Chapter II (1)

THE HELLENIC PEOPLE GENERALLY, IN THE EARLY HISTORICAL TIMES.

The territory indicated in the last chapter—south of Mount Olympus, and south of the line which connects the city of Ambrakia 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 associations 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;[364] whatever might be the gentleness of their character, and whatever might be their degree of civilization. The rulers and people of Egyptian Thebes, with their ancient and gigantic monuments, the wealthy Tyrians and Carthaginians, the phil-Hellene Arganthonius of Tartêssus, and the well-disciplined patricians of Rome (to the indignation of old Cato,[365]) were all 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.[366] 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 temper 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, corresponding to _barbarian_, as the Greeks originally used it, is so inconvenient in the description of Grecian phenomena and sentiments, that I may be obliged occasionally to use the word in its primitive sense.

[364] See the protest of Eratosthenês against the continuance of
the classification into Greek and Barbarian, after the latter
word had come to imply rudeness (ap. Strabo. ii. p. 66; Eratosth.
Fragm. Seidel. p. 85).

[365] Cato, Fragment. ed. Lion. p. 46; ap. Plin. H. N. xxii. 1.
A remarkable extract from Cato’s letter to his son, intimating
his strong antipathy to the Greeks; he proscribes their medicine
altogether, and admits only a slight taste of their literature:
“Quod bonum sit eorum literas inspicere, non per discere....
Jurarunt inter se, Barbaros necare omnes medicinâ, sed hoc ipsum
mercede faciunt, ut fides iis sit et facile disperdant. Nos
quoque dictitant Barbaros et spurios, nosque magis quam alios,
Opicos appellatione fœdant.”

[366] Καρῶν ἠγήσατο βαρβαροφώνων, Homer, Iliad, ii. 867. Homer
does not use the word βάρβαροι, or any words signifying either
a Hellen generally or a non-Hellen generally (Thucyd. i. 3).
Compare Strabo, viii. p. 370; and xiv. p. 662.

Ovid reproduces the primitive sense of the word βάρβαρος, when he
speaks of himself as an exile at Tomi (Trist. v. 10-37):—

“Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli.”

The Egyptians had a word in their language, the exact equivalent
of βάρβαρος in this sense (Herod. ii. 158).

The Hellens were all of common blood and parentage,—were all descendants of the common patriarch Hellen. In treating 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.

_These_ (say the Athenians, in their reply to the Spartan envoys, in the very crisis of the Persian invasion) “Athens will never disgrace herself by betraying.” And Zeus Hellenius was recognized as the god watching over and enforcing the fraternity thus constituted.[367]

[367] Herod. viii. 144. ...τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ἐὸν ὅμαιμόν τε καὶ
ὁμόγλωσσον, καὶ θεῶν ἱδρύματά τε κοινὰ καὶ θυσίαι, ἤθεα τε
ὁμότροπα· τῶν προδότας γενέσθαι Ἀθηναίους οὐκ ἂν εὖ ἔχοι. (_Ib._
x. 7.) Ἡμεῖς δὲ, Δία τε Ἑλλήνιον αἰδεσθέντες, καὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα
δεινὸν ποιεύμενοι προδοῦναι, etc.

Compare Dikæarch. Fragm. p. 147, ed. Fuhr; and Thucyd. iii.
59,—τὰ κοινὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων νόμιμα... θεοὺς τοὺς ὁμοβωμίους καὶ
κοινοὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων: also, the provision about the κοινὰ ἱερὰ 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 Eumolpidæ,
prior to the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries, “All
non-Hellens to keep away,”—εἴργεσθαι τῶν ἱερῶν (Isocrates, Orat.
iv. Panegyr. p. 74).

