Chapter VI: Part 6

ANTICYRA, also, had a kind of importance; and after the destruction of Cirrha, it was the real port of Phocis, whence a small trade was kept up with the gulf of Corinth. In the first war of the Romans against Philip, Anticyra was destroyed by the fleet which, under the command of Sulpicius, cruised along the coasts of Greece, and laid waste so many thinly-peopled places.

The well-known war called “The Sacred” has received that name quite improperly; it had been stirred up by the Thessalians and Boeotians to the misfortune of the Phocians, who were driven to despair and an infuriated defence, just like the Hussites in the 15th century; and the Phocians ravaged all the countries around, as the Hussites from Bohemia spread devastation far and wide in Bavaria, Franconia, and Saxony. They were completely outlawed, so that no quarter was given to any one; the dead were treated as accursed, and the wounded were run through with spears or nailed on crosses: the rage was quite savage and unpardonable. The Phocians were driven to such extremities, as to seize upon the sacred treasures of the Delphic temple, which enabled them to carry on the war for eight years, until Philip came forward as the champion of the Amphictyons, and, after the withdrawal of the Athenian troops from Thermopylae, advanced with irresistible force. The commanders of the Phocians were unskilful and faithless men, and the nation, losing courage, laid down its arms. Their fate was terrible, though it was called mercy: Philip granted to the troops a free departure; all the towns were destroyed, and their walls demolished; all arms and horses were taken; the inhabitants dispersed in villages, and, in a condition of servitude, placed under the supremacy of the temple of Delphi, which itself stood under the supremacy of Macedonia. They were obliged to pay an annual tribute to the temple, to refund the treasures; but they seem to have neglected this duty, or the money was pocketed by the Macedonians, for Brennus found no gold at Delphi, but only works in bronze. This is again a remarkable instance of the uncertainty of history, even at so late a period: some say that Brennus did not enter Delphi at all, while other historians state that he was at Delphi and plundered it, but that he found little to take. However, the Phocians showed great valour; they withdrew into the highest mountains, and thence made great havoc among the formidable host of Gauls, especially during their retreat. For this reason it was resolved to make amends for what had been done: they were again admitted into the Amphictyony, and allowed to restore their towns; but, like the Locrians, Chalcis, and Corinth, they remained under the supremacy of Macedonia, and when the Romans appeared, they did not belong to Greece, but were Macedonian subjects. Afterwards, they also shared the last two calamities of Greece: the flight of Critolaus from Thermopylae led the Romans through Phocis, and on that occasion the country was ravaged by the conquerors, and Elatea had to suffer severely; lastly, the campaign of Archelaus, who had his head-quarters at Chaeronea, also extended to Phocis, which for this reason was then completely devastated by Sulla.

DORIS.

Doris was that district where the highest parts of Parnassus extend towards Pindus. Its towns formed the Doric tetrapolis, or rather tripolis, for the names of only three places are certain, viz., BOION, CYTINION, and ERINEOS, and they are described by the Greeks themselves as very small places (πολίχνια). The general Greek tradition is, that the Dorians who conquered Peloponnesus came from these three towns; but this is impossible. It is true no traveller has yet visited that district, but we are able to determine at least its extent, which is not as large as that of the Swiss canton of Uri; and as the latter has about 12,000 inhabitants, we may be sure that Doris had not by far as many, for the country in those parts of Parnassus is extremely mountainous, and contains only few valleys that are inhabitable to Alpine shepherds. The Dorians must at one time have occupied a far more extensive country: the little district of Doris stands in the same relation to the former seats of the Dorians, as the present district of Angeln in the duchy of Schleswig stands to the extensive countries once occupied by the ancient Angli. We should be forming a very erroneous estimate, if we were to calculate the number of Angli who invaded Britain from the district at present bearing their name. After the emigration of the great body of the Dorians, the little country of Doris retained their name, while the earlier Doris may perhaps have embraced all Phocis and other neighbouring countries. According to the express testimony of Herodotus,[60] they had formerly dwelt on mount Pindus, and had migrated from north to south. The little tribe maintained itself in the impassable mountains, but we do not know how; it may have been by alliances. They boasted of their pure Doric origin, and regarded themselves as the μητρόπολις of the Peloponnesians, though the latter were mixed with the earlier inhabitants of the peninsula. The Peloponnesians, however, showed them the respect and attachment which everywhere in Greece colonists used to show to their mother country. The Dorians were often involved in wars with the Phocians, and even before the Peloponnesian war they had once been subdued by them, but a Spartan army quickly coming to their rescue, chastised the Phocians, and restored the Dorians to freedom.

It is quite uncertain what afterwards became of the little people. During the period when the administration of Greece was in the hands of the Romans, the Dorians are not mentioned at all; so that they must have been united either with the Phocians, or, which is not improbable, with the Aetolians. If that part of Greece should ever become accessible, much may be discovered that is of importance for ancient history and geography; with the exception of the coasts, scarcely anything is accurately known; the upper countries of Parnassus have scarcely been visited at all, and our maps are arbitrary. It will hardly be possible ever to ascertain the sites of the towns from the want of inscriptions. Beyond the mountains of Doris there is a grand Alpine country.

AETOLIA.

