Chapter XXVII: Appendix: IV. History of the Greek Congress or Synedrion During the Persian (1)

WAR.

1. In the present article it will be my object to trace the foreign influence which Sparta possessed at the time of the Persian war, and for what length of time her supremacy in Greece remained uncontested and unshaken. This is chiefly seen in the proceedings of the congress of the allied Greek states: to ascertain which with precision, it will be first necessary to fix the chronology of the successive stages of the Persian war.

In the course of the year 481 B.C. (Olymp. 74. 3/4) Xerxes set out from his residence at Susa (Herod. VII. 20), found the great army assembled in Cappadocia, and marched to Sardis, from which town he sent ambassadors to the Greek cities (ib. 32). Having wintered here, the army marched in the spring of 480 B.C. (Olymp. 74. 4) to Abydos;(2157) when it had reached the passes of Pieria, the Persian envoys returned (ib. 131). Soon after this they met at Thermopylæ the Greek forces, which had set out before the 75th Olympiad and the Carnean games, about June 480 B.C. Battles of Thermopylæ and Artemisium in μέσον θέρος (VIII. 12.) both perhaps a short time before the Olympic festival (VIII. 26). Conquest of Attica, four months after the beginning of the διάβασις τοῦ Ἑλλησπόντου (VIII. 51). Battle of Salamis, a little after the time of the Ιακχος, after the εἰκὰς of Boëdromion Olymp. 75. 1., as the Etesian winds were either blowing or had ceased to blow (they last from the summer solstice to the rising of the dog-star), VII. 168. Mardonius winters in Thessaly and Macedonia, the Persian fleet at Cume and Samos. Battle of Platæa on the 26th or 27th of Panemus (Metagitnion), Olymp. 75. 2. 479 B.C. at the same time as that of Mycale. The year ends with the taking of Sestos.

2. The Greeks certainly received early intelligence of the preparations in Persia (VII. 138), even if the story related by Herodotus (VII. 239.) about the secret message of Demaratus is not true. They either refused or gave earth and water to the envoys late in the year 481 B.C. (VII. 138.). The states which refused to submit held a congress;(2158) and they are now called by Herodotus, “the Greeks allied against the Persians,” (οἱ συνωμόται Ἑλλήνων ἐπὶ τῷ Πέρσῃ, VII. 148.). This assembly of course was formed by deputies from the different cities: the manner of its formation may be inferred from the place at which it sat; and it will be shown presently that it first assembled at Corinth, which city belonged to the Peloponnesian confederacy. It appears therefore that Sparta must have convened an assembly at Corinth, to which the extra-Peloponnesian states, which had refused earth and water, sent envoys. This congress first put an end to the internal dissensions of Greece (VII. 145.), in which good service Chileus of Tegea and Themistocles are said to have earned the gratitude of their countrymen (Plutarch Themist. 6.). Secondly, when they heard that Xerxes was at Sardis, they despatched spies thither, and at the same time envoys to Argos, Sicily, Corcyra, and Crete. (VII. 145. 199.) The envoys are stated by Herodotus to have been sent by the Lacedæmonians and their allies.(2159) They also made a vow to decimate to the Delphian God all those Greeks who had unnecessarily given earth and water to the Persians (VII. 132.); the persons who made this vow are called by Diodorus XI. 3. “the Greeks assembled in congress at the Isthmus,” οἱ ἐν Ἰσθμῷ συνεδρεύοντες τῶν Ἑλλήνων.

