npoa 
the Saronic gulf, it was the spot which invaders landing from 
that gulf would naturally seize upon, and which Nik i as with bis 
powerful Athenian fleet did actually seize and occupy against 
Corinth in the Peloponnesian war. 1 In early days, the only wav 
of overpowering the inhabitants of a fortified, town, generally 
also planted in a position itself very defensible, was, — that, the 
invaders, entrenching themselves in the neighborhood, harassed 
the inhabitants and ruined their produce until they brought them 
to terms. Even during the Peloponnesian war, when the art of 
besieging had made some progress, we read of several instances 
in which this mode of aggressive warfare was adopted with em* 
cient results* 3 We may readily believe that the Dorians obtain- 
ed admittance both into Argos and Corinth in this manner. And 
it is remarkable that, except Sikydn (which is affirmed to have 
been surprised by night), these were the only towns in the Argo- 
lic region which are said to have resisted them; the story being} 
that Phlius, Epidaurus, and Trcezen had admitted the Dorian 
intruders without opposition, although a certain portion of the 
previous inhabitants seceded. We shall hereafter see that the 
non-Dorian population of Sikydn and Corinth still remained con- 

The separate statements which we thus find, and the position 
of the Temenion and the Solygeius, lead to two conjectures,— 
first, that the acquisitions of the Dorians in Peloponnesus were 
also isolated and gradual, not at all conformable to the rapid 
strides of the old Herakleid legend ; next, that the Dorian invad- 
ers of Argos and Corinth made their attack from the Argolic 
and the Saronic gulfs, — by sea and not by land. It is, indeed, 
difficult to see how they can have got to the Temenion in any 
other way than by sea; and a glance at the map will show thai 
the eminence Solygeius presents itself, 3 with reference to Corinth, 
as the nearest and most convenient holding-ground for a mari- 
time invader, conformably to the scheme of operations laid by 
Nikias. To illustrate the supposition of a Dorian attack by sea 
Ob Corinth, we may refer to a story quoted from Aristotle (which 

1 Thncyd. iv. 42. Tmyd. i. 122; iii 85, vii. 18-27 ; viiL38-i* 

1 Thucyd. iv. 42. 


we find embodied in the explanation of an old adage), repi<*u*t 
ing Hippotes the father of Aletes as having crossed the Maliat 
gulf 1 (the sea immediately bordering on the ancient Maleana, 
Dryopians, and Dorians) in ships, for the purpose of colonizing, 
And if it be safe to trust the mention of Dorians in the Odyssey, 
&s a part of the population of the island of Crete, we there have 
cn example of Dorian settlements which must have been effected 
by sea, and that too at a very early period. " We must suppose 
(observes O. Miiller,* in reference to these Kretan Dorians) that 
the Dorians, pressed by want or restless from inactivity, con- 
structed piratical canoes, manned these frail and narrow barks 
with soldiers who themselves worked at the oar, and thus being 
changed from mountaineers into seamen, — the Normans of 
Greece, — set sail for the distant island of Krete." In the same 
manner, we may conceive the expeditions of the Dorians against 
Argos and Corinth to have been effected ; and whatever difficul- 
ties may attach to this hypothesis, certain it is that the difficulties 
of a long land-march, along such a territory as Greece, are still 
more 6erious. 

The supposition of Dorian emigrations by sea, from the Ma- 
liac gulf to the north-eastern promontory of Peloponnesus, is 
farther borne out by the analogy of the Dryopes, or Dryopians. 
During the historical times, this people occupied several detached 
settlements in various parts of Greece, all maritime, and some 
insular; — they were found at Hermionfc, Asine, and Eion, in 
the Argolic peninsula (very near to the important Dorian towns 

1 Aristot. ap. ProY. Vatican, iv. 4, MijXiaKbv nWolov, — also, Prov. Suidat 
X. 2. 

1 Hist cf Dorians, ch. i. 9. Andrdn positively affirms that the Dorians 
came from Histiseotis to Kr6te ; but his affirmation does not seem to me 
to constitute any additional evidence of the fact : it is a conjecture adapted 
to the passage in the Odyssey (xix. 174), as the mention of Achseans and 
Pelasgians evidently shows. 

Aristotle (ap. Strab. viii. p. 374) appears to have believed that the Hen* 
kleids retained to Argos out of the Auic Tetrapolis (where, according to 
the Athenian legend, they had obtained shelter when persecuted by Eurys- 
tiiens), accompanying a body of Ionians who then settled at Epidaurus. Hi 
eonnot, therefore, have connected the Dorian occupation of Argos with the 
expedition from Naupaktu*. 


constituting the Amphiktyony of Argos, 1 ) — at Styra and Karys- 
tas in the island of Euboea, — in the island of Kythnus, and even 
at Cyprus. These dispersed colonies can only have been plant- 
ed by expeditions over the sea. Now we are told that the origi- 
nal Dryopis, the native country of this people, comprehended 
both the territory near the river Spercheius, and north of (Eta, 
afterwards occupied by the Malians, as well as the neighboring 
district south of (Eta, which was afterwards called Doris. From 
hence the Dryopians were expelled, — according to one story, by 
the Dorians, — according to another, by H&rakles and the Malians : 
however this may be, it was from the Maliac gulf that they started 
on shipboard in quest of new homes, which some of them found 
on the headlands of the Argolic peninsula. 9 And it was from 
this very country, according to Herodotus, 3 that the Dorians also 
set forth, in order to reach Peloponnesus. Nor does it seem 
unreasonable to imagine, that the same means of conveyance, 
which bore the Dryopians from the Maliac gulf to Hermiond 
«nd AainS, also carried the Dorians from the same place to the 
TemenioD, and the hill Solygeius. 

The legend represents Sikydn, Epidaurus, Troezen, Phlius, 
and Klednae, as all occupied by Dorian colonists from Argos, 
- under the different sons of Tgmenus : the first three are on the 
sea, and fit places for the occupation of maritime invaders. Ar- 
gos and the Dorian towns in and near the Argolic peninsula are 
to be regarded as a cluster of settlements by themselves, com- 
pletely distinct from Sparta and the Messenian Stenyklerus, 
which appear to have been formed under totally different condi- 
tions. First, both of them are very far inland, — Stenyklerus 
not easy, Sparta very difficult of access from the sea ; next, we 
know that the conquests of Sparta were gradually made down 
the valley of the Eu rotas seaward. Both these acquisitions pre- 
sent the appearance of having been made from the land-side, and 

1 Herod, viii. 43-46 ; Diodor. iv. 37 ; Pausan. iv. 34, 6. 

1 Strabo, viii. p. 373 ; ix. p. 434. Herodot. viii. 43. Pherekydes, Fr. 23 
mid 88, ed. Didot. Steph. Byz. v. Apvony. Apoll'xLor. ii. 7, 7. SchoL 
Apollon. Rhod. i. 1213. 

* Herodot i. 56. — h&evrev 6k avTic tc r%v Apvcwrida ar-e&y, «ai U rtff 
Apvonidoc otiru? jf HeXonowTjaov kX$bv t Auputbv £kA£#j7, — to th« 
purpose, viii. 31-43. 


perhaps in the direction which the Herakleid legend describee, 
— by warriors entering Peloponnesus across the narrow mouth 
of the Corinthian gulf, through the aid or invitation of those 
JEtolian sutlers who at the same time colonized Elk. The early 
and intimate connection (on which I shall touch presently) be* 
tween Sparta and the Olympic games as administered by the 
Eleians, as well as the leading part ascribed to Lykurgus in tho 
constitution of the solemn Olympic truce, tend to strengthen such 
a persuasion. 

In considering the early affairs of the Dorians in Peloponnesus, 
we are apt to have our minds biased, first, by the Herakleid 
legend, which imparts to them an impressive, but deceitful, epical 
unity ; next, by the aspect of the later and better-known history, 
which presents the Spartan power as unquestionably preponder- 
ant, and Argos only as second by a long interval. But the first 
view (as I have already remarked) which opens to us, of real 
Grecian history, a little before 776 b. c, exhibits Argos with its 
alliance or confederacy of neighboring cities colonized from itself 
as the great seat of Dorian power in the peninsula, and Sparta 
as an outlying state of inferior consequence. The recollection 
of this state of things lasted after it had ceased to be a reality, 
Mid kept alive pretensions on the part of Argos to the headship 
of the Greeks as a matter of right, which she became quite inca- 
pable of sustaining either by adequate power or by statesmanlike 
sagacity. The growth of Spartan power was a succession of en» 
croachments upon Argos. 1 

How Sparta came constantly to gain upon Argos will be matter 
for future explanation : at present, it is sufficient to remark, that 
the ascendency of Argos was- derived not exclusively from her 
own territory, but came in part from her position as metropolis 
of an alliance of autonomous neighboring cities, all Dorian and 
ill colonized from herself, — and this was an element of power 

1 See Herodot. vii. 148. The Argeians say to the Lacedaemonians, in refer 
> to the chief command of the Greeks — nairot xaru ye rb dUatov yivi- 
6a: t^v Jiyeuovirjv luvrw, etc. Schweighanser and others explain the poic. 
by reference to the command of Agamemnon ; bat this is at best only a part 
of the foundation of their claim : they had a more recent historical reality 
to plead also : compare Strabo. viii. p. S7f . 


essentially fluctuating. What Thdbes was to the cities ot Boeotia, 
of which she either was, or professed to have been, the founder, 
the same was Argos in reference to Kleonae, Phlius, Sikydn, 
Epidiiurus, TrcezSn, and Mgmsu These towns formed, in mythi- 
cal language, u the lot of Temenus," 8 — in real matter of fact, the 
confederated allies or subordinates of Argos : the first four of 
them were said to have been Dorized by the sons or immediate 
relatives of TSmenus ; and the kings of Argos, as acknowledged 
descendants of the latter, claimed and exercised a sort of suzerainete 
over them. Hermione, Asine, and Nauplia seem also to have 
been under the supremacy of Argos, though not colonies. 2 But 
this supremacy was not claimed directly and nakedly : agreeably 
to the ideas of the time, the ostensible purposes of the Argeian 
confederacy or Amphiktyony were religious, though its secondary 
and not less real effects, were political. The great patron-god of 
(he league was Apollo Pythaeus, in whose name the obligations 
incumbent on the members of the league were imposed. While 
in each of the confederated cities there was a temple to this god, 
his most holy and central sanctuary was on the Larissa or acrop- 
olis of Argos. At this central Argeian sanctuary, solemn sacri- 
fices were offered by Epidaurus as well as by other members of 
the confederacy, and, as it should seem, accompanied by money* 

1 'HfiCtv KTiauvTuv (so runs the accusation of the Theban orators against 
me captive Pbteans, before their Lacedaemonian judges, Thncyd. iii. 61.) 
UXaraiav torepov ttk uAXtft Boiurt'of — oi>K if^iovv airol, davtp krax&y rt 
irp&Tov, Tjyefwvevecn&at vp yfitiv, b£o 61 tuv aXkw Boiutuv izapafiaivovrtc 
r& irarpta, hretd?} irpoorivayKa£ovTo, irpoaex&pyoav Tp^C 'AoNyva/ovf koI per* 
airuv noXXd, rjpa^ £/?Aaitrov. 

* Respecting Pheiddn, king of Argos, Ephorus said, — t%v %^tv dXipr 
uveXafie t%v Typevov 6ie<rtra<jfihnjv elf nXeiu fiiprf (ap. Btrabo. ▼iii. p. 358). 

3 The worship of Apollo Pythaeus, adopted from Argos both at Hermionft 
and Asin€, shows the connection between them and Argos (Pansan. ii. 35, 
2; ii. 36, 5): but Pansanias can hardly be justified in saying that the 
Argeians actually Dorized Hermion€ : it was Dryopian in the time of He- 
rodotus, and seemingly for a long time afterwards (Herodot viii. 43). The 
Hermionian Inscription, No. 1193, in Boeckh's Collection, recognizes their 
old Dryopian connection with Asine* in Laconia : that town had once been 
neighbor of Hermione^ but was destroyed by the Argeians, and the inhab- 
itants received a new home from the Spartans. The dialect of the Hermio- 
■ians (probably that of the Dryopians generally) was Doric. See Ahrane, 
lie Dialecto Dorica, pp. 2-12. 

VOL. IX 14 


payments, 1 — which the Argeians, as chief administrators on 
behalf of the common god, took upon them to enforce against 
defaulters, and actually tried to enforce during the Peloponnesian 
war against Epidaurus. On another occasion, during the 66th 
Olympiad (b. c. 514), they imposed the large fine of 500 talente 
upon each of the two states Sikyon and jEgina, for having lent 
ships to the Spartan king Kleomenes, wherewith he invaded the 
Argeian territory. The <£ginetans set the claim at defiance, but 
the Sikyonians acknowledged its justice, and only demurred to 
its amount, professing themselves ready to pay 100 talents.* 
There can be no doubt that, at this later period, the ascendency 
of Argos over the members of her primitive confederacy had 
become practically inoperative ; but the tenor of the cases men- 
tioned shows that her claims were revivals of bygone privileges, 
which had once been effective and valuable. 

How valuable the privileges of Argos were, before the great 
rise of the Spartan power, — how important an ascendency they 
conferred, in the hands of an energetic man, and how easily they 
admitted of being used in furtherance of ambitious views, is 
shown by the remarkable case of Pheidon, the Temenid. The 
few facts which we learn respecting this prince exhibit to us, for 
the first time, something like a real position of parties in the 
Peloponnesus, wherein the actual conflict of living historical 
men and cities, comes out in tolerable distinctness. 

Pheid6n was designated by Ephorus as the tenth, and by 
Theopompus as the sixth, in lineal descent from Temenus. 
Respecting the date of his existence, opinions the most dis- 
crepant and irreconcilable have been delivered ; but there 
seems good reason for referring him to the period a little before 
and a little after the 8th Olympiad, — between 770 b. c. and 730 

1 Thucyd. v. 53. Kvpiuraroi rov Upov foav ol 'Apyeioi. The word 
elonpatic, which the historian uses in regard to the claim of Argos againsf 
Epidaurus, seems to imply a money-payment withheld : compare the offer- 
ings exacted by Athens from Epidaurus (Herod, v. 82). 

The peculiar and intimate connection between the Argeians, and Apollo, 
with his surname of Pythaens, was dwelt upon by the Argeian pooteJfl 
Telesilia (Pansan. ii. 86, 2). 

1 Herodot vi. 92. See O. Muller History of the Dorians, ch. 7, 13. 


B. c 1 Of the preceding kings of Argos we hear little : one of 
them, Eratus, is said to have expelled the Dryopian inhabitants 
of Asin6 from their town on the Argolic peninsula, in conse- 
quence of their having cooperated with the Spartan king, Nikan- 
der, when he invaded the Argeian territory, seemingly during 
the generation preceding Pheiddn ; there is another, Damokra- 
tidas, whose date cannot he positively determined, but he appears 
rather as subsequent than as anterior to Pheidon. 9 We are in* 
formed, however, that these anterior kings, even beginning with 
Medon, the grandson of TSmenus, had been forced to sub 
mit to great abridgment of their power and privileges, and 
that a form of government substantially popular, though nomi- 
nally regal, had been established. 3 Pheiddn, breaking through 

1 Ephor. Fragm. 15, ed. Marx; ap. Strata, viii. p. 358; Theopompus, 
Fragm. 30, ed. Didot ; ap. Diodor. Fragm. lib. iv. 

The Parian Marble makes Pheiddn the eleventh from Herakles, and places 
him b. c. 895 ; Herodotus, on the contrary On a passage which affords con- 
siderable grounds for discussion), places him at a period which cannot bo 
much higher than 600 b. o. (vi 127.) Some authors suspect the text of 
Herodotus to be incorrect: at any rate, the real epoch of Pheiddn is 
determined by the 8th Olympiad. Several critics suppose two Pheidons, 
each king of Argos, — among others, 0. Muller (Dorians, iii. 6, 10); hut 
there is nothing to countenance this, except the impossibility of reconciling 
Herodotus with the other authorities. And Weissenborn, in a dissertation 
of some length, vindicates the emendation of Pausanias proposed by some 
former critics, — altering the 8th Olympiad, which now stands in the text 
pf Pausanias, into the twenty-eighth, as the date of Pheidon's usurpation at 
the Olympic games. Weissenborn endeavors to show that Pheiddn cannot 
have flourished earlier than 660 b. c. ; but his arguments do not appear to 
me very forcible, and certainly not sufficient to justify so grave an alteration 
in the number of Pausanias (Beitrage zur Griechischen Alterthumsk untie, 
p. 18, Jena, 1844). Mr. Clinton (Fasti Hellenici, voL i. App. 1, p. 249) 
places Pheiddn between 783 and 744 b. c. ; also, Boeckh. ad Corp. InscripL 
No. 2374, p. 335, and Muller, JEginetica, p. 63. 

1 Pausan. ii. 36, 5 ; iv. 35, 2. 

3 Pausan. ii. 19, 1. 'Kpyeloi de, &tc Icrrjyopiav teal rb uvrovopov dyairwvTec 
U iraAaiorarcw, rd rrjc i^ovaiac raw PcurtXiov kc tXaxitrrov npoqyayov, cif 
'MfjSuvi r£ Keiaov nal toic airoyovoif rb bvofia XeifiHjvai rot) fiaoiteas fibvov 
This passage has all the air of transferring back to the early government of 
Argos, feelings which were only true of the later. It is curious that, in thii 
chapter, though devoted to the Argeian regal line and government, Pausa- 
nias takes no notice of Pheiddn: be mentions him only with reference to the 
disputed Olympic < 


Che limits imposed, made himself despot of Argos. He then re* 
established the power of Argos over all the cities of her confed- 
eracy, which had before been so nearly dissolved as to leave all 
the members practically independent 1 Next, he is said to have 
acquired dominion over Corinth, and to have endeavored to 
assure it, by treacherously entrapping a thousand of her warlike 
citizens ; but his artifice was divulged and frustrated by Abron, 
one of his confidential friends. 9 He is farther reported to have 
aimed at extending his sway over the greater part of Pelopon- 
nesus, — laying claim, as the descendant of Hgrakl&s, through 
the eldest son of Hyllus, to all the cities which that restless 
and irresistible hero had ever taken. 3 According to Grecian 
ideas, this legendary title was always seriously construed, and 
often admitted as conclusive ; though of course, where there 
were strong opposing interests, reasons would be found to elude 
it. Pheiddn would have the same ground of right as that 
which, two hundred and fifty years afterwards, determined the 
Herakleid Dorieus, L rot her of Kleomenes king of Sparta, to 
acquire for himself the territory near Mount Eryx in Sicily, be- 
cause his progenitor,* Herakles, had conquered it before him. 
So numerous, however, were the legends respecting the con- 
quests of Herakles, that the claim of Pheiddn must have covered 
the greater part of Peloponnesus, except Sparta and the plain of 
MessSne, which were already in the hands of Herakleids. 

Nor was the ambition of Pheiddn satisfied even with these 
large pretensions. He farther claimed the right of presiding 
at the celebration of those religious games, or Agones, which had 

1 Ephorus, ut suprd.. Qei&uva rdv *kpyelov, dUarov 6vra 6irb TtjftEvou, 
dwdfiet d& vireppepXrjfuvov toi>c nar y abrdv, cty' fa rffv re \rj?iv bXrjv avifaPi 
tj)i "^rfiivov dieoiraepevTtv elg nXeiu pipy, etc What ia meant by the lot of 
Timenus has been already explained. 

* Plutarch, Narrat Amator. p. 772 ; Schol. Apollon. Rhod. iv. 1212 ; com* 
pare Didymus, ap. Schol. Pindar. Olymp. xiii. 27. 

I cannot, however, believe that Pheidon, the ancient Corinthian law give* 
mentioned by Aristotle, is the same person as Pheidon the king of Argoi 
(Folit. ii. 6, 4). 