In the later history of Greece, the Aetolians are a people of the highest importance, and so they are in the earliest traditions, but during the best period of the Greeks, they sink completely into the background. Their peculiarity is very perplexing to the inquiring historian. We find them mentioned in the Homeric Catalogue, and in the legends of Calydon and Pleuron, and there can be no doubt as to their being a Greek people, for the Curetes as well as the Aetolians themselves are called Greeks. Thucydides too[61] considers them in this light, though only conditionally; he calls them Ἠπειρωτικὸν ἔθνος, and where he mentions their separate tribes, they appear as different from all the other Greeks; he speaks of their language being unintelligible (ἀγνωστότατοι γλῶσσαν), which is a strong expression with Athenians who, like all Greeks, were very tolerant in regard to dialects. The Laconian dialect was quite as different from the Attic, as the Swiss German is from the Low German, and the Athenians scarcely understood one third of it. The Aetolian dialect, accordingly, seems to have already become so barbarous, as to require great attention to guess the meaning when it was spoken. In these circumstances, therefore, the Aetolians appear as non-Greeks, and still more so in Polybius, who says that most of the Aetolians were barbarians. In one passage, Thucydides also classes them with the barbarians, when he states that they, like the Acarnanians, went about in time of peace armed with knives (σιδηροφορεῖν); he also asserts that they were ὠμόφαγοι. Such statements appear to us extremely strange, and seem to suggest a degree of barbarism similar to that of the Abyssinians; but a French traveller has given an excellent explanation of the matter. The inhabitants of those countries are to this day shepherds, for agriculture is scarcely possible there. They kill their cattle, and sometimes cook the meat, but they also smoke it for the purpose of keeping it, and such smoked meat they eat raw, which is not done in the other parts of Greece. Sometimes also they act like the savages in America: they cut the meat into very thin slices, dry it in the air, and then eat it.

As far back as we can trace history, we always find the AETOLIANS and CURETES as two nations dwelling by the side of each other in the south of Aetolia: such is the case in the Iliad. Afterwards the Curetes disappear, and all the country is occupied by the Aetolians alone. But that country is only a very small portion of what is subsequently called Aetolia, for it embraced only the district of Pleuron and Calydon, about the Evenus. These two towns play as prominent a part in the legends as Mycenae and Tiryns, and Oeneus and Meleager are as familiar to you as Agamemnon and Menelaus. This was Aetolia proper, and a truly Hellenic country: from it proceeded the emigration of Oxylus, which must not be viewed as if Oxylus had served the Heracleids as a guide and joined them; but the Aetolian migration to which Elis owed its origin, was an occurrence quite distinct from the migration of the Dorians into the other parts of Peloponnesus. The Aetolians farther inland were subsequently joined by other Pelasgian tribes of Epirus. As early as the Peloponnesian war, Aetolia was a country of considerable extent, and Thucydides mentions the Bomians, Ophians (Ophionians), and Eurytanians, as its greatest tribes; but these names are uncertain, at least the first two. Within these limits the Aetolians were united during the Peloponnesian war. Their union may be conceived as a relation of isopolity, in which each nation formed an independent community, but on certain emergencies they united and acted as one state. They seem to have met in common sanctuaries, and to have mutually had the perfect right of isopolity, a connection which was however extremely loose, and did not oblige the several members to join one another in offensive operations. In the Peloponnesian war, the Aetolians resisted the Athenians; they were hostile to Naupactus and allied with Ampracia[62]; but beyond their own territory they were weak, and the expedition of the Athenians into Aetolia did the country much harm. The Aetolians showed themselves equally independent towards the Spartans, for when the latter, after the battle of Leuctra, wanted to interfere in their affairs, they were repulsed by the Aetolians. They did not, however, rise to any importance till after the death of Alexander. During the latter part of his life, they took Oeniadae, expelled its inhabitants, and colonised the place anew. Alexander, whose fate was that of all other conquerors, did not know in the end whither to turn; he conceived the unfortunate idea of interfering, from Babylon, in the affairs of Greece, and of coming forward as mediator. Whether it was that he actually wished to restore peace, or whether he had any other motives, in short he issued a proclamation ordering the Greeks to restore all φυγάδες in the widest sense of the term; and the order was even made retrospective, so as to embrace the φυγάδες who had been in exile for many years, and in many cases, as in that of Oeniadae, the φυγάδες consisted of the entire population of a town. This measure, perhaps adopted with a good intention, threw the firebrand of war into Greece. All were in consternation, because it was expected that the exiles would return with their old pretensions, and that the tranquillity which had only just been restored, would be disturbed again. The Athenians were exasperated because the amnesty was in favour of many who had been exiled as traitors and partisans of Macedonia, and whose banishment they had effected with great determination, and under circumstances which rendered the recall scarcely possible. The Aetolians were called upon to evacuate Oeniadae, and this led them to ally themselves with the Athenians in the Lamian war, and to display the greatest perseverance. When the allied army in Thessaly was broken and the Athenians were disabled, the Aetolians alone held out, resisting the great power of the Macedonians, a perseverance which ever after remained the great object of their national pride. All the Macedonian forces under Polysperchon and Antipater now turned against them: with moveable columns they entered the country, and carried on a very cruel war, devastating the country in the same fearful manner as the barbarians did in Peloponnesus, and as the French have frequently done in modern times: they advanced gradually chasing the whole population before them, and all who fell into their hands were either murdered or sold as slaves; all the cultivation of the country was destroyed, towns were reduced to ashes, and all trees rooted out. In this manner, they drove the inhabitants from one valley into another, and into the highest mountains, where they maintained themselves. But here they would have perished from cold, hunger and snow, had not a change of circumstances produced a diversion in their favour: the feuds among the Macedonian generals in Asia saved them. Antipater, who envied Perdiccas for his power, thought it advisable for the present to conclude a truce with the Aetolians, with the intention of completing the devastation of their country afterwards. But God disposed things differently. Amid the perplexities in Asia, Antipater forgot the Aetolians, and the war was not resumed. They now returned from their mountains, and this forms the commencement of a new era in their history.

