Chapter VIII: Part 8

The neighbouring SERĪPHOS (not Serĭphos) is still more barren, being a mere rock; it acts a prominent part in the mythus about Perseus. The Romans in after-times banished their criminals to Seriphos and Cythnos.

CEOS, not far from Attica, was beautiful and populous; it contained four towns, of which I will mention _Carthaea_ and _Iulis_. The latter was the birth-place of Bacchylides, and probably also of his uncle, the elder Simonides. The site of Carthaea has been ascertained only in modern times by Bröndstedt and Haller of Nürnberg, who caused excavations to be made there and found ruins and inscriptions. I only trust that these inscriptions may not prove to be forgeries; for a friend at Athens sent me them long before they were known in Europe, having probably been copied by some Greek; but those people are too unscrupulous about truth, and you cannot trust them. These inscriptions, however, are very important; a few only belong to the early period during which Athens was free; most of them were made in the Macedonian and Aetolian times. I have supplemented the deficiencies, and Bröndstedt has published them with my emendations and additions, without even intimating that they are only probable conjectures, and he has altered the mistakes in writing without informing his readers as to whether they occur on the stones or not. This is a violation of historical fidelity. The ancient traditions about Ceos contain strange stories. The moral purity and the severity of the Ceans are much praised, and in the descriptions of manners in the comedies of Menander, they are spoken of in the highest terms. The other statement, that they killed their old men, in order to save them from the miseries of decrepitude, is, I hope, founded on some confusion, or is limited to one particular instance. The land is fertile.

ANDROS and TENOS are large and fertile, but have no history.

SYROS is remarkable as the birth-place of the philosopher Pherecydes, the instructor of Pythagoras.

On the one side of Delos was the island of RHENEA, and on the other that of MYCONOS; the former is insignificant, but Myconos is somewhat larger.

NAXOS is the most splendid of all the Cyclades, and was justly regarded as the favourite isle of Dionysus. Its form is like that of most volcanic islands in the south sea, rising from the waters like a cone: it is a mountain with broad sloping sides, and fertile to its very top; it does not indeed produce corn all the way up, but it is clad with vines and olive groves. The island is a real paradise, and even at this day one of the most flourishing in the Archipelago. Its summit was crowned with a temple of Zeus, though the island itself was sacred to Dionysus. In the early times it was powerful, especially during the age of Pisistratus; at the period of transition, it fell into the hands of Lygdamis, who protected the demos against the aristocracy; he became a usurper, but was a mild ruler, and beneficial to his subjects. During the Persian period, Naxos was still important and rich, but soon after came under the supremacy of Athens. It then revolted, but was subdued and received cleruchi, who however were expelled after the Peloponnesian war. During the period which then followed, nothing is known about Naxos. When the power of the Macedonians in Egypt was at its height, that is, in the reigns of Philadelphus and Euergetes, all the Cyclades were governed by the kings of Alexandria. After the fourth king, when the empire was decaying, those islands had no ruler and no protection, for which reason they endeavoured to enter into the relation of sympolity with the Aetolians as early as the time of Euergetes, and those who did not form this relation were infested by Aetolian and Illyrian pirates.

These are the Cyclades as we find them enumerated by Scylax, a highly respectable authority. But wherever a whole consists of a definite number of parts, the same number not unfrequently embraces different parts at different times, new parts being introduced in place of earlier ones; if you remember this, it will help you out of many an historical labyrinth. Such also was the case with the twelve Cyclades; they were not the same at all times, but the southern islands, which are not included by the ancients, were regarded as belonging to them at a time which cannot now be defined, so that some must have been omitted, which, accordingly, had either abandoned the connection or were forgotten on account of their insignificance. The same is the case with the twelve Achaean towns, and the seven hills of Rome, two of which are sometimes regarded as one, so that a new one is added. In this manner we have four more small islands, which are classed among the Cyclades, for which we must suppose that others, such as Seriphos and Rhenea, were omitted from the list. Delos, however, was always regarded as the centre, whence the phrase was, “Delos and the Cyclades.” The number twelve might thus be kept up in a variety of ways. The four islands before alluded to are _Melos_ and _Thera_, which were Doric, and _Ios_ and _Amorgos_, which were Ionic; Scylax includes them all among the Sporades.

MELOS was a Lacedaemonian colony, but during the Peloponnesian war it was conquered by the Athenians at the instigation of Alcibiades. The discussion of this subject in Thucydides is an ever-memorable masterpiece of the development of conflicting opinions; the transaction itself is a stain upon Athenian history; fortunately the number of such stains is but small. The inhabitants of Melos were sold as slaves; after the Peloponnesian war the island was indeed restored, but it remained insignificant. It is a beautiful volcanic island with hot sulphureous springs and the like, and contains much fertile land. Its modern name is Milo. The ruins of the theatre excite our astonishment, especially considering that it was a Doric place; they are evidence of a numerous and wealthy population. The excellent torso of Aphrodite, which is now in Paris, was found in Melos.

