Chapter V: Part 5

This prosperity received a fearful shock under Decius after the middle of the third century, when the Goths, like a devastating torrent, spread over the coast of Asia and Greece from the Black Sea. Athens was now ransacked for plunder and partly burnt, and many took refuge in Piraeeus. After this calamity was over, the people returned. We do not know what was the condition of domestic life at this period, but Libanius, Himerius, and S. Basilius[49] give us an interesting picture of another aspect of life at the time: from the mode of life of the young men who then studied at Athens, we see how insignificant the city was, how the people derived their means of subsistence solely from the university and a little traffic in the produce of the country, such as honey and olives. Justinian abolished the schools, and Athens thereby lost its last resources. Henceforth nothing can be said of Athens for a period of seven hundred years; this only may be gathered from all the circumstances of the times, that the transition to Christianity took place gradually, without any shock or violent dissensions, and in a very different way from that which we witness at Rome, where the collision between what was established and that which was struggling into existence was of a very violent character. At Rome the tombs of Christians and Pagans are always separate in the catacombs, and afterwards the bodies of Christians alone were deposited in them; but at Athens, where the tombs are in layers one above another, the Pagan ones are below, and above them those of the Christians, while on some of them we find a mixture of Christian and non-Christian emblems. Previous to the 13th century, not the slightest mention of Athens occurs. When the Franks had destroyed the eastern empire (1204), a Frenchman of the name of Otto de la Roche, as a vassal of the Emperor of Constantinople, founded a principality under the title of Grand-Duke (μέγας Δούξ), the seat of which was Attica and Boeotia. His family, however, became extinct, and by marriage the possession passed into the hands of the Briennes; this family possessed a considerable principality there, and governed unhappy Greece with the extreme severity of feudalism. The great company of the Catalani appeared in the 14th century, conquered the country, expelled the French dukes, and, like their predecessors, fortified the Acropolis of Athens. The many remains of buildings which do not bear the impress of antiquity, seem to belong to this period; it is surprising, however, that in Greece there are no buildings of the time after Justinian. There now followed the period when the Italians, the Neris and Acciajuolis, were in possession of the duchy; a descendant of the latter lived even recently as a common peasant in Attica. The Franks had completely become Greeks, but still remained Roman Catholics, and in possession of Athens, until it was conquered by Mahmood II. The feudal character which the city sometimes bears in modern authors, as for example the fact that in Boccaccio and Shakespere, Theseus is called Duke of Athens, arises from its being governed by dukes at that time. Subsequently Athens was alternately Venetian and Turkish until 1687, when unfortunately it was conquered by the Venetians, who on that occasion destroyed the temple of Theseus. The Turks in 1690 re-conquered it, and destroyed the Christian population. After this it was uninhabited for a period of thirty years, till about 1720. Its most recent fate is but too well known to us all.

The question as to the population of Athens, which so naturally presents itself to us, cannot be answered at all. The statements we have respecting the number of citizens are not limited to the inhabitants of the city, but comprise the whole territory of Attica, there being no perioeci. We have several statements. Herodotus mentions 30,000 Athenian citizens, which seems to be the number of the ἔφηβοι, about the time of the Peloponnesian war: if, according to this, we calculate the population in the usual proportion, it consisted of about 120,000 souls. But the numbers fluctuate very much. Afterwards, in the time of Philip, the mean average is 20,000; but besides them there were the metoeci and the slaves, the former amounting, in the Peloponnesian war, to about 10,000: of the slaves we know nothing at all. Athenaeus has preserved the extraordinary statement—Ctesicles is mentioned as the authority for it—that in the census of Demetrius Phalereus it was found that Athens contained 21,000 citizens, 10,000 metoeci, and 400,000 slaves. This last number is something quite incredible, however strange it may seem to doubt a statement apparently so official. As regards the number of citizens and metoeci, who included strangers, country people standing under a patronus, and emancipated slaves, we have no reason to doubt its correctness, for they agree with all the earlier accounts; but it is impossible to see how there could have been such a large number of slaves: how could they have found employment? It is impossible to conceive it, if we assume the commerce and industry of Attica to have been ever so great, especially at that period. The proportion is not, indeed, as enormous as that between the blacks and the whites in the West Indies; but this is altogether a different state of things. Wherever domestic slavery exists, as in Italy, Greece, and the East, the number of slaves is always smaller than that of free men. It must further be observed, that all the numbers of slaves in Athenaeus seem to be exaggerated. I have already drawn your attention to the case of Aegina; at Corinth, where the number is said to have amounted to nearly half a million, it is almost ridiculous. If the number were correct, very different and more brilliant results would have been achieved; for at a time like that succeeding the Peloponnesian war, when in quite desperate circumstances it was resolved to raise the metoeci to the rank of citizens, and to set the slaves free, a formidable host of soldiers would have come forward at once, and the Athenian army would have been increased by at least 100,000 men. Such a population, in a country like Attica, would have perished of hunger, for the country certainly never produced as much as 150,000 inhabitants required in six months in the shape of bread alone, not to mention times of war. It is possible that a combination may be found, by which this strange statement obtained credence among the Greeks; but I am convinced, that moderns who have based their conclusions upon it are altogether in error.

