Chapter II: Part 2

The river Phasis was probably the boundary between Europe and Asia at an early period: this remark of Voss appears to me to have a high degree of probability; in Herodotus, as we may see from his description of Scythia, the Tanais forms the boundary, but he entertains erroneous notions about its course, for he conceives that one-half of it flows from the north to the south. This boundary afterwards remained, as in Scylax of Caryanda and Eratosthenes, and in like manner the pillars of Heracles were commonly supposed to form the southern boundary between Europe and Libya. In regard to Asia and Libya, there existed various views as to how they should be divided; for a time, probably ever since the days of Hecataeus, they were regarded as separated by the Nile; in opposition to this Herodotus remarks, that by such a division Egypt was torn to pieces, and he justly asks to which of the two parts the Delta is to belong. The Arabian Gulf forms the true and natural boundary, and this is the view which was adopted even by Eratosthenes.

GREECE.

The geography of Greece presents great difficulties at the very outset. Hellas is not a country with natural boundaries; and the application of the name varies at different times. The ancients did not take it in the same sense in which we do; with them the names of countries are so intimately connected with those of the nations inhabiting them, that they called Hellas all the countries inhabited by Hellenes, including the Siceliot and Italiot towns as well as the colonies in Asia Minor, as far as Iberia and Scythia. The country to the east and south of Ambracia, until the time of the Romans, was not simply called Ἑλλάς, but ἡ συνεχὴς Ἑλλάς. This designation, however, so peculiar to the whole mode of thinking of the ancients, is too national, and for us inconvenient, and we unhesitatingly apply the name of Greece to the country called by the ancients ἡ συνεχὴς Ἑλλάς. It extends beyond the natural boundary of Mount Oeta and the Aetolian mountains which are connected with Oeta, because Thessaly must necessarily be included. We must choose the most convenient designation; and if in this we differ from the ancients, it is a necessary deviation made for the purpose of making ourselves understood.

The only countries which have natural boundaries are first Peloponnesus, and secondly those parts which are separated from Thessaly by mountains. But these boundaries are only partial, and the natural limits of the whole country ought to be extended as far as the north of Thrace, so as to include that country together with Macedonia and Illyricum as far as Mount Scardus, and the heights which separate Illyricum and Macedonia from Servia. But only a portion of this extensive territory was inhabited by Greeks. Originally it was one united country, being inhabited by the race of the Pelasgians, while in the historical times the Hellenes became separated from them; but how this nation arose is one of the most mysterious points in history. All we can do is carefully to distinguish between Pelasgians and Hellenes, although there was a relationship between the two, which is perfectly obscure to us. In the historical period the whole is already in a state of confusion. The Hellenic nation, like that of the Latins in Italy, seems to have proceeded from a small centre; but how this came to pass is a question involved in impenetrable darkness. A nation calling itself Σελλοί, Ἑλλοί, Ἕλληνες, is said to have inhabited the highest mountains of Epirus, and thence to have spread over the whole country which was inhabited by Pelasgians. This nation was called by its neighbours by the name of Γραικοί which however was never employed by the nation itself.

The divisions of Greece are partly natural and partly accidental; natural is that into Thessaly, Peloponnesus, and the country between the two. This last, however, has no common name, that of _Hellas proprie sic dicta_ is quite wrong, because it takes no notice of the islands and colonies. The question as to whether Greece in the earliest times had any common name or not, was discussed even by Strabo and others. My opinion is, that the Homeric names cannot be doubted; during the period represented by Homer, Argos is the name of the country from the coast of Peloponnesus as far as the frontiers of Macedonia, and we may therefore draw a distinction between Hellas and Argos. But that name lasted only till the development of the Hellenic character.[9] The name Ἀργεῖοι, applies to the Greeks, who had not yet separated themselves as Hellenes; and Δαναοί seems to be the name of the Pelasgian inhabitants of Peloponnesus. When we read in Thucydides that at the time of the Iliad, Greeks and barbarians were not yet separated, the expression may be variously interpreted; his opinion probably is, that in those times many parts of Greece were inhabited by nations, such as Caucones, Leleges, and others, which were not assimilated to the Greeks, but were distinct in language and manners; still, however, they are comprised under the name of Argives, i.e., Pelasgians, for Ἀργεῖοι is not a Hellenic name. The name Ἀχαιοί is not Hellenic either, and it must be remarked in general, that Hellenes and Pelasgians were not yet distinguished from each other, but were vaguely comprised under one name.

In the earliest times two of those natural divisions, Peloponnesus and Thessaly, though perfectly independent of each other, appear to have been of primary importance. We shall first direct our attention to Peloponnesus, as the purest Greek country, and the only one which forms a moral and naturally united community, and shows a vigorous nation, not only because it contained the seats and dominions of the ancient kings, but because for a long time after, Peloponnesians possessed the supremacy over the rest of Greece.

PELOPONNESUS.

The name Peloponnesus is singular; it is very ancient, and occurs as early as the Homeric hymn on Apollo. There can be no doubt that it has some reference either to a people or to some ruler; how far it may contain an allusion to the Pelasgians, is a question concerning which nothing can be said with certainty. Where names differ so widely, a healthy philology demands that we should abstain from any dangerous attempt. If we employ a rational method of exegesis, we cannot doubt that the Atreids were also called Pelopids, and that previously to the immigration of the Heracleids and Dorians into the peninsula, there existed an historical dynasty under that name. But whether Pelops is the historical ancestor of that race, or some kind of hero, whether he is different from the Pelasgus in the “Supplices” of Aeschylus, who, according to different genealogies in the Arcadian traditions, is sometimes called the first man, and sometimes a son of Zeus, are questions about which, if we judge soberly and thoughtfully, we can say nothing. The opinion prevalent in the time of the tragedians, that Pelops was a Phrygian, belongs to a much later period, in which the Trojans too were regarded as Phrygians, which according to the views of the epic poems they never could be.