THERA, according to tradition, was colonised in the very earliest times by the guardian of the kings Eurysthenes and Procles, belonging to the family of the Labdacidae. This account, however, is purely mythical; it reads very pleasantly in Herodotus, but has not the least historical foundation. This much only we see from the whole series of Dorian colonies, that they belong to a period, when most of the Dorians, with the exception of Corinth and Aegina, had no maritime power, while Sparta must still have possessed a navy, since without it the colonies could not have subsisted. The most important point in the history of Thera is, that it became the metropolis of Cyrene, which reflected its lustre upon it. Thera had formerly been a Phoenician colony, and the name of Membliaros, whose family resided there, is entirely Phoenician. The island is particularly remarkable in a physical point of view; historically it is of no importance. There is not a spot on the earth that is so much subject to earthquakes as Thera; hence new islands have been formed in its vicinity at different periods. The ancients mention an island of the name of Hiera, which was raised up by volcanic agency, and in this manner three new islands have appeared there, the last of which rose up in the year 1707. This, accordingly, is one of the points where the fire burning in the bowels of the earth shows its direct agency. The name of Anaphe, a small island in the vicinity, also alludes to this.

IOS is known from the very ancient tradition, that Homer was buried there. It was an Ionian colony,like AMORGOS, which was celebrated for its textures, for the _vestes Amorginae_ were prized as highly as the _Coae_; it is very probable that cotton may have been cultivated there, but it is possible also that it was imported from Egypt and Syria.

CRETE.

The antiquities of Crete are as much a mystery to us as those of ancient Boeotia and several other countries. Minos is to us a mere name, but we may believe the statement of Thucydides, that the recollection of Crete having once ruled over the Cyclades was connected with the period represented by Minos. But what connection there existed between Minos and the later Cretans, is a question about which we know nothing at all. He can scarcely have been a Greek, and the subsequent Greek population of Crete has no more to do with him than the Tyrrhenians have with the Etruscans. I am convinced that he was connected only with the Eteocretans, as is clearly stated by Herodotus. These earlier Cretans probably continued to live in the island as subjects of the later inhabitants, and only two of their towns, Praesos and Polichna, maintained their independence. All the other towns of Crete are Dorian, Argive, or in general Peloponnesian colonies. What are called the laws of Minos, unquestionably belong to the Greek immigrants, and if the question be raised, as to whether the Spartans obtained their laws from Crete, I do not hesitate for a moment to assert, that the laws of both nations are originally Doric, and that the Dorian immigrants introduced them among the Cretans; though the later inhabitants boasted of having preserved the ancient laws of the conquered original inhabitants. I believe no more in the historical personality of Minos than I do in that of Lycurgus. We must not, however, imagine, that the subsequent Cretans were an entirely new population, for they were in fact only the ruling party. If we compare the history of different nations we find several instances of conquerors adopting the name of the conquered people: thus the Spanish tyrants of Mexico called themselves children of Montezuma; in Peru this is still more common, though nearly all the Peruvians are hybrids. In like manner the Dorian conquerors did not go to Crete with their wives and children, but the later population was descended on the mother’s side from the ancient Cretans. Those whom we call Ionians, were descended in the same manner from the Carians.

I cannot say much that is satisfactory about Crete; in my opinion, this is another of those points in regard to which a sober inquirer must be content with very few results. I feel it my duty to caution you against all those Ogygian inquiries in ancient Greek history; they are very often no inquiries at all, but mere gossip about notions taken up at random and vaguely conceived—things which rouse the indignation of a genuine philologer. I cannot accordingly, in the case of Crete, go back to the earliest times, simply because we have no information. Cnosos and Cydon, according to some obscure account, were Argive colonies; of Lyctos it is certain that it was a Dorian colony, though neither time nor circumstances are mentioned; respecting most of the towns, no information at all has come down to us. The statement in the Odyssey,[71] where Crete is spoken of accidentally, is very singular; it does not afford us much assistance, but only leads us to the conclusion, that all the statements in the Odyssey are much more recent than those in the Iliad, and that the conclusion of the Odyssey is even of much later origin than the rest: the part I allude to must have been composed at a time which we cannot place farther back than the commencement of the Olympiads. Odysseus there says, that he comes from Crete, which was inhabited by the Dorians, Pelasgians, Cydonians, and Eteocretans. The Eteocretans are here mentioned as the most ancient inhabitants; next come the Cydonians, without any remark being made as to their nationality; the Pelasgians are otherwise not mentioned at all in those parts; and the Dorians, of course, are the later immigrants from Peloponnesus. Another and more probable statement, in Herodotus, is, that the Cretans were either Carians or Lycians, or Carians mixed with Lycians. These nations, whom we regard as barbarous, are said to have emigrated from Crete, which implies nothing beyond the fact that they belonged to the same race. The ancient inhabitants, as I have already said, afterwards appear partly in subject places, and partly as serfs in the larger towns.

At no period of our history did Crete form one connected state; it consisted of a number of independent towns which, tradition says, amounted to one hundred; this is at least a proof of a very dense population.

The Eteocratans, as a nation, disappear in history, without there being any definite mention of the immigration of their later rulers, and stories were invented in ancient times to account for this disappearance. According to one tradition, all the old Cretans, with the exception of two tribes, emigrated, in order to avenge the death of Minos, and all perished; while, according to another, they were all carried off by a plague, which occurred after the Trojan war. But all this is foolish.

Crete is a large island, presenting a grave, and not an Ionian aspect, but in many parts it is rich and fertile. The great woody mountain Ida (Ἴδη is the Ionian name of a woody mountain) extends through the whole length of the island. Mythology describes this mountain as the birth-place of Zeus, and the other statement that he was born on mount Ida near Troy arose only from a confusion. The Cretan Ida is covered with most magnificent forests, and furnishes not only timber for shipbuilding, but is also rich in medicinal herbs. The coast contains a number of the most fertile plains. All the promontories of Crete are branches issuing from mount Ida.