But even if we were able to ascertain the whole population of Attica, that of the city cannot be discovered, for there is nothing which might guide us as a standard. We do not know whether the houses were built close together, whether they were surrounded by large courts, etc., though I believe that the former was the case. The houses were not six or seven stories high, as was the case at Rome in the time of Augustus, and in the three principal streets of Carthage; they generally had only one, or at the utmost two stories, and a house of the latter kind was a very respectable one in Greece. But in consequence of this, the houses must have occupied a larger space than those of Rome. The probability is, that the population of Athens was far below 100,000 souls.

Piraeeus, at different times, had its own civic magistrates; when they acquired higher authority, it gave rise to different divisions, as at the period of the Thirty Tyrants, when there were ten men in Piraeeus and eleven at Athens.[50]

The only important town in Attica, besides Athens, was ELEUSIS, and in Latin authors sometimes _Eleusina_,[51] as we find _Crotona_ together with _Croton_. Able men have thought it necessary to correct such forms; but they are instances which show that the flection of the modern languages derived from the Latin, in which the oblique cases are used as the nominative, was even then not uncommon in the language of ordinary life. Eleusis was remarkable for its temple of Demeter, and tradition related that in ancient times it had formed a state independent of Athens. We cannot form an opinion as to its size, but it must have been well fortified, as it was not laid waste by the Spartans during their invasions at the time of the Peloponnesian war. Under Cassander, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and probably also under Antigonus Gonatas, it was severed from Athens, but afterwards, we do not know when, it was again added to it.

RHAMNUS, known through its temple of Nemesis, was situated on the coast; it seems to have had some importance as a small town. All these places are called δῆμοι, and not πόλεις, because they did not form civic communities, having no independent political existence, but were only parts of the Athenian state. It does not follow, however, from this that some of them may not have been places of considerable extent.

The temple of Athena Sunias, of which ruins are still extant, stood on Cape SUNION (Cape Colonna).

On the eastern coast we find MARATHON, which is remarkable only on account of the battle-field in its neighbourhood. Its plain is not as level nor as fruitful as that of Eleusis; its surface is only not quite so rocky as in other parts of Attica, and covered with small hills. Among these hills, which are still visible, many are no doubt artificial, and are the tumuli under which the Persians and their attendants were buried. Sometimes arms and slings are still found there, some of which must have belonged to the barbarians and others to the Greeks.

The interior of Attica contained several large places. The most important among them was ACHARNAE, whose population in the Peloponnesian war, as described by Thucydides, is almost incredible. If his statement is correct, the place must have had a considerable territory. Its inhabitants were charcoal-burners, and carried on other similar occupations.

At a distance of seventy stadia from Athens there may still be seen on a hill the walls of the fort of PHYLE, which are almost uninjured. It was not a town, but only a hill surrounded with a wall (τεῖχος) within which in time of war the inhabitants of the surrounding country sought shelter for themselves and their property. It was taken by Thrasybulus. A second important frontier fortress was OENOE, and a third PANACTON, all of which were built especially against the inroads of the Boeotians.

DECELEA, within sight of Athens, and situated on a hill, was an ancient and fortified place, of which, during the Peloponnesian war, the Spartans, on the advice of Alcibiades, took possession. They fortified it, for the purpose of having a safe place, from which they might lay waste the country around.

The island of SALAMIS, a prize of long struggles with the Megarians, must be regarded as belonging to Attica, though not to its territory, in the proper sense of the term. I must here mention the pleasant story of the law which is said to have forbidden to renew the discussion about the war, and of the feigned madness of Solon, who re-kindled the war that had been given up long since. This is so manifest a fable, that one cannot help wondering how it can ever have passed as history. According to another tradition, the Athenians and Megarians must have pleaded their case before judges, for they are said to have appealed to the Homeric text of the Βοιωτία: the Athenian version made out that Ajax of Salamis had joined the Athenians, while the Megarians showed that he had been ruler of Salamis and the country of Megara. This difference is a remarkable fact for the criticism of the text of Homer, for it shows how changeable and pliable it still was at that time, the Βοιωτία being recited in different ways in different places. At the time of the Persian war, Salamis belonged to Athens; it formed a separate demos, and constituted part of a phyle. Leon is always called the Salaminian; but its relation was somewhat different from that of the other demi, for the chief place of the island, which was likewise called Salamis, is mentioned as a town, although the island itself is spoken of as only a single demos: the relation of the Roman municipium consisted there in the fullest enjoyment of the franchise. Afterwards it was severed from Attica, probably by Antipater; and there are numerous inscriptions, in which it is mentioned as a state with its own peculiar organisation, just as Piraeeus, in the Macedonian period, appears with its own archons, its council, etc., everything being an imitation on a small scale of the state of Athens. Subsequently, Salamis was again united with Athens.

_Cranaë_, the island of Helena, is insignificant.