Another very ancient name, which the Greeks regard as the earlier and native name, is Ἀπία, for there can be no doubt that it is a proper name, though some Alexandrians declared it to be an adjective; ἐξ ἀπίης γῆς does not signify “from a distant,” or “waterless country” (from πίνω), but from the country of Apia. Those who are anxious to manufacture history out of etymologies, may find in this name various allusions as, for example, to the Opicans, but they are all equally hazardous. In general etymology is necessary; but we cannot be sufficiently on our guard not to fall into quibbles and fancies. Not to neglect the later times, I will at once notice the subsequent change of the name into Morea (ὁ Μορέας). This too has given rise to various etymologies: it is a very common opinion among the modern Greeks, that the name Morea is derived from the shape of the country; as the ancients often compared it to the leaf of a plane tree, so the moderns compare it to the leaf of a mulberry tree (_mora_), according to which the name would be of Italian origin. But I am convinced that, at the time when the Bulgarians ruled in Greece, and when the Slavonians, being pushed onward by them, inundated Peloponnesus, the country, being the maritime province of the Bulgarian kingdom, was called Morea from _more_ (the Slavonian word for _sea_), and consequently, the name originally was in all probability not confined to Peloponnesus. In the time of the Achaean league, the Romans called it Achaia, from one of its provinces,—a name, which in fact wholly and properly belongs to Peloponnesus, until it was extended to the rest of Greece.

Peloponnesus, in a physical point of view, is a very remarkable country: it rests upon a volcanic foundation; and although our history knows nothing of any eruptions, still we hear of formidable earthquakes. The island of Thera, in the Greek Archipelago, is the central point from which a volcanic chain extends below the sea to Peloponnesus, and as far as Epirus and Thesprotia, while on the other side, it proceeds to Sicily, Ischia and Mount Vesuvius. Hence earthquakes were very frequent and eventful occurrences in the physical history of the peninsula. When you come down from the precipitous heights of Arcadia, or from the opposite heights of Parnassus and Helicon, you at once see that the country falls off, and has been formed by the ground sinking in consequence of this volcanic nature; and I have no doubt that the Corinthian Gulf was likewise the effect of such causes, for the land on both sides of it breaks down abruptly. The range of Taygetus, of which Taenarus forms the southern extremity, is particularly renowned for its internal convulsions; the most fearful ravages are nowhere so frequent as there, and about the time of the 80th Olympiad, in particular, the earth was there in violent agitation: whether this is still the character of that district, I do not know. The Peloponnesian coast of the Corinthian Gulf is another scene of earthquakes; there Helice and Bura were swallowed up by the earth, and as far as history can be traced, one town after another was destroyed by convulsions of the earth, whence Ποσειδῶν Ἐνοσίχθων was specially worshipped there, and on Mount Taenarus. Those earthquakes give rise to lakes discharging their waters through subterraneous canals, which at times are filled up, and at others are opened again; hence the lakes are of varying extent, as for example, the Stymphalian lake in Arcadia. Another effect is, that several rivers of Peloponnesus are interrupted in their course: they sometimes continue it under ground, as, for example, the Ladon, while at other times they change their beds, or disappear entirely in caverns or lakes. Hence also the quantity of water in some districts is different at different times; this was the case especially in Argolis, which in the days of Aristotle had lost all its waters.

The peninsula of Peloponnesus is properly a system of mountains of very different kinds; those by which it is connected with the main land of Greece, the Geranean and Oenean mountains, are of very different formation from the rest: they are more rugged and barren, and have little or no vegetation; those in the interior of the peninsula display the most luxuriant vegetation, and are far more fertile than the mountains of Italy. Few countries are equal to Peloponnesus in the abundance and beauty of its vegetation, which in spite of all devastations always revives with youthful vigour. Its mountains, although they contain districts without water, are on the whole abundantly supplied with it, especially in Arcadia, and it is this circumstance that makes the vegetation so splendid. I have been told by persons who had been in Arcadia, that no country on earth can compete with it in beauty on account of the forms of its mountains, its trees, etc., and the most magnificent Alpine vegetation is not richer than that of Arcadia. The highest points of the peninsula are the mountains which separate the maritime country of Achaia from Arcadia, in the neighbourhood of Stymphalus. In the ravines of those mountains snow is found even in summer, though not on the tops of the mountains, and there is not one mountain in all the peninsula, which is capped with snow. All Arcadia is a conglomeration of mountains, which, even with the assistance of maps can hardly be divided into their elements; whence it is a vain and useless attempt to fix the definite names which are mentioned by the ancients. We cannot, for example, define Mount Maenalus, and what is generally described as the site of Erymanthus, is only conjectural. All we can say, is that Maenalus was perhaps the central, and Lycaeus the southern range of Arcadian mountains. All these mountains and rivers now have different names: a proof that the Slavonians entirely changed the ancient population. The traveller asks in vain where the Alpheus is; Mount Taygetus is now called Pentadactylon, and all the other names are barbarous. Taygetus is very high, but not quite so high as the highest Arcadian mountains; the name belongs to the whole range from the frontiers of Arcadia down to Cape Taenarus, now Cape Matapan.