In the historical times, the number of Cretan towns, if we gather the names from the different writers, amounts to thirty. How many of them were sovereign and how many subject, is a question which can be answered only approximately.

The greatest towns were CNOSOS (better than Cnossos) and GORTYN, or in Latin poets Gortyna, like Cortona and Ancona. The Latin language does not recognise the termination _on_, whence in names of male persons the Greek ων is shortened into a single _o_; hence the Romans in the earlier times did not say _Solon_, but _Solo_, and the editors of Cicero should always write the name in this manner. In later times this practice was forgotten; and Pliny has Hieron and Solon; but names of towns are generally lengthened by the addition of _a_. Both Cnosos and Gortyn were very ancient Cretan towns, but were taken possession of by later settlers. The magnitude of the ruins of Gortyn, situated on a beautiful table land, points to a brilliant period, which must have been a very early one. Near them is the labyrinth, the construction of which is ascribed to Minos; it is however not fabulous, but a mighty palace-like building of the heroic age. CYDONIA reminds us of the people of the same name in the Odyssey. LYCTOS is expressly mentioned as a Spartan colony.

I point out these places to you because they are of some historical importance; I might add a great many others, but they are only empty names.

During the Peloponnesian war, when all Greece was divided between Athens and Sparta, the Cretans sided with neither. There are a tolerable number of Cretan monuments with inscriptions, belonging to the period of the power of the Aetolians; they are for the most part treaties by which they were admitted by the Aetolians into the relation of sympolity.

The Cretan towns are spoken of, especially by Aristotle, as if all of them had had one common constitution (πολιτεία Κρητῶν). Every Cretan town, even the subject places, seems according to the constitution to have been equal to the largest; all had a close aristocracy and ruling houses (a patriciate), and this proves that the country had at one time been conquered. Their highest magistrates, eligible only from among the _gentes_, were called κόσμοι; they were five in number, and possessed despotic power; they seem to have been elected annually. Insurrection was lawful in Crete, as in Poland, for when the oppression became too severe, the nobles refused obedience to the magistrates, and elected new ones. The greatest anarchy was thus legalised, and this was the consequence of a constitution, which had in itself no organic protection: a proof of the barbarous character of the people. The Cretans were the worst of all the Greek nations; they were an object of detestation and indignation. You remember the expression of St. Paul, in the Epistle to Titus; their character gave rise to the verb κρητίζειν. Polybius confirms this judgment with an undisguised hatred of the Cretans, a hatred which is even stronger than that of the Aetolians. In his time they were completely devoid of all sense of honour; treason and faithlessness towards their superiors being no disgrace among them. Thus they treacherously delivered up the unfortunate Achaeus who had revolted against Antiochus; they shewed, in fact, all the degeneracy which we now find among the unhappy Greeks in their enslavement. The Cretans, however, had no foreign tyranny as a palliation, for no part of Greece remained so free from foreign oppression, and they never were under the supremacy of Macedonia, except in the reign of the last Philip, who was chosen by them as arbitrator; he had, however, no garrison in the island, but exercised only his personal influence. Crete then remained independent, and the Romans were altogether indifferent about it. But the pirates of the Asiatic coasts established themselves among them, and the Cretans even took part in the trade, whence in A.U.C., 685 they were conquered by the Romans. In the earlier times they sold their services as mercenaries, serving as light-armed troops and forming a peculiar kind of infantry. At their conquest by the Romans, they were chastised, and many of their towns were destroyed. After this they are no longer mentioned in Roman history, so that we cannot even say to what province they belonged. It is only occasionally, when disturbances broke out, that a praetor was sent to them.

CARPATHOS is situated in the north-east of Crete, towards Rhodes; in the same direction we have ASTYPALAEA and NISYROS. All three were Dorian settlements; Carpathos in the end came under the supremacy of Rhodes.

RHODES.

Rhodes was a state of which the Greeks, in the last period of their history had reason to be proud; its peculiarity was its freedom from all that for which otherwise the Greeks are justly censured. Its character is honesty, conscientiousness, and thoughtful prudence, like that of the Dutch republics, the Swiss cantons, and the free cities of the German empire in their best times; nor was literary and intellectual culture foreign to the Rhodians. Their greatest prosperity belongs to the time when the sun of Greek intellect had already set; but they still had, comparatively speaking, a happy period.

Rhodes was an ancient Dorian settlement, but it is foolish to suppose that it existed even before the time of the Trojan war, as is stated in the Homeric Catalogue in the account about Tlepolemus, for at that time the Dorians did not inhabit any country from which they could have sent a colony to Rhodes. The reason of the interpolation is apparent.[72] The true tradition probably is that the Dorians went thither after the conquest of Peloponnesus; but this too is very obscure, for the period subsequent to the Doric migration is not clearer to us than that which preceded it.