Several of the nations of Greece had, even as early as that time, begun to feel an instinctive want of uniting with each other for the purpose of increasing their strength. Such had been the case in Arcadia and Thessaly (where Jason of Pherae fostered the feeling) before, and it was now awakened among several other nations. From this time forward two political terms acquired importance in history; the relations they designate were not indeed new, but their import in an extended sense was. At an earlier period, I mean at the time of the Peloponnesian war, this tendency to unite had shown itself at Olynthus on the coast of Thrace, where the Chalcidian and Bottian towns, which until then had stood isolated, united with that city which had become great; and thus they became καθάπερ δῆμος. This is the relation called by later writers ἰσοπολιτεία[63], which two towns established between each other, as was the case in Switzerland and in the league of the Swabian towns; in former times it had been called πολιτεία. A citizen of such a place was entitled to take up his abode in the other, without becoming a mere resident alien; the ancient Italian law was of the same kind. There can be no doubt that in earlier times the Aetolian tribes were united only by the relation of a common πολιτεία; but they did not form one state, the establishment of which, with one common strategus and one common council (ἀπόκλητοι), belongs to a much later period; it was probably not till after the war with Antipater that the Aetolian state was constituted; but we do not know much about its origin.

The relation of συμπολιτεία was different; it is very necessary to distinguish the two, and great attention is required not to confound them. Sympolity was the relation subsisting between Rome and its _municipia_, it was the connection of one place with another on a footing of inequality; the citizens of the subordinate state had not the same rights with those of the chief state, their advantage consisting in the close alliance with a powerful head, but they had no share in the election of magistrates (_civitas sine suffragio_), and the relation was altogether one-sided. Isopolite states, on the other hand, generally stood to each other in a relation of perfect equality, and were quite independent in their transactions with foreign countries; it is only in a very few instances that in later times we find them in a subordinate relation to a chief state. Sympolite states could not, on their own responsibility, enter into negociations with foreign countries, as had been the case of isopolite states only in earlier times. It may perhaps be assumed that all sympolite places were at one time in the relation of isopolity, and that their citizens were entitled to the general franchise in every one of the allied states. Isopolity, therefore, may have existed with several states, which among themselves had no isopolity, as, for example, the Hernicans were in a relation of isopolity with the Romans and also with the Samnites.

At that time the Aetolians increased their connections in both ways, and many distant towns joined them and became Aetolians. Of this we have evident proofs in inscriptions, in which the Aetolians grant to the inhabitants of such places letters of safety against robbery, as for example to the inhabitants of Crete, Carthaea in the island of Ceos, and others, ὡς ὄντων Αἰτωλῶν. Others, seeking the direct protection of the Aetolians, entered the relation of sympolity; but this must not be understood, as if they had taken upon themselves duties as subjects towards the Aetolians; the towns were too distant; but if they did, the great distance at least prevented the relation from becoming oppressive. In the case of isopolity a town could not claim to be protected by the more powerful one. Aetolia thus extended chiefly through the relation of sympolity, and Cephallenia, _e.g._, joined it. In the earlier times, and down to the sixth century of Rome, Olymp. 135, we can trace the extension only with difficulty; we cannot indeed doubt that the Aetolians extended beyond their own frontiers, but we are unable to say how or how far. The newly added part was called Αἰτωλία ἐπίκτητος, but it is wrongly marked in our maps, for the part beyond the Aetolian mountains, on the coast of Locris, belongs to ancient Aetolia.

The first accession gained by the Aetolians consisted in the alliance with Alexander of Epirus, the son of Pyrrhus (not to be confounded with Alexander the Molottian, the brother of Olympias), against the Acarnanians. On his unfortunate death, Pyrrhus had left to his son a still splendid empire. The two allies divided Acarnania between themselves, and from this time a large portion of that country belongs to Aetolia, especially Stratos, a very important town, the ruins of which still attest its former greatness. I cannot say, whether the acquisition of Naupactus and perhaps the whole country of the Ozolian Locrians belongs to this or to a later period; but Naupactus certainly was united with Aetolia, for about Olymp. 140, a strategus is mentioned who was a native of that town. During the decay of the Macedonian empire, that is, in the latter years of Antigonus Gonatas, the Aetolians greatly extended their empire; a part of Phocis appears to have been in their hands, and in alliance with the Achaeans they carried on a successful war against his son Demetrius, the father of the last Philip; they conquered Phthiotis and a part of Thessaly proper which then became united with them partly by isopolity, and partly by sympolity. The nations on this side of Thermopylae, the Trachinians and Aenianians, became so completely incorporated with them, that Heraclea even was one of their chief cities. At the same time they extended their power in Epirus, after the Epirots had murdered the last member of the royal family of the Aeacidae; they did not, however, confine themselves to that country, but also took possession of Cephallenia, Zacynthus and probably Ithaca also, nay, they even crossed over into Peloponnesus. Elis stood in the relation of isopolity, and several places in western Arcadia, as Phigalea, Heraea, Psophis and others, were connected with them by sympolity. Many towns also stood to them in the relation of isopolity, even the Athenians did so for a time. Aetolia reached the highest point of its power about Olymp. 140, where Polybius commences his history: that was the time of the outbreak of the social war, which the last Philip, in conjunction with the Achaeans, carried on against the Aetolians, who then lost their possessions in Thessaly and Phthiotis. But they were still very powerful, ruling over the country as far as the Spercheus, over the greater part of Acarnania, and Cephallenia, besides being on terms of isopolity with many places. Afterwards, in the second Philippic war, they lost still more, but we know nothing definite about it. In the third war of the Romans against Philip, which ended in the battle of Cynoscephalae, they again recovered many places, but the Romans, contrary to the compact entered into, deprived them of some which belonged to them. The claims they then made led to the war with Antiochus, in which they lost Cephallenia, Heraclea, and other places. They now lived in a state of nominal independence, for they did not, like the Achaeans, form a Roman province; but in point of fact they were dependent upon the Romans, though they did not lose their autonomy, that is their own political constitution and jurisdiction. Their frontiers were very much narrowed, though their territory was still greater than it had ever been during the best period of Greek history. Such is a brief sketch of the various vicissitudes of that remarkable people.