Peloponnesus has but few plains which do not almost deserve the name of valleys: those of Elis and Argos—perhaps that of Sicyon also, though it is not quite plain—are the only ones which deserve special notice. Elis is a plain, encircled by a range of hills which are not high; Argos is properly still more spacious and less enclosed, though the mountains of Corinth are continued along the Acte. The district of Calamata, in Messenia, is a real valley, the work of the river Pamisus; and Laconia, along the Eurotas is a real river-valley. All these valleys are of extraordinary fertility, and the only barren portions of Peloponnesus are about Corinth, where the ground is very rocky, and the district in Argolis between ancient Mycenae, Epidaurus and Troezen; the plain of Sicyon is undulating and capable of cultivation. Achaia, on the northern slope of the Arcadian mountains is less hilly, if we except Cape Rhion; it has only low hills, but considerable valleys along the rivers.

Wherever in Peloponnesus the plough can be applied, the soil rewards the labour; the trees are magnificent, and most of them are fruit trees. The heights are rich in chesnuts and eatable acorns; the olive tree grows admirably in Peloponnesus, and for it the peninsula seems specially created; it is found upon all the lower hills, and extends even high up into the mountains; hence, the cultivation of olives was the principal object of agriculture; the vine was not so much cultivated, though many districts produce good wine. When Peloponnesus was thickly peopled, it did not produce grain sufficient for its inhabitants, whence corn had to be imported from Sicily, and this necessity easily explains the settlements in Sicily and Italy. The Arcadian Alps afford very excellent pasturage, and although the Arcadian shepherd little answers to the ideas which were entertained of him some seventy or eighty years ago, yet the inhabitants, a strong and robust race of men, are still chiefly occupied in sheep breeding. Mutton is still eaten there in great quantity as in the East, while beef is a luxury. Cattle-breeding was also carried on on mount Taygetus, in Laconia, but with this difference, that the shepherds in Arcadia were free men, while those in Laconia were serfs.

The political division of Peloponnesus, or the geography of the population, as might be expected, was different at different periods, from the age of the poetical mythus down to that of the decay of ancient life. If I wanted to confine myself to the intermediate or really classical period, I should render an accurate survey a matter of considerable difficulty, as I should constantly have to refer to earlier and later states of things. I shall therefore notice the different divisions of Peloponnesus from the earliest times, beginning with the mythical geography so far as it is mentioned with any degree of certainty, and then pass on to that of the historical period. We shall accordingly commence with the survey given by Homer in the second book of the Iliad.

The Homeric Catalogue is a very remarkable document: it is a very ancient historical piece of composition, drawn up in the verse most favourable to being remembered, and in which the ancients preserved all their traditions; but it is quite foreign to poetry. Few subjects of the Iliad have engaged the attention of the learned in the same degree as this Catalogue; it was not Strabo alone that took it on every occasion as the text of his book, as we see from his work itself, but a number of other writers had done the same thing before him. But our point of view is different from that which was taken about the time of Ephorus. We see that there was a time when the Catalogue was regarded as a historical document, as a conscientious, careful, and learned account of the state of Greece at the time of the Trojan war. I have no doubt that this opinion was the prevailing one at the time of Ephorus, who was a contemporary of Demosthenes and Philip of Macedonia; that it was regarded in this light at an earlier period, is attested by the statement, that in the time of Solon, the Athenians and Megarians endeavoured to establish their claims to the possession of Salamis by appealing to the Catalogue, a fact which at least proves its early historical authority, even though the story should not be true. But since we have arrived at more unbiassed views about Homer, and no longer bind ourselves to the superstition of his undoubted authenticity—an advantage which, though it may possibly be abused, should never again be abandoned—our point of view in judging of this part of the Homeric poems is likewise changed. We find in this Catalogue several statements which are irreconcilable with each other, which refer to different times, and betray a different origin. Thus we meet, for example, with the Heracleido-Doric colonies in Rhodes and the neighbouring islands of Cos and Syme, while according to our traditions those settlements are of a more recent date than those of the Ionians in those parts, and probably the most recent of all, which even if it were not attested by tradition, would in itself be more credible. Here we have an evident interpolation, introduced in a Doric or Rhodian recension, which itself, however, is comparatively speaking, very ancient. We are naturally tempted to trace the geography laid down in the Catalogue to a definite period: but this is impossible without falling into contradictions; all we can say is, that the author of the Catalogue intended to describe Greece, its inhabitants and towns, as they were before the Doric migration, when the boundaries were indeed very different from what they were during the period subsequent to that migration. But although this intention of the author is manifest, yet it is not accurately carried out, and is opposed to other traditions. Such a contradiction occurs most strikingly in regard to the Ionians. The later country of Achaia on the Corinthian Gulf is said, in our traditions, to have been inhabited by Ionians, until the Achaeans, being expelled by the Heracleids from Argos and Mycenae, went to Aegialos, displaced the Ionians and established themselves in their country; in the Catalogue, on the other hand, we find a tradition which is irreconcilable with this account, the truth of which I must leave undecided.

Peloponnesus, in Homer—the name itself does not occur in his poems—is divided into six parts, as in later times, but in a different manner. The two principal parts are the kingdoms of the Atreids, that of Mycenae and that of Sparta: then follows the country of Diomedes and Sthenelus; the country of the Arcadians, that of the Epeans, and lastly that of the kings of Pylos of the house of the Nelids. The distribution of the countries is as follows:—

1st. The kingdom of Menelaus comprises the whole of Laconia, probably extending very far into Messene; it is possible that some verses of the Catalogue are lost, or that several towns were not mentioned at all.