Rhodes had three towns which formed the three tribes in the island; this is expressed in a passage of the Catalogue: τριχθὰ δὲ ᾤκηθεν καταφυλαδόν; these towns were LINDOS, IALYSOS, and CAMIROS. The soil of the island is excellent, and the country being equally adapted for agriculture and navigation, we find both from early times. Hence its power had a much more secure basis than, e.g., that of the Aeginetans, who had no agriculture at all, for agriculture is the only foundation of permanent happiness. Until the time of the Peloponnesian war those three towns remained in the same condition; they formed together one state, which, however, was without a common centre. During the war, the Rhodians distinguished themselves by their prudence, remaining faithful to Athens, and not allowing themselves, like the Naxians and others, to be drawn into unfortunate insurrections; but when Athens abused her power and the Lacedaemonians were gaining the upper hand, the Rhodians, accommodating themselves to the change of circumstances, joined the latter, and that the more readily because they were Dorians. Henceforth a consciousness was awakened in them, that they might raise themselves to a higher position, and they determined to remove from their small towns into one great city. They accordingly founded the city of RHODES on the splendid harbour which the first settlers had overlooked. This place now became the centre of the country, and the other towns καθάπερ δῆμοι, but were not destroyed, and even at this day we hear of villages called Lindo and Camiro. The earliest inhabitants were undoubtedly Carians, who, on receiving a Dorian aristocracy, became at first serfs, but afterwards rose to the rank of free communities; the productive commerce rendered it impossible for the aristocracy to maintain itself for any great length of time. There then followed a period of internal discord, of which only obscure accounts have come down to us. After the war, which was occasioned by the expedition of Cyrus the younger, and in which they joined the Lacedaemonians, they fell, in consequence of their internal divisions, into the hands of the Carian dynasty of Mausolus. The younger Artemisia, the wife of Mausolus, who resided at Halicarnassus, was enabled, by the factions in the island, to take possession of it. One of the first youthful productions of Demosthenes refers to this event. In this manner, Rhodes was for a time connected, through Halicarnassus, with the Persian empire; according to the peace of Antalcidas, this ought not to have been, but that peace was observed only where it was advantageous to the Persians. Before Rhodes came under the rule of Artemisia, it had, in conjunction with Chios and Byzantium, taken part in the Social war against Athens, from which we see that the Rhodians were anxious to throw off the dominion of the Athenians and to establish a maritime power of their own. There now rose among them the family of Mentor and Memnon, which acquired unprecedented influence at the court of Persia; they governed Rhodes nominally as satraps, but in point of fact, as sovereigns, as in the fifteenth century the Medici governed Florence. But they fell with the Persian empire. Both were Greeks, but barbarised in their sentiments and possessing all the passions of barbarians; they had, however, the advantage of Greek intelligence and culture. Memnon, especially, was a distinguished man, and his death alone rendered the success of Alexander’s undertaking possible, and but for this event, it would appear in history as foolhardiness: that which now appears as great and is considered as great, would be looked upon as foolish; Memnon would have cut off Alexander’s return from Persia, and his fate would have been like that of Charles XII. in the Ukraine; nay Memnon would have attacked him in Macedonia and overthrown his power in Greece. I will not decide as to whether this would have been better for the Greeks. After Memnon’s death, Rhodes also submitted to the Macedonians, and it would seem that a republican party there was anxious to bring about this connection with Macedonia. Rhodes now openly showed itself to be what it really was, viz., the connecting link between Europe and Asia, for Tyre was destroyed and Alexandria had not yet risen to greatness. The commerce between the two continents was thus established at Rhodes, which became great soon after Alexander’s death, twenty-eight years after that of Memnon (Olymp. 119). Its siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes is the grandest thing in ancient history: it is as bold as it is distressing and elevating. The inhabitants of a single little island, or rather a small city, had the courage not to allow themselves to be intimidated by the ruler of Asia Minor and Syria, who poured his fleets and his armies upon them, and what is still more, employed against them all the strength of his talent; they resisted him so boldly and so gloriously, that he was obliged to grant them an honourable peace. Rhodes, however, suffered severely on that occasion, and the whole island was fearfully ravaged; but it soon recovered; and, owing to the great confidence which it inspired, and to the obligation which the Egyptian king Ptolemy incurred towards it, the island rose so much in the esteem and respect of all, that, comparatively speaking, it stood as high as Athens did after the Persian wars. From this time, Rhodes, notwithstanding the general confusion, became powerful and respected, not through good fortune, but through the industry and exertions of its inhabitants. It was they who destroyed the Etruscan pirates, and their squadrons sailed as far as the Aegean, securing the freedom of navigation for the good of all Greece. As commerce increased more and more at Alexandria, and as Egypt was not a country fit for shipbuilding, the Rhodians became the freighters for the greater part of the ancient world. Such nations are universal benefactors, and all are concerned in the preservation of their navigation. This accounts for the fact, that at the time when Rhodes suffered from inundations and earthquakes, nations and princes vied with one another in helping and benefitting them. For the good luck which favoured Rhodes did not remain unmixed, for it had to sustain many serious calamities. The city was built in the form of a theatre, but in such a manner that towards the harbour it was protected by a lofty and strong wall. Once during the Macedonian period, when a heavy fall of rain had inundated nearly the whole city, the swollen streams poured down upon it, without finding an outlet into the sea, until in the end they fortunately threw down the mighty wall, and thus ran off. This is one of the most fearful events in Greek history, and was the consequence of an earthquake. The earthquakes by which Rhodes has been visited have been terrible. About the end of Olymp. 138, or at the beginning of Olymp. 139, in the reign of Euergetes, it was almost wholly destroyed by an earthquake, during which the Colossus was overthrown, which was never set up again. In the time of Antoninus Pius, the city was visited by the earthquake, which reduced nearly all the towns on the Asiatic coast to heaps of ruins, and in which Rhodes lost its last splendour, its whole fleet, its arsenals, its trophies and monuments: on that occasion it was thoroughly destroyed. It was then, of course, not restored to what it had been; its navigation henceforth was insignificant, and agriculture formed the principal occupation of its inhabitants.