* Ephor. ut suprd. Ilpdf rovrotf, iiri&ea&at Kai rale iff 'HpoxAiovc aiptf 
6tiacuc iroXeei, ical rot>f ay&vac u%iov\> rr&fvai airbv, ©fy kKelsoe £#9«f 
roitruv de eivcu Kai rdv 'OXvfintaKav, etc 4 Herod ut Y. 4.1 


lieen instituted by Hfcrakl&s, — and among these was numbered 
the Olympic Ag6n, then, however, enjoying but a slender fraction 
of the lustre which afterwards came to attach to it The presi- 
dency of any of the more celebrated festivals current throughout 
Greece, was a privilege immensely prized. It was at once dig- 
nified and lucrative, and the course of our history will present 
more than one example in which blood was shed to determine 
what state should enjoy it. Pheiddn marched to Olympia, at the 
epoch of the 8th recorded Olympiad, or 747 b. c. ; on the 
occasion of which event we are made acquainted with the real 
state of parties in the peninsula. 

The plain of Olympia, — now ennobled only by immortal 
recollections, but once crowded with all the decorations of 
religion and art, and forming for many centuries the brightest 
centre of attraction known in the ancient world, — was situated 
on the river Alpheius, in the territory called the Pisatid, hard 
by the borders of Arcadia. At what time its agonistic festival, 
recurring every fifth year, at the first full moon after the sum- 
mer solstice, first began or first acquired its character of special 
sanctity, we have no means of determining. As with so many of 
the native waters of Greece, — we follow the stream upward to 
a certain point, but the fountain-head, and the earlier flow of his- 
tory, is buried under mountains of unsearchable legend. The 
first celebration of the Olympic contests was ascribed by Grecian 
legendary faith to HeraklSs, — and the site of the place, in the 
middle of the Pisatid, with its eight small townships, is quite suf- 
ficient to prove that the inhabitants of that little territory were 
warranted in describing themselves as the original administrators 
of the ceremony. 1 But this state of things seems to have been 
altered by the JEtolian settlement in Elis, which is represented 
as having been conducted by Oxylus and identified with the 
Return of the Herakleids. The JEtolo-Eleians, bordering upon 
the Pisatid to the north, employed their superior power in sub- 
duing their weaker neighbors, 9 who thus lost their autonomy and 
became annexed to the territory of Elis. It was the general rule 
throughout Greece, that a victorious state undertook to perform* 

1 Xenoph. Hellen. vii. 4, 28 ; Diodor. xv. 78. 

9 Strata, viiL p. 354. * Thucyd. iv. 98 


the current services of the conquered people towards i he gods, 
— such services being conceived as attaching to the soil : hence, 
the celebration of the Olympic games became numbered among 
the incumbences of Elis, just in the same way as the worship of 
the Eleusinian D€m6t£r, when Eleusis lost its autonomy, was 
included among the religious obligations of Athens. The Pisa- 
tans, however, never willingly acquiesced in this absorption of 
what had once been their separate privilege ; they long main* 
tained their conviction, that the celebration of the games was 
their right, and strove on several occasions to regain it. On those 
occasions, the earliest, so far as we hear, was connected with 
the intervention of Pheiddn. It was at their invitation that the 
king of Argos went to Olympia, and celebrated the games him* 
self, in conjunction with the Pisatans, as the lineal successor of 
Uerakles ; while the Eleians, being thus forcibly dispossessed, 
refused to include the 8th Olympiad in their register of the vic- 
torious runners. But their humiliation did not last long, for the 
Spartans took their part, and the contest ended in the defeat of 
Pheidon. In the next Olympiad, the Eleian management and 
the regular enrolment appear as before, and the Spartans are 
even said to have confirmed Elis in her possession both of Pisa- 
tis and Triphylia. 1 

Unfortunately, these scanty particulars are all which we learn 
respecting the armed conflict at the 8th Olympiad, in which the 
religious and the political grounds of quarrel are so intimately 
blended, — as we shall find to be often the case in Grecian his- 
tory. But there is one act of Pheidon yet more memorable, of 
which also nothing beyond a meagre notice has come down to 
as. He first coined both copper and silver money in JEgina, 
and first established a scale of weights and measures, 9 which, 
through his influence, became adopted throughout Peloponnesus, 
and acquired, ultimately, footing both in all the Dorian states, 
and in Boeotia, Thessaly, northern Hellas generally, and Mace- 
donia, — under the name of the <£ginaBan Scale. There arose 

1 Pausan. v. 22, 2 ; Strata, viii. pp. 354-358 ; Herodot vi. 1 27. The nan* 
cf the victor (Antikles the MessenianJ, however, belonging to the 8th Olym- 
piad, appears July in the lists ; it most have been supplied afterwards. 

* Herodot vi. 127 ; Ephor. ap. Strab. viii. pp. 358-476. 


subsequently another rival scale in Greece, called the Euboio, 
differing considerably from the JEginaean. We do not know at 
what time it was introduced, but it was employed both at Athens 
and in the Ionic cities generally, as well as in Euboea, — being 
modified at Athens, so far as money was concerned, by Solon's 
debasement of the coinage. 

The copious and valuable information contained in M. Boeckh'i 
recent publication on Metrology, has thrown new light upon these 
monetary and statical scales. 1 He has shown that both the JEgi- 
naean and the Euboic scales — the former standing to the latter 
in the proportion of 6:5 — had contemporaneous currency in 
different parts of the Persian empire ; the divisions and denomi- 
nations of the scale being the same in both, 100 drachmae to a 
mina, and 60 mines to a talent. The Babylonian talent, mina, 
and drachma are identical with the JEginsean : the word mina is 
of Asiatic origin ; and it has now been rendered highly probable, 
that the scale circulated by Pheiddn was borrowed immediately 
from the Phoenicians, and by them originally from the Babylonians. 
The. Babylonian, Hebraic, Phoenician, Egyptian, 9 and Grecian 
scales of weight (which were subsequently followed wherever 
coined money was introduced) are found to be so nearly conform- 
able, as to warrant a belief that they are all deduced from one 
common origin ; and that origin the Chaldaean priesthood of 
Babylon. It is to Pheiddn, and to his position as chief of the 

1 Metrologische Untersuchungen fiber Gewichte, Munzfusse, and Masse 
des Alterthums in ibrem Zusammenhange dargestellt, von Aug. Boeckb ; 
Berlin, 1838. 

See chap. 7, 1-3. Bnt I cannot agree with M. Boeckh, in thinking that 
Pheiddn, in celebrating the Olympic games, deduced from the Olympic 
stadium, and formally adopted, the measure of the foot, or that he at all 
fettled measures of length. In general, I do not think that M. Boeckh's con- 
clusions are well made out, in respect to the Grecian measures of length and 
capacity. In an examination of this eminently learned treatise (inserted in 
the Classical Museum, 1844, vol. i.), I endeavored to set forth both the nev 
and interesting points established by the author, and the various others in 
which he appeared to me to have failed. 

* I have modified this sentence as it stood in my first edition. It is not 
correct to speak of the Egyptian money scale : the Egyptians had no coined 
tmmey. See a valuable article, in review of my History, in the Chxistiaa 
Reformer, by Mr. Kenrick, who pointed out this inaccuracy. 


Argeian confederacy, that the Greeks owe the first introductka 
of the Babylonian scale of weight, and the first employment of 
coined and stamped money. 

If we maturely weigh the few, bat striking acts of Pheidofi 
which have been preserved to as, and which there is no reason to 
discredit, we shall find ourselves introduced to an early historical 
state of Peloponnesus very different from that to which another 
century will bring us. That Argos, with the federative cities 
attached to her, was at this early time decidedly the commanding 
power in that peninsula, is sufficiently shown by the establishment 
and reception of the Pheidonian weights, measures, and monetary 
system, — while the other incidents mentioned completely har- 
monize with the same idea. Against the oppressions of Elis, the 
Pisatans invoked Pheidon, — partly as exercising a primacy in 
Peloponnesus, just as the inhabitants of Lepreum in Triphylia, 1 
three centuries afterwards, called in the aid of Sparta for the same 
object, at a time when Sparta possessed the headship, — and 
partly as the lineal representative of Herakles, who had founded 
those games from the management of which they had been unjustly 
extruded. On the other hand, Sparta appears as a second-rate 
power. The JEginaet»n scale of weight and measure was adopted 
(here as elsewhere, 9 — the Messenian Dorians were still equal 
and independent, — and we find Sparta interfering to assist Elis 
by virtue of an obligation growing (so the legend represents it) 
out of the common JEtolo- Dorian emigration ; not at all from 
any acknowledged primacy, such as we shall see her enjoying 
hereafter. The first coinage of copper and silver money is a 
capital event in Grecian history, and must be held to imply con- 
siderable commerce as well as those extensive views which belong 
only to a conspicuous and leading position. The ambition of 
Pheiddn to resume all the acquisitions made by his ancestor 
Herakles, suggests the same large estimate of his actual power. 
He is characterized as a despot, and even as the most inwokml 

1 Thucyd. ▼. 31. 

•Plutarch, Apophthegm. Laconic p. a&ft; Dikaafchas ap. .AtlMam sv. 


The ff gW-MMi arina, drachma, aad obelus wore the agnomination* am 
plored in stipulations among the Pslopoaneitaa states (Thucyd. ▼. 47). 


jf ail despots : * how far he deserved such a reputation, we have 
dc means of judging. We may remark, however, that he lived 
before the age of despots or tyrants, properly so called, and 
before the Herakleid lineage had yet lost its primary, half-politi- 
cal, half-religious character. Moreover, the later historians have 
invested his actions with a color of exorbitant aggression, by 
applying them to a state of things which belonged to their time 
and not to his. Thus Ephorus represents him as having de- 
prived the Lacedaemonians of the headship of Peloponnesus, which 
they never possessed until long after him, — and also as setting 
at naught the sworn inviolability of the territory of the Eleians, 
enjoyed by the latter as celebrators of the Olympic games ; where- 
as the Agonothesia, or right of superintendence claimed by Elis, 
had not at that time acquired the sanction of prescription,— 
while the conquest of Pisa by the Eleians themselves had proved 
that this sacred function did not protect the territory of a weaker 

How Pheidon fell, and how the Argeians lost that supremacy 
which they once evidently possessed, we have no positive details 
to inform us : with respect to the latter point, however, we can 
discern a sufficient explanation. The Argeians stood predomi- 
nant as an entire and unanimous confederacy, which required a 
vigorous and able hand to render its internal organization effec- 
tive or its ascendency respected without. No such leader after- 
wards appeared at Argos, the whole history of which city is 
destitute of eminent individuals : her line of kings continued at 
least down to the Persian war, 3 but seemingly with only titular 
functions, for the government had long been decidedly popular 
The statements, which represent the government as popular an- 
terior to the time of Pheidon, appear unworthy of trust. That 
prince is rather to be taken as wielding the old, undiminished 
prerogatives of the Herakleid kings >ut wielding them with un- 
usual effect, — enforcing relaxed privileges, and appealing to the 

1 Herodot vi 127. Qeidvvo? tov 'Apyeictv rvpawov — tov vppioavrot 
wkfuna <ty 'EZXqvov hnavruv. Pausanias (vi. 22, 2) copies the expression. 

Aristotle cites Pheidon as a person who, being a paaiXtvf, made himself a 
Hpowoc (Politic viiL 8, 5). 

• Herodot riL 149. 

rou n. H* 2loc 


old heroic sentiment in reference to Hdrakles, rather than revo 
lutionizing the existing relations either of Argos or of Pelopon- 
nesus. It was in fact the great and steady growth of Sparta, for 
three centuries after the Lykurgean institutions, which operated 
as a cause of subversion to the previous order of command and 
obedience in Greece. 

The assertion made by Herodotus, — that, in earlier times, the 
n hole eastern coast of Laconia as far as Cape Malea, including 
the island of Kythera and several other islands, had belonged to 
Argos, — is referred by O. Miiller to about the 50th Olympiad, or 
580 b. c. Perhaps it had ceased to be true at that period ; but 
that it was true in the age of Pheidon, there seem good grounds 
for believing. What is probably meant is, that the Dorian towns 
on this coast, Prasiae, Zarex, Epidaurus Limera, and Boeae, were 
once autonomous, and members of the Argeian confederacy, — a 
fact highly probable, on independent evidence, with respect to 
Epidaurus Limera, inasmuch as that town was a settlement from 
Epidaurus in the Argolic peninsula : and Boeae too had its own 
oekist and eponymus, the Herakleid Boeus, 1 noway connected with 
Sparta, — perhaps derived from the same source as the name 
of the town Bccon in Doris. The Argeian confederated towns 
would thus comprehend the whole coast of the Argolic and Saro- 
nic gulfs, from Kythera as far as ^Egina, besides other islands 
which we do not know : ^Egina had received a colony of Dorians 
from Argos and Epidaurus, upon which latter town it continued 
for some time in a state of dependence. 1 It will at once be seen 
that this extent of coast implies a considerable degree of com- 
merce and maritime activity. We have besides to consider the 
range of Doric colonies in the southern islands of the iEgean 
and in the south-western corner of Asia Minor, — Kretts, Kda, 
Rhodes (with its three distinct cities), Ilalikarnassus, Knidus, 
Myndus, Nisyrus, SymG, Karpathus, Kalydna, etc. Of the Dorio 
establishments here named, several are connected (as has been 
before stated) with the great emigration of the Temenid Altha> 
menes from Argos : but what we particularly observe is, that they 
we often referred as colonies promiscuously to Argos, Ti-cezGo, 

1 Pausan. iii. 22, 9 ; iii. 23, 4. 

1 Herodot. v. 83 ; Strata, viii. p. 375. 


LiiL." ,...!,. v.,. .: ,||| 


Epidauras * — more frequently however, as it seems, to Argot. 
AH these settlements are doubtless older than Pheiddn, and we 
may conceive them as proceeding conjointly from the allied Dorian 
towns in the Argolic peninsula, at a time when they were more 
in the habit of united action than they afterwards became: a 
captain of emigrants selected from the line of H§rakles and 
Temenus was suitable to the feelings of all of them. We may 
thus look back to a period, at the very beginning of the Olym- 
piads, when the maritime Dorians on the east of Peloponnesus 
maintained a considerable intercourse and commerce, not only 
among themselves, but also with their settlements on the Asiatic 
coast and islands. That the Argolic peninsula formed an early 
centre for maritime rendezvous, we may farther infer from the 
very ancient Amphiktyony of the seven cities (Hermione", Epi- 
daurus, iEgina, Athens, Prasiae, Nauplia, and the Minyeian Or- 
chomenus), on the holy island of Kalauria, off the harbor of 

The view here given of the early ascendency of Argos, as the 
head of the Peloponnesian Dorians and the metropolis of the 
Asiatic Dorians, enables us to understand the capital innovation 
of Pheidon, — the first coinage, and the first determinate scale 
of weight and measure, known in Greece. Of the value of such 
improvements, in the history of Grecian civilization, it is super- 
fluous to speak, especially when we recollect that the Hellenic 
states, having no political unity, were only held together by the 

1 Rhodes, Kos, Knidus, and Halikarnassus are all treated by Strabo (xi? 
p. 653) as colonies of Argos : Rhodes is so described by Thucydides (vii. 
57), and K6s by Tacitus (xii. 61 ). K6s, Kalydna, and Nisyrus are described 
by Herodotus as colonies of Epidauras (vii. 99): Halikarnassus passes 
lometimes for a colony of Troezen, sometimes of TrcezSn and Argos con- 
jointly : " Cum Melas et Areuanius ab Argis et Troezene coloniam com- 
munem eo loco induxerunt, barbaros Caras et Leleges ejecerunt (Vitruv. ii. 
8. 12; Steph. Byz. v. 'AXiKupvaoaoc)." Compare Strabo, x. p. 479 ; Conon, 
Narr. 47 ; Diodor. v. 80. 

Raoul Rochette (Histoire des Colonies Grecques, t. iii. ch. 9) and 0. Mill* 
ler (History of the Dorians, ch. 6) hare collected the facts about 
Asiatic Dorians. 

The little town of Bee® had its counterpart of the same name In 
(Steph. Byz. v. Botov). 

• Strabo, p. 374. 


aggregate of spontaneous uniformities, in language, religion, sym- 
pathies, recreations, and general habits. We see both how Phei- 
ddn came to contract the wish, and how he acquired the power, 
to introduce throughout so much of the Grecian world an uni- 
form scale ; we also see that the Asiatic Dorians form the link 
between him and Phoenicia, from whence the scale was derived* 
just as the Euboic scale came, in all probability, through the 
Ionic cities in Asia, from Lydia. It is asserted by Ephorus, and 
admitted even by the ablest modern critics, that Pheidon first 
coined money " in JEgina : " l other authors (erroneously believ- 
ing that his scale was the Euboic scale) alleged that his coinage 
had been carried on " in a place of Argos called Euboea." a Now 
both these statements appear highly improbable, and both are 
traceable to the same mistake, — of supposing that the title, by 
which the scale had come to be commonly known, must neces- 
sarily be derived from the place in which the coinage had been 
struck. There is every reason to conclude, that what Pheidon 
did was done in Argos, and nowhere else : his coinage and scale 
were the earliest known in Greece, and seem to have been known 
by his own name, " the Phcidonian measures," under which de- 
signation they were described by Aristotle, in his account of the 
constitution of Argos. 3 They probably did not come to bear the 
specific epithet of jEginaan until there was another scale in 
vogue, the Euboic, from which to distinguish them ; and both the 
epithets were probably derived, not from the place where the 
scale first originated, but from the people whose commercial 
activity tended to make them most generally known, — in the one 
case, the ^Eginetaas ; in the other case, the inhabitants of Chalkis 
and Eretria. I think, therefore, that we are to look upon the 
Pheidonian measures as emanating from Argos, and as having 

1 Ephorus ap. Strabo, viii. p. 376 ; Boeckh, Metrologie, Abschn. 7, 1 : ae* 
also the Marmor Parium, Epoch 30. 

* Etymologicon Magn. Eipoiicbv vofuopa. 

3 Pollux, Onomastic x. 179. Ely <f &v xdt fetdw n ayytiov &aittpbv t awl 
rui Qeiduviuv fierpuv uvofiaofisvov, inip &v *v 'Apyeiov iroXiTtia 'Apton** 

Abo Ephorus ap. Strab. viii. p. 358. kcU fierpa ££efy>e r& tad&ittfa I 
una Kal <rra&fwi>c, ical vofitopa Kexapaypcvov, etc. 


10 greater connection, originally, with -^Egina, than with any 
other city dependent upon Argos. 

There is, moreover, another point which deserves notice. What 
was known by the name of the JEginaean scale, as contrasted 
with and standing in a definite ratio (6:5) with the Euboic scale, 
related only to weight and money, so far as oar knowledge ex- 
tends : * we have no evidence to show that the same ratio extend- 
ed either to measures of length or measures of capacity. Bat 
there seems ground for believing that the Pheidonian regulations, 
taken in their full comprehension, embraced measures of capacity 
as well as weights : Phekldn, at the same time when he deter- 
mined the talent, mina, and drachm, seems also to have fixed the 
thy and liquid measures, — the raedinmus and metr£t£s, with then 
parts and multiples: and there existed 3 Pheidonian measures 
of capacity, though not of length, so far as we know. The JEgin- 
aean scale may thus have comprised only a portion of what was 
established by Pheidon, namely, that which related to weight and 



It has already been stated that the territory properly called 
Elis, apart from the enlargement which it acquired by conquest, 
included the westernmost land in Peloponnesus, south of Achaia, 
And west of Mount Pholo£ and Olenus in Arcadia, — but not 
yg*i— ding so far southward as the river Alpheins, the course of 
which lay along the southern portion of Pisatis and on the bor 
i of Triphylia. This territory, which appears in the Odyssey 

1 This differs from Boeckh's opinion : see the note in page 315. 
9 Theophnst. Character, c. 13 ; Pollux, x. 179. 


as « the divine Elis, where the Epeians hold sway," 1 is in the his- 
torical times occupied by a population of JEtolian origin. The 
connection of race between the historical Eleians and the his- 
torical JEtolians was recognized by both parties, nor is there any 
ground for disputing it. 9 

That jEtolian invaders, or emigrants, into Elis, would cross 
from Naupaktus, or some neighboring point in the Corinthian 
gulf, is in the natural course of things, — and such is the course 
which Oxylus, the conductor of the invasion, is represented by the 
Herakleid legend as taking. That legend (as has been already 
recounted) introduces Oxylus as the guide of the three Hera- 
kleid brothers, — Temenus, KresphontSs, and Aristodemus, — 
and as stipulating with them that, in the new distribution about to 
take place of Peloponnesus, he shall be allowed to possess the 
Eleian territory, coupled with many holy privileges as to tho 
celebration of the Olympic games. 