It is difficult to say how we should judge of the character of the Aetolians; it is not easy to arrive at a clear and precise result. But it is a point beyond all dispute that at the period during which we know them, they show a great resemblance in character to the Greek Clephths: they never were a regularly organised people with a civil constitution; their state was only of a military character, and their whole government was military; in the interior, there must necessarily have been great anarchy. Alexander is the only Aetolian whose name occurs in the whole range of Greek literature, and he lived at Alexandria; but he deserves no more to be despised than Callimachus. It is a well-founded charge that the Aetolians were faithless, so that treaties concluded with them were not safe,—hence the disgraceful attack upon the Pamboeotians,—that they disregarded the public law established among the Greeks, which ordained that in the midst of war a truce should be observed during the celebration of the national games. In war they indulged in devastation and robbery, the latter always being the principal motive of their undertakings. It must also be said, to their disgrace, that in regular and open battles they were good for nothing. Their cavalry was excellent, which, considering the nature of their country, is rather surprising; but they never formed a regular phalanx, and their peltasts were no better than the most ordinary ones; if these latter had been well trained, they might have become very efficient, but they never went beyond the first steps of military training.

In geography we treat of Aetolia within its ancient boundaries, and without regard to its later acquisitions. Aetolia has the largest river in Greece within Mount Oeta and Thermopylae: I allude to the ACHELOUS, which for Greece is a very considerable river, though in other countries it would not be so. Its sources are in Mount Pindus, and it is properly a χειμάῤῥους, for although it has always water, yet in winter, during the rainy season, and in spring, after the melting of the snow in the mountains, it is much larger. During these latter seasons of πλήμμυρα it is a mighty river, whereas in summer it may be forded in several places without danger. Where it comes forth from the Dolopian mountains, its bed is very broad and covered with gravel, over which it flows in many arms; at Stratos it is divided, at the season of high water, into seven arms, and in summer perhaps into three or four, which flow between high islands. Its modern name is Aspropotamo, the white river, perhaps from the white mud which during the rainy season it carries with it, and not from its clear water as is commonly supposed. In summer its water is clear, but in spring it is θολερός or muddy, whence it formed a Delta which was constantly increasing. The ECHINADES were islands at the mouth of the river, but owing to the continual deposits they are now parts of the main land; in like manner Ravenna, in the time of the Roman emperors, was surrounded by the sea, whereas at present it is a few miles distant from it. Such alluvial land as that formed by the Achelous is in modern Greek called βάλτος. A little to the side of the mouth of the river, we have the town of Oeniadae, whose position was as strong as that of Missolunghi, which is situated in the same lagoons, but somewhat more towards the cape and the river Evenus.

In the ancient Greek legends, the Achelous is celebrated on account of the contest with Heracles, in which the river-god metamorphosed himself into a bull, and Heracles broke one of his horns. Some very silly allegorical explanations of this mythus have been proposed.

EVENUS, the second river of Aetolia, is much smaller, and flows from the north; it discharges its waters at the point where the Achelous formed its deposits. It is in itself not of much consequence, but the country about its mouth, that is, the district of CALYDON and PLEURON, is the ancient and original Aetolia, which is called Aeolis by Thucydides, and perhaps also by Herodotus. This certainly is an ancient and remarkable name, though for our history it is a matter of indifference. Calydon and Pleuron are among the most ancient towns in Greek history, but in later times they were decayed and insignificant, and in the days of Strabo they were completely destroyed. Modern travellers assure us that they have discovered the Cyclopian walls of both towns, but I cannot say whether they are right: their site is indicated with tolerable precision by the ancients; it was not very far inland.

Respecting DULICHION, which occurs in the Odyssey, nothing can be ascertained. The opinion of modern geographers, that it was an ancient Delta, and afterwards disappeared in consequence of further deposits, is erroneous. The modern Greeks are probably no less mistaken in their belief that it was swallowed up by the earth; the sand-banks are in a different place. It is possible that Dulichion may have been the coast of Acarnania, which the Homeric poet, who was not altogether well informed about the western countries, erroneously called an island.