Rhodes preserved not only its political independence, but also its great importance throughout the Macedonian period. At the time when all the other Greek states were quite servile, and got on only by manoeuvring, the Rhodians stood forth as a princely people, whose friendship was courted by kings, and whose enmity was dreaded. While their state was in this illustrious position, they formed connections with the Romans; they seem to have entered into friendly relations with them as early as the fifth century, not long after Alexander’s death, probably on the occasion of their proceedings against the Etruscan pirates, because both nations aimed at the same objects, but the Rhodians—and this is a proof of their great prudence—never concluded a formal treaty with the Romans; their fleet co-operated with that of Rome, but they undertook no obligations. Their assistance in the war against Antiochus was liberally rewarded by the Romans who gave them Caria and Lycia. But the Romans afterwards harboured ill-feelings towards them, because in their relations with Rome they shewed a spirit of independence and no servility; hence in the war against Perseus the Romans tried to interpret every step taken by them as hostile towards themselves. The Rhodians, it is true, did not wish for the downfall of Perseus, they no doubt wanted to have an equipoise in those parts against the Romans, and some men of influence may have secretly espoused the cause of Perseus; the Romans, moreover, had even before that time taken back a part of the presents they had made to them; they had hurt their feelings and so much offended them, that the Rhodians believed the Romans to be hostile towards them; but they never really did anything that could be laid to their charge. After the fall of Perseus, many Romans were impatient to destroy Rhodes; but Cato, though otherwise not favourably disposed towards the Greeks, was actuated by such respect for their conduct, that he exerted his whole influence with the senate to save them. They retained their independence, but became allies of Rome and lost their subjects; still, however, they shewed prudence, they were free, and had no Roman commander over them. Eighty years later, the Mithridatic war afforded the Romans an opportunity of congratulating themselves for having followed the advice of Cato; for the Rhodians held out faithfully and heroically against Mithridates, and did not allow themselves to be prevailed upon by the Thessalians to enter into an alliance with the king. For this the Romans again rewarded them with territories. After the murder of Caesar, Cassius who was unworthy to be the associate of Brutus, took possession of the town of Rhodes, and treated it very harshly and cruelly. The Rhodians, however, continued to enjoy their freedom and the esteem of the nations until the time of Antoninus Pius. At this period we find, from a speech of Aelius Aristides, that they possessed autonomy, and criminal jurisdiction, and the neighbouring islands as well as the Caunians on the continent recognised as subjects their supremacy. Aristides, in order to cheer them after the terrible earthquake, reminds them of the beautiful story of a Rhodian sailor whose ship perished in a storm, but who clung to the helm to the last, and sunk with the words: “I call upon thee, Poseidon, as my witness, that the ship went down standing upright.”

The arts and literature also were cherished at Rhodes, though in the earlier times there are not many Rhodian names that can be called great. Cleobulus of Lindos is mentioned as one of the seven sages. But Apollonius is a poet who certainly ought not to be despised; we read his work with pleasure and can learn much from it, though he cannot be compared with Callimachus who lived before him. The wealth of the Rhodians and their taste for the beautiful and magnificent gave great encouragement to the arts. When oratory had died away at Athens, and all vital energy had withdrawn from that city, it took refuge in Rhodes; it had indeed already assumed the character of old age, but still at a time when in Greece proper no good speech was heard, when in the towns of Mysia and Caria literature had degenerated into mere bombast, a _sanum loquendi genus_ was preserved in Rhodes, which is no small praise, though the _sanum_ was sometimes a _siccum_.

The constitution of Rhodes is difficult to make out. The part of Cicero’s work, “De Re Publica,” where he spoke of it, is wanting, so that we can form only conjectures; but it would lead me too far to explain them here. Certain it is, that Rhodes, by the peculiarity of its institutions, was so far democratic, that all its citizens took an active part in the administration, and a large number of them in the council. The manner in which this was done is the obscure point. The magistrates, as Polybius says, had very great powers, both the _strategi_ and the _nauarchi_. There existed an _arcanum imperii_, of which the Athenian constitution knows nothing, and to which the Roman state alone presents something analogous: in certain circumstances the nauarchus had the power to conclude treaties, which, however, it would seem were valid only during his term of office, the state not being bound by them for the future. This arose from the fact of the Rhodian fleet being generally very far away from home. Owing to this peculiarity of the constitution, things required by the force of circumstances might be done even contrary to the letter of the law. The republic contrived to make excellent use of this expedient, whenever it wished to enter into a relation without making it permanent. The nauarchus was a kind of plenipotentiary representative of Rhodes with foreign nations.

The language of the Rhodians was Doric. Cicero went to Rhodes to cultivate his intellect, and under the first Roman emperors the young Roman nobles very frequently resorted to Rhodes as they had formerly done to Athens.

According to the Homeric Catalogue the Rhodians dwelt τριχθὰ καταφυλαδόν. When at a later time the phylae appear in the city, they occupy different districts. The Dorians, to whom the division into three was natural, were also in possession of the opposite mainland. This division was the reason why they did not attach to themselves places which were situated at some distance, such as Phaselis. Halicarnassus, Cos, and Cnidos formed the second Dorian triad by the side of the Rhodian.