In the preceding chapter, I have endeavored to show that the 
settlements of the Dorians in and near the Argolic peninsula, so 
far as the probabilities of the case enable us to judge, were not 
accomplished by any inroad m this direction. But the localities 
occupied by the Dorians of Sparta, and by the Dorians of Steny- 
klerus, in the territory called Messene, lead us to a different con- 
clusion. The easiest and most natural road through which emi- 
grants could reach either of these two spots, is through the Eleian 
and the Pisatid country. Colonel Leake observes, 3 that the 
direct road from the Eleian territory to Sparta, ascending the 
valley of the Alpheius, near Olympia, to the sources of its branch, 
the Theius, and from thence descending the Eurotas, affords the 
only easy march towards that very inaccessible city: and both 
ancients and moderns have remarked the vicinity of the source 
of the Alpheius to that of the Eurotas. The situation of Steny- 
klerus and Andania, the original settlements of the Messenian 
Dorians, adjoining closely the Arcadian Parrhasii, is only at a 
short distance from the course of the Alpheius ; being thus reached 

1 Odyss. xv. 297. f Strabo, x. p. 479. 

' Leake, Travels in Morea, vol. iii. ch. 23, p. 29 ; compare Diodor. xv. 66. 

The distance from Olympia to Sparta, as marked on a pillar which Pan- 
amas saw at Olympia, was 660 stadia, — about 77 English miles (Pa 
ri 16, 6). 


most easily by the same route. Dismissing the idea of a grea* 
collective Dorian armament, powerful enough to grasp at once 
the entire peninsula, — we may conceive two moderate detach- 
ments of hardy mountaineers, from the cold regions in and near 
Doris, attaching themselves to the JEtolians, their neighbors, who 
were proceeding to the invasion of Elis. After having aided 
the JEtolians, both to occupy Elis and to subdue the Pisatid, 
these Dorians advanced up the valley of the Alpheius in quest 
of settlements for themselves. One of these bodies ripens into 
the stately, stubborn, and victorious Spartans ; the other, into the 
short-lived, trampled, and struggling Messenians. 

Amidst the darkness which overclouds these original settle- 
ments, we seem to discern something like special causes to deter- 
mine both of them. With respect to the Spartan Dorians, we 
are told that a person named Philonomus betrayed Sparta to 
them, persuading the sovereign in possession to retire with his 
people into the habitations of the Ionians, in the north of the 
peninsula, — and that he received as a recompense for this accept- 
able service Amyklae, with the district around it. It is farther 
stated, — and this important fact there seems no reason to doubt, 
— that Amyklae, — though only twenty stadia or two miles and 
a half distant from Sparta, retained both its independence and 
its Achaean inhabitants, long after the Dorian emigrants had ac- 
quired possession of the latter place, and was only taken by 
them under the reign of Teleklus, one generation before the first 
Olympiad. 1 Without presuming to fill up by conjecture incurable 
gaps in the statements of our authorities, we may from hence 
reasonably presume that the Dorians were induced to invade, 
and enabled to acquire, Sparta, by the invitation and assistance 
of a party in the interior of the country. Again, with res 
to the Messenian Dorians, a different, but not less effectual ti 
tation was presented by the alliance of the Arcadians, in the 
south-western portion of that central region of Peloponnesus, 
fresphontes, the Herakleid leader, it is said, espoused the daugh- 
ter 9 of the Arcadian king, Kypselus, which procured for him the 

1 Strata, viiL pp. 364, 365 ; Fuusan. iiL 2 5 : compare the Jtory of Kite 
Faasan. iii. 13, 3. 
9 Puowul iv. 3, 3 ; viii. 29. 4 


support of a powerful section of Arcadia. His settlement at 
Stenyklerus was a considerable distance from the sea, at the 
north-east corner of Messenia, 1 close to the Arcadian frontier ; 
and it will be seen hereafter that this Arcadian alliance is a con- 
stant and material element in the disputes of the Messenian 
Dorians with Sparta. 

We may thus trace a reasonable sequence of events, showing 
how two bodies of Dorians, having first assisted the -/Etoio- 
Kieians to conquer the Pisatid, and thus finding themselves on 
the banks of the Alpheius, followed the upward course of that 
river, the one to settle at Sparta, the other at Stenyklerus. The 
historian Ephorus, from whom our scanty fragments of inibrma 
tion respecting these early settlements are derived, — it is im- 
portant to note that he lived in the age immediately succeeding 
the first foundation of Mess&ne" as a city, the restitution of the 
long-exiled Messenians, and the amputation of the fertile western 
half of Laconia, for their benefit, by Epameinondas, — imparts to 
these proceedings an immediate decisiveness of effect which does 
not properly belong to them : as if the Spartans had become at 
once possessed of all Laconia, and the Messenians of all Mes- 
senia : Pausanias, too, speaks as if the Arcadians collectively had 
assisted and allied themselves with Kresphontes. This is the 
general spirit which pervades his account, though the particular 
facts in so far as we find any such, do not always harmonize 
with it. Now we are ignorant of the preexisting divisions of 
the country, either east or west of Mount Taygetus, at the time 
when the Dorians invaded it. But to treat the one and the 
other as integral kingdoms, handed over at once to two Dorian 
leaders, is an illusion borrowed from the old legend, from the hia- 
toricizing fancies of Ephorus, and from the fact that, in the well- 
known times, this whole territory came to be really united under 
the Spartan power. 

At what date the Dorian settlements at Sparta and Stenyk- 
lerus were effected, we have no means of determining. Yet, that 
there existed between them in the earliest times a degree of fra- 
ternity which did not prevail between Lacedsemon and Argos, 

1 Strata (viii. p. 366) blames Euripides for calling Messend an 
Mntry; bat the poet seems to have been quite correct in doing so. 


we may fairly presume from the common temple, with joint 
religious sacrifices, of Artemis limnatis, or Artemis on the 
Marsh, erected on the confines of Messenia and Laconia. 1 Our 
first view of the two, at all approaching to distinctness, seems to 
date from a period about half a century earlier than the first 
Olympiad (776 b. a), — about the reign of king Teleklus of the 
Eurystheneid or Agid line, and the introduction of the Lykurgean 
discipline. Teleklus stands in the list as the eighth king dating 
from Eurysthenes. But how many of the seven kings before 
him are to be Considered as real persons, — or how much, out of 
the brief warlike expeditions ascribed to them, is to be treated as 
authentic history, — I pretend not to define. 

The earliest determinable event in the interned history of Sparta 
is the introduction of the Lykurgean discipline; the earliest 
external events are the conquest of Amyklse, Pharis, and Geron- 
thrae, effected by king Teleklus, and the first quarrel with the 
Messenians, in which that prince was slain. When we come to 
see how deplorably great was the confusion and ignorance which 
reigned with reference to a matter so preeminently important as 
Lykurgus and his legislation, we shall not be inclined to think 
that facts much less important, and belonging to an earlier epoch, 
can have been handed down upon any good authority. And in 
like manner, when we learn that Amyklse, Pharis, and Geron throe 
(all south of Sparta, and the first only two and a half miles dis- 
tant from that city) were independent of the Spartans until the 
reign of Teleklus, we shall require some decisive testimony before 
we can believe that a community so small, and so hemmed in as 
Sparta must then have been, had in earlier times undertaken 
expeditions against Helos on the sea-coast, against Eleitor on the 
extreme northern side of Arcadia, against the Kynurians, or 
against the Argeians. If Helos and Kynuria were conquered by 
these early kings, it appears that they had to be conquered a 
second time by kings succeeding Teleklus. It would be more 
natural that we should hear when and how they conquered the 
places nearer to them, — Sellasia, or Belemina, the valley of the 
(Enus, or the upper valley of the Eurotas. But these seem to be 

1 Pausan. iv. 2, 2. /urelxov dfc airov wbvm Aopicuv of r« Meooifvioi «al 



assumed as matters of course ; the proceedings ascribed to the 
early Spartan kings are such only as might beseem the palmy 
days when Sparta was undisputed mistress of all Laconia. 

The succession of Messenian kings, beginning with Kresphon- 
tes, the Herakleid brother, and continuing from father to son, — 
iEpytus, Glaukus, Isthnius, Dotadas, Subotas, Phintas, the last 
being contemporary with Teleklus, — is still less marked by inci- 
dent than that of the early Spartan kings. It is said that the 
reign of Kresphontes was troubled, and himself ultimately slain 
by mutinies among his subjects : iEpytus, then a youth, having 
escaped into Arcadia, was afterwards restored to the throne by 
the Arcadians, Spartans, and Argeians. 1 From JEpytus, the 
Messenian line of kings are stated to have been denominated 
iEpytids in preference to Herakleids, — which affords another 
proof of their intimate connection with the Arcadians, since ^py- 
tus was a very ancient name in Arcadian heroic antiquity. 9 

There is considerable resemblance between the alleged behavior 
of Kresphontes on first settling at Stenyklerus, and that of Eurys- 
thenes and Prokles at Sparta, — so far as we gather from state- 
ments alike meagre and uncertified, resting on the authority of 
Ephorus. Both are said to have tried to place the preexisting 
inhabitants of the country on a level with their own Dorian bands ; 
both provoked discontents and incurred obloquy, with their con- 
temporaries as well as with posterity, by the attempt ; nor did 
either permanently succeed. Kresphontes was forced to concen- 
trate all his Dorians in Stenyklerus, while after all, the discontents 
ended in his violent death. And Agis, the son of Eurysthends, 
is said to have reversed all the liberal tentatives of his father, so 
as to bring the whole of Laconia into subjection and dependence 
on the Dorians at Sparta, with the single exception of Amyklae. 
So odious to the Spartan Dorians was the conduct of Eurysthente, 
that they refused to acknowledge him as their oekist, and conferred 
that honor upon Agis ; the two lines of kings being called Agiadb 

1 Pauaan. iy. 3, 5-6. 

■ Homer, Iliad, ii. 604.— 

Ol <T kx ov 'Apjcadiyv, imb YLvXkqvrj^ bpof aiirt^ 

kiirvTiov irapd rvfiftov, 
B"hol ad be 6 & Alirvrof &px<u6r<iroc ^pwf , 'Apxaf rb yfvoc. 


and Eurypontids, instead of Eurystheneids and Prokleids. 1 Wo 
«ee in these statements the same tone of mind as that iriu«ib 
pervades the Panathenaic oration of Isokratgs, the master of 
Ephorus, — the facts of an unknown period, so colored as to suit 
on ideal of haughty Dorian exclusiveness. 

Again, as Eurysthenfis and Prokles appear, in the picture of 
Ephorus, to carry their authority at once over the whole of 
Laconia, so too does Kresphontes over the whole of Messenia, — 
over the entire south-western region of Peloponnesus, westward 
of Mount Taygetus and Cape Taenarus, and southward of the 
river Neda. He sends an envoy to Pylus and Rhium, the 
western and southern portions of the south-western promontory 
of Peloponnesus, treating the entire territory as if it were one 
sovereignty, and inviting the inhabitants to submit under equal 
laws. 9 But it has already been observed, that this supposed 

1 Compare the two citations from Ephorus, Strabo, viii. pp. 361-365. 
Unfortunately, a portion of the latter citation is incurably mutilated in the 
text : O. Mailer (History of the Dorians, book i. ch. v. 13) has proposed an 
ingenious conjecture, which, however, cannot be considered as trustworthy. 
Grosskurd, the German translator, usually skilful in these restorations, leaves 
the passage untouched. 

For a new coloring of the death of Kresphontes, adjusted by Isokrates so 
as to suit the purpose of the address which he puts into the mouth of Archi- 
damus king of Sparta, see the discourse in his works which passes under 
that name (Or. iv. pp. 120-122). Isokrat€s says that the Messenian Dorians 
slew Kresphontes, whose children fled as suppliants to Sparta, imploring 
revenge for the death of their father, and surrendering the territory to the 
Spartans. The Delphian god advised the latter to accept the tender, and 
they accordingly attacked the Messenians, avenged Kresphontes, and appro- 
priated the territory. 

Isokratgs always starts from the basis of the old legend, — the triple 
Dorian conquest made all at once: compare Panathenaic. Or. xii. pp 

* Ephorus ap. Strabo, viii. p. 361. Dr. Thirlwall observes (History of 
Greece, ch. vii. p. 300, 2d edit.), " The Messenian Pylus seems long to have 
retained its independence, and to have been occupied for several centuries 
by one branch of the family of Neleus ; for descendants of Nestor are men- 
tioned as allies of the Messenians in their struggle with Sparta in the latter 
half of the seventh century b. c." 

For this assertion, Dr. Thirlwall cites Strabo (viii. p. 355). I agree with 
him as to the matter of fact : I see no proof that the Dorians of Stenyklerus 
*ver ruled over what is called the Messenian Pylus ; for, of course, if they 


•neness and indivisibility is not less uncertified in regard to 
Messetiia than in regard to Laconia. How large a proportion of 
the former territory these kings of Stenyklerus may have ruled, 
we have no means of determining, but there were certainly por- 
tions of it which they did not rule, — not merely during the reign 
of Teieklus at Sparta, but still later, during the first Messeniao 
war. For not only are we informed that Teieklus established 
three townships, PoiSessa, Echeiae, 1 and Tragium, near the Mes- 
eenian gulf, and on the course of the river Nedon, but we read 
also a farther matter of evidence in the roll of Olympic victors. 
Every competitor for the prize at one of these great festivals was 
always entered as member of some autonomous Hellenic commu- 
nity, which constituted his title to approach the lists ; if success- 
ful, he was proclaimed with the name of the community to which 
he belonged. Now during the first ten Olympiads, seven winners 
are proclaimed as Messenians ; in the 1 1th Olympiad, we find the 
name of Oxythemis Kordmeus, — Oxythemis, not of Kordneia in 
Bceotia, but of Kordne* in the western bend of the Measenian gui£* 

did not rale over it before the second Messcnian war, they never acquired it 
tt all. But on reference to the passage in Strabo, it will not be found to 
prove anything to the point ; for Strabo is speaking, not of the Messeniao 
Pylus, but of the Triphylian Pylus : he takes pains to show that Nestor 
had nothing to do with the Messenian Pylus, — Nirrropoc airoyovoi means 
the inhabitants of Triphylia, near Lepreum : compare p. 35a 

1 Strabo, viii. p. 960. Concerning the situation of Korone, in the Hesse- 
■ian gulf, see Pausanias, iv. 84, 2 ; Strabo, viii. p. 361 j and the observations 
of Colonel Leake, Travels in Morea, ch. x. vol. i. pp. 439-448. He place* 
it near the modern Petalidhi, seemingly on good grounds. 

* See Mr. Clinton's Chronological Tables for the year 732 b. c; O. Mallei 
{in the Chronological Table subjoined to his History of the Dorians) call* 
this vktor, Oxythemis of Kortincia, in Bceotia. But this is inadmissible, on two 
grounds : 1. The occurrence of a Boeotian competitor in that early day a* 
the Olympic games. The first eleven victors (I put aside Oxythemis, 
because he is the subject of the argument) are all from western and southern 
Peloponnesus; then come victors from Corinth, Megara, and Epidaurusj 
Ihen from Athens ; there is one from Thebes in the 41st Olympiad. I infer 
from hence that the celebrity and frequentation of the Olympic games 
increased only by degrees, and had not got beyond Peloponnesus in the 
riglith century B. o. 2. The name Coronasus, Kopuvafof, is the proper and 
formal title for a citizen of Kordng, not for a citizen of Kordneia ; the latter 
styles himself Kopuvrfc. The ethnical name Kopuvei);, as belonging to 
Kmfoeia in Bceotia, is placed beyond doubt by several inscriptions in Boeckh's 


some miles on the right bank of the Pamisus, and a considerable 
distance to the north of the modern Coron. Now if Korone had then 
been comprehended in Messenia, Oxythemis would have been 
proclaimed as a Messenian, like the seven winners who preceded 
him ; and the fact of his being proclaimed as a Koronaean, proves 
that Korone was then an independent community, not under the 
dominion of the Dorians of Stenyklerus. It seems clear, therefore, 
that the latter did not reign over the whole territory commonly 
known as Messenia, though we are unable to assign the proportion 
of it which they actually possessed. 

The Olympic festival, in its origin doubtless a privilege of the 
neighboring Pisatans, seems to have derived its great and gradu- 
ally expanding importance from the iEtolo-EIeian settlement in 
Peloponnesus, combined with the Dorians of Laconia and Mes- 
senia. Lykurgus of Sparta, and Iphitus of Elis, are alleged to 
have joined their efforts for the purpose of establishing both the 

collection ; especially No. 1583, in which a citizen of that town is prodaimea 
as victorious at the festival of the Charitesia at Orchomenus : compare Nos 
1587-1593, in which the same ethnical name occurs. The Boeotian Inscrip 
tions attest in like manner the prevalence of the same etymological law in 
orming ethnical names, for the towns near Kordneia : thus, Choerdneia makes 
\aipuvei>Q > Lebadeia, Ae/3odft)c ; ELaUia, 'EXar t%, or 'EAoreievf 

The Inscriptions afford evidence perfectly dec- wive as to the ethnical title 
mder which a citizen of Koronem in Boeotia would have caused himself to 
be entered and proclaimed at the Olympic games ; better than the evidence 
of Herodotus and Thucydides, who both call them Kopuvaioi (Herodot. v. 
79; Thncyd. iv. 93) : Polybius agrees with the Inscription, and speaks of the 
Kopuveic, Ac/ia&ic, Xacputveig (xxvii. 1). O. Mailer himself admits, in 
another place (Orchomenos, p. 480 j, that the proper ethnical name is Kopu- 
vevc. The reading of Strabo (ix. p. 411) is not trustworthy : see Groaskurd, 
ad loc. ; compare Stcph. Byz. Kopuveia and Kopuvjj. 