THERMON, the later capital of the Aetolians in Polybius, was situated in the interior. The building of this place pre-supposes that Aetolia at the time was a more extensive country, so that the more ancient towns were situated too near the frontier. Its site cannot be mistaken. No traveller has yet visited it, and I do not believe that any considerable ruins are to be found unless excavations be made; inscriptions do not exist there any more than in Epirus. It was about three miles distant from the great lake, which is situated in the centre of Aetolia in a hollow surrounded by mountains, and separates the waters of the Achelous and Evenus. This lake, which is upwards of twenty-five English miles in length and tolerably broad, now consists of several smaller lakes, which are connected by marshes. Polybius calls it TRICHONIS, and it forms the receptacle for the waters which flow from the neighbouring mountains and are not carried off by the Evenus. Thermon was not fortified, but was an open place like Sparta; Philip, the son of Demetrius, ravaged it twice, without the Aetolians attempting to defend it. It was there that the Aetolian people assembled and held their general diets: the hot springs were another and still more direct temptation to build the place. Aetolia is, in general, rich in hot sulphureous springs, and I here remind you of what I said on a former occasion respecting the volcanic veins which extend from the Corinthian gulf to Epirus, and especially to Thesprotia. The account of Polybius does not enable us to say whether it was a large city, but I am inclined to believe that it was not very important as a town. It contained a temple of Apollo, government-buildings, and extensive halls, probably adorned with works of art and other costly decorations, being destined as places of meeting for the Παναιτώλιον. These public buildings were set on fire by Philip. After this first conflagration, they were restored by the inhabitants, but ten or twelve years later they were destroyed a second time, and afterwards the place is no longer mentioned.

The walls of the other towns noticed by Polybius still show that they must have been very strong places; they were of considerable extent, but as there are no inscriptions, it is very difficult to determine their names, and it cannot be done without acting in an arbitrary manner.

According to Polybius, the Aetolians were joined by nations which Thucydides still distinguishes from them; some of them are pure Epirot tribes, such as the Amphilochians and Agraeans. I shall speak of them afterwards when I come to Epirus, to which they belong, both ethnographically and geographically. They were probably the first that joined the Aetolians, although in the time of Pyrrhus they still belonged to Epirus, to which they had been ceded by Macedonia.

ACARNANIA.

Acarnania is the country on the western bank of the Achelous. The earliest notices of the Acarnanians in Thucydides down to those of the latest times, exhibit them in constant collision with the more powerful Aetolians, who endeavoured to unite them with themselves, and, as they resisted, tried to destroy them. They are not mentioned in the Homeric Catalogue; they regarded themselves as the youngest among the Greek peoples, and set it forth as a merit of their own, that they had taken no part in the expedition against the Trojans, the ancestors of the Romans. But we must not infer too much from this: it is certain that at the time when the Catalogue was composed, the interior, or principal part, of the country was inhabited by Epirots, that is, Pelasgians, while the coast was, in my opinion, occupied by Greeks. The people over whom Odysseus ruled were certainly not confined to the little island of Ithaca; they extended far and wide, and their common name was Cephallenians, which also embraced those who lived on the ἤπειρος, that is, in Acarnania, on the coast near the Echinades, in Leucas, and in the Echinades themselves. In the ante-historic times they are mentioned under the name of the Taphians, who afterwards disappear, but seem to have equalled the Minyans in greatness and power. Whether, on the destruction of the empire of Odysseus, the Cephallenians and Arcananians separated, whether they gained strength to extend their dominion towards the interior, or whether a Hellenic immigration peopled the country, are questions on which we cannot decide. The last, however, is the most probable, and is supported by the mythus about Alcmaeon, who is said to have gone to the Echinades; but, however this may be, in the earliest times they are not mentioned under the name Acarnanians. Herodotus speaks of Acarnanians (Ἀκαρνὴν ἀνήρ) even before the time of the Persian wars, in which they took no more part than the Aetolians: their distance seems to have separated them from the rest of the Greeks, so as to prevent their having any share in their doings. Afterwards, in the Peloponnesian war, they sided with the Ionians against the Dorians, being the allies of the Athenians from hatred of the Corinthians, who had established themselves on the coast of Acarnania, had there founded the colonies of Leucas, Anactorion, Alyzia, and the powerful town of Ambracia on the opposite coast, and were severely oppressive to the Acarnanians. This induced the latter to seek the assistance of the Athenians, which was effective, also, against the Aetolians, and brought on the war against them. The Aetolians themselves thereby became connected with the Ambraciots and the Dorians.

In this condition the Acarnanians remained until the time of the Macedonian supremacy; but when the Macedonian empire gained consistency, the Acarnanians thoughtlessly placed themselves under its protection. Philip favored them greatly, and assigned to them Oeniadae, which had previously belonged to the Achaeans, and also Leucas; whether the latter place remained in their possession or not, we do not know. Fresh hostilities now arose with the Aetolians, who were enemies of the Macedonians. The severest blow was inflicted upon the Acarnanians in the reign of Alexander of Epirus, the son of Pyrrhus, for their country was divided between him and the Aetolians. The latter retained the possession of the principal towns which they received; but at the time of the disputes about the succession among the Aeacidae, the Epirot dominion was shaken off, and the Acarnanians again threw themselves into the arms of Macedonia. We must distinguish Acarnania in its earlier and in its later condition: Acarnania in Polybius is considerably reduced on the east near the Achelous, for it there possessed only Oeniadae, but on the coast it was increased through the Corinthian colonies. In this condition it remained, until, in the war between the Romans and Macedonians, its population, having sided with the latter, had to suffer greatly. Leucas was taken and separated from Acarnania. But although the Acarnanians were pardoned by the Romans, they thenceforward completely disappear in history.