Hekatæus, Herodotus, and Thucydidês,[368] all believed that there 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, Æolic, 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.[369] 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 Herodotus,[370] who tells us that there were four capital varieties of speech among the twelve Asiatic towns especially known as Ionic. Of course, the varieties would have been much more numerous if he had given us the impressions of his ear in Eubœa, the Cyclades, Massalia, Rhegium, and Olbia,—all numbered as Greeks and as Ionians. The Ionic dialect of the grammarians was an extract from Homer, Hekatæus, 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. Sapphô and Alkæus in Lesbos, Myrtis and Korinna in Bœotia, were the great sources of reference for the Lesbian and Bœotian varieties of the Æolic dialect,—of which there was a third variety, untouched by the poets, in Thessaly.[371] The analogy between the different manifestations of Doric and Æolic, as well as that between the Doric generally and the Æolic generally, contrasted with the Attic, is only to be taken as rough and approximative.

[368] Hekatæ. Fragm. 356, ed. Klausen: compare Strabo, vii. p.
321; Herod. i. 57; Thucyd. i. 3,—κατὰ πόλεις τε, ~ὅσοι ἀλλήλων
συνίεσαν~, etc.

[369] “Antiqui grammatici eas tantum dialectos spectabant, quibus
scriptores usi essent: ceteras, quæ non vigebant nisi in ore
populi, non notabant.” (Ahrens, De Dialecto Æolicâ, p. 2.) The
same has been the case, to a great degree, even in the linguistic
researches of modern times, though printing now affords such
increased facility for the registration of popular dialects.

[370] Herod. i. 142.

[371] Respecting the three varieties of the Æolic dialect,
differing considerably from each other, see the valuable work of
Ahrens, De Dial. Æol. sect. 2, 32, 50.

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.[372] It is needless to dwell upon the importance of this uniformity of language in holding together the race, and in rendering the genius of its most favored members available to the civilization of all. Except in the rarest cases, the divergences of dialect were not such as to prevent every Greek from understanding, and being understood by, every other Greek,—a fact remarkable, when we consider how many of their outlying colonists, not having taken out women in their 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.[373] 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 Æolic Kymê, and he himself resident at Askra, in the Æolic Bœotia,—and the early iambic and elegiac compositions are framed on the same model. Intellectual 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.

[372] The work of Albert Giese, Ueber den Æolischen Dialekt
(unhappily not finished, on account of the early death of the
author,) presents an ingenious specimen of such analysis.

[373] 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 was partially barbarized, and the
city in a sad state of ruin (Dio Chrysost. Orat. xxxvi. p. 78,
Reisk).

That community of religious sentiments, localities, and sacrifices, which Herodotus names as the third bond of union among the Greeks, was a phenomenon, not (like the race and the language) 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, and presence, to recreative meetings,—the closest association then prevailed between the feelings of common worship and the sympathy in common amusement.[374] Though this association is now no longer recognized, it is, nevertheless, 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 overwhelming importance and interest; yet they had once been purely local, attracting no visitors except from a very narrow neighborhood. 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 competitors from different parts of Greece, but nothing appears to manifest public or town festivals open to Grecian visitors generally.[375] 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 superintendence 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.[376]

[374] Plato, Legg. ii. 1, p. 653; Kratylus, p. 406; and Dionys.
Hal. Ars Rhetoric. c. 1-2, p. 226,—Θεὸς μὲν γέ που πάντως πάσης
ἡστινοσοῦν πανηγύρεως ἡγεμὼν καὶ ἐπώνυμος· οἷον ὀλυμπίων μὲν,
Ὀλύμπιος Ζεὺς· τοῦ δ᾽ ἐν Πυθοῖ, Ἀπολλών.

Apollo, the Muses, and Dionysus are ξυνεορτασταὶ καὶ ξυγχορευταί
(Homer, Hymn to Apoll. 146). The same view of the sacred games
is given by Livy, in reference to the Romans and the Volsci (ii.
36-37): “Se, ut consceleratos contaminatosque, ab _ludis, festis
diebus, cœtu quodammodo hominum Deorumque_, abactos esse ...
ideo nos ab sede piorum, cœtu, concilioque abigi.” It is curious
to contrast this with the dislike and repugnance of Tertullian:
“Idololatria omnium ludorum mater est,—quod enim spectaculum sine
idolo, quis ludus sine sacrificio?” (De Spectaculis, p. 369.)