2. The realm of Agamemnon, besides its capital of Mycenae with its territory, comprises Corinth, Sicyon and the whole of northern Achaia.

3. The dominion of the Persids, Diomedes and Sthenelus, embraces Argos, Tiryns and the Acte, together with Aegina.

4. Arcadia has the same boundaries as afterwards, except that Triphylia does not belong to it.

5. The kingdom of Nestor consists of western Messene, Triphylia, and the south of Elis as far as the Alpheus.

6. The country of the Epeans in the north of Elis.

The later province of Argolis thus contained the kingdom of Diomedes and a portion of that of Agamemnon; the kingdom of the Epeans afterwards becomes Elis, but includes a part of the Pylian kingdom.

The historical importance which we can attach to this division is extremely small. We might indulge in speculations about the causes which may have led the author of the Catalogue to make this division, and there is much that might seem to recommend such speculations. It would not be difficult to show that this Catalogue was composed at Sparta and belonged to what is called the Lycurgian recension, because it assigns favourable boundaries to Sparta and unfavourable ones to Argos, but this would certainly be an abuse of historical speculation.

With the Homeric division, we may compare another ante-Doric division of which traces have come down to us;[10] it differs greatly from the Homeric, and in all essential points agrees with that which became established in consequence of the Doric migration. Aegialos, afterwards called Achaia, is described as the country of the Ionians with its twelve towns; the remainder of the empire of Agamemnon and that of Diomedes already form one whole; Triphylia is separated from the Pylian kingdom of the Nelids and added to Arcadia, and the remainder of the kingdom of Nestor is united with that of Menelaus.

In regard to the division of Argolis Proper there are some difficulties. Homer says:—

Οἳ δ’ Ἄργος τ’ εἶχον Τίρυνθά τε τειχιόεσσαν.

The ancients are of opinion that Diomedes and Sthenelus ruled at Argos, and that Argos along with Tiryns was their capital. The historical explanations in the Scholiasts and Eustathius are extremely poor; still, however, among what are called the Little Scholia, we find Argos in this line explained to mean Peloponnesus, and this opens quite a different view from that commonly entertained. It is inconceivable that Argos and Mycenae, the two capitals of two kingdoms, should have been only forty-three stadia, scarcely five English miles, distant from each other; and it is an equally unaccountable fact that scarcely anything is mentioned about Argos in the ancient legends. The above verse, therefore, must probably be taken as a general beginning of the description of Peloponnesus, to which is added a special account of the kingdom of Tiryns, as a reference to what afterwards follows:—

Νῦν δ’ αὖ τοὺς ὅσσοι τὸ Πελασγικὸν Ἄργος ἔναιον,

which is the designation of Thessaly. Argos, even in the opinion of many ancients, was only the name of a country. I am convinced, therefore, that, in the early times, it was nothing but the name of the country, and that, as the name of the city, it is of later origin. Just as Corinth was in reality newly built by the Dorians, and ought not, therefore, to be mentioned here, so Argos also was founded by Dorian settlers at a time when Mycenae and Tiryns had already fallen from their former eminence. Throughout all mythology, Tiryns alone is the capital of Diomedes and Sthenelus, and Mycenae that of the Atreids; these two cities alone are mentioned, no third ever occurs, and Argos is not spoken of until the Doric migration and conquest. In this manner it is clear that the tragedians, who, however, generally were not learned men, do not deserve the reproach which the Alexandrian grammarians made against them; as, for example, that Sophocles confounded Argos and Mycenae. Mycenae, before the existence of Argos, was a true Argos[11], the capital of the whole country, though by no means identical with the later Argos.[12] In this manner the outlines of those kingdoms acquire a more suitable shape: the Acte, or the eastern part of Argolis, was distinct from Argos Proper even at that time, just as it was afterwards; the capitals, Tiryns and Mycenae, were still near enough to each other. When, accordingly, the grammarians found such contradictions as in Sophocles, they endeavoured to mediate by means of more recent myths, or even by inventing new ones, and that often in the most singular manner. The whole story, for example, how Diomedes was forced to go to Italy, and how Sthenelus gave up his kingdom, arose only from the circumstance, that in later and seemingly better historical authorities, the statement was found that the capital of Tiryns was united with the kingdom of Agamemnon; and the difficulty of accounting for the manner in which that kingdom had disappeared, was removed by a fiction.

Through the immigration of the Heracleids, Peloponnesus acquired a new form: the countries and their inhabitants became changed; in Arcadia alone the ancient population remained the same; all other parts received either new inhabitants or new rulers. During that period there arose the three great Doric kingdoms of Messene, Sparta, and Argos, and the Aetolian kingdom of Elis; and Aegialea, which had been an Ionian country, became Achaean. This state of things remains the foundation of geography till after the Macedonian period, when it became completely changed; but although the principal divisions remained until that period, yet their boundaries underwent considerable modifications, which will be explained in the account of each particular country. The three Doric kingdoms in particular did not preserve the same boundaries, for Messene perished, and was united with Laconia; Argolis had originally a much greater extent in the south, but afterwards its frontier in that direction was narrowed, while, on the other side, the three or four cities on the Acte, as well as Corinth, Phlius, and Sicyon, also became separated from it. In this manner Argos, the greatest of those three kingdoms, extending from Malea to Sicyon, and containing one-third of all Peloponnesus, was greatly reduced. Afterwards Messene again rose from its ruins, Argos extended its frontier towards Sparta, Arcadia regained what it had lost, though the towns remained separate, and the boundaries of Achaia were again widened, until its name extended over all Peloponnesus.