The country forms no contrasts, and has no deep valleys with lakes like Aetolia; it has no high mountains, but is a fertile hilly country, with alluvial soil, though not to any great extent, on the coast and the Achelous: the soil is throughout light and good. As regards the political constitution of the Acarnanians, even Polybius speaks of the κοινὸν τῶν Ἀκαρνάνων, so that they must have formed a regularly organised state, no doubt with a common strategus. As far as their manners are concerned, the same historian classes them among the less civilised tribes, for they went about in arms. They did not, like the Aetolians, consist of tribes that were essentially foreign to each other, but of kindred settlers in towns. Nations which, like the Aetolians, are destined by nature to lead a pastoral life, cannot have any important settlements in towns any more than the little cantons of Switzerland; but Acarnania is a thoroughly agricultural country, producing corn and olives, and towns accordingly arose from the nature of circumstances; pastoral life prevailed only in the mountains. These towns had no separate existence independently of the common government of the state; each of them had no doubt its own municipal freedom, but in their relation to foreign countries, they were dependent. This is implied in the term τὸ κοινόν, Latin, _commune_.

In the Peloponnesian war, STRATOS was the capital of the country, but it was taken by the Aetolians, to whom it belonged in the time of Polybius. Its walls are still preserved, and they not only show that, as Thucydides says, it was the largest town of Acarnania, but absolutely a large town of an astonishing circumference. But these countries are so different from those of the intellectual Greeks, that no ruins are found attesting the existence of splendid buildings. Stratos is the only one among the genuine Acarnanian towns, that deserves to be noticed.

OENIADAE, at the mouth of the Achelous, is often mentioned as an Achaean town, and its true character is therefore a real puzzle. Xenophon calls it Achaean, and Scylax of Caryanda applies the name Ἀχαιοί and Ἀχαία to the whole coast from Cape Rhion as far as the Achelous, so that not only Oeniadae, but the other coast-towns, as for example, the little Chalcis, were connected with the Achaeans. Afterwards Oeniadae was taken by the Aetolians; it recovered indeed its independence, but was then conquered by the Acarnanians, and finally taken from them by the Romans. Whether on this last occasion the Achaeans again established their claims, cannot be ascertained. It is not impossible that it may have been an Achaean colony, as we find another in Zacynthos.

The Corinthian colonies, the most remarkable of which were LEUCAS, ANACTORION, ALYZIA, and ACTION, were separated from Acarnania proper at an early period.

LEUCAS, according to the opinion of the Alexandrian grammarians, who are great authorities in these matters, is mentioned in the Odyssey and the Homeric Catalogue under the name of NERITON, and was at that time still inhabited by Cephallenians. At a later period it was a Doric settlement of Corinth, when this latter city founded colonies on the Ambracian gulf, in Corcyra, and other islands, with a care which shows that it intended to establish its maritime supremacy in those parts. Those settlements belong partly to the period of the Bacchiadae, and partly to that of Cypselus and Periander. Leucas was formerly connected with the mainland by an isthmus, which was cut through by the Corinthians when they established themselves there. Afterwards the isthmus was sometimes restored and sometimes broken through; and these changes frequently occur, even in the middle ages, for the rivers which flow into the Ambracian gulf, carry with them as much mud as the Achelous, and as Leucas was situated close to the shore, and was separated from the mainland only by a very narrow channel, the mud there accumulated by the current which is very strong in that part. This isthmus was very inconvenient to the navigation of the Leucadians to the Ambracian gulf, as they had to sail round the whole promontory; nothing therefore is more natural than that the canal should have been re-opened from time to time. The opinion of those who imagine that the isthmus was an artificially constructed causeway is absurd, though it is quite conceivable that at the time when the isthmus was uninterrupted, a road may have been made upon it; but this has quite a different meaning. The name Leucas has a double nominative, Leucas and Leucata, of which so many instances occur in Latin in the case of Greek proper names,[64] as Croton and Crotona, Ancon and Ancona, the latter of which is the genuine Latin form. It is said that ὁ Λευκάτας was the rock of Leucas; but there is no foundation for this, it is a mere expedient to get over a difficulty. On Cape Leucas stood the temple of Apollo, and from its precipitous cliff Sappho and others are said to have leapt into the sea because their passionate love was not returned.

ANACTORION was a very small and insignificant place, as we see from the notices about it during the Peloponnesian war, for it furnished only one trireme.

ACTION can scarcely be called a town, and is remarkable only for the battle fought there, and the temple of Apollo.

ALYZIA was likewise unimportant, and deserves to be noticed only as a Corinthian colony, and as an example of the manner in which the Corinthians detached the coast from Acarnania.

By the side of Action, on the spot afterwards occupied by Prevesa, there arose NICOPOLIS, which was built by Augustus as a monument of his victory. The Greek population was then so reduced, and the violence of the Roman generals so truly oriental, that Augustus transplanted to Nicopolis the nation of the Aetolians and most of the Acarnanians; for I have no doubt that, to a certain extent, this was really the case. Owing to its situation, the place was during the middle ages regarded as a fortress, and new buildings were erected, whence the ancient ones have for the most part disappeared. The ruins of Nicopolis however are extensive, for Augustus adorned it with splendid buildings. The Byzantine emperors defended it for a long time against the conquests of the Bulgarians, who had subdued a great part of Epirus and the adjoining countries of Greece. We cannot say at what time the name Nicopolis disappears; in the tenth century it still existed, and is mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

THE CEPHALLENIAN ISLANDS.