In regard to the formation of ethnical names, it seems the general rule, 
that a town ending in q or at, preceded by a consonant, had its ethnical deriv- 
ative in aioc j such as Zx*wi^ t Topuvjf, Kvurj, 6w?ai, 'Ad?vai ; while names 
ending in eta had their ethnicon in evq, as ' kXeJ-avdpeia, '-Afiaaeta, 2iAei>/ma, 
Avoifiuxeia (the recent cities thus founded by the successors of Alexander 
are perhaps the best evidences that can be taken of the analogies of the 
language), MeAu/UTreta, Mc-Airem, in addition to the Bteotian names of towns 
above quoted. There is, however, great irregularity in particular cases, and 
the number of towns called by the same name created an anxiety to varj 
Ihe ethnicon for et-ch : see Stephan. Byz. v. UpatXeia. 


sanctity of the Olympic truce and the inviolability of the Eleian 
territory. Hence, though this tale is not to be construed ai 
matter of fact, we may see that the Lacedaemonians regarded 
the Olympic games as a portion of their own antiquities. More- 
over, it is certain, both that the dignity of the festival increased 
simultaneously with their ascendency, 1 and that their peculiar 
fashions were very early introduced into the practice of the 
Olympic competitors. Probably, the three bands of cooperat- 
ing invaders, iEtolians and Spartan and Messenian Dorians, 
may have adopted this festival as a periodical renovation of mu- 
tual union and fraternity ; from which cause the games became 
an attractive centre for the western portion of Peloponnesus, be 
fore they were much frequented by people from the eastern, 01 
still more from extra-Peloponnesian Hellas. For it cannot be 
altogether accidental, when we read the names of the first twelve 
proclaimed Olympic victors (occupying nearly half a century from 
776 B. c. downwards), to find that seven of them are Messenians, 
three Eleians, one from Dym&, in Achaia, and one from Korone ; 
while after the 12th Olympiad, Corinthians and Megarians and 
Epidaurians begin to occur ; later still, extra-Peloponnesian vic- 
tors. We may reasonably infer from hence that the Olympic 
ceremonies were at this early period chiefly frequented by visi- 
tors and competitors from the western regions of Peloponnesus, 
and that the affluence to them, from the more distant parts of 
the Hellenic world, did not become considerable until the first 
Messenian war had closed. 

Having thus set forth the conjectures, to which our very 
scanty knowledge points, respecting the first establishment of 
the jEtolian and Dorian settlements in Elis, Laconia, and Mes* 
senia, connected as they are with the steadily increasing dignity 
and frequentation of the Olympic festival, I proceed, in the 
next chapter, to that memorable circumstance which both deter* 
mined the character, and brought about the political ascendency, 
of the Spartans separately: I mean, the laws and discipline 
of Lykurgus. 

1 The entire nakedness of the competitors at Olympia was adopted from 
the Spartan practice, seemingly in the 14th Olympiad, as is testified by the 
epigram on Orsippus the Megarian. Previous to that period, the Olympic 
competitors had dia&tiara wepl t& aldola (Thncyd. i. 6). 


Of the preexisting inhabitants of Laconia and Messenia, whom 
we are accustomed to call Achaeans and Pylians, so little is 
known, that we cannot at all measure the difference between 
them and their Dorian invaders, either in dialect, in habits, or in 
intelligence. There appear no traces of any difference of dialect 
among the various parts of the population of Laconia : the Mes- 
senian allies of Athens, in the Peloponnesian war, speak the same 
dialect as the Helots, and the same also as the Ambrakiotic colo- 
nists from Corinth : all Doric 1 Nor are we to suppose that the 
Doric dialect was at all peculiar to the people called Dorians. 
As far as can be made out by the evidence of Inscriptions, it 
seems to have been the dialect of the Phokians, Delphians, Lo- 
krians, iEtolians, and Achaeans of Phthiotis : with respect to the 
latter, the Inscriptions of Thaumaki, in Achaea Phthidtis, afford a 
proof the more curious and the more cogent of native dialect, 
because the Phthiots were both immediate neighbors and sub* 
jects of the Thessalians, who spoke a variety of the JEolic. So, 
too, within Peloponnesus, we find evidences of Doric dialect 
among the Achaeans in the north of Peloponnesus, — the Dryo- 
pic inhabitants of HermionS, 9 — and the Eleuthero-Lacones, or 
Laconian townships (compounded of Perioeki and Helots), eman- 
cipated by the Romans in the second century b. c. Concerning 
the speech of that population whom the invading Dorians found 
in Laconia, we have no means of judging: the presumption 
would rather be that it did not differ materially from the Do- 
ric Thucydid&s designates the Corinthians, whom the invading 
Dorians attacked from the hill Solygeius, as being iEolians, and 
Strabo speaks both of the Achaeans as an iEolic nation, and of 
the JEolic dialect as having been originally preponderant in 
Peloponnesus. 3 But we do not readily see what means of in 
formation either of these authors possessed respecting the speech 
of a time which must have been four centuries anterior even to 

Of that which is called the Molic dialect there are three 

1 Thucyd. iii. 112 ; iv. 41 : compare viL 44, about the sameness of sound 
vf the war-shout, or p«an, as delivered by all the different Dorians. 

1 Corpus Inscript Boeckh. Nos. 1771, 1772, 1773; Ahrens, De Dialec* 
f Jorica, sect i-ii. 48. 

J Thucyd. ir. 42 ; Strabo, viu. ©. 333 


marked and distinguishable varieties, — the Lesbian, the Then 
salian. and the Boeotian ; the Thessalian forming a mean term 
between the other two. Ahrens has shown that the ancient gram 
raatical critics are accustomed to affirm peculiarities) aa belong- 
ing to the iEolic dialect generally, which in truth belong only to 
the Lesbian variety of it, or to the poems of Alkaeus and Sappho, 
which these critics attentively studiecL Lesbian JEolicy Thes- 
salian iEolic, and Boeotian iEolic, are all different : and if, ab- 
stracting from these differences, we confine our attention to thai 
which is common to all three, we shall find little to distinguish this, 
abstract jEolic from the abstract Doric, or that which is common 
Jo the many varieties of the Doric dialect. 1 These two are sis- 
ters, presenting, both of them* more or less the Latin side of the 
Greek language, while the relationship of either of them to the 
Attic and Ionic is more distant Now it seems that, putting 
Aside Attica, the speech of all Greece, 9 from Perrhaebia and 
Mount Olympus to Cape Malea and Cape Akritas, consisted of 
different varieties, either of the Doric or of the iEolic dialect ; 
this being true (as far as we are able to judge) not less of the 
aboriginal Arcadians than of the rest. The Laconian dialect 

1 See the valuable work of Ahrens, De Dialecto JEolicA, sect. 5i. He 
observes, in reference to the Lesbian, Thessalian, and Boeotian* dialects; 
* Tres iU«w dtalectos, quss- optimo jure jEolicae vocari videntur'— qaia^qor 
il!U usi ova*, jEoles erant — comparantem mironr habere oportet,,qood Asia- 
nor urn ^Solium, et Btootocom dialecti tautam inter se distant, qoaasami ▼«. 
ab aUA qua vis Grsaca- lingua dialecto.'' He then enumerates many points 
of difference : u Contra tot tantasque differentia* pauca rcperiuntur eaque 

fei-o levia, quae ntrique dialecto, neque simul Doric®, communia sint 

Vules his romparetis tmunrn imcressc inter utramque dfalectum, ntdnbitare 
liceat, an J5k>les Baeoti non magis can -/Eolibun Asianis conjunct! faarinft, 
quam qui hodie rairo quodani caau Saxoncs vooantur cum antiqau .Soatniw 
ibus. Nih ; lominus Theasalica dialecto iu comparationem vocata, diversis* 
sima qua videntur aliquo vinculo conjungere licet. Quamvis enim pauca de 
ea coraperta habeamus, noc tamen ccrtum est, alia Thessalis cum Lesbiis, 
alia cum solis Boaotis communia esse." (P. 222-223.) 

• About the Motiki dialect of the Perrhnbiam, see Stephana* By* v. Y6v~ 
voc, and ap. Eustath. ad Iliad, p. 335. 

The Attic judgment, in comparing these different varieties of . .reek speech, 
If expressed in the story of a man being asked — Whether the Boeotians w 
the TTieasalians were most of barbarians f He answered — The 
fXustath. ad Iliad, p 904). 


contained more specialties of its own, and approached nearer to 
the JEolic and to the Eleian, than any other variety of the 
Dorian : it stands at the extreme of what has been classified as 
the strict Dorian, — that is, the farthest removed from Ionic and 
Attic The Kretan towns manifest also a strict Dorism ; as well 
as the Lacedoemonian colony of Tarentum, and, seemingly, most 
of the Italiotic Greeks, though some of them are called Achaean 
colonies. Most of the other varieties of the Doric dialect (Pho 
kian, Lokrian, Delphian, Achaean of Phthiotis) exhibit a form 
departing less widely from the Ionic and Attic : Argos, and the 
towns in the Argolic peninsula, seem to form a stepping-stone 
between the two. 

These positions represent the little which can be known re- 
specting those varieties of Grecian speech which are not known 
to us by written works. The little presumption which can be 
raised upon them favors the belief that the Dorian invaders of 
Laconia and Messenia found there a dialect little different from 
that which they brought with them, — a conclusion which it is the 
more necessary to state distinctly, since the work of O. Muller 
has caused an exaggerated estimate to be formed of the distinc- 
tive peculiarities whereby Dorism was parted off from the rest 
trt* Hellas 



Plutarch begins his biography of Lykurgus with the 
following ominous words : — 

" Concerning the lawgiver Lykorgus, we can assert absolutely 
Bottling which is not controverted : there are different stones in 
respect to his birth, his travels, his death, and also his mode «f 
proceeding, political as well as legislative : least of all is the 1 
fa which he lived agreed upon." 

▼ 15 . 22oe- 


And this exordium is but too well borne out by the unsatisfac- 
tory nature of the accounts which we read, not only in Plutarch 
himself, but in those other authors out of whom we are obliged 
to make up our idea of the memorable Lykurgean system. If 
we examine the sources from which Plutarch's life of Lykurgus 
is deduced, it will appear that — excepting the poets Alkman, 
Tyrtaeus, and Simonides, from whom he has borrowed less than 
we could have wished — he has no authorities older than Xen- 
ophon and Plato : Aristotle is cited several times, and is unques 
tionably the best of his witresses, but the greater number of them 
belong to the century subsequent to that philosopher. Neither 
Herodotus nor Ephorus are named, though the former furnishes 
some brief, but interesting particulars, — and the latter also (as 
far as we can judge from the fragments remaining) entered at 
large into the proceedings of the Spartan lawgiver. 1 

Lykurgus is described by Herodotus as uncle and guardian to 
king Labotas, of the Eurystheneid or Agid line of Spartan kings ; 
and this would place him, according to the received chronology, 
about 220 years before the first recorded Olympiad (about b. c. 
99 6) . 9 All the other accounts, on the contrary, seem to repre 
sent him as a younger brother, belonging to the other or Prokleid 
line of Spartan kings, though they do not perfectly agree respect- 
ing his parentage. While Simonides stated him to be the son of 
Prytanis, Dieutychidas described him as grandson of Prytanis, 
son of Eunomus, brother of Polydektes, and uncle as well as 
guardian to CharilauB, — thus making him eleventh in descent 
from Herakles. 3 This latter account was adopted by Aristotle, 
coinciding, according to the received chronology, with the date 
of Iphitus the Eleian, and the first celebration of the Olympic 
games by Lykurgus and Iphitus conjointly, 4 which Aristotle 

1 See Heeren, Dissertatio de Fontibus Plutarchi, pp. 19-25. 

* HerodoL i. 65. Moreover, Herodotus gives this as the statement of the 
Lacedaemonians themselves. 

• Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 1. According to Dionys. Halik. (Ant Rom. ii. 49) 
Lykurgus was ancle, not son, of Eunomus. 

Aristotle considers Lykurgus as guardian of Charilaus (Politic ii 7, 1 ) 
oompare v. 10, 3. See O. Miillcr (Hist, of Dorians, L 7, 3). 

'Fhlegdn also adds Kkosthenes of Pisa (De Olympus ap. Meursii Opp, 
riL p. 123). It appears that there existed a quoit at Olympia, upon whicl 
Vol. 2 11 


accepted as a fact. Lykurgus, on the hypothesis here mentioned, 
would stand about b. c. 880, a century before the recorded 
Olympiads. Eratosthenes and Apollodorus placed him "not a 
few years earlier than the first Olympiad." If they meant hereby 
the epoch commonly assigned as the Olympiad of Iphitus, their 
date would coincide pretty nearly with that of Herodotus : if, on 
the other hand, they meant the first recorded Olympiad (b. c. 
776), they would be found not much removed from the opinion 
of Aristotle. An unequivocal proof of the inextricable confusion 
in ancient times respecting the epoch of the great Spartan law- 
giver is indirectly afforded by Timaeus, who supposed that there 
had existed two persons named Lykurgus, and that the acts 
of both had been ascribed to one. It is plain from hence that 
there was no certainty attainable, even in the third century before 
the Christian era, respecting the date or parentage of Lykurgus. 
Thucydides, without mentioning the name of Lykurgus, informs 
us that it was " 400 years and somewhat more " anterior to the 
close of the Peloponnesian war, 1 when the Spartans emerged 
from their previous state of desperate internal disorder, and en- 
tered upon " their present polity." We may fairly presume that 

the formula of the Olympic trace was inscribed, together with the names of 
Iphitns and Lykurgus as the joint authors and proclaimers of it Aristotle 
believed this to be genuine, and accepted it as an evidence of the fact which 
it professed to certify : and 0. Miiller is also disposed to admit it as genuine, 
— that is, as contemporary with the times to which it professes to relate. I 
come to a different conclusion : that the quoit existed, I do not doubt ; but 
that the inscription upon it was actually set down in writing, in or near b c. 
880, would be at variance with the reasonable probabilities resulting from 
Grecian palaeography. Had this ancient and memorable instrument existed 
at Olympia in the days of Herodotus, he could hardly have assigned to 
Lykurgus the epoch which we now read in his writings. 

The assertions in Mullens History of the Dorians (i. 7, 7), about Lykur 
pus, Iphitus, and Kleosthenes "drawing up the fundamental law of the 
Olympic armistice," are unsupported by any sufficient evidence. In the 
later times of established majesty of the Olympic festival, the Eleians did 
undoubtedly exercise the power which he describes ; but to connect this with 
any deliberate regulation of Iphitus and Lykurgus, is in my judgment incor- 
rect. See the mention of a similar truce proclaimed throughout Triphylia by 
the Makistians as presidents of the common festival at the temple of Um 
Samian Poseidon (Strata, viii. p. 343). 

1 Thucyd. i. 18. 


this alludes to the Lykurgean discipline and constitution, which 
Thucydides must thus have conceived as introduced about B. C 
830-820, — coinciding with something near the commencement 
of the reign of king Teleklus. In so far as it is possible to form 
an opinion, amidst evidence at once so scanty and so discordant, 
I incline to adopt the opinion of Thucydides as to the time at 
which the Lykurgean constitution was introduced at Sparta. 
The state of " eunomy " and good order which that constitution 
brought about, — combined with the healing of great previous 
internal sedition, which had tended much to enfeeble them, — is 
represented (and with great plausibility) as the grand cause of 
the victorious career beginning with king Teleklus, the conqueror 
of Amykls3, Pharis, and Geronthro. Therefore it would seem, 
in the absence of better evidence, that a date, connecting the 
fresh stimulus of the new discipline with the reign of Teleklus, is 
more probable than any epoch either later or earlier. 1 

1 Mr. Clinton fixes the legislation of Lykurgus, u in conformity with Thn 
eycnatk," at about 817 B. c, and his regency at 852 B. c, about thirty-five 
years previous (Fasti Hallen. v. i. c 7, p. 141 ) : he also places the Olympiad 
of Iphitns b. c. 828 (F. H. vol. ii. p. 410 ; App. c 22). 

In that chapter, Mr. Clinton collects and discusses the various statements 
respecting the date of Lykurgus : compare, also, T .archer ad Harodot L 67 
and Chronologic pp. 486-492. 

The differences in. these statements must, after all, be taken as they stand, 
for they cannot be reconciled except by the help of arbitrary suppositions, 
which only mislead us by producing a show of agreement where there is 
none in reality. I agree with Mr. Clinton, in thinking that the assertion of 
Thucydides is here to be taken as the best authority. But I altogether dis- 
sent from the proceeding which he (in common with Larcher, Wesseling, Sir 
John Marsham,. and others) employs with regard to the passage of Herodotus, 
where that author calls Lykurgus the guardian and uncle of Labdtas (of die 
Eurystheneid line). Mr. Clinton says : u From the notoriety of the fact that 
Lycurgus was ascribed to the other house (the Prokleids), it is manifest that 
the passage must be corrupted'' (p. 144) ; and he then goes on to correct A* 
text of Herodotus, agreeably to the proposition of Sir J. Mwham. 

This proceeding seems to me Inadmissible. The text of Herodotus reads 
perfectly well, and is not contradicted by anything to be found elsewhere 
in Herodotus himself: moreover, we have here a positive guarantee of its 
accuracy, for Mr. Clinton himself admits that it stood in the days ef Pansa- 
nias just as we now read it (Pausan. iii. 2, 3). By what right, then, do we 
alter it 1 or what do we gain by doing so ? Our only right to do so, is* the 
asMrcption that there must have been uniformity of belief, and means of 


O. Muller after glancing at the strange and Improbable car 
eumstances handed down to us respecting Lykurgua, ohec iw a i , 
" that we have absolutely no account of aim as am individual 
person." This remark is perfectly just: bat another veaiars, 
made by tike same distinguished author, respecting the Lykurgesn 
system of laws, appears to me erroneous, — and requires more 
especially to be noticed, inasmuch as the ooratlaries deduced from 
it pervade a large portion of his yaluable History a£ the Dorians. 
He affirms that the laws of Sparta were oonsideved the true Doric 
institutions, and that their origin "was klentioal with that of the 
people : Sparta is, in his view, the futi type <of Dorian principles, 
tendencies, and sentiments, — and is *o treated throughout hit 
entire work.2 But such an opinion is at once gntukans .(for Una 
passage of Pindar oiled in support of it is scarcely of any value) 
and contrary to the whole tenor of ancient evidence. The msuV 
tutions of Sparta were not Dorian, but peculiar to herself; 9 dis- 
tinguishing ber not less from Arges, Corinth, Megan, Epidanrus, 
SikyOn, Korkyra, or Knidus, than from Athens or Thebes. &rdte 
was the only other portion of Greece m which there prevailed 
institutions in many respects analogous, jet still dissimilar ia 
these two attributes which form the real mark and pinch of Spar- 
tan legislation, namely, the military discipline and the rigorous 
private training. There were doubtless Dorians in Krete, but 
we have no proof that these peculiar institutions belonged 10 

satisfactory ascertainment, (respecting facts and persons of the ninth and 
^enth centuries before the Christian era,) existing among Greeks of the fifth 
md succeeding centuries ; an assumption which I hoM to be incorrect. And 
all ire gain is, an illusory unanimity produced, by gratuitously putting worts 
into the mouth of one of our witnesses. 

If we can prove Herodotus to have been erroneously informed, it is right 
to do so; but we have no ground for altering his deposition. It affords a 
clear proof that there were very different stories as to the mere question, to 
which of the two lines of Herakleids the Spartan lawgiver belonged, — and 
that there was an enormous difference as to the time m which he lived. 

1 History of the Dorians, i 7, 6. 

* History of the Dorians, iii. 1, 8. A£ Kopstadt recognises this as an 
error in Mailer's work : nee his recent valuable Dissertation " De Bonua 
Laconicarum Constitutionis Lycurgess Origine et Indole" Gryphue, 1849. 
Met 8, p. 18. 