The Ἀθηναῖοι Βοιωτοί of ELEUTHERAE and OROPUS, were not united with Attica in the same manner as Salamis; both were Boeotian towns, which had renounced the supremacy of the Boeotians, and placed themselves under that of Athens. Eleutherae had, perhaps, originally been Athenian, and had subsequently been taken by the Boeotians. In regard to the relation subsisting between this place and Athens, we may assume that it was the same as that between the Plataeans and Athenians, that is, that its inhabitants were citizens, but ineligible to certain offices. Oropus, on the other hand, was entirely subject to Athens; its importance to the Athenians can be fully understood only on the supposition that it had a small harbour, by which the communication with Chalcis and Euboea in general was kept up. Even before the Peloponnesian war, Oropus, which seems to have preferred the dominion of the Athenians, belonged to them, and after the war, too, it was recovered by them; subsequently, it was taken by a tyrant of Eretria, and then again by the Boeotians after the battle of Chaeronea. Philip, who did everything to please the Athenians, if they would but allow him to take his own course, strangely restored the place to Athens, although the Boeotians claimed it. Afterwards it was, no doubt, again taken from the Athenians by Antipater, and during the latter part of the Macedonian period it again belonged to Athens. The manner in which the Athenians, in the time of their distress, ill-used the unfortunate town, was one of the causes that led to the outbreak of the Achaean war. Afterwards it is no longer spoken of; it was destroyed, and not a trace of it is now to be seen: the modern Oropo does not occupy the same site.[52]

BOEOTIA.

According to tradition, the Boeotians were a wandering people; they are said first to have been driven by the Cadmeans into the Thessalian valley of Arne, which therefore cannot well have been as small as it is drawn in our maps; and afterwards they returned from Thessaly to Boeotia. This narrative shows essentially the same paralogism which so often occurs in the history of ancient nations: wherever two nations of the same stock appear in different places, they are connected with each other by means of migrations to and fro. If the Boeotians and the ancient Thessalians belonged to the same race, one tradition may have stated that the Boeotians migrated into Thessaly, and another, that they proceeded from Thessaly to Boeotia; both statements combined produce the before-mentioned result. I do not mean to say that during the immigration of the Emathians into Thessaly, the Boeotians did not go to Boeotia; but if this should be the case, still I cannot imagine that they should previously have been driven into Thessaly. The early history of Boeotia is mysterious and confused; ancient tribes are there mentioned under the strangest and altogether un-Hellenic names, as for example, the Aones, the Hyes, or Hyantes, who are said to have been Thracians. The tradition that there existed a Phoenician settlement at Thebes, is in my opinion more historical: the name Cadmus is Phoenician, and according to all appearance seems to be the representative of the Phoenician colony which was established at Thebes. This trace is too distinct to allow of anything being said against it. In times which lie beyond the history of Greece, the Phoenicians had settlements in the Greek islands, as in Cythera, Thasos, the Cyclades, and many other parts of the country; it is therefore not difficult to believe that they should also have formed a settlement at Thebes, though some miles distant from the sea. Besides this ancient Phoenician colony, there existed in Boeotia the ancient kingdom of the Minyans of Orchomenos, the existence of which is certain, and is loudly attested even at the present day by the indestructible ruins of Orchomenos, which are as gigantic as those of Tiryns and Mycenae. I am quite disposed to ascribe these structures to the Minyans, concerning whom we still possess mythical traditions, as well as the enormous works by which lake Copais was drained; those who built Orchomenos were a mighty people like that which constructed the tunnel of Alba and the buildings of ancient Rome. But the beginnings of Boeotian history are hidden in impenetrable darkness; and the fall of Orchomenos, although in the Homeric Catalogue the city is still distinct from Boeotia, belongs to so early a period, that fable describes it as the work of Heracles. In the Heracleia there is the legend that Thebes paid tribute to Orchomenos, and that Heracles reversed the relation. These are, no doubt, the fundamental outlines of a true history: and the stories of the wars for the possession of Thebes are likewise symbolical, and personified indications of actual wars which devastated Boeotia. I allude to both the earlier war and that of the Epigoni in which Thebes was laid waste, but we cannot arrive at any historical detail. The real history of Thebes does not begin till the time of the Persian wars; in the case of Athens and Sparta, we know many things before that period, though they may be doubtful and falsified; but our information about Thebes does not begin until the time I have just mentioned.

We then find Thebes standing in the same relation to Boeotia in which Alba stood to the early, and Rome to the later Latium; Thebes and Boeotia form two connected masses, of which the great city was originally, both in right and in might, equal to the collective body of Boeotians; but it then aimed at a supremacy which in all essential points it actually gained, except over a few places. The Boeotarchs were the common magistrates for all Boeotia; their number is uncertain; but in some instances it amounts to eleven. They seem originally to have been elected in common, six by the Thebans and six by the Boeotians;[53] but afterwards Thebes assumed to itself the right of appointing them, and raised only Thebans to the office. This struggle is the nucleus of Boeotian history from the time of the Persian wars down to the battle of Leuctra. After that battle, most of the Boeotian towns submitted to Thebes. Thespiae and Plataeae alone did not stoop; and being powerful towns, they joined Athens, a step which was unfortunate for both places. The Plataeans went to Athens and were received there; but they returned and were expelled a second time, so that in the Macedonian period Plataeae was quite a desolate place, in which there was only one temple and a few inns.

So long as Sparta had not overthrown Athens, she supported the claims of Thebes, but afterwards declared herself in favour of the autonomy of the Boeotian towns; hence the unexpected seizure of the Cadmea, after which Thebes rose with its well-known energy. From that moment until the battle of Leuctra matters were in utter confusion. At first when the Thebans shook off the Spartan yoke, they were joined by the other Boeotians; but when the latter did not obtain equal rights, the struggle began afresh, and in the end the Boeotians were obliged to submit. It was not till Thebes had been destroyed by Alexander, that a relation of perfect equality was restored; the city rebuilt by Cassander was without importance, and the whole country henceforth plays a subordinate and miserable part in the history of Greece.