[375] Iliad, xxiii. 630-679. The games celebrated by Akastus, in
honor of Pelias, were famed in the old epic (Pausan. v. 17, 4;
Apollodôr. i. 9, 28).

[376] Strabo, ix. p. 421; Pausan. x. 7, 3. The first Pythian
games celebrated by the Amphiktyons, after the Sacred War,
carried with them a substantial reward to the victor (an ἀγὼν
χρηματίτης); but in the next, or second Pythian games, nothing
was given but an honorary reward, or wreath of laurel leaves
(ἀγὼν στεφανίτης): the first coincide with Olympiad 48, 3; the
second with Olympiad 49, 3.

Compare Schol. ad Pindar. Pyth. Argument.: Pausan. x. 37, 4-5;
Krause, Die Pythien, Nemeen, und Isthmien, sect. 3, 4, 5.

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo is composed at a time earlier than the
Sacred War, when Krissa is flourishing; earlier than the Pythian
games, as celebrated by the Amphiktyons.

The Olympic games, more conspicuous than the Pythian, as well as considerably older, are also remarkable on another ground, inasmuch as they supplied historical computers with the oldest backward record of continuous time. It was in the year 776 B. C., that the Eleians inscribed the name of their countryman, Korœbus, 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 frequented until later even than the Pythian. Solôn,[377] in his legislation, 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 partial, and confined to the neighborhood.

[377] Plutarch, Solôn, 23. The Isthmian Agon was to a certain
extent 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 Schol. ad Pindar.
Isth. Argument.; Pausan. ii. 1, 4), or over Skeirôn (Plutarch,
Theseus, c. 25). Plutarch says that they were first established
by Theseus as funeral games for Skeirôn, and Pliny gives the same
story (H. N. vii. 57). According to Hellanikus, the Athenian
Theôrs at the Isthmian games had a privileged place, (Plutarch,
_l. c._).

There is, therefore, good reason why Solôn should single out the
Isthmionikæ as persons to be specially rewarded, not mentioning
the Pythionikæ and Nemeonikæ,—the Nemean and Pythian games not
having then acquired Hellenic importance. Diogenes Laërt. (i.
55) says that Solôn provided rewards, not only for victories at
the Olympic and Isthmian, but also ἀνάλογον ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων, which
Krause (Pythien, Nemeen und Isthmien, sect. 3, p. 13) supposes
to be the truth: I think, very improbably. The sharp invective
of Timokreon against Themistocles, charging him among other
things with providing nothing but cold meat at the Isthmian games
(Ἰσθμοῖ δ᾽ ἐπανδόκευε γελοίως ψυχρὰ κρέα παρέχων, Plutarch.
Themistoc. c. 21), seems to imply that the Athenian visitors,
whom the Theôrs were called upon to take care of at those games,
were numerous.

Of the beginnings of these great solemnities, we cannot presume to speak, except in mythical language: we know them only in their comparative maturity. But the habit of common sacrifice, 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 Theôria,[378] to offer sacrifice at each other’s festivals, and to partake in the recreations which followed; thus establishing a truce with solemn guarantee, and bringing themselves 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 Theôrs 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[379] 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 Lacedæmon—for violation of the Olympic truce, on pain of exclusion from the festival in case of non-payment.

[378] In many Grecian states (as at Ægina, Mantineia, Trœzen,
Thasos, etc.) these Theôrs formed a permanent college, and seem
to have been invested with extensive functions in reference to
religious ceremonies: at Athens, they were chosen for the special
occasion (see Thucyd. v. 47; Aristotel. Polit. v. 8, 3; O.
Müller, Æginetica, p. 135; Demosthen. de Fals. Leg. p. 380).

[379] 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,—σπονδοφόροι—κάρυκες
ὡρᾶν—Thucyd. viii. 9-10, is also peculiarly instructive in regard
to the practice and the feeling.