Under this name, following the example of the Alexandrian grammarians, we comprise those islands which in Homer form the empire of Odysseus, namely, Ithaca, Cephallenia or Same, and Zacynthos; I have already intimated that I have nothing to say about Dulichion. This empire of Odysseus entirely disappears in our history. If we had Ephorus or ample extracts from his work, we should be able to proceed more safely. The Greeks had ancient records about many places and subjects connected with their early history, as we see from Thucydides, but they cannot be called history; Ephorus, however, anxiously endeavoured to collect them all, and all that is quoted from them, is excellent. After the time of the Odyssey those islands are scarcely mentioned at all. Cephallenia is noticed in a passing remark at the time of the Peloponnesian war, Zacynthos too is mentioned once, and in the war of the Romans and Aetolians they are brought forward more particularly; Ithaca, on the other hand, does not occur at all in ancient history. Mythology says, that after Odysseus was slain by Telegonus, his own son by Circe, Telemachus and Penelope quitted the island from fear of the vengeance of the relations of the suitors. This statement when translated into history, means, that the empire was completely broken up, and the dynasty of Odysseus disappeared.

As to ITHACA, we do not even know what was the name of its town; near the port distinct traces of a town and Cyclopian walls are still visible; and a modern English traveller, Sir William Gell, I do not know whether in joke or in earnest, states that they are the remains of the palace of Odysseus. It cannot be ascertained whether the island existed by itself, or whether it was connected with Cephallenia.

CEPHALLENIA had four towns which are mentioned at the time of the Peloponnesian war under the names of Pale, Cranii, Same, and Proni; they were quite independent of one another and allied with Athens. In later times we find them in the relation of sympolity with the Aetolians. The name Cephallenia is of more recent origin, the island being, in early times, called Same. During the Aetolian war, the Romans completely subdued it on account of its situation, which was favourable to navigation. Its inhabitants were notorious as pirates even in very early times.

ZACYNTHOS (the Z must be pronounced as softly as possible), the southernmost of these islands, is entirely of a volcanic nature, and remarkable for its springs of naphtha; it has suffered much from earthquakes, which have continued even in modern times. Otherwise it is a real paradise, and must have been the same in antiquity: its fertility, beauty, and climate are almost fabulous. During the Peloponnesian war, it was taken by the Athenians; it is mentioned at that time as an Achaean colony, so that the Achaeans must have established themselves there as they did at Oeniadae, and thus extended the boundaries of their own country. Afterwards it fell into the hands of the Macedonians, and ultimately into those of the Romans. The Achaeans wanted to unite it again with Peloponnesus, but Flamininus resisted them; but whether they, nevertheless, carried their plan, is unknown, for all information is wanting.

THESSALY.

The name Thessaly is used in two senses: in its proper sense, for example in Scylax, it comprises the country of the ruling tribes of the Thessalians dwelling within their natural boundaries, a circumstance of which no notice at all is taken in our maps and geographical manuals. In this sense Thessaly touches upon the sea only by a line of coast thirty stadia in length, and the remaining coast which we are in the habit of calling Thessalian, does not belong to it. In the ordinary or wider sense, in which the name can be proved to have been used even by Herodotus, Thessaly extended as far as the Aenianians and Malians, perhaps even as far as the Dolopians, in the south. The tribes inhabiting it, the Phthiotans, the Magnetes, Peraebi, and others, were subjects of the Thessalians, and in so far the use of the name which comprises them also is well founded, for they belonged to the state of the Thessalians.

In its narrower sense, Thessaly is the valley of the Peneus, which is said, in Herodotus, to have once been one continuous lake, but afterwards discharged its waters into the sea by breaking through the heights between Ossa and Olympus. This clearly shews that the tradition applies to the valley of the Peneus alone, for the valley south of mount Othrys, for example, could not have been inundated, whereas the fertile plains of Pherae about lake Boebeis as far as the Pagasaean gulf, from which it is separated only by a few hills, may very easily have been inundated. The statement, therefore, is evidently correct; its truth may even now be seen, and the ancients judged correctly. However, to refer the draining, which cannot have been the work of human hands, but must have been effected by revolutions of the earth, to the historical ages is a mistake, because we are accustomed to compress the events of many centuries within the small space of our historical knowledge. The opposite mistake consists in assuming, within the sphere of history, longer intervals than really exist. The duration of a century seems to be very short, but if we examine it more minutely, it is a long period for historical changes. If, for example, we look at Germany and our ancestors 150 or 160 years ago, how different do we find them from ourselves in their mode of living, in their ideas, their occupations, and maxims, and that too in the highest as well as in the lowest classes of society! People have imagined that Rome, from the time of Servius Tullius to that of Cicero, remained in its forms essentially the same; but this is quite impossible, and the difference must have been enormous. Even when we look at nations which seem to admit of no change, for example, the Hindoos, great differences are still manifest at different times: life is ever changeable. I do not believe that this remark is superfluous; it is very important to the historian to have it always present before his mind; it is impossible successfully to treat of ancient history without a thorough knowledge of modern history.