Boeotia, in its whole political and geographical extent between the Crissaean gulf and the Euboean channel, is surrounded on all sides by mountains. Mount HELICON proceeds from Parnassus in a direction parallel with the Crissaean gulf; and the mountains coming from Oeta and the country of the Locrians, extend along the sea as far as the frontier of Attica. Between these latter mountains, which have different names, and Helicon, we have mount CITHAERON, so conspicuous in the traditions of the ancients and in their tragedies, as Boeotia in general is an important part of the classic soil in legendary poetry. Helicon is considerably smaller than Parnassus, nor is it as wild; it is rather what the Swiss call a “tame mountain,” covered with wood and prolific herbs even at its top; it is a beautiful mountain, and we cannot wonder that it was dedicated to the Muses. The mountains branching off from those of Locris are not so high as Helicon, and on the whole capable of cultivation. Cithaeron was a woody mountain, but it is difficult to say, whether this was the natural result of its physical constitution, or whether it was the consequence of its situation between two nations that were hostile to each other.

The only river within this country that finds its way to the sea, is the ASOPUS, which flowing between Thebes and Plataeae empties itself into the Euboean sea. A larger river, the Phocian CEPHISUS, discharges itself into lake Copais. Boeotia has two large lakes, which communicated with each other, the lake COPAIS and the lake of HALIARTUS. The former was, in ancient times, a lake of very large extent; as it had no outlet to prevent the excessive accumulation of water, a tunnel was constructed to carry off the surplus; and this tunnel was probably built by the Minyans for the purpose of reclaiming the land for cultivation. In the time of Alexander, the tunnel was partly destroyed by an earthquake; but the attempt to clear it was found to be beyond the strength of all the Boeotians. As the lake had now no longer any outlet, we naturally expect that it should have again acquired its former extent; but it is surprising to find, that although nothing was ever done to drain it, it forms only a large marsh filled with reeds, and a few stagnant pools here and there. This must be the result of some revolution in the bowels of the earth, of which we know nothing; either other subterraneous outlets were opened, or the supplies of water to the lake were diminished. The lake of Haliartus[54] is connected with lake Copais, but has an outlet towards the sea.

Lake Copais is surrounded by a magnificent plain, which, however, like other soils that are too rich, is unhealthy, and now forms the valley of Livadia: the ancients regarded it as belonging partly to Haliartus. Another plain is that of Thebes, which, though not as level as the other, is yet a very fertile and beautiful district. Boeotia is altogether a rich country; its waters abound in fish, its plains yield abundant corn, its hills are covered with olives, and in the neighbourhood of Anthedon excellent wine is produced. The Boeotians themselves, on the other hand, had the reputation of being dull and rude (_pingue sub aëre nati_). Nevertheless, however, the country produced Pindar; before him, Corinna; and, in later times, Plutarch, of whom we may justly say μωμήσεταί τις μᾶλλον ἢ μιμήσεται. He now no longer enjoys the same reputation as in former times, but notwithstanding all the charges that may be brought against him, he is an extremely amiable man and a pleasing author, and his writings are rich outpourings of plain wisdom; they contain no profound speculations, but are the lively productions of an extremely ingenious and well-read man. In his moral treatises he shows himself to be possessed of great depth of feeling. Pindar is one of those authors of whom we may say, that it is a man’s own fault if he takes no pleasure in him. What Quinctilian says of Cicero, may be applied also to Pindar: the more he pleases us, the farther we are advanced. Among the active statesmen of Boeotia, Epaminondas and Pelopidas are preeminent, especially the former, whose personal character is entitled to high esteem; considering the wretchedness of the time in which they lived, they were truly extraordinary men; but their misfortune was, that they belonged to a state, the rise of which necessarily involved the downfall of Greece. Subsequently, during the Macedonian period, which is described by Polybius, the Boeotians are the most senseless, the most powerless, and characterless of all the Greeks, and share the misfortune of the Achaeans: when their policy had become quite miserable, they threw themselves into relations in which they could not but perish.

THEBES consisted of the upper town (Καδμεία) and the lower town. The acra had a considerable circumference, though not as it appears in the plan of Barbié du Bocage in St. Croix’ work on the historians of Alexander the Great; that plan is thoroughly misleading, for its author imagines that the acra was situated in the centre of the city, and that the lower town was built concentrically around it. According to the description of the siege by the Macedonians, given by Diodorus and Arrian, this is impossible: one side of the acra unquestionably faced the open fields, and only about two-thirds or three-fourths of it were surrounded by the lower town. The acropolis was called Καδμεία, but the ancients gave it the name of Thebes, so that in the Homeric Catalogue, the city of Thebes below the then destroyed Cadmea was called Ὑποθῆβαι. The seven gates which have become so renowned from the tragedy of Aeschylus, and the Phoenissae of Euripides, existed in the Cadmea: the gates of the lower town may not have corresponded with them, or may have been made to correspond in later times.