Sometimes this tendency to religious fraternity took a form called an Amphiktyony, different from the common festival. A certain number of towns entered into an exclusive religious 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[380] designates residents around, or neighbors, considered in the point of view of fellow-religionists,) as well as from the indications preserved to us in reference to various parts of the country. Thus there was an Amphiktyony[381] of seven cities at the holy island of Kalauria, close to the harbor of Trœzên. Hermionê, Epidaurus, Ægina, Athens, Prasiæ, Nauplia, and Orchomenus, jointly maintained the temple and sanctuary of Poseidôn in that island, (with which it would seem that the city of Trœzên, though close at hand, had no connection,) meeting there at stated periods, to offer formal sacrifices. These seven 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 Lacedæmonians, when they had captured Prasiæ. Again, in Triphylia,[382] 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 Poseidôn. 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 object of reverence, common duties, and common enjoyments; thus generating sympathies and feelings of mutual obligation amidst petty communities not less fierce than suspicious.[383] 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 fact, that Halikarnassus, one of the six, was formally extruded by the remaining five, in consequence of a violation of the rules.[384] There was also an Amphiktyonic union at Onchêstus in Bœotia, in the venerated grove and temple of Poseidôn:[385] 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 common to all the members of one Hellenic subdivision, such as the Pam-Bœotia to all the Bœotians, celebrated at the temple of the Itonian Athênê near Korôneia,[386]—the common observances, rendered to the temple of Apollo Pythaëus at Argos, by all those neighboring towns which had once been attached by this religious thread to the Argeians,—the similar periodical ceremonies, frequented by all who bore the Achæan or Ætolian name,—and the splendid and exhilarating festivals, so favorable to the diffusion of the early Grecian poetry, which brought all Ionians at stated intervals to the sacred island of Delos.[387] This latter class of festivals agreed with the Amphiktyony, in being of a special and exclusive character, not open to all Greeks.

[380] Pindar, Isthm. iii. 26 (iv. 14); Nem. vi. 40.

[381] Strabo, viii. p. 374.

[382] Strabo, viii. p. 343; Pausan v. 6, 1.

[383] At Iolkos, on the north coast of the Gulf of Pagasæ, and
at the borders of the Magnêtes, Thessalians, and Achæans of
Phthiôtis, was celebrated a periodical religious festival, or
panegyris, the title of which we are prevented from making out by
the imperfection of Strabo’s text (Strabo, ix. 436). It stands in
the text as printed in Tzschucke’s edition, Ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ τὴν
Πυλαϊκὴν πανήγυριν, συνετέλουν. The mention of Πυλαϊκὴ πανήγυρις,
which conducts us only to the Amphiktyonic convocations of
Thermopylæ and Delphi is here unsuitable; and the best or
Parisian MS. of Strabo presents a gap (one among the many which
embarrass the ninth book) in the place of the word Πυλαϊκὴν.
Dutneil conjectures τὴν Πελϊακὴν πανήγυριν, deriving the name
from the celebrated funeral games of the old epic celebrated by
Akastus in honor of his father Pelias. Grosskurd (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.
Πηλϊακήν, in reference to the neighboring mountain and town of
Pelion, might perhaps be less objectionable (see Dikæarch. Fragm.
pp. 407-409, ed. Fuhr.), but we cannot determine with certainty.

[384] Herod, i.; Dionys. Hal. iv. 25.

[385] Strabo, ix. p. 412; Homer. Hymn. Apoll. 232.

[386] Strabo, ix. p. 411.

[387] Thucyd. iii. 104; v. 55. Pausan. vii. 7, 1; 24, 3. Polyb.
v. 8; ii. 54. Homer. Hymn. Apoll. 146.

According to what seems to have been the ancient and sacred
tradition, the whole of the month Karneius was a time of peace
among the Dorians; though 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 have been a
Lacedæmonian festival.

But there was one amongst these many Amphiktyonies, which, though 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 Thermopylæ, in the sacred precinct of Dêmêtêr Amphiktyonis. Sacred deputies, including a chief called the Hieromnêmôn, and subordinates called the Pylagoræ, 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, consisted 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 administrators.