1 Among the many other evidences to this point, see Arietotte, Buue* w 
9 ; Xenophon, Hepubl Laced. 10, 8. 


them more thtui to the other inhabitants of the island. Thai the 
Spartans had an original organization, and tendencies common to 
them with the other Dorians, we may readily concede ; but the 
Lykurgean constitution impressed upon them a paculiar tendency, 
which took them out of the general march, and rendered them 
the least fit of all states to be cited as an example of the class- 
attributes of Dorism. One of the essential causes, which made 
the Spartan institutions work so impressively upon the Grecian 
mind, was their perfect singularity, combined with the conspicu- 
ous ascendency of the state in which they were manifested ; while 
the Kretan communities, even admitting their partial resemblance 
(which was chiefly in the institution of the Syssitia, and was alto- 
gether more in form than in spirit) to Sparta, were too insignifi- 
cant to attract notice except from speculative observers. It it 
therefore a mistake on the part of O. Muller, to treat Sparta as 
the type and representative of Dorians generally, and very many 
of the positions advanced in his History of the Dorians require 
to be modified when this mistake is pointed out 

The first capital fact to notice respecting the institutions ascribed 
to Lykurgus, is the very early period at which they had their 
commencement: it seems impossible to place this period later 
than 825 b. c. We do not find, nor have we a right to expect, 
trustworthy history in reference to events so early. If we have 
one foot on historical ground, inasmuch as the institutions them- 
selves are real, — the other foot still floats in the unfaithful re- 
gion of my the, when we strive to comprehend the generating 
causes : the mist yet prevails which hinders us from distinguish- 
ing between the god and the man. The light in which Lykur- 
gus appeared, to an intelligent Greek of the fifth century before 
the Christian era, is so clearly, yet briefly depicted, in the follow- 
ing passage of Herodotus, that I cannot do better than translate 
it: — 

" In the very early times (Herodotus observes) the Spartans 
were among themselves the most lawless of all Greeks, and unap- 
proachable by foreigners. Their transition to good legal order 
took place in the following manner. When Lycurgus, a Spartan 
of consideration, visited Delphi to consult the oracle, the instant 
that he entered the sanctuary, the Pythian priestess exclaimed, — 

** Thou art come, Lycurgus, to my fat shrine, beloved by Zeus, 


and by all the Olympic gods. Is it as god or as man that 1 am 
to address thee in the spirit ? I hesitate, — and yet, Lycurgus, 
I incline more to call thee a god." 

So spake the Pythian priestess. " Moreover, in addition to 
these words, some affirm that the Pythia revealed to him the 
order of things now established among the Spartans. But the 
Lacedaemonians themselves say, that Lycurgas, when guardian of 
his nephew LabCtas, king of the Spartans, introduced these insti- 
tutions out of Krete. No sooner had he obtained this guardian- 
ship, than he changed all the institutions into their present form, 
and took security against any transgression of it Next, he con- 
stituted the military divisions, the Endmoties and the Triakads, 
as well as the Syssitia, or public mess : he also, farther, appointed 
the ephors and the senate. By this means the Spartans passed 
from bad to good order : to Lycurgus, after his death, they built 
a temple, and they still worship him reverentially. And as might 
naturally be expected in a productive soil, and with no inconsid- 
erable numbers of men, they immediately took a start forward, 
and flourished so much that they could not be content to remain 
tranquil within their own limits," etc 

Such is our oldest statement (coming from Herodotus) respect- 
ing Lykurgus, ascribing to him that entire order of things which 
the writer witnessed at Sparta. ThucydidSs also, though not 
mentioning Lykurgus, agrees in stating that the system among 
the Lacedaemonians, as he saw it, had been adopted by them four 
centuries previously, — had rescued them from the most intoler- 
able disorders, and had immediately conducted them to prosper- 
ity and success. 1 Hellanikus, whose writings a little preceded 
those of Herodotus, not only did not (any more than Thucydides) 
make mention of Lykurgus, but can hardly be thought to have 
attached any importance to the name ; since he attributed the 
constitution of Sparta to the first kings, Eurysthenes and Prokles.* 

But those later writers, from whom Plutarch chiefly compiled 
his biography, profess to be far better informed on the subject of 
Lykurgus, and enter more into detail. His father, we are told, 
was assassinated during the preceding state of lawlessness ; nil 
elder brother Polydektes died early, leaving a pregnant widow 

1 Ucrodot i. 65-66 ; Thucyd. LIS. * Strata, vii«. p. 36S 


who made to Lykurgus propositions that he should marry lis 
and become king. But Lykurgus, repudiating the offer with 
indignation, awaited the birth of his young nephew Charilaus, 
held up the child publicly in the agora, as the future king of 
Sparta, and immediately relinquished the authority which he had 
provisionally exercised. However, the widow and her brother 
Leonidas raised slanderous accusations against him, of designs 
menacing to the life of the infant king, — accusations which he 
deemed it proper to obviate, by a temporary absence. Accord- 
ingly, he left Sparta and went to Kr&e, where he studied the 
polity and customs of the different cities ; next, he visited Ionia 
and Egypt, and (as some authors affirmed) Libya, Iberia, and 
even India. While in Ionia, he is reported to have obtained 
from the descendants of Kreophylus a copy of the Homeric poems, 
which had not up to that time become known in Peloponnesus : 
there were not wanting authors, indeed, who said that he had 
conversed with Homer himself. 1 

Meanwhile, the young king Charilaus grew up and assumed 
the sceptre, as representing the Prokleid or Eurypentid family. 
But the reins of government had become more relaxed, and the 
disorders worse than ever, when Lykurgus returned. Finding 
that the two kings as well as the people were weary of so disas- 
trous a condition, he set himself to the task of applying a correc- 
tive, and with this view consulted the Delphian oracle; from 
which he received strong assurances of the divine encouragement, 
together with one or more special injunctions (the primitive 
Rhetrae of the constitution), which he brought with him to Sparta. 9 
He then suddenly presented himself in the agora, with thirty of 
the most distinguished Spartans, all in arms, as his guards and 
partisans. King Charilaus, though at first terrified, when informed 
of the designs of his uncle, stood forward willingly to second 
them ; while the bulk of the Spartans respectfully submitted to 
the venerable Herakleid, who came as reformer and missionary 

1 Plutarch, Lyknrg. 3, 4, 5. 

* For an instructive review of the text as well at the meaning cf tail 
•■dent Rhetra, see Urlichs, Ueber die Lycnrgischen Bhetrea, published since 
the first edition of this History. His refutation of the rash charges of Got* 
ding seems to me complete : bnt his own conjectures are not all 
plausible ; ncr can I subscribe to his explanation of fotaTacQat. 


from Delphi 1 Such were the steps by which Lykurgus acquired 
bis ascendency: we have now to see how he employed it, 

His first proceeding, pursuant to the Rhetra or Compact brought 
from Delphi, was to constitute the Spartan senate, consisting of 
twenty-eight ancient men ; making an aggregate of thirty in con- 
junction with the two kings, who sat and voted in it. With this 
were combined periodical assemblies of the Spartan people, in the 
open air, between the river Knakidn and the bridge Babyka. Yet 
no discussion was permitted in these assemblies, — their functions 
were limited to the simple acceptance or rejection of that which 
had previously been determined in the senate. 2 Such was the 

1 Plutarch. Lykurg. c. 5-6. Hermippus, the scholar c/ Aristotle, professed 
to give the names of twenty out of these thirt/ devoted partisans. 

There was, however, a different story, which represented that Lykurgus, on 
his return from his travels, found Charilaus governing like a despot (Hera* 
did. Pontic, c. 2). 

* The words of the old Rhetra — Aidf 'EXXaviov Kai 'Adhjvae TZXPulv'uh 
tepbv lApvffa/ievov, QvlJiq <j>vXu£avTa, koI ufiug w/3d£avra, rpiaKovra, yepovaiav 
iruv apxayiraic, KaTaarijuavTO^ opac k% opac aireXXa£etv fiera^i) Bafivicae koI 
\LvaKLCivoq. ovruq eicrfipeiv re koI a<pi<jra<r&ai' dapp <P ayopav elfiev ical 
Kpiiroc. (Plutarch, ib.) 

The reading ayopav (last word but three) is that of Col-ay's edition : other 
readings proposed are nvpiav, uvuyuv, uyopiav y etc The MSS., however, are 
incurably corrupt, and none of the conjectures can be pronounced certain. 

The Rhetra contains various remarkable archaisms, — aneXka&iv — u<p'i 
oraa&ai, — the latter word in the sense of putting the question for decision 
corresponding to the function of the 'A^ear^p at Knidus, (Plutarch, Qurat 
Grssc. a 4; see Schneider, Lexicon, ad. voc.) 

0. Miiller connects rpiaKovra with o>/3uf, and lays it down that there were 
thirty Obes at Sparta : I rather agree with those critics who place the comma 
after w/?a£avra, and refer the number thirty to the senate. Urlichs, in his 
Dissertation Ueber Die Lykurgisch. Rhetren (published in the Rheinisches 
Museum for 1847, p. 204), introduces the word irpe<r(3vyeveac after rputKovra^ 
which seems a just conjecture, when we look to the addition afterwards 
made by Theopompus. The statements of MOller about the Obes seem to 
me to rest on no authority. 

The word Rhetra means a solemn compact, either originally emanating 
from, or subsequently sanctioned by, the gods, who are always parties to 
such agreements : see the old Treaty between the Eleians and Hermans, — 
'A Fpdrpa, between the two, — commemorated in the valuable inscription 
■till preserved, — as ancient, according to Boeckh, as Olymp. 40-60, (Boeckh. 
Corp. Inscript. No. 2, p. 26, part i.) The words of TyrttEus imply such a 
compact between contracting parties : first the kings, then the senate, laslh 


Spartan political constitution as fixed by Lykurgus ; but a i 
ftury afterwards (so Plutarch's account runs), under the kingd 
Polyddrus and Theopompus, two important alterations were made. 
A rider was then attached to the old Lykurgean Rhetra, by which 
it was provided that, " in case the people decided crookedly, the 
senate, with the kings, should reverse their decisions:'* 1 while 

the people — eir&e'uuc pijrpaif avTairapet(3opivov{ — where the parti 
ciple last occurring applies not to the people alone, but to all the three. The 
Rhetra of Lykurgus emanated from the Delphian god ; but the kings, senate* 
and people all bound themselves, both to each other and to the gods, to obey 
it The explanations given of the phrase by Nitzsch and Schomann (in Dr. 
Thirlwairs note, ch. viii. p. 334) seem to me less satisfactory than what ap- 
pears in G. F. Hermann (Lehrbuch der Griech. Staatsaltcrthiimer, s. 23). 

Nitzsch (Histor. Homer, sect xiv. pp. 50-55) does not take sufficient account 
of the distinction between the meaning of jnjrpa in the early and in the later 
times. In the time of the Ephor Epitadeus, or of Agis the Third, he is right 
in saying that ftijTpa is equivalent to tcitum, — still, however, with an idea of 
greater solemnity and unchangeability than is implied in the word v6fio^ y 
analogous to what is understood by a fundamental or organic enactment in 
modern ideas. The old ideas, of a mandate from the Delphian god, and a 
compact between the kings and the citizens, which had once been connected 
with the word, gradually dropped away from it There is no contradiction 
in Plutarch, therefore, such as that to which Nitzsch alludes (p. 54). 

Kopstadt's Dissertation (pp. 22, 30) touches on the same subject I agree 
with Eopstadt (Dissert pp. 28-30), in thinking it probable that Plutarch 
copied the words of the old Lykurgean constitutional Rhetra, from the ac 
count given by Aristotle of the Spartan polity. 

King Theopompus probably brought from the Delphian oracle the impor- 
tant rider which he tacked to the mandate as originally brought by Lykurgus 
— ol (3aat\elf Qeoirofiiroc xai TLoXvdupoc rude ry fifjTpq, Trapcveypaipav. The 
authority of the oracle, together with their own influence, wonld enable them 
to get these words accepted by the people. 

1 AT 61 OKoXi&v 6 dd/uoc iXoiro, rot>c npea^vykveac nai ap^ayeraf dffoorar- 
rjpac dfiev. (Plutarch, ib.) 

Plutarch tells us that the primitive Rhetra, anterior to this addition, spe- 
cially enjoined the assembled citizens either to adopt or reject, without change, 
the Rhetra proposed by the kings and senate, and that the rider was in- 
troduced because the assembly had disobeyed this injunction, and adopted 
amendments of its own. It is this latter sense which he puts on the word 
9/coXidv. Urlichs (Ueber Lye. Rhetr. p. 232) and Nitzsch (Hist Homer, p. 
54) follow him, and the latter even construes the epithet Efafct'atc ^rpati 
h rairapetPo/iivovc of Tyrtseus in a corresponding sense : he says, " Populns 
da (rhetris) eir&eicuc, i e. nihil inflexis, suffragari jubetur : nam lex cujua 
Tjrtjeus admonet ita sanxerat — si populus rogationem inf.exam (L e. noa 


a*#.4er change, perhaps intended as a sort of compensation fot 
this bridle on the popular assembly, introduced into the constitu- 
tion a new executive Directory of five men, called Ephors. Thk 
Board — annually chosen, by some capricious method, the result of 
which could not well be foreseen, and open to be filled by every 
Spartan citizen — either originally received, or gradually drew to 
itself, functions so extensive and commanding, in regard to inter- 
nal administration and police, as to limit the authority of the kings 
to little more than the exclusive command of the military force. 
Herodotus was informed, at Sparta, that the ephors as well as the 

nisi ad suum arbitrium immutatam) accipere voluerit, senatores et auctorei 
abolento totam." 

Now, in the first place, it seems highly improbable that the primitive Rhetra, 
with its antique simplicity, would contain any such preconceived speciality 
of restriction upon the competence of the assembly. That restriction received 
its formal commencement only from the rider annexed by king Theopom- 
pus, which evidently betokens a previous dispute and refractory behavior 
on the part of the assembly, 

In the second place, the explanation which these authors give of the 
words oko'Aiuv and ebdeiaic, is not conformable to the ancient Greek, as we 
find it in Homer and Hesiod : and these early analogies are the proper test, 
seeing that we are dealing with a very ancient document. In Hesiod, itfifc 
and cnoAidc arc used in a sense which almost exactly corresponds to right 
and wrong (which words, indeed, in their primitive etymology, may be traced 
back to the meaning of straight and crooked). See Hesiod, Opp. Di. 36, 192, 
218, 221, 226, 230, 250, 262, 264; also Theogon. 97, and Fragm. 217, ed. 
Gottling ; where the phrases are constantly repeated, l&eiat Sinai, okoTuoI 
dUai y oko?uoI [ivtioi. There is also the remarkable expression, Opp. Di. 9. 
(xla 6e r' Idvvei OKoXibv : compare v. 263. Idvvere [ivdovc: also Homer, 
Iliad, xvi. 387. 01 j3iy dv ayopr} okoXiuc Kpivvoi depiorac; and xxiiL 580. 
l&eia ; xviii. 508. of peru roloi 6'iktjv l-dvvrara e'ury, etc 

If we judge by these analogies, we shall see that the words of Tyrtttus, 
tbdiiaic pijrpa^, mean " straightforward, honest, statutes or conventions" — 
not propositions adopted without change, as Nitzs h supposes. And so the 
words oKoTiiuv e?,mto, mean. " adopt a wrong or dishonestdetermination" — not 
a determination different from what was proposed to them. 

These words gave to the kings and senate power to cancel any decision 
of the public assembly which they disapproved. It retained only the power 
of refusing assent to some substantive propositions of the authorities, first 
of the kings and senate, afterwards of the ephors. And this limited pewer 
it seems always to have preserved. 

Kopstadt explains well the expression okoXiuv, as the antithesis to thtf 
t of TytUbub, ev&eiaic ftijTpaic (Dissertat. sect 15, p. 124). 


senate bad been constituted by Lyknrgus ; but the authority of 
Aristotle, as well as the internal probability of the case, sanctions 
the belief that they were subsequently added. 1 

Taking the political constitution of Sparta ascribed to Lykurgro, 
it appears not to have differed materially from the rude organiza- 
tion exhibited in the Homeric poems, where we always find a 
council of chiefs or old men, and occasional meetings of a listening 
agora. It is hard to suppose that the Spartan kings can ever 
have governed without some formalities of this sort ; so that the 
innovation (if innovation there really was) ascribed to Lykurgus, 
must have consisted in some new details respecting the senate 
and the agora, — in fixing the number 3 thirty, and the life-tenure 
of the former, — and the special place of meeting of the latter, as 
well as the extent of privilege which it was to exercise ; conse- 
crating the whole by the erection of the temples of Zeus Hellanios 
and Athene Hellania. The view of the subject presented by 
Plutarch as well as by Plato, 3 as if the senate were an entire 
novelty, does not consist with the pictures of the old epic ifence 
we may more naturally imagine that the Lykurgean political con- 
stitution, apart from the ephors who were afterwards tacked to it, 
presents only the old features of the heroic government of Greece, 
defined and regularized in a particular manner. The presence of 
two coexistent and coordinate kings, indeed, succeeding in hered- 
itary descent, and both belonging to the gens of Herakleids, is 

1 Herod, i. 65 : compare Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 7 ; Aristotet. Polit ▼. 9, 1 
(where he gives the answer of king Theopompus). 

Aristotle tells as that the ephors were chosen, but not how they wen 
chosen; only, that it was in some manner excessively puerile, — naidapujdfK 
yap tan Xiav (ii. 6, 16). 

M. Barthelemy St Hilaire, in his note to the passage of Aristotle, pre 
tames that they were of course chosen in the same manner as the senators; 
but there seems no sufficient ground in Aristotle to countenance this. Nor 
is it easy to reconcile the words of Aristotle respecting the election of the 
senators, where he assimilates it to an alpcotc &uvaorevTLKTf (Polit v. 6, 8; 
ii. 6, 18), with the description which Plutarch (Lycurg. 26) gives of that 

* Kopetadt agrees in this supposition, that the number of the senate war 
probably not peremptorily fixed before the Lykurgean reform (Disserts*, a'. 
sup. sect 13, p. 109). 

■ Plato, Legg. iii. p. 691 ; Plan Epist. viii. p. 354, B. 


something peculiar to Sparta, — the origin of which nodnrmm 
other explanation than a reference to the twin sons of Aristode- 
mus, EurysthenSs and Prokles. These two primitive ancestaB 
are a type of the two lines of Spartan kings ; for they are said to 
have passed their lives in perpetual dissensions, which was the 
habitual state of the two contemporaneous kings at Sparta. White 
the coexistence of the pair of kings, equal in power and constantly 
thwarting each other, had often a baneful effect upon die comae 
of public measures, it was, nevertheless* a security to the stale 
against successful violence, 1 ending in the establishment of: a des- 
potism, on the part of any ambitious individual among the regal 

During five successive centuries of Spartan history, from PoJjf- 
dorus and Theopompus downward, no such violence was attempted 
by any of the kings, 9 until the times of Agis the Third and 
Kleomends the Third, — 240 b. c. to 220 b. c The importance 
of Greece had at this last-mentioned period irretrievably declined, 
and the independent political action which she once possessed 
had become subordinate to the more powerfal force either of the 
/Etolian mountaineers (the rudest among her own sons.) or to 
Epirotic, Macedonian, and Asiatic foreigners, preparatory to the 
final absorption by the Romans. But amongst all the Grecian 
states, Sparta had declined the most ; her ascendency was totally 
gone, and her peculiar training and discipline (to which she had 
chiefly owed it) had degenerated in every way. Under these 
untoward circumstances, two young kings, Agis and Kleomenes, 
— the former a generous enthusiast, the latter more violent and 
ambitious, — conceived the design of restoring the Lyknrgean 
constitution in its supposed pristine purity, with the hope of 
reviving both the spirit of the people and the ascendency of the 

te. But the Lykurgean constitution had been, even ia the 

■Plato, Legg. ill. p. 091 ; Arntot FoKt ii. 6, 20. 