Among these three places, HALICARNASSUS is particularly interesting to us as the birth-place of Herodotus. It is strange, however, that he wrote his work in the Ionic dialect, and that, too, in such perfection. Although Halicarnassus was excluded by the Dorians, it lost nothing of its prosperity, nor of its peculiarly Greek character. It was deprived of its freedom like the other Greek towns on the coast of Asia Minor, but it is doubtful whether after the expedition of Xerxes it recovered it, or whether it remained in perpetual dependence upon Persia. Certain it is, that it was the seat of the Carian dynasty, which established itself there, and attached itself to Persia: it was the residence of Mausolus, and afterwards of his widow Artemisia, who there built the famous mausoleum to him. But this Carian family did not introduce barbarous customs at Halicarnassus; for its members spoke Greek, received a Greek education, and had a taste for the beauties of Greek art. But the misfortune was, that through its splendour the city became too large and too influential; it was strongly fortified, thoroughly devoted to the interests of Persia, and one of the chief stations of the Persian forces; for which reason it offered an obstinate defence during the siege of Alexander, who ravaged it in such a manner that it never recovered from the blow, but ever after remained an insignificant place. This defence of Halicarnassus was very brilliant, for there still existed men inspired with a love of freedom, and actively opposed to the dominion of Macedonia. Ephialtes, the friend of Demosthenes, who everywhere tried to thwart Alexander, there fought against him and was killed.

CNIDOS was situated on a peninsula which was wholly occupied by the town; the Cnidians once strangely wished to cut through the isthmus which connected it with the main land. The Aphrodite of Praxiteles shed a peculiar lustre over the place, and attracted many strangers, but was afterwards carried away by the Romans.

COS is the third Dorian place in Asia Minor; it was at once a town and an island, and possessed a considerable navy down to the time of the Romans, though it was not to be compared with that of the Rhodians. In the earlier times it was allied with Rhodes, and remained for a long time in a state of independence. It contained a celebrated temple of Asclepius and the family of the Asclepiadae, who regarded Asclepius as their ancestor.

Rhodes and the opposite continent accordingly had together six Dorian towns, as there were six feudal principalities in Peloponnesus. Let us now pass on from Doris to

IONIA.

According to the universal tradition of the Greeks, Ionia was a δωδεκάπολις, established by Neleus and Androclus, the sons of Codrus, who, after their father’s death, when the royal dignity ceased, emigrated from Athens to Asia Minor. These Ionians, on their arrival, found the coast occupied partly by Carians and partly by Meonians, while Chios and Samos were inhabited by Pelasgians. We must not conceive these colonies as purely Greek in their origin in the same manner as the inhabitants of the states of North America are purely English and German. Herodotus himself says, that four dialects were spoken among the Ionians, and, what is very important, that the Ionians did not go across with their wives and children, but as soldiers; that they conquered the country, and married the captive women, as the Spaniards did in what were afterwards the Spanish colonies of America. But as the Greeks, Carians, and Meonians, although differing from one another, still belonged to the same race, their mixture was no longer discernible in the features and forms of the body of their descendants, and thus the New-Ionians could not be distinguished from the ancient and original ones. The ancient population had not withdrawn as in the states of North America, but remained in the country as subjects. Such was the case especially in Chios: there is an ancient story according to which slavery took its origin in that island; and this is quite natural, for the old Ionians established themselves there, and the ancient inhabitants not being able to get out of the island, were reduced by the new settlers to a state of servitude; and for this reason a completely aristocratic constitution was developed: the towns were the rulers, and the rural population were their subjects. The same may be supposed to have been the case in other islands as well as on the continent. But whether on this account servitude was more ancient there, than, for example, the _penestia_ in Thessaly, cannot be decided.

The division into twelve states here likewise suggests the existence of some regulating power, which, however, cannot be historically demonstrated, and in regard to which we must be on our guard against mere fancies. We know from Herodotus, that in the earliest times the Ionians had kings. The country appears to us remarkable for its misfortunes at an earlier period than any other Greek state, if we except Messene; and this misfortune arose from the extension of the Lydians, a conquering nation from the interior of Asia Minor. This people, conjointly with the Mysians and Carians, expelled the Meonians, for this must be understood when we read that the dynasty of the Mermnadae (that of Gyges) supplanted that of the Heracleidae (that of Candaules). When these Lydians immigrated with the fresh power of conquerors, they subdued the Ionian cities; first (Olymp. 25) Colophon, which, according to unequivocal indications, was at that time the capital of Ionia. In regard to the greatness of Colophon, the Greek authors, whose works have come down to us, contain only vague traditions; but allusion to it is made in the newly discovered fragments from the beginning of the Margites and in the Paroemiographi (Κολοφῶνα ἐπιθεῖναι); the city is said to have been so powerful, that upon its decision everything depended. It was not indeed destroyed by the Lydians, but reduced to a place of no importance. One of the obscure statements is, that about the beginning of the Olympiads, Colophon carried on an obstinate war against Erythrae.

Ionia does not form a compact country, it is only a strip of land, and whatever, therefore, is to be said about its chorography, refers also to the neighbouring countries, especially Lydia.