The twelve constituent members were as follows: Thessalians, Bœotians, Dorians, Ionians, Perrhæbians, Magnêtes, Lokrians, Œtæans, Achæans, Phokians, Dolopes, and Malians.[388] All are counted as _races_, (if we treat the Hellenes as a race, we must call these _sub-races_,) no mention being made of cities:[389] all count equally in respect to voting, two votes being given by the deputies 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 Bœotian city. This latter fact is distinctly stated by Æschines, 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 Erythræ and Priênê; and, in like manner, the Dorian votes were as good in the division, when given by deputies from Bœon 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 Amphyktionic 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 Amphiktyonic suffrage, as laid down by Æschines, however little realized in practice during his day, is important, inasmuch as it shows in full evidence the primitive and original constitution. The first establishment of the Amphyktionic convocation dates from a time when all 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 Athens only one Ionic city, among various others of consideration, not much inferior.

[388] The list of the Amphiktyonic constituency is differently
given by Æschines, by Harpokration, and by Pausanias. Tittmann
(Ueber den Amphiktyonischen Bund, sect. 3, 4, 5) analyzes and
compares their various statements, and elicits the catalogue
given in the text.

[389] Æschines, De Fals. Legat. p. 280, c. 36.—Κατηριθμησάμην δὲ
ἔθνη δώδεκα, τὰ μετέχοντα τοῦ ἱεροῦ ... καὶ τούτων ἔδειξα ἕκαστον
ἔθνος, ἰσόψηφον γενόμενον, τὸ μέγιστον τῷ ἐλάττονι, etc.

There are also other proofs which show the high antiquity of this Amphiktyonic convocation. Æschines gives us an extract 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 conditions 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.[390] “We will not destroy any Amphiktyonic town,—we will not cut off any Amphiktyonic town from running water,”—such are the two prominent obligations which Æschines 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 of Keleos at Eleusis, or those of Athens from the fountain of Kallirrhoê.[391] We may even conceive that the special mention of this detail, in the covenant between the twelve races, is borrowed literally from agreements still earlier, among the villages or little towns in which the members of each race were distributed. At any rate, it proves satisfactorily the very ancient date to which the commencement of the Amphiktyonic convocation must be referred. The belief of Æschines (perhaps, also, the belief general in 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 reason to suppose that its original establishment is connected with Thermopylæ and Dêmêtêr Amphiktyonis, rather than with Delphi and Apollo. The special surname by which Dêmêtêr and her temple at Thermopylæ was known,[392]—the temple of the hero Amphiktyon which stood at its side,—the word Pylæ, which obtained footing in the language to designate the half-yearly meeting of the deputies both at Thermopylæ and at Delphi,—these indications point to Thermopylæ (the real central point for all the twelve) as the primary place of meeting, and to the Delphian half-year as something secondary and superadded. On such a matter, however, we cannot go beyond a conjecture.

[390] Æschin. Fals. Legat. p. 279, c. 35: Ἅμα δ᾽ ἐξ ἀρχῆς
διεξῆλθον τὴν κτίσιν τοῦ ἱεροῦ, καὶ τὴν πρώτην σύνοδον γενομένην
τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων, καὶ τοὺς ὅρκους αὐτῶν ἀνέγνων, ἐν οἷς ἔνορκον ἦν
τοῖς ἀρχαίοις μηδεμίαν πόλιν τῶν Ἀμφικτυονίδων ἀνάστατον ποιήσειν
μηδ᾽ ὑδάτων ναματιαίων εἴρξειν, etc.

[391] Homer, Iliad, vi. 457. Homer, Hymn to Dêmêtêr, 100, 107,
170. Herodot. vi. 137. Thucyd. ii. 15.

[392] Herodot. vii. 200; Livy, xxxi. 32.

The hero Amphiktyon, whose temple stood at Thermopylæ, passed in mythical genealogy for the brother of Hellên. And it may be affirmed, with truth, that the habit of forming Amphiktyonic unions, and of frequenting each other’s religious festivals was the great means of creating and fostering the primitive feeling of brotherhood among the children of Hellên, 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 protection,[393] 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 cities in relation to them, played each their own political game, in which religious considerations will be found to bear only a subordinate part.