•"The* ooa*piracy of Pausanias, after the repulse of Xerxes, was against 
the liberty of combined Hellas, to constitute himself satrap of Hellas under 
the Penian monarch, rather than against the established Lacedaemonian 
government ; ftougfc undoubtedly one portion of his project was to excite 
the Helots to revolt, and Aristotle treats hin as specially aiming to pot 
iown the power of the ephors (Pbttt v. 5, 6 ; compare Thooyd. L 12*-i34 
Eerodot v. 32). 



time of Xenophon, 1 in part, an ideal not fully realized in practice 
— much less was it a reality in the days of Kleomen&s and Agis 
moreover, it was an ideal which admitted of being colored accord- 
ing to the fancy or feelings of those reformers who professed, and 
probably believed, that they were aiming at its genuine restora- 
tion. What the reforming kings found most in their way, was 
the uncontrolled authority, and the conservative dispositions, of 
the ephors, — which they naturally contrasted with the original 
fulness of the kingly power, when kings and senate stood alone. 
Among the various ways in which men's ideas of what the primi- 
tive constitution had been, were modified by the feelings of their 
own time (we shall presently see some other instances of this), is 
probably to be reckoned the assertion of Kleomen&s respecting 
the first appointment of the ephors. Eleomenes affirmed that the 
ephors had originally been nothing more than subordinates and 
deputies of the kings, chosen by the latter to perform for a time 
their duties during the long absence of the Messenian war. Start- 
ing from this humble position, and profiting by the dissensions of 
the two kings, 9 they had in process of time, especially by the 
ambition of the ephor Asterdpus, found means first to constitute 
themselves an independent board, then to usurp to themselves 
more and more of the kingly authority, until they at last reduced 
the kings to a state of intolerable humiliation and impotence. As 
a proof of the primitive relation between the kings and the ephors, 
he alluded to that which was the custom at Sparta in his own 
time. When the ephors sent for either of the kings, the latter 
had a right to refuse obedience to two successive summonses, but 
the third summons he was bound to obey. 3 

It is obvious that the fact here adduced by Eleomenes (a 
curious point in Spartan manners) contributes little to prove the 
conclusion which he deduced from it, of the original nomination 
of the ephors as mere deputies by the kings. That they were 
first appointed at the time of the Messenian war is probable, and 
coincides with the tale that king Theopompus was a consenting 

1 Xeoophon, Republic Laced, a 14. 

'Platarch, Agis, c 12. Toftro ydp rd dpxeiov (the ephors) Jogfei* It 
tofopcif ruv fiaoikiuv, etc. 

• Plutarch, KleomeifH, c 10. oypeiov 61 roirov, rb pixP* **»fc f+ 
rawtfiitophntv rdv 3aaiXea ruv 'E^opwv, etc. 


party to the measure, — that their functions were at first com 
paratively circumscribed, and extended by successive encroach* 
menu, is also probable ; but they seem to have been from tht 
beginning a board of specially popular origin, in contraposition 
to the kings and the senate. One proof of this is to be found in 
the ancient oath, which was every month interchanged betweea 
the kings and the ephors ; the king swearing for himself, that he 
would exercise his regal functions according to the established 
laws, — the ephors swearing on behalf of the city, that his au- 
thority should on that condition remain unshaken. 1 This mutual 
compact, which probably formed a part of the ceremony during 
the monthly sacrifices offered by the king, 3 continued down to a 
time when it must have become a pure form, and when the kings 
had long been subordinate in power to the ephors. But it evi- 
dently began first as a reality, — when the king was predominant 
and effective chief of the state, and when the ephors, clothed with 
functions chiefly defensive, served as guarantees to the people 
against abuse of the regal authority. Plato, Aristotle, and 
Cicero, 3 all interpret the original institution of the ephors as 
designed to protect the people and restrain the kings : the latter 
assimilates them to the tribunes at Rome. 

Such were the relations which had once subsisted between 
the kings and the ephors : though in later times these relations 
had been so completely reversed, that Polybius considers the 
former as essentially subordinate to the latter, — reckoning it as 
a point of duty in the kings to respect the ephors "as their 
fathers." 4 And such is decidedly the state of things throughout 

1 Xenophon, Republic Lacedaemon. c. 1 5. Kal 5pxov( fth> dXMiXoit tcard 
(tf/va iroiovvTai ,r Efopoi fitv irrrlp ttjc iroXeuc, paaikei^ <T iirhp iavrov. 'O di 
bpKo$ iorl, t$ i*b> paoiXci, nark rot)f rjfr iroXeuf KEijifaovs vopovc (3aai\eih 
<r«v. ry 6h iroXei, kpwedopKovvToc iiceivov, aorvfiXucTov "Hjv (3aaiXeiav nap- 

9 Herodot. vi. 57. 

•Plato, Legg. iii: p. 692; Aristot Polit. v. 11, 1; Cicero de Republic 
Pragm. ii. S3, ed. Maii — " Ut contra consulare imperinm tribani plebis, sic 
(li (ephori) contra vim regiam constituti ;" — also, De Legg. iii. 7, and VaJer. 
Jlax. iv. 1. 

Compare Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 7 j Tittmann, Griechisch. Staats erfaiuaiifg 
p. 108, $eqq. 

4 Myb, xxir. 8. 

36* msTorr op gbeice* 

ail the bctter-knewa period of history which we shall hereeAaa 
traverse. The ephors are the general directors of publie affairs* 
and the supreme controlling board, holding in eheck every other 
aatkorky ia the state, without any assignable limit to their pow- 
ers. The extraordinary ascendency of these magistrates is par* 
ticu&arly manifested ia the fact stated by Aristotle, thai they 
ex< mpted themselves from the public discipline, so that their 
•tit-indulgent year of office stood ia marked contrast with the 
toilsome exercises and sober mess common, to rah and poor alike. 
The kings are reduced to a certain number of special iiactionsv 
combined with privileges partly religieua, partly hmuorary : their 
meet important political attribute is, that they are «r ojfUio gea» 
erals of the military force on foreign expeditions. Bat even 
here, we trace the sensible decline of their power. For whereas 
Herodotus was informed, and it probably had been, the old privi- 
lege, that the king could levy war against whomsoever he ehose, 
and that no Spartan could impede him on pain of committing 
sacrilege, 9 — we shall see, throughout the best-known periods of 
this history, that it is usually the ephors (with, or without the 
senate and public assembly) who determine upon war, — the 
king only takes the command when the army is put on the march. 
Aristotle seems to treat the Spartan king as a sort of hereditary 
general ; but even in this privilege, shackles were put upon tuna, 
— for two, out of the five ephors, accompanied the army, and 
their power seems to have been not seldom invoked to insure 
obedience to his orders. 3 

The direct political powers of the kings were thus greatly cur- 
tailed ; yet importance, in many ways, was still left to them. 

1 Ariatot Polit. ii. 6, 14-16 ; 'EoW 6i tud ij SUura rChi 'Eeopu* rig 6/iaAa 
jfovfiivff rp povMjjMTt rifr noXeoc* oit^l ^ Y<*p &*eift&t>V Aiov fori* h <h 
roi$ uXXms yJaXkov 1)veppuX?^ei M rd oj&rjpdv, etc. 

■ Herodot. vi. 56. 

3 Aristot. ii. 7, 4 ; Xenoph. Republ. Laced, c 13. Uavaaviac* nexac* r-v* 
f E6opu» rpaic, k£ayei epovpdv, Xenoph. HeUen. ii 4, 29 j fpovpto fyyvcir rl 
n&topoi, tiL 2, 23. 

A special restriction was pot en the functions of the king, as military 
commander-in-chief, in 417 B.C., after the ill-conducted expedition of Agfa, 
•on of Archldamua, against Argoa. It was then provided that ten Spavtai 
counsellors ahoold always accompany the king in every expedition (Thatyd 


They poaseaaed large royal domains, in many of the township* 
of the Perioeki : they received frequent occasional presents, and 
when victims were offered to the gods, the skins and other por- 
tions belonged to them as perquisites : l they had their votes in 
the senate, which, if they were absent, were given on their be- 
half, by «uch of the other senators as were most nearly related 
to them: the adoption of children received its formal accom- 
plishment in their presence, — and conflicting claims at law, for 
the hand of an unbequeathed orphan heiress, were adjudicated 
by them. But above all, their root was deep in the religions 
feelings of the people. Their preeminent lineage connected the 
entire state with a divine paternity. They, the chiefb of the 
Herakleids, were the special grantees of the soil of Sparta from 
the gods, — the occupation of the Dorians being only sanctified 
and blest by Zeus for the purpose of establishing the children of 
Herakles in the valley of the Eurotas. 9 They represented the 
state in its relations with the gods, being by right priests of 
Zeus Lacedsemon, (the ideas of the god and the country coalesc- 
ing into one), and of Zeus Uranius, and offering the monthly 
sacrifices necessary to insure divine protection to the people. 
Though individual persons might sometimes be put aside, noth- 
ing short of a new divine revelation could induce the Spartan* 
to step out of the genuine lineage of Eurysthento and ProklSs. 
Moreover, the remarkable mourning ceremony, which took place 
at the death of every king, seems to indicate that the two kingly 
families — which counted themselves Achsean,3 not Dorian — 

1 The hide-money [depfiarucdv) arising from the numerous victims offered 
at public sacrifices at Athens, is accounted for as a special item of the public 
revenue in the careful economy of that city : see Boeckh, Public Econ. of 
Athens, iii. 7, p. 333 ; Eng. Trans. Corpus Inscription. No. 1 57. 

* Tynan.*, Pragin. 1, ed. Bergk ; Strabo, xviii. p. 362 : — 

Atirdc yap Kpoviuv KcOikiarttyavov noaic 'Uptfc 

Z«)c 'HpaicXeidais rrjvde didoxe noXiv 
Oioiv ufia irpoXtirovres 'Eptveov yvefioevra ' 
Eipelav WXoiros vqa )v u.<piKbfie&a. 
Compare Thucyd. v. 16; Herodot. v. 39-, Xenoph. Hcllen. iii. 3, 3; Plutarch, 
Lysand. c. 22. 

* Herod, v. 72. See the account in Plutarch, of the abortive stratagem at* 
Lysander, to make the kingly dignity elective, by patting forward a ; 
who passed for the son of Apollo (Plutarch, Lysand. c. 25-26). 

vol. n, 23oc 


were oonsideied as the great common bond of union between Ike 
three component parts of the population of Laconia, — Spartana, 
Perioeki, and Helots. Not merely was it required, on this occa- 
sion, that two members of every house in Sparta should appear 
in sackcloth and ashes, — but the death of the king was formally 
made known throughout every part of Laconia, and deputies 
from the townships of the Perioeki, and the villages of the 
Helots, to the number of several thousand, were summoned to 
Sparta to take their share in the profuse and public demonstra- 
tions of sorrow, 1 which lasted for ten days, and which imparted 
to the funeral obsequies a superhuman solemnity. Nor ought 
we to forget, in enumerating the privileges of the Spartan king, 
that he (conjointly with two officers called Pythii, nominated by 
him,) carried on the communications between the state and the 
temple of Delphi, and had the custody of oracles and prophecies 
generally. In most of the Grecian states, such inspired declara- 
tions were treasured up, and consulted in cases of public emer- 
gency : but the intercourse of Sparta with the Delphian oracle 
was peculiarly frequent and intimate, and the responses of the 
Pythian priestess met with more reverential attention from the 
Spartans than from any other Greeks. 3 So much the more im- 
portant were the king's functions, as the medium of this inter- 
course: the oracle always upheld his dignity, and often even 
seconded his underhand personal schemes. 3 

Sustained by so great a force of traditional reverence, a Spar 
tan king, of military talent and individual energy, like Agesilaus, 
exercised great ascendency ; but such cases were very rare, and 
we shall find the king throughout the historical period only a 
secondary force, available on special occasions. For real politi- 
cal orders, in the greatest cases as well as the least, the Spar- 
tan looks to the council of ephors, to whom obedience is paid 
with a degree of precision which nothing short of the Spartan 
discipline could have brought about, — by the most powerful 

1 Xenoph. Hellen. Hi. 8, 1. 'Aytf — irvxe oepvoripac ♦ tar 9 &v&pvwm 

* For the privileges of the Spartan kings, see Herodot vL 56-67$ 
ahon, RepubL Laced, c 15; Plato, Alcib. L p. 1S3. 

Hercdot vi 66, and Thncyd. v. 16, furnish examples of this. 


citizens not less than by the meanest 1 Both the internal poliet 
and the foreign affairs of the state are in the hands of the ephors, 
r.-ho exercise an authority approaching to despotism, and alto- 
gether without accountability. They appoint and direct the body 
of three hundred young and active citizens, who performed the 
immediate police service of Laconia: they cashier at pleasure 
any subordinate functionary, and inflict fine or arrest at their owa 
discretion : they assemble the military force, on occasion of 
foreign war, and determine its destination, though the king has 
the actual command of it : they imprison on suspicion even the 
regent or the king himself: 9 they sit as judges, sometimes indi- 
vidually and sometimes as a board, upon causes and complaints of 
great moment, and they judge without the restraint of written laws, 
the use of which was peremptorily forbidden by a special Rhetra,* 

1 Xenophon, Republ. Laced, c. 8, 2, and Agesilaus, cap. 7, 2. 

* Xenoph. Rep. Laced. 8, 4 ; Thucydid. i. 131 ; Aristot Folit. ii. 6, 14 - 
upxtiv Xiav fuyaXrjv Kal laorvpawov Plutarch, Lycurg. c 13, — ii%xPV< r &<* 
vouoic kyypaQoif. 

Plato, in his Republic, in like manner disapproves of any general enact- 
ments, tying up beforehand the discretion of perfectly educated men, like his 
guardians, who will always do what is best on each special occasion (Re- 
public, iv. p. 425). 

3 Besides the primitive constitutional Rhetra mentioned above, page 345, 
various other Rhetra are also attributed to Lykurgus : and Plutarch singles 
out three under the title of " The Three Rhetrae," as if they were either the 
only genuine Lykurgean Rhetrae, or at least stood distinguished by some 
peculiar sanctity from all others (Plutarch, Quasi Roman, c 87. Agesilaus, 
c. 26). 

These three were (Plutarch, Lycurg. c. 13 ; comp. Apophth. Lacon. p. 
227) : 1. Not to resort to written laws. 2. Not to employ in house-building 
any other tools than the axe and the saw. 3. Not to undertake military 
expeditions often against the same enemies. 

I agree with Nitzsch (Histor. Homer, pp. 61-65) that these Rhetrae, though 
doubtless not actually Lykurgean, are, nevertheless, ancient (that is, probably 
dating somewhere between 650-550 b. g.) and not the mere fictions of recent 
writers, as Schomann (Ant Jur. Pub. iv. I ; xiv. p. 132) and Urlichs (p. 241) 
seem to believe. And though Plutarch specifies the number three, yet there 
seems to have been still more, as the language of Tyrtseus must be held to 
indicate : out of which, from causes which we do not now understand, toe 
three which Plutarch distinguishes excited particular notice. 

These maxims or precepts of state were probably preserved along with the 
dicta of the Delphian oracle, from which authority, doubtless, many of them 
may hare emanated, —ftftdi as the fiunons ancient prophecy 'A +*Aoxpv parti 



erroneously connected with Lykurgus himself, but at any rate 
Ancient. On certain occasions of peculiar moment, they take 
the sense of the senate and the public assembly, 1 — such seems 
to have been the habit • on questions of war and peace. It ap- 
pears, however, that persons charged with homicide, treason, or 
capital offences generally, were tried before the senate. We 
read of several instances in which the kings were tried and 
severely fined, and in which their houses were condemned to be 
razed to the ground, probably by the senate, on the proposition 
of the ephors : in one instance, it seems that the ephors inflicted 
b) their own authority a fine even upon Agesilaus. 9 

War and peace appear to have been submitted, on most, if not 
on all occasions, to the senate and the public assembly ; no matter 
could reach the latter until it had passed through the former. 
And we find some few occasions on which the decision of the 
public assembly was a real expression of opinion, and operative 
as to the result, — as, for example, the assembly which knmedi 

Ziruprav <W,«, SXXo & ohShf (Krebs, Lectiones Diodame, p. 140. Aratotel. 
lUpi Ro\iTtiC>v % Bp. Behol. ad Eurip. Andromach. 446 Schomann, Comm 
u<l Plutarch. Ag. et Cleomen. p. 123). 

Nitzsch has good remarks in explanation of the prohibition against "wring 
written laws." This prohibition was probably called forth by the circumstance 
that other Qrecian states were employing lawgivers like Zaleukus, Drako, 
Churondas, or Solon, — to present them, at once, with a series of written 
enactments, or provisions. Some Spartans may have proposed that an anal- 
ogous lawgiver should be nominated for Sparta: upon which proposition a 
negative was put in the most solemn manner possible, by a formal Rhetra, per- 
haps passed after advice fro* i Delphi. There is no such contradiction, there- 
fore, (when we thus conceive the event,) as some authors represent, in forbid- 
ding the use of written laws by a Rhetra itself, put into writing. To employ 
a phrase in greater analogy with modern controversies — tt The Spartans, on 
the direction of the oracle, resolve to retain their unwritten common law. and 
net to codify." 

1 'EcJcfe role 'E<f>6poic nal tr} iKKXrioiq. (Xen. Hcllen. Hi. 2, 28). 

* The case of Leotychides, Herod, vi. 72 ; of Pleistoanax, Thucyd. ii. 21-y. 
16 ; A(jis the Second, Thucyd. v. 63 ; Agis the Third, Plutarch, Agis, c. 19 : set 
Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 5. 

Respecting the ephors generally, see Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterthum 
•kunde, v. 4, 42, vol. i. p. 223 ; Cragius, P.ep. Lac ii. 4, p. 121. 

Aristoth distinctly marks the ephor< r.< arvTrv&wot : so that the ston 
alluded to briefly in the Rhetoric fiii. 16) is not easy to Ve understood. 


Italy preceded and resolved upon the Peioponnesian war. Here, 
in addition to the serious hazard of the case, and the general 
caution of a Spartan temperament, there was the great personal 
weight and experience of king Archidamus opposed to the war, 
though the ephors were favorable to it 1 The public assembly, 
under such peculiar circumstances, really manifested an opinion 
and came to a division. But, for the most part, it seems to have 
been little better than an inoperative formality. The general 
rule permitted no open discussion, nor could any private citizen 
speak except by special leave from die magistrates. Perhaps 
even the general liberty to discuss, if given, might have been of 
no avail, for not only was there no power of public speaking, but 
no habit of canvassing public measures, at Sparta ; nothing was 
more characteristic of the government than die extreme secrecy 
of its proceedings. 9 The propositions brought forward by the 
magistrates were either accepted or rejected, without any license 
of amending. There could be no attraction to invite the citizen 
to be present at such an assembly : and we may gather from the 
language of Xenophon that, in his time, it consisted only of a 
certain number of notables specially summoned in addition to 
the senate, which latter body is itself called " the lesser Ekkle* 
Bia. 3 " Indeed, the constant and formidable diminution in the 
number of qualified citizens was alone sufficient to thin the attends 
ance of the assembly, as well as to break down any imposing 
force which it might once have possessed. 

1 Thucyd. i. 67, SO, 87. IftXkoyw <J<puv aitrtiv rbv eiv&ora. 

* Thucyd. iv. 68. rfc noXirtlttc rd Kpvmav : compare iv. 74 ; also, his 
remarkable expression about so distinguished a man as Brasidas, i/v 6i o6« 
tf^vwrof, 6»c Aatcedaipovioc, hnelv, and iv. 24, abont the Lacedaemonian 
envoys to Athens. Compare Schdmann, Antiq. Jar. Pub. Grssc. iv. 1, lu, 
p. 122. Aristotel. Polit ii. 8, 9. 

*T^v fitKpuv KaXovfietrrjv eKK^tfrnav (Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 3, 8), which 
means the yepovrec, or senate, and none besides, except the ephors, who con- 
voked it (See Lachmaim, Span. Verfass. sect 12, p. 216.) What is still 
more to l>c noted, is the expression ol SkkXtitoi as the equivalent of h kKicXy 
ffw (compare Hellen. v. 2, II ; vi. 3, 3), evidently showing a special and 
Hnrited number of persons convened : see, also, ii. 4, 38 ; iv. 6, 3 ; v. 2, 33 , 
Itaeyd. v. 77. 