The MAEANDER discharges itself into the sea in the south, near Miletus; it is a very muddy river like all others in Ionia, and hence it alone has filled up the whole bay of Miletus, which was several miles in breadth, but the cleaning out of which has been neglected for thousands of years. Accordingly the island of Lade, which Herodotus mentions there, is now only a hill rising in the midst of marshy meadows. Such is the nature of all the rivers of that coast, and the most beautiful countries have thereby been changed into pestilential swamps. In the north, a range of mountains, extending from mount Taurus to the coast opposite to Chios, forms the peninsula on which the towns of Clazomenae and Erythrae are situated. Chios itself is a continuation of those mountains, separated from the rest by the sea. What Herodotus says of the nature of Ionia, holds good also of the greater part of Aeolis: it is the pearl of creation. The present marshes, which have been formed by the deposits of the rivers in consequence of the neglect of barbarous ages, form the only exceptions. Nowhere in all the world is the splendour of a southern climate more thoroughly felt than there; nowhere are the seasons so healthy, and yet the country suffers neither from excessive heat nor drought; and nowhere are fruits, such as grapes, figs, and pomegranates, produced in such perfection. The Scirocco is unknown there (though it exists in Rhodes), but the mildest west winds prevail, and the south winds are not in the least injurious, while at Rome they are very much so. Hence we cannot wonder, that, during the period of the weakness of the states in western Asia, Ionia attained to such prosperity and greatness.

While Colophon is important to us only in legendary history, MILETUS is the most illustrious city on the Ionian coast during the period of accredited history. It was itself a great place, and also founded a great number of colonies, which are said to have amounted to eighty. As the maritime states of Greece in their colonisation, as it were, divided the different seas among each other, so that Corinth chose the Adriatic, Chalcis and Eretria the seas about Sicily, and Athens the Hellespont, so we find the Milesians in the Euxine sea. There they founded Cyzicus, from which they exercised their power over the greater part of the Propontis; they then established themselves on all the coasts of the Euxine, and thereby opened to themselves inexhaustible sources of wealth. The commerce in those parts was certainly the most lucrative, and must have yielded them immense riches. The Doric town of Byzantium might have shut them out from the sea, but the Milesians had already become too powerful through their colonies. The large rivers and the shallow sea yielded them the fish which are so necessary for a Greek, and they also were the means of conveying the supplies of corn from the Crimea, the Ukraine, and the Dnieper, that is, from the country which now contains the great corn-market of Odessa. But the inhabitants of those coasts not only sold their own products, but purchased Greek merchandise with native gold from the country of the Arimaspae, where at present gold mines are again worked,—a fact which corroborates the tradition in Herodotus. They took in exchange wine, Greek woollen cloth, Egyptian linen, Persian robes, and many other costly things. Owing to this double commerce, Miletus was wealthy and great during the time of the Lydian kings, and remained so during the first period of the Persian dominion. Then it was plunged into the deepest misery by misfortunes which succeeded one another in rapid succession. Miletus had been obliged to submit to the Lydian kings, but their rule seems to have been limited to the exacting of tribute, and not to have disturbed its autonomy—a relation like that in which Ragusa stood to the Turkish empire, to which it paid tribute, though otherwise it enjoyed many advantages and privileges. This was the period of the greatest prosperity of Miletus. It submitted to the Persians without vehement opposition. Afterwards Aristagoras allowed himself to be tempted by Histiaeus to induce Miletus to rise against the overwhelming power of Persia. This insurrection was commenced without deliberation, and carried out without a well digested design and without character: the city was taken, and its inhabitants carried into Persia as slaves. This event was the subject of the historical drama (Μιλήτου ἅλωσις) of Phrynichus. Afterwards the city was again taken by Alexander, and thenceforth remained an insignificant place; its harbour may have been filled up at an early period.

Miletus was the original home of the Ionian philosophy: Thales, Anaximenes, and Anaximander were born there; it was also the native city of Arctinus, the greatest among the cyclic poets. During the Roman period it is often mentioned on account of the woollen cloths which were manufactured there; when Strabo wrote, it still existed indeed, but as a place of no importance at all.

In its neighbourhood, and within the boundaries of ancient Caria, were situated the two towns of MYUS and PRIENE, the latter of which is known as the birth-place of Bias, who wisely advised the Ionians to unite into one state, that they might be able to resist the barbarians.

The promontory of MYCALE is in the neighbourhood of Priene, opposite to Samos; it is a branch proceeding from mount Taurus. There the Athenians, under Xanthippus, gained a victory over the Phoenician fleet of the Persians, on the same day on which the battle of Plataeae was won; whereby the independence of the Greeks, and especially of their Asiatic colonies, was established.

SAMOS is great in history, and, like Miletus, was for a time mistress of the sea, but its greatness passed away early and quickly. Pythagoras, according to tradition, was a Samian, though little reliance can be placed upon it: Creophilus, the poet of the Οἰχαλίας ἅλωσις, too, is called a Samian, and tradition describes him as a son-in-law of Homer. The island was particularly celebrated at the time of Polycrates, who ruled far and wide over the sea and the islands. After him his brother Syloson attempted with a Persian army to conquer the island: the expedition inflicted the first blow upon it, for the Persians carried off a large number of its inhabitants as slaves. Samos then became connected with Athens, but shortly before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war it rose against the supremacy of Athens, and being re-conquered after a siege of ten months was severely chastised, and a portion of the island became subject to Athens. During the latter period of the Peloponnesian war, Samos was the head quarters of the Athenian fleet in that part of the sea, and the scene of fearful disturbances caused by the aristocratic or Spartan party as well as by the democratic or Athenian. Although weakened, the Samians afterwards took part in the social war of Rhodes, Chios, Cos, and Byzantium against Athens. I have not been able to make out anything about the part which Samos took in that war, except that the island was conquered and received cleruchi (Olymp. 108); it was a lucrative possession to the Athenians, and therefore of importance to them. After the battle of Chaeronea, Philip left them in the possession of Samos, that they might not be driven to extremes and throw themselves into the arms of Persia, the affairs of which were then managed by the brave Memnon. But after the Lamian war the island was taken from them, and restored to the Samians. Under Ptolemy Philadelphus and Euergetes, a division of the Egyptian fleet was stationed near Samos. The most interesting object in the island was the Heraeon, the temple of Hera, which was rich in the finest works of art, such as statues by Myron, Polycletus, and Praxiteles.