[393] The festival of the Amarynthia in Eubœa, held at the temple
of Artemis of Amarynthus, was frequented by the Ionic Chalcis
and Eretria as well as by the Dryopic Karystus. In a combat
proclaimed between Chalcis and Eretria, to settle the question
about the possession of the plain of Lelantum, it was stipulated
that no missile weapons should be used by either party; this
agreement was inscribed and recorded in the temple of Artemis
(Strabo x. p. 448; Livy, xxxv. 38).

The special function of the Amphiktyonic council, so far as we know it, consisted in watching over the safety, the interests, and the treasures of the Delphian temple. “If any one shall plunder the property of the god, or shall be cognizant 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.” So ran the old Amphiktyonic oath, with an energetic imprecation attached to it.[394] And there are some examples in which the council[395] 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 46th Olympiad, or 595 B. C., conducted by Eurylochus, the Thessalian, and Kleisthenes of Sikyôn, and proposed by Solôn of Athens:[396] 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 Alkmæonids for rebuilding the temple after a conflagration.[397] 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 Thucydidês describes, he never once mentioned the Amphiktyons, though the temple and the safety of its treasures form the repeated subject[398] 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 Perrhæbians, the Magnêtes, and the Achæans 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 feelings 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 Æschines providing a pretext for Philip to meddle in favor of the minor Bœotian cities against Thebes, by alleging that these cities were under the protection of the old Amphiktyonic oath.[399]

[394] Æschin. De Fals. Legat. c. 35, p. 279: compare adv.
Ktesiphont. c. 36, p. 406.

[395] See the charge which Æschines 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 Coronâ, c.
43, p. 277).

The Amphiktyons offer a reward for the life of Ephialtes, the
betrayer of the Greeks at Thermopylæ; 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).

[396] Æschin. adv. Ktesiph. 1, c. Plutarch, Solôn, c. xi, who
refers to Aristotle ἐν τῇ τῶν Πυθιονικῶν ἀναγραφῇ—Pausan. x. 37,
4; Schol. ad Pindar, Nem. ix. 2. Τὰς Ἀμφικτυονικὰς δίκας, ὅσαι
πόλεσι πρὸς πόλεις εἰσίν (Strabo, ix. p. 420). These Amphiktyonic
arbitrations, however are of rare occurrence in history, and very
commonly abused.

[397] Herodot. ii. 180, v. 62.

[398] Thucyd. i. 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 administration 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).

[399] Æschin. 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 Diodorus, xvi. 23-28, _seq._

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 affords a partial pretence for the imposing title bestowed on it by Cicero,—“commune Græciæ concilium:”[400] but we should completely misinterpret Grecian history if we regarded it as a federal council, habitually directing or habitually obeyed. Had there existed any such “commune concilium” of tolerable wisdom and patriotism, and had the tendencies of the Hellenic mind been capable of adapting themselves to it, the whole course of later Grecian history would probably have been altered; the Macedonian kings would have remained only as respectable neighbors, borrowing civilization from Greece, and expending their military energies upon Thracians and Illyrians; while united Hellas might even have maintained her own territory against the conquering legions of Rome.

[400] Cicero, De Invention. ii. 23. The representation of
Dionysius of Halikarnassus (Ant. Rom. iv. 25) overshoots the
reality still more.

About the common festivals and Amphiktyones of the Hellenic world
generally, see Wachsmuth, Hellenische Alterthumskunde, vol. i.
sect. 22, 24, 25; also, C. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech.
Staatsalterthümer, sect. 11-13.

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 Macedon. It has been already mentioned that these twelve did not exhaust the whole of Hellas. Arcadians, Eleans, Pisans, Minyæ, Dryopes, Ætolians, all genuine Hellens, are not comprehended in it; but all of them had a right to make use of the temple of Delphi, and to contend in the Pythian and Olympic games. The Pythian games, celebrated near Delphi, were under the superintendence of the Amphiktyons,[401] 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 Pentaetêris): the Isthmian and Nemean games recurred every two years. In its first humble form, of a competition among bards to sing a hymn in praise of Apollo, this festival was doubtless of immemorial antiquity;[402] but the first extension of it into Pan-Hellenic notoriety (as I have already remarked), 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 of the Amphiktyons, at the close of the Sacred War against Kirrha. What is called the first Pythian contest coincides with the third year of the 48th Olympiad, or 585 B. C. From that period forward, 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 Grecian world.