ARGOLIS, ARGOS.

Argos, as I said before, was originally the largest of the three Doric states. The fact that Lacedaemon afterwards appears as the first state of Peloponnesus, is only owing to the good fortune and the pride of the Lacedaemonians, and to the circumstance that they retained their royal dynasty, while the others, especially Argos, lost theirs, in consequence of which the unity of their state was broken. But Argos never recognised the pretensions of Sparta, and this struggling against what was an actual fact, did great harm to Argos, and led it to form most hateful alliances against the rest of the Greeks.

In the subsequent dismemberment of the Argive empire, we find the elements of its origin, which, in the two other Doric states, are indeed likewise visible, but produce the opposite effect. In all the three Doric states, the principle of the constitution is that of feudalism, a term which may be offensive to some, because it is not usually applied to the affairs of early Greece. These kingdoms were divided into several principalities, where Dorian chiefs had settled as vassal princes with a colony, or ruled over the ancient Achaean inhabitants; in some instances they were ancient Achaean principalities, whose rulers maintained themselves by submitting to the power of the Dorians. The number of such principalities seems to have been particularly great in Argolis, in consequence of which the country could afterwards be divided into so many separate towns. As such we find the two ancient capitals, Mycenae and Tiryns, Corinth, Sicyon, Troezen, Hermione, and Epidaurus, for even these smaller towns of the Acte had formerly had their own vassal princes, as is attested by the unanimous mythical accounts of their kings, especially in the case of Troezen and Epidaurus. It was essentially the same relation as that between the Lombard kings and their dukes; a parallel to the case of native princes occurs in the fact, that the Frankish kings, at the beginning of the middle ages, sometimes appointed Gauls and Romans as their vassal princes in Italy. The same system occurs in Laconia: the ruling tribe and the chief king settled in one town, but there existed six principalities. These constitutions, however, in their development, took quite opposite directions. In Laconia, as in France, the vassal princes disappear, and all the country becomes united under one government; while in Argos, as in Germany, the union is broken up into small principalities. Corinth, for example, which, before the Doric conquest, cannot be regarded as an independent state, is known to have risen to the rank of a state through the Dorians, and Prumnis, the father of Bacchis,[13] was the first Doric prince there. In like manner we know, from scanty notices of Ephorus, Scymnus, and others, that Doric chiefs were the founders of dynasties at Troezen and Epidaurus: Mycenae and Tiryns alone continued to exist as native Achaean states under the supremacy of the king of Argos. This kingdom of Argos was weaker than, for example, that of the Franks, for the Heracleids were only commanders in war, whose power was by no means unlimited; each tribe had its own king, and accordingly the three Doric tribes had three. It is clear that such a distribution of the country could not remain free from disturbances; hence the power of the kings of Argos could not last long, and a conflict necessarily arose as soon as one of them ventured to step beyond the bounds of his prerogatives. This was done by Pheidon, who ruled first as king, and afterwards as tyrant. He was indeed still ruler of all Argolis, but after him the state broke up into its parts. Several vassal princes then usurped the sovereignty, and for a time there existed in Argolis partly principalities and partly aristocracies. But Argos thereby became so weak as to be unable to defend the western coast of the Argolic gulf as far as Malea against Lacedaemon; Cythera also was lost, and not even the territory of Thyrea could be maintained. At the same time the Spartans extended their dominion farther and farther; the nominal dependence of Corinth and Sicyon had ceased long before, as well as that of the towns in the Acte and of Aegina, which had likewise belonged to Argos. Here we have another evidence showing that the Homeric Catalogue was composed after the Doric period, for it represents Aegina as belonging to the eastern part of Argos; Aegina was naturally foreign to Argos, and became connected with it only as a Doric colony.

The country about Argos is a plain, fully deserving the name πολυδίψιον Ἄργος which it bears in Homer, for in the autumn it usually has no water at all. This is the natural consequence of the physical structure of Peloponnesus. In the interior of Arcadia the waters accumulate, and there are in that part large natural reservoirs, as, for example, the lake of Mantinea, which discharges its waters through passages in the mountains which separate Arcadia from Argolis, into the plain of Argos. These passages, however, are not always open, nay, people in the Morea assert, that the waters find their way through them only once in five years, and then plentifully supply the rivers and springs of Argolis. This alleged regularity is probably fabulous. But on the whole, the territory of Argolis, in its widest extent, as far as the northern slope of the hills, is scantily supplied with water; in the neighbourhood of Sicyon there are some small streams, whence the plain there is rich and fertile. The whole of the central part of Argolis, however, that is, the hills between Mycenae and Tiryns on the one side, and the towns of the Acte on the other, which are traversed by the pass of Tretos, consists of very barren and rocky heights, which admit to some extent of the cultivation of olives only in the lower valleys. Argos, therefore, when confined to Mycenae and Tiryns, was but a weak state, a circumstance which, together with the recollection of its former greatness, placed it, in later times, in a false position.