Tfce expression ol ittrrriH could never have got into use as an equivalent 
far the Athenian ecclesia. 


An assembly thus circumstanced, — though always retained at 
a formality, and though its consent on considerable matters and 
lor the passing of laws (which, however, seems to have been a 
rare occurrence at Sparta) was indispensable, — could be very 
little of a practical check upon the administration of the ephors. 
The senate, a permanent body, with the kings included in it, was 
the only real check upon them, and must have been to a certain 
extent a concurrent body in the government, — though the large 
and imposing language in which its political supremacy is spoken 
of by Demosthenes and Isokrates exceeds greatly the reality of 
the case. Its most important function was that of a court of 
criminal justice, before whom every man put on trial for his life 
was arraigned. 1 But both in this and in their other duties, we 
find the senators as well as the kings and the ephors charged 
with corruption and venality. 3 As they were not appointed 
until sixty years of age, and then held their offices for life, we 
may readily believe that some of them continued to act after the 
period of extreme and disqualifying senility, — which, though the 
extraordinary respect of the Lacedaemonians for old age would 
doubtless tolerate it, could not fail to impair the influence of the 
body as a concurrent element of government. 

The brief sketch here given of the Spartan government will 
show that, though Greek theorists found a difficulty in determin- 
ing under what class they should arrange it, 3 it was in substance 

1 Xenoph. Republ. Laced. 10 ; Aristot Polit. ii. 6, 17 ; iii. 1,7; Demosthen. 
cont Leptin. c. 23, p. 489 ; Isokrates, Or. xii. (Panathenaic.) p. 266. The 
language of Demosthenes seems particularly inaccurate. 

Plutarch (Agesilaus, c. 32), on occasion of some suspected conspirators, 
who were put to death by Agesilaus and the ephors, when Sparta was in 
imminent danger from the attack of Epameinondas, asserts, that this was the 
first time that any Spartan had ever been put to death without trial 

* Aristot Polit. ii. 6, 18. Compare, also, Thucydid. i. 131, about the guilty 
Pausanias, — irtoTtvuv xpVP™i dtaXvaetv t%v dtapoMiv; Herodot v. 72; 
Thucyd. v. 1 6, — about the kings Leotychides and Pleistoanax ; the brare 
end able Gylippus, — Plutarch, Lysand. c. 16. 

* The ephors are sometimes considered as a democratical element, because 
erery Spartan citizen had a chance of becoming ephor ; sometimes as a 
despotionl element, because in the exercise of their power they were subject 
to little res' rain t and no responsibility : see Plato, Legg. iv. p 712 ; Arfoot 
Tout, ii 3, 10; iv. 7, 4, 5. 


a dose, unscrupulous, and well-obeyed oligarchy, — including 
within it, as subordinate, those portions which had once been 
dominant, the kings and the senate, and softening the odium, 
without«abating the mischief, of the system, by its annual change 
of the ruling ephors. We must at the same time distinguish the 
government from the Lykurgean discipline and education, which 
doubtless tended much to equalize rich and poor, in respect to 
practical life, habits, and enjoyments. Herodotus (and seem- 
ingly, also, Xenophon) thought that the form just described was 
that which the government had originally received from the hand 
of Lykurgus. Now, though there is good reason for supposing 
otherwise, and for believing the ephors to be a subsequent addi- 
tion, — yet, the mere fact that Herodotus was so inarmed at 
Sparta, points our attention to one important attrib dtu of the 
Spartan polity, which it is proper to bring into view. This attri- 
bute is, its unparalleled steadiness, for four or five successive 
centuries, in the midst of governments like the Gret Ian, all of 
which had undergone more or less of fluctuation. Nu considera- 
ble revolution — not even any palpable or formal change- — oc- 
curred in it, from the days of the Messenian -war, down to those 
of Agis the Third : in spite of the irreparable blow which the 
power and territory of the state sustained from Epameinondas 
and the Thebans, the form of government, nevertheless, remained 
unchanged. It was the only government in Greece which cou?d 
trace an unbroken, peaceable descent from a high antiquity, and 
from its real or supposed founder. Now this was one of the 
main circumstances (among others which will hereafter be men- 
tioned) of the astonishing ascendency which the Spartans ac- 
quired over the Hellenic mind, and which they will not be 
found at all to deserve by any superior ability in the conduct of 
affairs. The steadiness of their political sympathies, — exhibited 
at one time, by putting down the tyrants, or despots, at another, 
by overthrowing the democracies, — stood in the place of ability ; 
and even the recognized failings of their government were often 
covered by the sentiment of respect for its early commencement 
and uninterrupted continuance. If such a feeling acted on the 
Greeks generally, 1 much more powerful was its action upon the 

1 A specimen of ihe way in which this antiquity was lauded, may be seen 
in Isokrates, Or. xit. (Panathenaic.) p. 288 



Spartans themselves, in inflaming that haughty exchniveneas ftr 
which they stood distinguished. And it is to be observed tnat 
the Spartan mind continued to be cast on the old-fashioned scale, 
and unsusceptible of modernizing influences, longer tL&n that 
of most other people of Greece. The ancient legendary faith, 
and devoted submission to the Delphian oracle, remained among 
them unabated, at a time when various influences had consider- 
ably undermined it among their fellow-Hellens and neighbors. 
But though the unchanged title and forms of the government 
thus contributed to its imposing effect, both at home and abroad, 
the causes of internal degeneracy were not the less really at work, 
in undermining its efficiency. It has been already stated, that 
the number of qualified citizens went on continually diminishing, 
and even of this diminished number a larger proportion than be- 
fore were needy, since the landed property tended constantly to 
concentrate itself in fewer hands. There grew up in this way a 
body of discontent, which had not originally existed, both among 
the poorer citizens, and among those who had lost their fran 
chise as citizens; thus aggravating the danger arising from 
Perioeki and Helots, who will be presently noticed. 

We pass from the political constitution of Sparta to the civil 
ranks and distribution, economical relations, and lastly, the pe- 
culiar system of habits, education, and discipline, said to have 
been established among the Lacedaemonians by Lykurgus. Here, 
again, we shall find ourselves imperfectly informed as to the ex- 
isting institutions, and surrounded by confusion when we try to 
explain how those institutions arose. 

It seems, however, ascertained that the Dorians, in all their 
settlements, were divided into three tribes, — the Hylleis, the 
Famphyli, and the Dymanes : in all Dorian cities^ moreover, 
there were distinguished Herakleid families, from whom oekists 
were chosen when new colonies were formed. These three tribes 
can be traced at Argos, Sikyon, Epidaurus, Troezen, Megara, 
Korkyra, and seemingly, also, at Sparta. 1 The Hylleis recog- 
nized, as their eponym and progenitor, Hyllus,.the son of Hera- 

1 Herodofc v. 6ft; Stephan. Byz. TUeec and Lv(tav\ 0. Miffier, Doritaa, 
U. 5, 2; Boeckh td Corp. Insorip. No. 1123. 
Thacyd. L 24, about Phaliu. the Herakleid, at Corinth. 


U60, and were therefore, in their own belief, descended from 
Hdrakles himself: we may suppose the Herakleids, specially go 
called, comprising the two regal families, to have been the elder 
brethren of the tribe of Hylleis, the whole of whom are some- 
times spoken of as Herakleids, or descendants of HerakHs.i 
But there 6eem to have been also at Sparta, as in other Dorian 
towns, non-Dorian inhabitants, apart from these three tribes, and 
embodied in tribes of their own. One of these, the JSgeids, 
said to have come from Thebes as allies of the Dorian invaders, 
is named by Aristotle, Pindar, and Herodotus, 9 — while the 
jEgialeis at Sikydn, the tribe HyrnSthia at Argos and Epidaurua, 
and others, whose titles we do not know, at Corinth, represent, in 
like manner, the non-Dorian portions of their respective commn 
nities. 3 At Corinth, the total number of tribes is Baid to have 
been eight 4 But at Sparta, though we seem to make out the 
existence of the three Dorian tribes, we do not know how many 
tribes there were in all : still less do we know what relation the 
Obce, or Obes, another subordinate distribution of the people, 
bore to the tribes. In the ancient Rhetra of Lykurgus, the 
Tribes and Obes are directed to be maintained unaltered : but 
the statement of O.Muller and Boeckh 5 — that there were thirty 

1 Sec Tyrtaus, Fragm. 8, 1, ed. Schneidewin, and Pindar, Pyth. I 61, r. 
71, where the expressions " descendants of H6rakles " plainly comprehend 
more than the two kingly families. Plutarch, Lysand. c 23; Diodor. xi. 58. 

'Herodot. iv. 149; Pindar, Pyth. v. 67; Aristot. Aaxuv. UoXit. p. 127, 
Fragm. ed. Neuman. The Talthybiade, or heralds, at Sparta, formed a 
family or caste apart (Herod, vii. 134). 

0. Mailer supposes, without any proof, that the JEgeida must have been 
adopted into one of the three Dorian tribes ; this is one of the corollaries 
from his fundamental supposition, that Sparta is the type of pore Dorism 
(yol ii. p. 78). Kopstadt thinks (Dissertat p. 67) that I have done injustice 
»> O. Mailer, in not assenting to his proof: but, on studying the point over 
again, I can see no reason for modifying what is here stated in the text The 
Section of Schomann's work (Antiq. Jur. Pnbl. Orsec. iv. 1, 6, p. 115) on 
this subject asserts a great deal more than can be proved. 

a Herod, v. 68-92; Boeckh, Corp. Inscrip. Nos. 1130,1131 ; Stephen. By*. 
v. 'Tpvitfiov ; Pausan. ii. 28, 3. 

4 Photius HavTa 6ktu] also, Proverb. Vatic. Suidas, xi 64; compart 
Uesychius, v. KwofaXoi. 

* Muller, Dorians, iii. 5, 3-7 ; Boeckh. ad Corp. Inscription, part iv. mm* 
3, p. 609. 

YOL. U. 16 


Obes in ail ten to each tribe — rests up.ii no other evidence than 
a peculiar punctuation of this Rhetra, which various other critic* 
reject ; and seemingly, with good reason. We are thus left with- 
out any information respecting the 006, though we know that it 
was an old, peculiar, and lasting division among the Spartan 
people, since it occurs in the oldest Rhetra of Lykurgus, as well 
as in late inscriptions of the date of the Roman empire. In 
similar inscriptions, and in the account of Pausanias, there u, 
however, recognized a classification of Spartans distinct from and 
independent of the three old Dorian tribes, and founded upon 
the different quarters of the city, — Limnae, Mesoa, Pitane, and 
Kynosura ; ! from one of these four was derived the usual de- 
scription of a Spartan in the days of Herodotus. There is 
reason to suppose that the old Dorian tribes became antiquated 
at Sparta, (as the four old Ionian tribes did at Athens,) and that 
the topical classification derived from the quarters of the city 
superseded it, — these quarters having been originally the sepa- 
rate villages, of the aggregate of which Sparta was composed. 9 
That the number of the old senators, thirty, was connected with 
the three Dorian tribes, deriving ten members from each, is 
probable enough, though there is no proof of it. 

Of the population of Laconia, three main divisions are recog- 
nized, — Spartans, Perioekl, and Helots. The first of the three 
were the full qualified citizens, who lived in Sparta itself, fulfilled 
all the exigences of the Lykurgean discipline, paid their quota to 
the Syssitia, or public mess, and were alone eligible to honors 3 or 

1 Pausan. iii. 16, 6; Herodot. iii. 55; Boeckh, Corp. Inscript Nos. 1241, 
1338, 1347, 1425 j Stcph. Byz v. Mecroa; Strabo, viii. p. 364; Hesych. v. 

There is much confusion and discrepancy of opinion about the Spartan 
tribes. Cragius admits six (De Republ. Lacon. i. 6) ; Meursius, eight (Rep. 
Lacon. i. 7) : Barthdlemy (Voyage du Jeune Anacharsis, iv. p. 185) makes 
them five. Manso has discussed the subject at large, but I think not very 
satisfactorily, in the eighth Beilage to the first book of his History of Sparta 
(vol. ii. p. 125) ; and Dr. Thirlwall's second Appendix (vol. i. p. 517) both 
notices all the different modern opinions on this obscure topic, and addi 
several useful criticisms. Our scanty stock of original evidence leave* 
much room for divergent hypotheses, and little chance of any certain 
conclusion. * Thucyd. '.. 10. 

• One or two Perioekic officers appear in military command tcirards the 


public offices. These men had neither time, nor taste even, for 
cultivation of the land, still less for trade or handicraft : such 
occupations were inconsistent with the prescribed training, even if 
♦hey had not been positively interdicted. They were maintained 
from the lands round the city, and from the large proportion of 
Laconia which belonged to them ; the land being tilled for them 
by Helots, who seem to have paid over to them a fixed propor- 
tion of the produce ; in some cases, at least, as much as one- 
half. 1 Each Spartan retained his qualification, and transmit 
ted it to his children, on two conditions, — first, that of sub- 
mitting to the prescribed discipline ; next, that of paying, 
each, his stipulated quota to the public mess, which was only 
maintained by these individual contributions. The multiplication 
of children in the poorer families, after acquisitions of new terri- 
tory ceased, continually augmented both the number and the 
proportion of citizens who were unable to fulfil the second of 
these conditions, and who therefore lost their franchise : so that 
there arose towards the close of the Peloponnesian war, a dis- 
tinction, among the Spartans themselves, unknown to the earlier 
times, — the reduced number of fully qualified citizens being 
called The Equals, or Peers, — the disfranchised poor, The Infe- 
riors. The latter, disfranchised as they were, nevertheless, did 
not become Perioeki : it was probably still competent to them 
to resume their qualification, should any favorable accident 
enable them to make their contributions to the public mess. 

The Perioekus was also a freeman and a citizen, not of Sparta, 
but of some one of the hundred townships of Laconia. 9 Both he 

end of the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. viii. 6, 22), bat these 6eem rare 
exceptions, even as to foreign service by sea or land, while a Perioekus, as 
magistrate at Sparta, was unheard of. 

1 One half was paid by the enslaved Messenians (TyrUeus, Frag. 4, 
Bergk): rjfiiov ttuv, baaov tapirov upovpa <pepei. 

* Strabo, viii. p. 362. Stephanos Byz. alludes to this total of one hundred 
townships in his notice of several different items among them, — 'Avtfdva— - 
iroXic AaKoviKJ} pia ruv ixarov; also, v. 'k+podioiag, Bolai, Avf>{>axun>, etc: 
bat he probably copied Strabo, and, therefore, cannot pass for a distinct 
authority. The total of one hundred townships belongs to the maximum 
of Spartan power, after the conquest and before the severance of Mease- 
aia; for Aoldn, Boise, and MethdnS (the extreme places) are included amoof 


and the community to which he belonged received their order* 
only from Sparta, having no political sphere of their own, and nc 
share in determining the movements of the Spartan authorities. 
In the island of Kythera, 1 which formed one of the Perioekic 
townships, a Spartan bailiff resided as administrator. But whether 
the same was the case with others, we cannot affirm : nor is it 
safe to reason from one of these townships to all, — there may 
have been considerable differences in the mode of dealing with 
one and another. For they were spread through the whole of 
Laconia, some near and some distant from Sparta : the free inhabi- 
tants of Amyklse must have been Perioeki, as well as those of Ky- 
thera, Thuria, JEtheia, or Aul6n : nor can we presume that the 
feeling on the part of the Spartan authorities towards all of them 
was the same. Between the Spartans and their neighbors, the 
numerous Perioeki of Amyklae, there must have subsisted a degree 
of intercourse and mutual relation in which the more distant 
Perioeki did not partake, — besides, that both the religious edifices 
and the festivals of Amyklae were most reverentially adopted by 
the Spartans and exalted into a national dignity : and we seem to 
perceive, on some occasions, a degree of consideration manifested 
for the Amykl&an hoplites,* such as perhaps other Perioeki 
might not have obtained. The class-name, Perioeki, * — circum- 

Mr. Clinton (Fast Hellen. ii. p. 401) has collected the nana of above 
sixty out of the one hundred. 

1 Thucyd. iv. 53. 

• Xenophon, Hellen. iv. 5, 1 1 ; Herod, ix. 7 ; Thucyd. v. 18-28. The Amyk- 
Issan festival of the Hyacinthia, and the Amyklsean temple of Apollo, seem 
to stand foremost in the mind of the Spartan authorities. Airrol xai oL 
tyyvrara rCtv nepioUuv (Thucyd. iv. 8), who are ready before the rest, and 
march against the Athenians at Pylus, probably include the Amyklssans. 

Laconia generally is called by Thucydides (iii. 16) as the ireptouilc of 

3 The word nepibtKoi is sometimes used to signify simply " surrounding 
neighbor states," in its natural geographical sense: see Thucyd. i. 17, and 
Aristot Polit. ¥. 7, 1. 

But the more usual employment of it is, to. mean, the unprivileged or leas 
privileged members of the same political aggregate living without the city, 
m contrast with the full-privileged burghers who lived within it Aristotle 
■set it to signify, in KrSte, the class corresponding to the Lacedsemoniaa 
Helots (Pol. ii. 7, 3) : there did not exist in Kr€te any class corresponding 
Id the Lacedemonian Periaki. In Krftte, there were not two stages of naV 


residents, or dwellers around tha city, — usually denoted nativ* 
Inhabitants of inferior political condition ae contrasted with the 

riority, — than was only one, and that one is macked by the word ire/Mourot; 
while the XAcedfltmouian Perioakus had the Helot below him. To an Athen- 
ian the word conveyed the idea of undefined degradation. 

To understand better the status of the Perioekus, we may contrast him 
with the Metcskus, or Metic. The latter resides in the city, but he is an 
alien resident on sufferance, not a native: he pays a special tax, etands 
excluded from all political functions, and cannot even approach the magis- 
trate except through a friendly citizen, or Prostates) kxl fcpoaravov oUuv— 
Lycurgus cont Leocrat. c. 21-53): he bears arms for the defence of the 
state. The situation of a Metic was, however, very different in different cities 
of Greece. At Athens, that class were well-protected in person and prop- 
erty, numerous and domiciliated : at Sparta, there were at first none,— the 
Xen&lasy excluded them ; but this must have been relaxed long before the 
days of Agis the Third. 

The Perioekus differs from the Metic, in being a native of the soil, subject 
by birth to the city law. 

M Kopstadt (in his Dissertation above cited, on Lacedaemonian affairs, 
sect 7, p. 60) expresses much surprise at that which I advance in this note 
respecting Krite and LaoedsBmon, — that m Krdte there was no class of me* 
analogous to the Laeedsemonian Perioaki, bat only two classes,—*, e. fret 
citizens and Helots. He thinks that this position is " prorsos frlsiun r 

But I advance nothing more here than what is distinctly stated by Aristo 
tie, as Kopstadt himself admits (pp. 60, 71 ). Aristotle calls the subject class 
m Krete by the name of Ylcpioncoi. And m this case, the general presump- 
tions go fax to sustain the authority of Aristotle. For Sparta was a domi- 
nant or capital city, including in its dependence not only a considerable 
territory, but a considerable number of inferior, distinct, organised townships. 
In Krdte, on the contrary, each autonomous state included only a town with 
its circumjacent territory, but without any annexed townships. There was, 
therefore, no basis for the intermediate class called, in Laconia, Perioeki: 
just as Kopstadt himself remarks (p. 78) about the Dorian city of Megam* 
There were only the two classes of free Kr&tan citizens, and sarf-caUiva* 
tors in various modifications and subdivisions. 