[401] Plutarch, Sympos. vii. 5, 1.

[402] In this early phase of the Pythian festival, it is said
to have been celebrated every eight years, marking what we
should call an Octaetêris, and what the early Greeks called an
Ennaetêris (Censorinus, De Die Natali, c. 18). This period is
one of considerable importance in reference to the principle of
the Grecian calendar, for ninety-nine lunar months coincide very
nearly with eight solar years. The discovery of this coincidence
is ascribed by Censorinus to Kleostratus of Tenedos, whose
age is not directly known: he must be anterior to Meton, who
discovered the cycle of nineteen solar years, but (I imagine)
not much anterior. In spite of the authority of Ideler, it seems
to me not proved, nor can I believe, that this octennial period
with its solar and lunar coincidence was known to the Greeks in
the earliest times of their mythical antiquity, or before the
year 600 B. C. See Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, vol. i. p.
366; vol. ii. p. 607. The practice of the Eleians 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, does not establish a knowledge
of the properties of the octaeteric or ennaeteric period: nor
does it seem to me that the details of the Bœotian δαφνηφορíα,
described in Proclus ap. Photium, sect. 239, are very ancient.
See, on the old mythical Octaetêris, O. Müller, Orchomenos 218,
_seqq._, and Krause, Die Pythien, Nemeen, und Isthmien, sect. 4,
p. 22.

The foundation of the temple of Delphi itself reaches far beyond all historical knowledge, forming one of the aboriginal institutions of Hellas. It is a sanctified and wealthy place, even in the 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. C., are established in consonance with its mandate. Delphi and Dodona appear, in the most ancient circumstances of Greece, as universally venerated oracles and sanctuaries: and Delphi not only receives honors and donations, but also answers questions, from Lydians, Phrygians, 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 the gods would grant him relief. The three priestesses of Dodona with their venerable oak, and the priestess of Delphi sitting 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.[403] The hexameter 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 Dodona: Apollo was open to the inquiries of the faithful at Ptôon in Bœotia, at Abæ in Phokis, at Branchidæ near Miletus, at Patara in Lykia, and other places: in like manner, Zeus gave answers at Olympia, Poseidôn at Tænarus, Amphiaraus at Thebes, Amphilochus at Mallas, etc. And this habit of consulting the oracle formed part of the still more general tendency of the Greek mind to undertake no enterprise without having first ascertained 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, prodigies, 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[404] 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.

[403] 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 supposition could
the immense credit of the oracle be explained (c. 19)? “Collegit
innumerabilia oracula Chrysippus, et nullum sine locuplete teste
et auctore: quæ quia nota tibi sunt, relinquo. Defendo unum hoc:
nunquam illud oraculum Delphis tam celebre clarumque fuisset,
neque tantis donis refertum omnium populorum et regum, nisi
omnis ætas oraculorum illorum veritatem esset experta.... Maneat
id, quod negari non potest, nisi omnem historiam perverterimus,
multis sæculis verax fuisse id oraculum.” Cicero admits that it
had become less trustworthy in his time, and tries to explain
this decline of prophetic power: compare Plutarch, De Defect.
Oracul.

[404] Xenophon, Anabas. vii. 8, 20: Ὁ δὲ Ἀσιδάτης ἀκούσας, ὅτι
πάλιν ~ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν~ τεθυμένος εἴη ὁ Ξενοφὼν, ἐξαυλίζεται, etc.
Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 2, 22: μὴ χρηστηριάζεσθαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐφ᾽
Ἑλλήνων πολέμῳ,—compare Iliad, vii. 450.

The disposition here adverted to is one of those mental analogies pervading the whole Hellenic nation, which Herodotus indicates. 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 especially, founded by mixed multitudes from distant parts of Greece, the minds of the emigrants were greatly determined towards cordial coöperation by their knowledge that the expedition had been directed, the œkist indicated, and the spot either chosen or approved, by Apollo of Delphi. Such in most cases was the fact: that god, according to the conception of the Greeks, “takes delight always in the foundation of new cities, and himself in person lays the first stone.”[405]

[405] Callimach. Hymn. Apoll. 55, with Spanheim’s note; Cicero,
De Divinat. i. 1.