In its wider sense, Thessaly presents the immense contrasts of the excellent plain (τὸ Θεσσαλικὸν πεδίον) and the mountains. On its western side, we have mount PINDUS (now Mezzowo, probably a Wallachian name), the highest of all the Greek mountains, which has only very few passes; that of Gomphi, leading from Epirus into Thessaly, is the most convenient, and very easy to defend, on account of the nature of the country. On the south of the Peneus we have mount OTHRYS, a tame mountain, to use a Swiss expression, which is, indeed, covered with wood, but is, nevertheless, capable of being cultivated, and is used in some parts as pasture to a very great height; it is a smiling and beautiful mountain, with excellent underwood, whereas the higher parts of Pindus produce only firs. Pindus, consisting only of rocks and forests, is a lofty mountain, and a continuation of the great Illyrian SCARDUS, which extends from the Julian Alps in Carniola, through Bosnia and Dalmatia, as far as Constantinople, rising higher and higher, until, on the coast near Scutari, it reaches its highest point, and forms its real central knot. Although Scardus is not covered with snow all the year round, it is, at any rate, very close to the region of perpetual snow; its ravines and summits are covered with it during the greater part of the year. The mountain then suddenly sinks down, and geographically, though not ethnographically, separates Illyricum from Macedonia, and runs out into Pindus and Othrys. At this point Pindus begins, which is joined in the east by mount Othrys. The Dolopian and Aetolian mountains, for which no general names are mentioned by the ancients, run parallel with mount Othrys, and mount Parnassus is an off-shoot of them. On the southern frontier of Thessaly, in its widest sense, we meet with mount OETA, which is not so much a mountain as a series of separate hills; the name Oeta is not applicable to it in the interior of the country; the pass of Thermopylae runs between its foot and the Euboean sea. Oeta is a sublime mountain, and renowned in Greek mythology on account of the death of Heracles.

In the north of the valley of the Peneus, a range of very high mountains, some of which are not distinguished by particular names, extends towards Olympus; a part of them is called by Livy _montes Cambunii_, but we have no distinct information as to the extent to which this name is applicable, though from our maps it would seem as if we had. These mountains issue from the high ranges which, on the extreme borders of Thessaly, in its widest sense, proceed from Macedonia, and form another ramification of the Illyrian Scardus, terminating in mount OLYMPUS, which towers far above the clouds, and is always covered with snow. Every one knows that Olympus is the abode of the Homeric gods; but it is not so generally known, that the Roman poets, Ennius, Virgil, and others, when applying the name Olympus to the vault of heaven, confound Greek mythology and Roman theology. The Greeks conceived the gods as dwelling on the top of the mountain, while the Romans imagined that they lived beyond the heavenly vault, whence Ennius has the expression _maxima porta Olympi_, a conception quite foreign to the Greeks. I shall hereafter explain why the Greeks called this mountain the centre of the earth, and that, too, before Delphi was described in these terms; for it is strange indeed, Olympus being properly beyond the boundaries of Greece.

Mount OSSA, opposite to Olympus, is not quite so high; the river Peneus flows between these two mountains through the valley of Tempe into the sea. This valley, τὰ Θεσσαλικὰ Τέμπη, was celebrated in antiquity for its beauty. The ancients, on the whole, do not often speak of the beauties of nature, for they are not sentimental; and if they do so, it is always in reference to pleasing and smiling scenery. The description of Tempe in Aelian, taken from Theopompus, is perhaps the most accurate we have in any ancient writer. Dodwell also describes it as equally wonderful; it is from four to five miles in length, and forms not a smooth and splendid district with a luxuriant vegetation, but majestic scenery, resembling, for example, that on the Eisak between Botzen and Brixen in the Tyrol, or that grand scenery in the valley of the Inn: its beauty is manly and sublime.

Mount PELION extends to the south-east of Ossa, and is one of the most beautiful mountains in the world: it is lovely and fertile up to its top; it is covered with chesnut-trees, and is probably the place from which they have spread over the world, for their nuts are called _nuces Castaneae_, from the town of Castanea on the Pagasaean gulf. Among the Greek botanists, Pelion is celebrated for its richness in medicinal plants, and for the variety of its trees. Previously to the present wretched state of the country, many large villages existed about mount Pelion; it was the happiest district; its inhabitants enjoyed great privileges, and as they were very industrious and under the special protection of the sultans to whom the district belonged as a fief, they were enabled to pay a large tribute, but lived in the interior quite undisturbed and without suffering any ill usage. Their excellent warehouses, which were known also to German merchants, are now entirely destroyed, although the inhabitants have not risen against the Porte.

This is the physical outline of the mountains. Phthiotis is an entirely mountainous country between Othrys, the Euboean sea and the gulf of Iolcus; but the mountains are not high. The remaining part of Thessaly is not absolutely a plain, for the mountains rise gradually, and the country is intersected by ranges of hills. Thessaly has two gulfs, that near Thermopylae called Μαλιακός or Πυλαϊκός, and the Παγασητικός or Ἰωλκίτης.

I shall now proceed to consider the population. According to the most ancient traditions, Thessaly was inhabited by all kinds of people of quite different names. The poets are fond of applying to the country, in the ancient mythical period, the name AEMONIA, which in those times is not an inappropriate name for Thessaly.[65] Among its earliest inhabitants, we have mention of the LAPITHAE, who dwelt on mount Pelion, I do not exactly know where, and are said to have expelled the CENTAURI. It is quite clear that the Greeks, in their mythology, conceived the Centaurs only as mythical beings; the explanation of a race of men living on horseback, is of late origin, and altogether uncertain; such a race, moreover, belongs to a plain and not to the mountains.