The city of ARGOS, as I have already stated, was not founded till after the time of the Doric immigration; but its castle Larissa (Larissa is the Pelasgian name for castle) was older, and was situated on a considerable height; we may even now discern the Cyclopian walls described by Pausanias. The city had a great circumference, and was built around the castle of Larissa, stretching from that hill through a plain, and up another hill. It was not strongly fortified, nor is its natural position of any particular strength. Argos is one of those cities which did not suffer much from the calamities of Greece, if we except the one devastation by the Spartans under Cleomenes before the period of the Persian war. But it decayed, and appears to have suffered particularly during the war of Pyrrhus. Pausanias does not say, whether the Romans, after the destruction of Corinth, visited Argos in the same way, but the verse of Virgil[14] (_Eruet ille Argos_) leads us to believe that they did. Under the Roman emperors, it sank so low as to be obliged to petition the emperor Julian to exempt it from its contribution to the Isthmian games. In the middle ages, during the tenth and eleventh centuries, Argos was a considerable manufacturing town, and was particularly distinguished for the manufacture of silk. Afterwards it was destroyed by Robert Guiscard, and then a second time by the Turks. Subsequently a colony of Albanese established itself there, and last year (1826) it was completely reduced to ashes.

MYCENAE, at a distance of forty-three stadia from Argos, was situated on a hill; at the time when Greece was most flourishing, Mycenae was no more than a name, for after the Persian wars, the town, together with Tiryns was completely destroyed by the Argives. The inhabitants of the two towns had availed themselves of the Persian war for the purpose of gaining their independence, by sending a small band to assist the Greeks at Plataeae. The Argives, who took no part in the Persian war, afterwards punished them for it, while the other Greeks, contrary to their promise, did nothing to prevent it; and the two places became the victims of an inconsiderate act. The ruins of Mycenae and Tiryns, which still exist, are about the same as those seen by Pausanias: they are the grandest Cyclopian structures in southern Europe. The lion-gate of Mycenae, constructed of huge blocks of stone, with its pointed arch and the two rudely carved lions above it, may still be seen. These remains, as well as those of Orchomenos are striking proofs, that the greatness of the ante-Doric period, which is immortalised in the works of the poets, is not a mere dream. The circumference of the walls of Mycenae is still considerable, and the city was well suited to be the residence of the king of kings.

TIRYNS, in the earliest times the rival of Mycenae, as is frequently intimated in the mythical stories, has likewise left traces of extensive walls, justifying the epithet τειχιόεσσα, which it bears in the Iliad. It was situated on the eminence above Nauplia, which, no doubt, was once the port of Tiryns.

Within the territory of Argolis, there were two small states, which as late as the Persian war enjoyed a kind of political existence, but stood in the same relation to Argos, Mycenae, and Tiryns, as Winterthur does to Zurich, or the towns of Aargau to Berne. They were, in a certain sense, republics; but could enter into no negotiations with foreign powers without the sanction of Argos. I allude to CLEONAE, an Argive state, and ORNEAE, which Herodotus calls a Cynurian state. The CYNURIANS, whom we also meet with in Thyrea and in the Dryopian territory, are a real mystery. It is said that they were Dryopians, perhaps a non-Dorian people, but accompanying the Dorians in their migrations; we may perhaps compare them with certain bands of Saxons, who accompanied the Lombards to Italy and settled in Parma and Modena. In like manner, we find Bulgarians in the principality of Beneventum; and there are distinct traditions, that Aetolians accompanied the Dorians.

The whole peninsula to the east of the Argolic gulf was, in the best age of Greece, commonly called ACTE, which must be borne in mind, especially by the readers of Thucydides; the earlier commentators have often misunderstood this name. We have no term exactly corresponding to the Greek Acte; it is more than peninsula, which is a very indefinite term, nor is it the same as chersonesus. The Greeks would not call Italy or Spain a chersonesus, but they would apply to them the term of Acte. A chersonesus is a peninsula, connected with the main land by a very narrow isthmus, whereas Acte is a country, the greater part of which is coast-land. Such was the case with Attica; which was originally called Acte, a name which is often used as a proper name, especially by Latin poets, who even formed from it an adjective, as _Actaea tellus_, which is unknown to the Greeks.

This Acte contained two, or we may even say three, considerable Doric cities, and one whose origin is unknown. The two most ancient places are EPIDAURUS and TROEZEN; HERMIONE arose somewhat later; and at a still later period, though we do not know when, was built the town of HALIAE, which is not marked in our maps, not even in that of D’Anville. Troezen and Epidaurus appear, in the Greek traditions, among the most ancient places; we find them mentioned along with Eïonae[15], and they are certainly more ancient than the Doric migration. In Scymnus[16], indeed, the Doric chiefs appear as founders, though the traditions of Troezen went back to Pelops; but this only alludes to the fact, that a new order of things began at the time of the Dorian conquest. All those towns, in developing their constitutions, passed through the same process as Rome and other cities: they begin with an aristocracy of conquerors, under whom the original inhabitants occupy the position of clients, or _penestae_; but afterwards the latter become free, the conquered rise to the rank of a _demos_, the ancient aristocracy gradually dies away, and the subject country people gain the ascendancy. In the case of Epidaurus, we have the proof in the tradition about the Artyni and Conipodes, the former of whom were Dorians, and the latter the Achaean country people. All these places of the Acte were maritime towns; whereas Argos never had any navy and was quite a stranger to the sea. The Greeks are almost everywhere born sailors, even in their Italian colonies; and so it has ever been down to the present day. The Italian, on the other hand, is born for agriculture; no real Italian is a navigator, for Venice is inhabited by Slavonians, and Genoa by Ligurians who do not belong to the race of true Italians; the Greek colonists in Italy, as at Naples, are fishermen, and often carry their fish to Rome from a distance of several hundred miles. Those places of the Acte, if we bear in mind the small extent of their dominion, had a considerable number of galleys; at Salamis their number, which was not small, does great honour to the patriotism of the people, and we can easily see that their power was not insignificant.