Thebes continued to increase until Olymp. 111, 2, when it was destroyed by Alexander. The city is said to have had a circumference of 80 stadia, that is, ten English miles; but this is incredible: all we know about the fate of the city shows that it is impossible, or else we are not allowed to draw any conclusion from the circumference of a Greek city as to its population; for Diodorus expressly states, that the number of all the prisoners, after the capture of Thebes, was 30,000, including every age and sex, and probably also every rank, free men, metoeci, and slaves. I have already expressed my opinion concerning the foolish supposition about the enormous number of slaves. I admit the possibility, that at Athens, especially in the city, the number of slaves was greater than that of free men; I admit this with special reference to the anecdote, that the proposal made at Athens, that slaves should wear a particular kind of dress, was rejected for the purpose of preventing their seeing how great their numbers were. But the same reason would have been valid if the number of slaves had been less. The Attic peasant was αὐτουργός, he certainly had no slaves, and the majority of the Athenians were altogether too poor to be able to keep such numbers of slaves. If their numbers had been as excessive as is stated, the institutions at Athens would have been quite different.

The Cadmea is said to have been built by Cadmus, to have been destroyed by the Epigoni, and to have remained in ruins until the Boeotians returning from Arne restored it. In the Homeric Catalogue, Boeotia is inhabited by Boeotians, but according to other accounts, the Boeotians were then still dwelling in Arne, and the country was lying waste—again a sign that the Catalogue does not agree with the other traditions. Thebes then was a great city till Olymp. 111, 2; afterwards it lay in ruins for a period of sixteen years, until it was restored by Cassander from hatred of Alexander and his family. The territory of the city had been given by Alexander to the Boeotians. Cassander carried out the restoration notwithstanding the opposition of the other towns; but it was only an insignificant place, and never gained the ascendancy though it was the seat of the government and the capital of the country. At a later period, however, it was visited by misfortune after misfortune. In the Achaean war, U.C. 608, it was taken by the Romans, and though it was not destroyed, it received a deadly shock. During the Mithridatic war, of which Boeotia was the scene, it was entirely ruined, so that Pausanias saw only a village within the precincts of the ancient Cadmea; the old city contained only a few remains of temples amid heaps of rubbish.

It is difficult to enumerate the other towns of Boeotia in any definite order; we shall be guided by the locality and proceed from Plataeae to the left towards Tanagra. Mythology knows many places in ancient Boeotia which are not mentioned in the historical ages; some of them must have perished, and others were united with the territories of larger towns, as for example, Erythrae, Scolos, Hyle, etc.

PLATAEAE will ever be memorable on account of the battle in which the destruction of the Persian army and the liberation of Greece were completed; the account of this battle in Herodotus, however, is more poetical than historical; its whole course was different, and the forces were not by any means as formidable; but we know nothing better, and his narrative is so beautiful that we gladly accept it as a poem. Certain it is, however, that the Greeks under Pausanias destroyed the army of the Persians. During that war, Thebes, owing to the influence of its aristocracy, acted a disgraceful part. Plataeae and Thespiae maintained themselves against the arrogance of Thebes, and found sympathy among the other Greeks; and in this manner Plataeae in particular formed a small independent democratic state under the protection of Athens until the time of the Peloponnesian war, which the Thebans commenced with the treacherous attack during the night, which led to the destruction of Plataeae. The account of this occurrence shows us the smallness of Greek towns; the population of Greece is generally estimated too high, a mistake into which we may easily be led by the statements of the ancients. Subsequently Plataeae was restored; but after the battle of Leuctra it was again destroyed by the Thebans. The inhabitants then withdrew to Athens, and when the restoration of their town was sanctioned by Alexander, a small number only returned, and formed a village with a few temples which preserved the remembrance of better days, especially the temple of Zeus Eleutherios. Dicaearchus gives us a most vivid picture of what Plataeae was in later times.

THESPIAE, near mount Helicon, was on the whole an insignificant place, and became still more so when, after the battle of Leuctra, it was destroyed by the Thebans. At the time of the Macedonian supremacy it was restored, and acquired great reputation on account of the Eros of Praxiteles, which secured to the place its existence, for it was visited by strangers from all parts, who came to see that work of art. In like manner some small places in Italy were celebrated for a single picture. Otherwise Thespiae was a deserted and decayed place.

LEUCTRA was situated in the territory of Thespiae; there the numerical superiority of the Spartans was overpowered by the military skill of the Thebans.

HALIARTUS on the lake is known from the battle which was gained there by Lysander over the allies. In the war with Perseus it was destroyed by the Romans, and as the Athenians had been unable to obtain its preservation, they made the unbecoming request that the Romans should give them the territory. The Romans with a Machiavellistic policy sometimes gave away such districts for the purpose of fostering divisions and animosities.

CORONEA, CHAERONEA, and LEBADEA formed a triangle on the frontier. The last of these was an important place under the Byzantine empire, but less so in earlier times. It belonged to Haliartus. Coronea is remarkable in the war of Agesilaus against the allies, and Chaeronea on account of the battle of Philip, which decided the fate of Greece; 250 years later Sulla gained a battle there against the general of Mithridates, who had foolishly established himself in Greece.

ORCHOMENOS, of which I have already spoken, was situated on the very borders of Boeotia; in the historical ages it was an insignificant place, called in Aeolic Erchomenos, as we find in inscriptions and coins. Coins bearing the inscription ΕΡΧ belong to this place; in former times antiquaries were greatly puzzled by them. In its neighbourhood was also found the Orchomenian inscription, first published by Melitios, which is the largest and purest of all the Aeolian monuments.

COPAE is remarkable only as the place from which lake Copais derives its name.