The island of Samos is very fertile, and was celebrated as such in antiquity. It is strange that the wine of Samos was thought bad by the ancients, for it is now valued very highly; no person from our northern countries would consider the wine of Chios bad either.

The nearest city on the coast was EPHESUS, in antiquity celebrated for its temple of Artemis, as Samos was for that of Hera. During the great period of Grecian history, it is mentioned as a distinguished city, and in the early times it was rich in great men: it was the native place of the philosopher Heraclitus, the iambic poet Hipponax, and of Apelles and Parrhasius. But notwithstanding its famous temple of Artemis, Ephesus was not of great political importance: it was situated on the Caÿstrus, which is very muddy, and has now changed the whole district into a pestilential marsh. Attalus of Pergamus was well disposed towards the city, and caused a pier to be built there, making the entrance of the harbour quite wide, while towards the interior, it grew narrower and narrower, in order that the current might become stronger; but his plan was ill calculated, for the current became weaker, and the harbour was more and more filled with mud, and only a roadstead remained. Ephesus was situated in three different places: the most ancient town is almost mythical; the second, near the temple, existed until the time of the successors of Alexander; and the third, lastly, which was built by Lysimachus close to the sea, was at a considerable distance from the temple, and the inhabitants of the old town were forced to remove to it. This New-Ephesus was for a long time the capital of Ionia, and was increasing even as late as the time of Augustus and Tiberius; it was an emporium for the whole country far and wide, though it had no longer a harbour. It was commonly the residence of the Roman governor. The origin of Ephesus, like that of most of the Ionian towns, is mythical. Artemis is a genuine Greek goddess, but her temple at Ephesus was specially revered by the Persians, as eastern nations often shewed a partiality towards foreign religions: they altered the ceremonial of the temple, and the employment of eunuchs in its service is of Persian origin. The temple was also known as an asylum: whoever in times of danger wished to protect his property, might deposit it, as we learn from Xenophon’s Anabasis,[73] in the treasury of the temple of Ephesus, whence he might afterwards take it back without loss. This sanctity of the temple also continued, after its restoration, during the Macedonian period and under the Romans. In the time of the Macedonian dominion, the city was one of high rank. When, under Ptolemy Euergetes, the coasts of Ionia and Thrace were in the possession of the Egyptians, the Egyptian governor had his seat at Ephesus. Antiochus Theos and Antiochus the Great also resided there, whence we must infer that the city contained a palace. John the Evangelist lived and died there.

In the neighbourhood of Ephesus, there were several small towns, one of which was LEBEDOS, which, in the time of Horace, was quite desolate, and more deserted than Gabii and Fidenae, for its inhabitants had been driven by Lysimachus to Ephesus, when he rebuilt that city: still, however, Horace wished to be able to spend his whole life there.

TEOS was the native place of Anacreon, and in other respects, too, of comparative importance, as it sent out colonies, such as Abdera. It was situated upon the isthmus.

COLOPHON was situated between Ephesus and Lebedos. I have already spoken of its ancient greatness. We there meet with the incomparable poet Mimnermus, the loss of whose productions is to us the most deplorable in ancient literature, and who composed his splendid poetry at a time when the rest of Greece was still slumbering. Thucydides, and Aristotle in his politics, mention _Notion_ as the port of Colophon. This place owed its origin to a feud among the citizens of Colophon, in which the democratic party seceded and settled on the sea-coast. At the time of the Peloponnesian war, an implacable enmity existed between the two.

ERYTHRAE on the gulf of Chios, which separates this island from the continent, was in ancient times the seat of a Sibyl. At an early period it carried on protracted wars with Colophon, which shows that it must have been a powerful state.

CLAZOMENAE was situated on an island,[74] whence in the peace of Antalcidas it became independent of Persia. Otherwise it is of no political importance, nor did it found any colonies. It was the birth-place of Anaxagoras.

PHOCAEA was very far removed from the other towns, Smyrna being situated between them, though the latter did not become an Ionian city until a later period. Phocaea refused to submit to Cyrus, and was, therefore, besieged and finally taken by his general Harpagus. Its inhabitants, however, had escaped to their ships; a great number of them wished to emigrate, but some returned to Phocaea and submitted to the Persians, while others founded Elea in Oenotria. Before this time, the Phocaeans were among the boldest navigators; they visited more especially the coasts of the western seas, Baetica, Tartessus, and the south of Gaul. In the latter country they founded Massilia, which afterwards established other colonies partly by itself, and partly in conjunction with the Phocaeans. The foundation of Massilia has sometimes, but unjustly been connected with the emigration in the time of Cyrus. Phocaea recovered to some extent, and continued to exist down to the middle ages, for it was situated in a fertile territory; but its navigation passed into the hands of the Smyrnaeans.