Kopstadt (following Hoeck, Krdta, b. iii. vol. iii. p. 23) says that tha 
authority of Aristotle on this point is overborne by that of Dosiadas and 
8osikrat£s, — authors who wrote specially on Kretan affairs. Now if we 
were driven to make a choice, I confess that I should prefer the testimony 
of Aristotle, — considering that we know little or nothing respecting the other 
two. But m this case I do not think that we are driven to make a choice: 
Dosiadas (ap. Athenae. xiv. p. 143) is not cited in terms, so that we cannot 
affirm him to contradict Aristotle : and Sosikrates (upon whom Hoeck and 
Kopstadt rely) says something which does not necessarily contradict hin> 


full-privileged bil-ghers who lived in the city, but it did not mart 
any precise or uniform degree of inferiority. It is sometime! 
so used by AriBtotle as to imply a condition no better than that 
of the Helots, so that, in a large sense, all the inhabitants of 
Laconia (Helots as well as the rest) might have been included in 
it. But when used in reference to Laconia, it bears a technical 
sense, whereby it is placed in contraposition with the Spartan on 
one side, and with the Helot on the other : it means, native free- 
men and proprietors, grouped in subordinate communities * with 
more or less power of local management, but (like the subject 
towns belonging to Bern, Zurich, and most of the old thirteen 
cantons of Switzerland) embodied in the Lacedaemonian aggre- 
gate, which was governed exclusively by the kings, senate, and 
citizens of Sparta. 

When we come to describe the democracy of Athens after the 
revolution of Kleisthenes, we shall find the demes, or local town- 
ships and villages of Attica, incorporated as equal and constituent 
fractions of the integer called The Deme (or The City) of 
Athens, so that a demot of Acharnae or Sphettus is at the same 
time a full Athenian citizen. But the relation of the Perioekic 
townships to Sparta is one of inequality and obedience, though 
both belong to the same political aggregate, and make up together 
the free Lacedaemonian community. In like manner, Orneae and 
other places were townships of men personally free, but politically 
dependent on Argos, — Akraephiae on Thebes, — Chaeroneia on 
Orchomenus, — and various Thessalian towns on Pharsalus and 
Larissa. 9 Such, moreover, was, in the main, the state into which 

bat admits of being explained so as to place the two witnesses in harmony 
with each other. 

Sosikrates says (ap. Athena, vi. p. 263), T%v fib* kolv^v SovXelav ol Kprfres 
koIovoi /ivoiav, t%v 6k tfiav a^a/zajraf, to\>c 6e irepioiK(n*c imyKoavfr Now 
the word TrepioiKovc seems to be here used jast as Aristotle would have used 
"t, to comprehend the Krdtan serfs universally : it is not distinguished from 
uvuirai and tya/iiuTa^ bat comprehends both of them as different specie! 
nnder a generic term The authority of Aristotle affords a reason for pre- 
ferring to construe die passage in this manner, and the words appear to mi 
CO admit of it fairly. 

1 The to?*eic of the Lacedaemonian Perioeki are often noticed: see Xeno 
phon (Agesilaus, ii. 24 : Laced. Repub. xv. 3 ; Hellenic, vi 5, 21). 

2 Herod, viii. 73-135 ; Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 1, 8 ; Thucyd. iv. 76-94. 


Athens would have brought her allies, and Thebes the free Boeo* 
tian communities, 1 if the policy of either of these cities had 
permanently prospered. This condition carried with it a sentiment 
of degradation, and a painful negation of that autonomy for which 
every Grecian community thirsted ; while being maintained 
through superior force, it had a natural tendency, perhaps without 
the deliberate wish of the reigning city, to degenerate into prac- 
tical oppression. But in addition to this general tendency, the 
peculiar education of a Spartan, while it imparted force, fortitude, 
and regimental precision, was at the same time so rigorously 
peculiar, that it rendered him harsh, unaccommodating, and 
incapable of sympathizing with the ordinary march of Grecian 
feeling, — not to mention the rapacity and love of money, which 
is attested, by good evidence, as belonging to the Spartan charac- 
ter, 2 and which we should hardly have expected to find in the 
pupils of Lykurgus. As Harmosts out of their native city, 3 and 
in relations with inferiors, the Spartans seem to have been more 
unpopular than other Greeks, and we may presume that a similar 
haughty roughness pervaded their dealings with their own 
Perioeki ; who were bound to them certainly by no tie of affection, 
and who for the most part revolted after the battle of Leuktra, as 
soon as the invasion of Laconia by Epameinondas enabled them 
to do so with safety. 

Isokrateb, taking his point of departure from the old Herakleid 
legend, with its instantaneous conquest and triple partition of 
all Dorian Peloponnesus, among the three Herakleid brethren, 
deduces the first origin of the Perioekic townships from internal 
seditions among the conquerors of Sparta. According to him, 
the period immediately succeeding the conquest was one of fierce 

1 Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 3, 5, 9, 19. es, writing in the days of Tht- 

ban power, after the battle of Leuktra, characterizes the Boeotian towns as 
nepioiKOi of Thebes (Or. viii. De Pace, p. 182) ; compare Orat xiv. Platai* 
pp. 299-303. Xenophon holds the same language, Hellen. v. 4, 46 : com 
pare Plutarch, Agesilaus, 28. 

• Aristot Polit. ii. 6, 23. 

* Thucyd. i. 77-95 ; vi. 105. Isokrat&s (Panathenaic. Or. xii. p. 283), 
XxapTiarac de farepoirriKoi)( nal iroXefwcoilc *al irXeovi ktoc, olovg irep avroi% 
thai iravrcc irrretXfoaoi. Compare his Oratio de Pace (Or. viii. pp. 160- 
191); Oratio Panegyr. (Or. iv. pp. 64-67). 


intestine warfare in newly-conquered Sparta, between the Few 
and the Many, — the oligarchy and the demus. The former 
being victorious, two important measures were the coneeqaencei 
of their victory. They banished ihi defeated Many from Sparta 
into Laconia, retaining the residence in Sparta exclusively for 
themselves ; they assigned to them tike smallest and least fertile 
half of Laconia, monopolizing the larger and better for them- 
selves ; and they disseminated them into many very small town- 
ships, or subordinate little communities, while they concentrated 
themselves entirely at Sparta. To these precautions rar insuring 
dominion, they added another not less important. They estab- 
lished among their own Spartan citizens equality of legal privi- 
lege and democratical government, so as to take the greatest 
securities for internal harmony ; which harmony, acoardmg tc 
the judgment of Isokrates, had been but too effectually perpetu- 
ated, enabling the Spartans to achieve their dominion -over 
oppressed Greece, — like the accord of pirates 1 for thetfwlia- 
tion of the peaceful The Perkekk townships, he tells as, 
while deprived of all the privileges of freemen, were exposed to 
all the toils, as well as to an unfair share of the dangers, of war. 
The Spartan authorities put them in situations and upon enter- 
prises which they deemed too dangerous for their own citizens ; 
and, what was still worse, the ephors possessed the power of 
putting to death, without any form of preliminary trial, as many 
Perioeki as they pleased. 4 

The statement here delivered by Isokrates, respecting the 
first origin of the distinction of Spartans and Perioeki, is nothing 
better than a conjecture, nor i^ it even a probable conjecture, 
since it is based on the historical truth of the old Herakleid 
legend, and transports the disputes of his own time, between the 
oligarchy and the demus, into an early period, to which such dis- 

1 Isokrates Pannthenaic Or. xii. p 860. £<nv o&delc Ap a6rrif dtm ye 
t/,* ofiouoiav diKaiuc ijraivtotLtv, ovdev ftatevm j} -rodf Karamvrurr&c ml 
"kqaTai nai rot)f irepl rif a' uiitiiac forac* xai y&p i*e7vo< o+ietv adroit 
duovovvref Toi>{ aXAovf anoA/.vovai. 

* Isokratta, Oral xii. (Pamrthenaic.) pp. 270-271. The statement In As 
tame oration (p. 246), that the Lacedaemonians u had pat to death without 
trial more Qrmht (irXeiovc r&v WXXtjvuv) than had ever been trici at Athens 
since Athens was a city, refers to iheir allies or dependents oat if T^^ani^ 


pates do not belong. Nor is there anything, so far as our knowl- 
edge of Grecian history extends, to bear out his assertion, that 
the Spartans took to themselves the least dangerous post in the 
field, and threw undue peril upon their Perioeki. Such dastardly 
temper was not among the sins of Sparta ; but it is undoubtedly 
true that, as the number of citizens continually diminished, so the 
Perioeki came to constitute, in the later times, a larger and larger 
proportion of the Spartan force. Yet the power which Isokratga 
represents to have been vested in the ephors, of putting to death 
Perioeki without preliminary trial, we may fully believe to be 
real, and to have been exercised as often as the occasion seemed 
to call for it. We shall notice, presently, the way in which these 
magistrates dealt with the Helots, and shall see ample reason 
from thence to draw the conclusion that, whenever the ephors 
believed any man to be dangerous to the public peace, — whether 
an inferior Spartan, a Perioekus, or a Helot, — the most sum- 
mary mode of getting rid of him would be considered as the 
best. Towards Spartans of rank and consideration, they were 
doubtless careful and measured in their application of punish- 
ment, but the same necessity for circumspection did not exist 
with regard to the inferior classes : moreover, the feeling that the 
exigences of justice required a fair trial before punishment was 
inflicted, belongs to Athenian associations much more than to 
Spartan. How often any such summary executions may have 
taken place, we have no information. 

We may remark that the account which Isokrat&s has here 
given of the origin of the Laconian Perioeki is not essentially 
irreconcilable with that of Ephorus, 1 who recounted that Eurys- 
thenes and Prokles, on first conquering Laconia, had granted to 
the preexisting population equal rights with the Dorians, — but 
that Agis, son of Eurysthenes* had deprived them of this equal 
position, and degraded them into dependent subjects of the latter. 
At least, the two narratives both agree in presuming that the 
Perioeki had once enjoyed a better position, from which they had 
been extruded by violence. And the policy which Isokrates 
ascribes to the victorious Spartan oligarchs, — of driving out the 
denras from conce ntrat ed residence in the city to disseminated 

1 Ephonu, Fragm. 18 ed. Marx; ap. Strata, viii p. 365. 
vol. ii. 16* 24eo» 


residence in many separate and insignificant townships, — scorns 
to be the expression of that proceeding which in his time was 
numbered among the most efficient precautions against refractory 
subjects, — the Dioekisis, or breaking up of a town-aggregate 
into villages. We cannot assign to the statement any historical 
authority. 1 Moreover, the division of Laconia into six districts, 
together with its distribution into townships (or the distribution 
of settlers into preexisting townships), which Ephorus ascribed 
to the first Dorian kings, are all deductions from the primitive 
legendary account, which described the Dorian conquest as 
achieved by one stroke, and must all be dismissed, if we sup- 
pose it to have been achieved gradually. This gradual conquest 
is admitted by O. Miiller, and by many of the ablest subsequent 
inquirers, — who, nevertheless, seem to have the contrary suppo- 
sition involuntarily present to their minds when they criticize 
the early Spartan history, and always unconsciously imagine the 
Spartans as masters of all Laconia. We cannot even assert that 
Laconia was ever under one government before the consumma- 
tion of the successive conquests of Sparta. 

Of the assertion of O. Miiller — repeated by Schomann 9 — 
"that the difference of races was strictly preserved, and that 

1 Dr. Arnold (in his Dissertation on the Spartan Constitution, appended 
to the first volume of his Thucydides, p. 643) places greater confidence in 
the historical value of this narrative of Isokrates than I am inclined to do. 
On the other hand, Mr. G. C. Lewis, in his Review of Dr. Arnold's Disser- 
tation (Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 45), considers the u account of Iso- 
krates as completely inconsistent with that of Ephorus ;" which is saving 
mther more, perhaps, than the tenor of the two strictly warrants. In Mr. 
Lewis's excellent article, most of the difficult points respecting the Spartan 
constitution will be found raised and discussed in a manner highly instruc 

Another point in the statement of Isokrates is, that the Dorians, at the 
time of the original conquest of Laconia, were only two thousand in number 
(Or. xii. Fanath. p. 286). Mr. Clinton rejects this estimate as too small, 
and observes, u I suspect that Isokrates, in describing the numbers of the 
Dorians at the original conquest, has adapted to the description the actual 
■ambers of the Spartans in his own time.' (Fast Hellen. ii. p. 408.) 

This seems to me a probable conjecture, and it illustrates as *ell tha 
absence of data under which Isokrates or his informants labored, as tbi 
method which they took to supply the deficiency 

* 8chomann, Antiq. Jurisp. Grsscorum, iv. 1, 5, p. 112. 
Vol. 2 12 


the Perioeki were always considered as Achaeans,"— I find no 
proof, and I believe it to be erroneous. Respecting Pharis, 
Geronthrse, and Amyklse, three Perioekic towns, Pausanias gives 
us to understand that the preexisting inhabitants either retired 
or were expelled on the Dorian conquest, and that a Dorian pop- 
ulation replaced them. 1 Without placing great faith in this 
statement, for which Pausanias could hardly have any good 
authority, we may yet accept it as representing the probabilities 
of the case, and as counterbalancing the unsupported hypothesis 
of Muller. The Perioekic townships were probably composed 
either of Dorians entirely, or of Dorians incorporated in greater 
or less proportion with the preexisting inhabitants. But what- 
ever difference of race there may once have been, it was effaced 
before the historical times, 3 during which we find no proof of 

1 Fausan. iii. 2, 6 ; iii. 22, 5. The statement of Muller is to be found 
(History of the Dorians, iii. 2, 1) : he quotes a passage of Pausanias, which 
is noway to the point. 

Mr. G. C. Lewis (Philolog. Mus. ut. sup. p. 41) is of the same opinion ai 

s M. Kopstadt (in the learned Dissertation which I have before alluded to, 
De Rerum Laconicarum Constitutionis Lycurgesd Origine et Indole, cap. ii 
p. 31) controverts this position respecting the Perioeki. He appears to un- 
derstand it in a sense which my words hardly present, — at least, a sense 
which I did not intend them to present : as if the majority of inhabitants 
in each of the hundred Perioekic towns were Dorians, — " ut per centum 
Lacouiie oppida distributi ubique majorem incolarum numerum efficercnt," (p 
32.) I meant only to affirm that some of the Perioekic towns, such as Amyk- 
Ue, were wholly, or almost wholly, Dorian ; many others of them partially 
Dorian. But what may have been the comparative numbers (probably dif- 
ferent in each town) of Dorian and non-Dorian inhabitants, — there are no 
means of determining. M. Kopstadt (p. 35) admits that Amyklae, Pharis, 
and Geronthra, were Perioekic towns peopled by Dorians ; and if this be 
(rue, it negatives the general maxim on the faith of which he contradicts 
what I affirm : his maxim is — u nunquam Dorienses a Doriensibus nisi 
bello victi erant, civitate equoque jure privati sunt," (p. 31.) It is very un- 
safe to lay down such large positions respecting a supposed uniformity of 
Dorian rules and practice. The high authority of O. Muller has been ex- 
tremely misleading in this respect. 

It is plain that Herodotus (compare his expression, viii. 73 and i. 145) 
conceived all the free inhabitants of Laconia not as Achaean?, but as Dorians 
He believes in the story of the legend, that the Achseans, driven out of Laco* 
afc by the invading Dorians and Herakleidae, occupied the territory in tin 


Achaeans, known as such, in Laoonia. The Herakleids, At 
Jggeids, and the Talthybiads, all of whom belong tc Sparta, 
seem to be the only examples of sejiarate races, partially dis- 
tinguishable from Dorians, known after the beginning of au- 
thentic history. The Spartans and the Perioeki constitute one 
political aggregate, and that too so completely melted together in 
the general opinion (speaking of the times before the battle of 
Leuktra), that the peace of Antalkidas, which guaranteed au- 
tonomy to every separate Grecian city, was never bo construed 
as to divorce the Perioekic towns from Sparta. Both are known 
as Laconians, or Lacedaemonians, and Sparta is regarded by 
Herodotus only as the first and bravest among the many and 
brave Lacedaemonian cities. 1 The victors at Olympia are pro- 
claimed, not as Spartans, but as Laconians, — a title alike borne 
by the Perioeki. And many of the numerous winners, whose 
names we read in the Olympic lists as Laconians, may proba- 
bly have belonged to Amyklae or other Perioekic towns. 

The Perioekic hoplites constituted always a large — in later 
times a preponderant — numerical proportion of the Lacedaemo- 
nian army, and must undoubtedly have been trained, more or less 
perfectly, in the peculiar military tactics of Sparta ; since they 
were called upon to obey the same orders as the Spartans in the 
field, 3 and to perform the same evolutions. Some cases appear, 
though rare, in which a Perioekus has high command in a foreign 
expedition. In the time of Aristotle, the larger proportion of 
Laoonia (then meaning only the country eastward of f aygetut, 

north west of Peloponnesus which was afterwards called Ach&a, — expel- 
ling from it the Ionians. Whatever may be the truth abont this legendary 
statement, — and whatever may have been the original proportions of Dorians 
and Achaean* in Laconia, — these two races had (in the fifth century b. c.j 
become confounded in one undistinguishable ethnical and political aggre- 
gate called Lnronian, or Lacedaemonian, — comprising botn Spartans and Pe- 
ootid, though with very unequal political franchises, and very material differ 
ences in Individual training and habits. The case was different in Thessajy, 
where the Thessalians held in dependence Magnates, Perrhiebi, and Achaeans * 
he separate nationality of these latter was never lost 

1 Herod, vii. 934. 

a Thocyd. tbi. 6-92. They did not, however, partake in the Lykurgea* 
discipline ; hut they seem to be named ol U rfa jwpor ira?de?, a* contra* tad 
*:ta nl kx *c Ayuyifc (Soeibius ap. Athenss. xv. p. 674). 


once the foundation of Mess&nd by Epameinondas had been coo 
Bummated) belonged to Spartan citizens, 1 but the remaining 
smaller half must have been the property of the Peri ski, who 
must besides have carried on most of the commerce of export 
and import, — the metallurgio enterprise, and the distribution of 
internal produce, — which the territory exhibited ; since no Spar- 
Ian ever meddled in such occupations. And thus the peculiar 
training of Lykurgus, by throwing all these employments into 
the hands of the Perioeki, opened to them a new source of im- 
portance, which the dependent townships of Argos, of Thebes, 
or of Orchomenus, would not enjoy. 

The Helots of Laconia were Coloni, or serfs, bound to the soil, 
who tilled it for the benefit of the Spartan proprietors certainly, 
— probably, of Perioekic proprietors also. They were the rustic 
population of the country, who dwelt, not in towns, but either in 
small Tillages 9 or in detached farms, both in the district imme- 

1 Aristot Polit il 6, 23. <fcd ydp rb tuv lirapriarav elvai r$v vXeioTq* 
yrjv y ovk k^era^ovaiv iiXktfkLiv rht elwpopac. 

Mr. G. C. Lewis, in the article above alluded to (Fftilolog. Mm. fl. p. 54), 
says, about the Periceki : " They lived in the country or in mall towns of 
the Lacomau territory, and cultivated the land, which they did mot hold of 
any individual citizen, but paid for it a tribute or rent to the state ; being 
exactly in the same condition as the possessore* of the Roman domain, or the 
Ryots, in Hindostan, before the introduction of the Permanent Settlement." 
It may be doubted, I think, whether the Periceki paid any such rent or 
tribute as that which Mr. Lewis here supposes. The passage just dted from 
Aristotle seems to show that they paid direct taxation individually, and just 
upon the same principle as the Spartan citizens, who are distinguished only 
by being larger landed-proprietors. But though the principle of taxation be 
the same, there was practical injustice (according to Aristotle) in the mode 
of assessing it "The Spartan citizens (he observes) being the largest 
landed- proprietors, take care not to canvass strictly each other's payment of 
property-tax" — u e. they wink mutually at each other's evasions. If the 
Spartans had been the only persons who paid elofopa, or property-tax, this 
observation of Aris'otle wou