ANTHEDON is celebrated for its excellent muscat wine. MYCALESSUS, which was destroyed in the Peloponnesian war, was situated in its vicinity.

TANAGRA was situated on the Asopus, near Oropus; it is known through the defeat of the Athenians under Tolmidas before the fourteen years’ truce, which preceded the Peloponnesian war.

DELION, situated on the Euripus, must be noticed, on account of the battle which the Athenians lost against the Boeotians during the Peloponnesian war. The place is also mentioned in mythical history: for the 1,000 ships of the Achaeans, destined to sail against Troy, were detained there by a calm, until the sacrifice of Iphigenia.

THE LOCRIAN TRIBES.

Proceeding from the Boeotian frontier towards Thessaly, we arrive among the Locrian tribes—the Epicnemidian and Opuntian Locrians in the east, and the Ozolian in the south-west. They are very puzzling, as, in general, there is no lack of mysterious points in the history of the Greek nations. The ancient tradition is that they were Leleges, who are described as a branch of the Carians: this is a point which must leave as we find it. It is surprising to meet with them on both seas, the Euboean and the Crissaean, the coast of the latter being occupied by the Ozolae, the larger tribe. Between the two we have the Phocians, and among the heights of Oeta and at the foot of mount Parnassus, the Dorians. My directing your attention to this probably leads you to guess my opinion, which is this: the manifest fact of these tribes being torn asunder, as is clear from a mere glance at the map, is probably the result of immigration. As, according to tradition, the Boeotians immigrated from abroad, and as the empire of the Minyans fell, so it happens in all migrations of nations: one people pushes another onward—the Goths are expelled by the Huns, the Huns again by other nations, and so we are led back to the interior of Asia. Hence I regard the Locrians as the ancient inhabitants of the whole country from one sea to the other, and as severed and torn asunder by the immigration of the Boeotians, while the latter may have been pushed on by the Phocians, these again by the Dorians, and the Dorians, lastly, by the Thessalians. Respecting these migrations we can only form conjectures; but the more we consider them in connection with one another, the more we become convinced, how little we know about the ancient history of Greece: we are much better acquainted with the settlements on the coast of Asia.

We shall unite the three Locrian tribes, the Ozolae, Epicnemidii, and Opuntii; the country of the Ozolian Locrians was by far the most extensive. Their principal town, situated at the foot of the Aetolian mountains, in the west of Phocis, was AMPHISSA, not far from Delphi; it was a regular town, while the other places along the shore were, like those of Aetolia, only κῶμαι. The Ozolian Locrians formed together an ἔθνος, in which Amphissa possessed the supremacy, though in several circumstances it stood by itself. At the time of the Peloponnesian war, there were, besides Amphissa, many Ozolian tribes, extending from that town to cape Rhion, at the entrance of the Crissaean gulf. The only notice of them occurs in Thucydides, when he describes the campaign of Demosthenes in those parts. The places are insignificant, and not worth mentioning; the ἔθνος appears in a state of complete dissolution. NAUPACTUS, the modern Lepanto,[55] is the only place worthy of note. It is prominent in the Greek mythus as the place where the Heracleids built the ships, with which they sailed over to Peloponnesus, whence its name was traced to that event. During the period of the great activity of Athens after the Persian war, under Cimon and Pericles, it was taken by the Athenians, probably by accident, as Gibraltar was taken by the English, who did not see its importance till afterwards. Thus Naupactus, with its excellent harbour, became an important point to command the Crissaean gulf. There they received the insurgent perioeci and helots, who, after the earthquake in Olymp. 79. 2, at the time of king Archidamus, endeavoured to separate Messene from Laconia, and, when failing in this, capitulated for a free departure. After the Peloponnesian war, the Spartans again expelled them from Naupactus, for they were implacable, and never laid aside their hatred; Naupactus was restored to the Locrians. At a later period, when the Aetolians rose, the town belonged to them; in the Macedonian times, the whole coast of the Locrians, perhaps Amphissa itself included, was united with Aetolia; there is even an inscription, according to which the Aetolians had the superintendence of the Delphic oracle. The Locrians of Opus and Cnemis were at that time governed by Macedonia.

The Ozolian Locrians, according to Thucydides, completely resembled, in their rude manners, the Acarnanians, Aetolians, and Epirots; even in times of peace they were always armed with a sword, which, however, must not be conceived as a long sword for war, but as an Albanese knife. This σιδηροφορεῖν had fallen into disuse with the other Greeks, as soon as they had attained a certain degree of civilisation.

The Locrians on the Euripus formed two states, that of OPUS and that of CNEMIS. In the east of Epicnemidian Locris is mount (the town of?) NARYX, whence the Locrians are called _Narycii_. Virgil has been much censured by the ancients for calling the Locrians in Italy _Narycii_, but it appears that he regarded all the Locrians, and consequently those in Italy also, as belonging to one and the same race. Opus was, comparatively speaking, an important town, though it was small. During the first war which the Romans, allied with the Aetolians, carried on against Philip, the son of Demetrius, Opus was taken and laid waste by the Roman fleet and king Attalus.

PHOCIS.