HERMIONE is also called Hermion, and we cannot say which of the two names is the older one; in Thucydides we only find the ethnic name of the people when they come forward with others; for in the place itself no occurrence is mentioned.

HALIAE, situated between Hermion and Nauplia, arose from a settlement of fishermen, whence the ethnic name Ἁλιῆς or Ἁλιεῖς in Thucydides and Scylax. The place has been overlooked, because most geographers were but indifferent Greek scholars, and because the Latin translation of Thucydides renders Ἁλιῆς by _piscatores_.

These four towns still existed in the time of Philip of Macedonia, and were well disposed towards Athens, exerting themselves on its behalf, according to their feeble powers, in the Lamian war. Haliae is afterwards no longer mentioned, and the others became members of the Achaean confederacy. The temple of Asclepios, about four miles from the town of Epidaurus, was celebrated as a place to which pilgrimages were undertaken; and in times of distress, this circumstance furnished to the impoverished Epidaurians the means of living.

Opposite to Troezen is the island of CALAURIA, where Demosthenes died a free man in the temple of Poseidon, an asylum for all Greece, but which was not respected by the Macedonians.

Not far from the coast of the Acte are the islands of TIPARENOS and HYDREA (Speizza and Hydra), which in antiquity were quite insignificant, but have become important in our own age. The latter of them has preserved its name. Hydrea does not even appear to have had a town, but its harbour was used in antiquity.[17]

CORINTH is, under this name, not an ancient place; its original name was Ephyra, and the greatness of Corinth belongs to the later or historical period. There is not a single important tradition of the early times that refers to Corinth, and it is quite manifest that only in later times legends were transferred to Corinth. The situation of ACROCORINTHUS is such, that from the remotest period the inhabitants of the country must have used it as a stronghold, as the Isthmus itself is a strong natural fortification for the defence of Peloponnesus, and was afterwards the boundary between the Ionians and the peninsula. According to tradition, Acrocorinthus was in the possession of the Achaeans, and was taken by the Dorians only after a protracted blockade.

Corinth is perhaps the first of all Greek towns that became great and wealthy through commerce. There are only two places which in the earliest times deserve to be noticed as commercial towns, namely, Corinth and Crissa; after the destruction of Crissa, Aegina, though more as a country of sailors, stepped into its place. These last two towns carried on commerce chiefly by sea, while Corinth gave itself up more to traffic by land. Its situation was most favourable for commerce, being distant, on the one hand, twelve stadia from Lechaeon and the Corinthian Gulf, and, on the other, forty stadia[18] from Cenchreae and the Saronic Gulf. The place for the Isthmian games was in the neighbourhood of Corinth, on the Isthmus, which is there forty stadia in breadth. But the most important point at Corinth was Acrocorinthus, a rock which according to Strabo, rose perpendicularly to the height of three and a-half stadia, or 2,100 feet: this statement seems to be based upon actual measurement; at present it is impossible to measure it on account of the jealousy of the Turks. The rock is inaccessible on the side of the country, and below it was situated the city of Corinth, in the form of a trapezium; the town was about five miles in circumference, and one of the largest cities of Greece: Athens was not larger. It was built on hills and in the intervening valleys, and surrounded by a strong wall. Towards the city Acrocorinthus was open, but there was only one gate communicating with it. On the top of it a wall ran round its precipitous sides; and the remains of these walls have even in our days been seen from a distance. It was altogether impregnable, at least in the ancient mode of warfare; it was taken once by famine, and twice by surprise. At present it is no longer so strong, and on one side it can be reached by guns from a neighbouring hill.

In the Homeric Catalogue, Corinth is called ἀφνειός; it was wealthy even under the Bacchiads, and under Cypselus and his son; its commerce, however, was at different times disturbed by the navy of Athens, and this is one of the earliest examples of commercial jealousy. Corinth was greater by its land commerce than as a maritime power; but still it had a navy, and founded numerous and splendid colonies, as Syracuse, Corcyra, Ambracia, Leucas, and a number of towns on the western coast of Greece, partly with, and partly without the co-operation of Corcyra. But the planting of these colonies belongs to the period of the Corinthian aristocracy and tyrannis; during its democratic government, the city lost its bold spirit of enterprise and its warlike character, just as was the case at Florence. From the amount of contingents furnished by Corinth in times of war, it is clear that it was populous, though not in proportion to its extent. But the Corinthians never shewed themselves noble; as early as the Persian wars they displayed malice and envy towards Athens; and Plutarch is unjust in blaming Herodotus for speaking against Corinth. The Corinthians were the chief instigators of the undertakings against Athens, which afterwards they had reason to repent, when Sparta exercised her power with an utter disregard of every one else; the Corinthians then brought about a reaction to ruin Sparta, which, by the wretched manner in which she had used her supremacy, brought upon herself a heavy responsibility with her contemporaries no less than with posterity. During the Macedonian period Corinth is mentioned only as a wealthy commercial city; in the troublous times, when the Greeks were involved in maritime wars, when Illyrians and Etruscans rendered the sea about Malea and Taenarus (which were inhabited by the ancestors of the Mainots) unsafe, and when the Cretans also carried on piracy, people preferred going to Corinth, instead of sailing round Peloponnesus; the continuity of the voyage was sacrificed, and the merchandise was conveyed to Lechaeon, and thence to Corfu and Illyricum.[19] Corinth thus became a principal staple of commerce. The different phases of the commerce of the Corinthians may be traced _a priori_ from its historical relations. Corinth rose and sank; the time of its highest prosperity was that in which Athens, like modern Venice, was in a state of utter decay, about Olymp. 180, in the reign of Antigonus Gonatas. All commerce then became concentrated at Corinth, just as the whole commerce of the Adriatic has in modern times become concentrated at Trieste. Though it was under the supremacy of Macedonia, the city became very wealthy, and was in comfortable circumstances. A Macedonian garrison was quartered in Acrocorinthus. Corinth, however, was not only a commercial place, but also had manufactures, which had been transferred thither from Athens, on account of its more favourable situation. The χαλκὸς Κορινθιακὸς is neither more nor less than works in bronze, which were made there with particular elegance; its alleged origin at the burning of the city is a silly story, as has long been universally acknowledged.