These are the elements of union—over and above the common 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,[406] and also (with certain allowances) of manners and character. The analogy of manners and character between the rude inhabitants of the Arcadian Kynætha[407] and the polite Athens, was indeed accompanied with wide differences: yet if we compare the two with foreign contemporaries, we shall find certain negative characteristics, of much importance, common to both. In no city of historical Greece did there prevail either human sacrifices,[408]—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, Persians, Thracians,[409] 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 Lacedæmonian fashion in the fourteenth Olympiad: Thucydidês and Herodotus remark, that it was not only not practised, but even regarded as unseemly, among non-Hellens.[410] Of such customs, indeed, at once common to all the Greeks, and peculiar to them as distinguished from others, we cannot specify a great number; but 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.

[406] See this point strikingly illustrated by Plato, Repub. v.
pp. 470-471 (c. 16), and Isocrates, Panegyr. p. 102.

[407] Respecting the Arcadian Kynætha, see the remarkable
observations of Polybius iv. 17-23.

[408] See above, vol. i. ch. vi. p. 126 of this History.

[409] For examples and evidences of these practices, see Herodot.
ii. 162; the amputation of the nose and cars of Patarbêmis, by
Apries, king of Egypt (Xenophon, Anab. i. 9-13). There were a
large number of men deprived of hands, feet, or eyesight, in
the satrapy of Cyrus the younger, who had inflicted all these
severe punishments for the prevention of crime,—he did not (says
Xenophon) suffer criminals to scoff at him (εἴα καταγελᾷν).
The ἐκτομὴ was carried on at Sardis (Herodot. iii. 49),—500
παῖδες ἐκτόμιαι 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 Thracians (Herod. v. 6);
there is some trace of this at Athens, prior to the Solonian
legislation (Plutarch, Solôn, 23), arising probably out of the
cruel state of the law between debtor and creditor. For the
sacrifice of children to Kronus by the Carthaginians, in troubled
times, (according to the language of Ennius, “Pœni soliti suos
sacrificare puellos,”) Diodor. xx. 14; xiii. 86. Porphyr. de
Abstinent. ii. 56: the practice is abundantly illustrated in
Möver’s Die Religion der Phönizier, pp. 298-304.

Arrian blames Alexander for cutting off the nose and ears of the
Satrap Bêssus, saying that it was an act altogether barbaric,
(_i. e._ non-Hellenic,) (Exp. Al. iv. 7, 6.) About the σεβασμὸς
θεοπρεπὴς περὶ τὸν βασιλέα in Asia, see Strabo, xi. p. 526.

[410] Thucyd. i. 6: Herodot. i. 10.

For we must recollect that, in respect to political sovereignty, complete disunion was among their most cherished principles. The only source of supreme authority to which a Greek felt respect and attachment, was to be sought within the walls of his own city. Authority seated in another city might operate upon his fears,—might procure for him increased security and advantages, 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 his mind, and he is always found gravitating towards the distinct sovereignty of his own boulê, or ekklêsia. This is a disposition common both to democracies and oligarchies, and operative even among the different towns belonging to the same subdivision of the Hellenic name,—Achæans, Phokians, Bœotians, etc. The twelve Achæan cities are harmonious allies, with a periodical festival which partakes of the character of a congress,—but equal and independent political communities: the Bœotian towns, under the presidency of Thebes, their reputed metropolis, recognize certain common obligations, and obey, on various particular matters, chosen officers named bœotarchs,—but we shall see, in this, as in other cases, the centrifugal tendencies constantly manifesting themselves, 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 relation between one city and another was an international relation, 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 special favor, and sometimes (though very rarely) reciprocated generally between two separate cities.[411] 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 Corinth 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.

[411] Aristot. Polit. iii. 6, 12. It is unnecessary to refer
to the many inscriptions which confer upon some individual
non-freeman the right of ἐπιγαμία and ἔγκτησις.