Phocis in our maps embraces Delphi, but as far as we can trace history backwards, Delphi is separate from Phocis. I will not venture any conjectures as to whether the Delphians were a different people, but politically they did not belong to the Phocians. The history of Phocis begins at the time of the Persian wars; and thenceforth until the Peloponnesian war, the Phocians are constantly seen endeavouring to unite Delphi with their country, in which at times they succeeded; the Spartans, however, took it from them, and left Delphi in a state of independence. Afterwards the two states were again united, but our authorities on this subject are very scanty. Herodotus contains tolerably certain indications, that the Delphians formed an independent state by themselves; wherever Thucydides takes notice of the rest of Greece, his information is very trustworthy;[56] besides him we have only Xenophon and Diodorus Siculus; even these two do not enable us to fix the time of the union; but it is very probable that it did not take place before the Sacred war, for the chastisement was inflicted upon the Phocians alone, the Delphians being on the side of the allies. It is impossible to follow the traces any farther. Delphi stood to the Phocians in a relation similar to that in which Thebes stood to the Boeotians, Alba to the other Latin towns, and afterwards Rome to all the Latins, only with this difference, that in this division there existed not only no unity, but no connection at all. If there ever existed an alliance between Delphi and the Phocians, it certainly ceased at an early period, and was never permanently renewed.

It is possible that Delphi may have been a remnant of the ancient mysterious state of Cirrha, which was foreign to the Phocians. Many moderns relate a great many things about that state—the forms CIRRHA and CRISSA are only dialectic differences of the same name—as, for example, about its connection with Crete and the like. I confess that I know nothing of all this; the existence of the town alone is beyond doubt. Cirrha was a great commercial place on the Corinthian gulf, and against it a general religious war of the united Greeks was carried on in the early historical times, apparently about Olymp. 40 and 50. In that war the town was taken and destroyed. These events alone are historical, all the rest is mythical. The observation of these and similar circumstances is of importance, to prove how late our history of Greece commences. There is no necessity for pushing everything mysterious back beyond the commencement of the Olympiads, for even great events belonging to the period between that era and the Persian wars are buried in obscurity. We need not, therefore, push the great changes of early history back into remote antiquity as is commonly done; it is a mere delusion to believe that the space for changes in antiquity must be so very large. To mention an example, the time from the commencement of the Olympiads to the legislation of Solon is a period of 200 years, and the period from the Persian wars until the age of Pyrrhus is of the same length; and what immense changes did Greece experience during this latter period! An expedient equally illogical is the readiness with which certain critics distinguish, when they have to deal with different traditions about a person or a thing, and assume two persons or things of the same name. The late Professor Heyne, whose merits I readily acknowledge, was labouring under this delusion, for he invented, e.g., a double Minos, an idea which never occurred to any ancient writer. Minos is not an historical personage, the years of whose reign can be stated. Another bad expedient is to divide different accounts of the same subject, which do not agree with each other, so as to treat them as separate events. The Doric tradition and several ancient authors, and among them even Timaeus, stated that Lycurgus founded the Olympic games; now as Lycurgus, according to the calculation of generations, belongs to a period far beyond the time of the Olympiads, it was assumed that the Olympic games were instituted at two different times, first by Lycurgus, and when afterwards they fell into oblivion, they were restored by Coroebus. But Lycurgus is probably no historical person at all, as was believed even at the time after Alexander; it is impossible to assign him to any period: the intention was to fill up the period subsequent to the migration of the Heracleids, but in attempting this the ancients went too far back, by making three generations amount to a century; in order to remove the incorrectness, one account was then changed into two. Whoever tries to harmonise these statements falls into inextricable difficulties.

DELPHI, previously called Pytho (Πυθοῖ ἐν ἠγαθέῃ, as Homer has it), was situated at the foot of _biceps Parnassus_. This mount Parnassus extends from the mountains which separate Thessaly from Phocis (they are likewise called Parnassus, and reaching a considerable height, join Pindus on the one side and Oeta on the other), as far as the Gulf of Cirrha. Its highest peak is near Delphi; it then turns to the south-east, and becomes less and less wild where it passes into Helicon. The situation of Delphi cannot be mistaken, notwithstanding the scanty accounts we have of it: above it there rose a twofold rock, which during the greater part of the year was covered with snow; it rises in two peaks, between which there is a considerable chasm; towards the sea it turns in the form of a theatre, within which Delphi was situated. It was built high up on the slope of the mountain, like many towns of the ancient Latins, so that the upper streets were higher than the roofs of the houses below, and a man might from an upper street step upon the roof of a house below. Delphi was not fortified and had no walls, but it was nevertheless difficult of access, foot-paths only leading up, which it was easy to defend; no real acra is mentioned. About the size of the town nothing can be said; the ruins are too unimportant; it is scarcely possible to recognise the temple of Apollo, and I do not believe that the statements of travellers on this point are altogether trustworthy. Delphi was in all its relations a mysterious place; the question as to the nature of the προμαντεία, and a number of others cannot easily be answered. The well Castalia may still be recognised by its icy coldness. The chasms in the rock of which the ancients speak, and from which the intoxicating vapours rose, have never been discovered; it is possible, however, that by careful examinations they may yet be found, though it is not unlikely that they may have been closed by earthquakes, as they owed their origin to them. I readily believe that vapours may have risen from the earth, which produced a certain intoxication or inspiration; I also consider it possible that there may have been a time when the Pythia believed that she was inspired, and when even those consulting the oracle were convinced that they consulted the god himself; but subsequently, and during the greater part of the period of which we know anything, neither the people nor the priests believed in it, and the Pythia was a mere improvisatrice. Such things, however, rarely begin as impositions; and how it can have been that originally there was no imposition, no one is able to say on mere reflection.