After the Peloponnesian war, the Corinthians were opposed to Sparta for wishing to introduce an oligarchical form of government among them. This attempt of Sparta to make Corinth aristocratic was foolish, and could not but fail, for the city was essentially democratic, and not the soil in which an aristocracy could succeed. During the reign of Philip of Macedonia, Corinth was one of those ill-disposed places which attacked the Athenians in every possible way for the purpose of increasing its own commerce by their ruin; but afterwards, during the Lamian war, it appears vacillating, and receives a Macedonian garrison. It is surprising to find that subsequently Corinth became a separate Macedonian principality under Craterus, the step-brother of Antigonus Gonatas, and his son Alexander.[20] Afterwards, Aratus, who took Acrocorinthus by surprise, drew the city into the Achaean confederacy; and twenty years later he delivered it up to the Macedonians as the price for the assistance furnished him by Antigonus Doson against Cleomenes. It now remained for twenty-four years in the hands of the Macedonians, until it was evacuated according to the terms of the peace between Philip and the Romans. For fifty years it was then at the head of the Achaean league, and this was the period of its greatest wealth, for Athens was decayed, Aegina annihilated, and all relations were changed. The life in Greece at that time was quite different from what it had been in the age of Thucydides: it was extremely prosaic, and every one was bent upon becoming rich by commerce, and upon enjoying the good things of this life. Throughout its existence Corinth had been distinguished for its manufactures, industry, wealth, splendid buildings, and everything that riches can afford; and its manufactures were no less celebrated than the English are at the present day. But during the whole period that it was in the enjoyment of republican institutions, that is, ever since the reign of Periander, Corinth never produced a single man of genius, either as an author or as an orator. Timoleon is, perhaps, the only eminent statesman that was born at Corinth. We may observe, in general, that very few places have a share in the literary glory of Greece. The arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture flourished at Corinth, and treasures of art were accumulated there in great numbers, which shows that these arts may flourish, even where that is wanting which is the highest in man. A beautiful dirge on Corinth by Antipater is contained in the Greek Anthology.[21]

The destruction of Corinth is a painful event, and excites our horror, although the Corinthians have no claim upon our affection: the barbarity of Mummius was far worse than that of Alaric, its second destroyer. For a period of one hundred years the city lay in ruins, until it was restored by Julius Caesar; but the colony was one of freedmen, and for centuries afterwards it remained a Latin town, of which many coins with Roman names, and the inscription _Colonia Laus Iuli Corinthus_, have come down to us. Pausanias says, that, although it was the centre of Greece, it was yet a foreign city with a foreign population. It was, comparatively speaking, a small place without any important buildings;[22] but, like all Italian towns, it had a forum, and the temples all around the place, which had been destroyed by the savage Mummius, lay in ruins. In the middle ages, at the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Corinth was of some importance as a manufacturing town; it was taken by Robert Guiscard under the last despots of Peloponnesus. When in 1204 the peninsula came into the hands of the Franks, it had sunk very low, and was sinking still more during the repeated wars, ever since 1460, down to its conquest by the Turks under Amurath II., until at length, ten years ago (1817), even the village of Corinth (called Cordos by the Turks) was completely reduced to ashes. Its two harbours are entirely filled up with sand, and unfit for large vessels, so that the sources of the prosperity of Corinth seem to be dried up for ever. At present, when ships sail to Europe, they steer round Peloponnesus, and no one can think of Corinth as an intermediate staple of commerce.

Julius Caesar, properly speaking, had restored Corinth only to gratify his own feelings, but he ought to have peopled it with Greeks; it would, however, have been impossible to make it a great city. Delos had taken its place in commerce, the sea had become unsafe in parts, Greece was desolate and deserted, commerce had altogether taken a different route, the great commercial roads had taken other directions, and the chief places were in Egypt, Syria, and on the Euxine; Alexandria and Italy were now the central points; and it was impossible for Corinth to rise again. Its whole prosperity now depended upon the productiveness of its olive plantations, and even very recently a person might walk for hours among olive trees, which grow there wild; but few parts of its territory are fit for agriculture.

A misunderstanding may easily arise in regard to the well _Pirene_: it is not situated below the rock, but on the acropolis, though not on the summit of it. At the foot of the rock there is another spring, which was believed to be connected with Pirene by subterraneous passages.

Several small places in the territory of Corinth do not deserve the name of towns. _Tenea_ was a hamlet which enjoyed the favour of the Romans and was not destroyed, but even obtained a portion of the Corinthian territory. _Lechaeon_ was connected with Corinth by means of two long walls (σκέλη), but not so _Cenchreae_.