Delphi was under the protection of the Amphictyons, who once in every year assembled there, and a second time at Thermopylae. It seems to have stood as directly under the protection of the senate of the Amphictyons, as Washington, in a very anomalous manner, stands under the municipal administration of the congress of the United States of North America.

I have here mentioned the Amphictyony, for the purpose of noticing some results at which I have arrived respecting its misunderstood constitution. In former times it was generally regarded as a federative government, and this opinion is still prevalent in France, where it is said, that the seven United States of Holland and the United States of North America are Amphictyonies; but an Amphictyony and a federative government are by no means identical, for a confederation forms a political whole with one head directing its foreign relations. An Amphictyony is indeed a union of nations, but of quite a peculiar kind, to which nothing corresponding is found either in the middle ages or in modern times. Under this name twelve nations were united, who sent deputies twice every year, in the spring to Delphi, and in the autumn to Thermopylae. These meetings were attended by deputies from every people, each of which had one vote.[57] But not only deputies went thither: the citizens of all the peoples also might appear if they chose, and they too formed an Ἀμφικτυονικόν; those who thus came of their own accord, voted in a body, each people having only one vote, so that all the Dorians, and all the Ionians respectively voted together. In all the transactions among Greeks a βουλή and an ἐκκλησία were necessary; the former consisted at these gatherings of the deputies, and the latter of the αὐταγγελτοί. This constitution points to something very different from what we know about the later condition of Greece: the division was made simply according to nations, and without any regard to political importance; all had the same right, nay tribes which were subject to the Thessalians voted on an equality with the Thessalians themselves. The connection with the temple of Delphi is undeniable; the nations were united together, all standing for one and one for all, for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the sanctuary; nearly all the most ancient instances of their activity have this for their object, as in the war of Cirrha and down to the one occurring in Olymp. 125, which is mentioned by Justin.[58] Another statement, which probably refers to very ancient times, seems surprising to us. There the legislations of the various states were confirmed, just as at Rome the auspices seemed to express the will of the gods; but the Delphic oracle appears, above all things, to have had the power of watching over the exercise of humanity in the wars among the Greeks. And this is the point where the character of the Greeks shows itself most nobly. The Amphictyons did not by any means prevent war, but they made laws regulating the manner in which it should be conducted; there were laws, which no one was allowed to violate in any war; and it is possible that the expression ὁ κοινὸς τῶν Ἑλλήνων νόμος refers to them. It was ordained, _e.g._, that the Greeks should not carry on among themselves any internecine war, that the inhabitants of a Greek town should not be sold as slaves, that fruit-trees should not be cut down,[59] and that the supply of water should not be cut off from any town. All these laws originated in the Delphic Amphictyony, and were maintained without being written. We must carefully bear in mind, that they could not possibly prevent every outrage; but their express object was that war should be carried in a humane manner. The fact that England insists upon abolishing the slave trade, leads to smuggling those unhappy creatures, who are, in consequence of this, treated with all imaginable cruelty. In like manner an interdict forbidding war in Greece would have been of no avail, and hence it was better to inflict heavy penalties upon acts of inhumanity. These rules were not indeed always observed, the nature of man does not admit of it; but even if they were violated as often as they were observed, we still must own that they were in the highest degree salutary.

The Phocians are unimportant in Greek history, and are mentioned only in connection with their misfortunes, first in the wars which they had to wage against the Thessalians,—for the Thessalians, after completing the conquest of Haemonia, also endeavoured to subdue Phocis, and its inhabitants had great difficulty in warding them off,—and afterwards in the Sacred War. The twenty-two Phocian towns, which were destroyed by Philip, were probably for the most part insignificant places. We are perfectly ignorant as to the relations subsisting among them, but they did not form a political community, with a common magistracy, a common commander in war, and the like; not a trace of such institutions is to be found. It is, in general, one of the most puzzling problems to state what were the bonds which kept an ἔθνος together: to acquire the name of an ἔθνος, no political band was needed; a co-operation for common objects is generally produced spontaneously through the power of circumstances. There are, however, traces to show, that in early times the Phocians formed a closer union among themselves. The case of their leaders in the Sacred War was of a different kind: they are generally called στρατηγοί, but sometimes also τύραννοι; Philomelus and Onomarchus were, in fact, not lawful magistrates; the circumstance that being elected in a lawful form, they were at the head of a numerous army of mercenaries, gave them a power which was limited by no laws, and was, therefore, formidable indeed.

The only important place in Phocis was ELATEA, which was either spared in an inconceivable manner by Philip, or was soon afterwards restored on account of its excellent situation, and attained a high degree of prosperity; for during the Macedonian period it is mentioned as a considerable place, notwithstanding the general decay of the Greek towns; and in the same light it appears in Livy’s account of the Roman wars. It was situated in the rich valley of the Cephisus, which widens towards Boeotia, and this may have contributed to its prosperity. The valley formed a pass; and an enemy even after forcing his way through Thermopylae had difficulties at Elatea, which was the key to Boeotia; hence when Philip occupied Elatea by a garrison, this act created at Athens the consternation which is so graphically described by Demosthenes.