3. In this narrative taken from Herodotus there still remains one contradiction, viz., that if the Greeks did not assemble till after they had refused earth and water (as appears from VII. 138. cf. 145.), the Argives had no longer any option whether they would join the league or not. Likewise the dismission of the Greek envoys would fall too late in the unfavourable season for sailing, and there would scarcely be time for the messages to the oracles (c. 148, 169.), and the other proceedings. It is therefore probable that this congress was formed _before_ the arrival of the Persian envoys, which was late in 481 B.C.: and Diodorus seems to be correct in stating that of the nations some gave earth and water, while the Persian army was in the valley of Tempe, and others after its departure (XI. 3.); and therefore none till early in 480 B.C.: previously the ambassadors were probably in the north; Herodotus in VII. 138. appears to mean only the ambassadors of Darius. With this the following statements agree, which he adds in VII. 172. “_As soon as_ the Thessalians had heard that the Persians wished to invade Europe”—which they must have known in the winter of 481-80 B.C.—“they sent envoys to the Isthmus.” Ἐν δὲ τῷ Ἰσθμῷ (_i.e._, in the village which had grown up about the temple of Neptune), ἔσαν ἁλισμένοι πρόβουλοι (plenipotentiaries, VI. 7.) τῆς Ἑλλάδος, ἀραιρημένοι ἀπὸ τῶν πολίων τῶν τὰ ἀμείνω φρονεουσέων περὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα. Now this assembly, while the Persian king was at Abydos, and therefore very early in 480 B.C., sent the army to Tempe, which soon returned (VII. 173.), and indeed returned to the Isthmus, which must therefore have been the head-quarters of the allied army. When it returned, the congress was still sitting at the Isthmus.(2160) This synedrion or assembly (which is again mentioned in this place by Diodorus XI. 4.) now resolved to defend the passes of Thermopylæ and Artemisium: and when the intelligence arrived that the Persians were in Pieria, διαλυθέντες ἐκ τοῦ Ἰσθμοῦ (_i.e._, departing from the Isthmus) ἐστρατεύοντο αὐτῶν οἱ μὲν ἐς Θερμοπύλας πεζῇ, ἄλλοι δὲ κατὰ θάλασσαν ἐπ᾽ Ἀρτεμίσιον. But that the Isthmus was still the place in which the congress sat, is evident from the fact, that Sandoces, Aridolis, and Penthylus, who fell into the hands of the Greeks before the battle of Artemisium, were sent thither (VII. 195.). At this time indeed the Peloponnesians were celebrating the Olympiad, and the Spartans the Carnea, at their respective homes,(2161) after which, as had been previously arranged, they were to take the field with all their forces (πανδημεὶ, VII. 206. VIII. 26.). Nevertheless, the decree that the ships which came too late for Artemisium should assemble in the Trœzenian Pogon (VIII. 42.), as well as the other, that the Isthmus should be fortified (VIII. 40, 71.), which measure was not thought of before the battle of Thermopylæ, must have been passed in this interval. Diodorus (XI. 16.) mentions the synedrion in connexion with this decree. The fortification began after the Carnea (VIII. 72.). The fleet was commanded (as is evident from VIII. 2, 9, 56, 58, 74, 108, 111. IX. 90.) by the Spartan admiral and a council, a συνέδριον of the στρατηγοὶ or ἐν τέλει ὄντες (IX. 106.), in which the admiral τὸν λόγον προετίθει (VIII. 59.) put the question to the vote (ἐπεψήφιζε, c. 61.), and gave out the decree. This commander was armed with very large powers, and Leotychidas concluded an alliance with the Samians (IX. 92.), and even the captains of the fleet debated on the projected migration of the Ionians (IX. 106.). Nor is it ever mentioned that the fleet received orders from the Isthmus. But the circumstance of the fleet’s sailing to the Isthmus, after the battle of Salamis, for the decree on the ἀριστεῖα (VIII. 123.), is a proof that the Isthmus was still the seat of the confederate assembly. Diodorus likewise represents this decree as proceeding from the συνέδριον (XI. 55.); probably the “Greeks,” who refused to confirm the vote of the commanders (VIII. 124.), were the members of the league. The ships which had been engaged in the battle returned home without any decision. Late in the year, after the eclipse of the sun on the 2nd of October, Cleombrotus had led the great allied army from the Isthmus, and soon afterwards died (IX. 10.). The decree for the following year, that the fleet should go to Ægina (VIII. 131.), may have proceeded either from the synedrium of the preceding year, or from _Sparta_. For that there were no longer any deputies assembled at Corinth is evident from the circumstance that the Ionian envoys only went to Sparta and Ægina (VIII. 132.); nor is the Isthmus afterwards mentioned as the seat of an assembly, although it was fortified until the middle of summer, till the time of the Hyacinthia (IX. 7.). After this time, Athens, Platæa, and Megara sent their envoys to Sparta, where there were also Peloponnesian envoys, as for instance Chileus of Tegea (IX. 9.), who was mentioned above among the πρόβουλοι; and all these, together with the ambassadors of the three states just mentioned, are, as it appears, called by Herodotus οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἀπιγμένοι ἀπὸ τῶν πολίων, IX. 10. There must probably have been some joint act of the allies,(2162) by virtue of which Pausanias was able to collect the great Peloponnesian army. After the battle of Platæa there was in the army a kind of council of war, doubtless a συνέδριον τῶν ἐν τέλει ὄντων, which regulated the number of the sacred offerings, divided the booty (IX. 81, 85.), and determined on the expedition against Thebes (c. 86.): the persons who were given up, Pausanias seems at Corinth to have ordered to execution on his own authority (c. 88.).

4. Such is the substance of the narrative of Herodotus; in which we can only be surprised, that of the most remarkable event, viz., the treaty of Pausanias, he should say not a word: a silence which can only be explained by supposing that he had intended to mention it in another passage of his unfinished work. When Pausanias, with the assistance of the allies, had won the battle of Platæa, he sacrificed in the market-place of Platæa to Zeus Eleutherius, and convened an assembly of all the Greeks, in which the Platæans (who annually performed certain honorary rites to those who had fallen in the battle, Thuc. III. 58.) were promised that their country and city should remain independent, and that no one should attack them without lawful reason, or with intention to reduce them to subjection: and that, in case these conditions were not observed, all the allies then present would protect them (Thuc. VI. 71. cf. III. 56, 59.); an engagement which the Spartans themselves afterwards broke, on the ground that the Platæans had first unjustly given up τὸ ξυνώμοτον (II. 74.). For in “the ancient treaty of Pausanias after the Persian war,” it was ordered that the allies in general, and the Platæans among them, should remain at peace with each other (Thuc. III. 68. cf. II. 72.). The further conditions of this treaty may be collected from Thucyd. I. 67, (for it is evidently this treaty which is in question,) where the Æginetans complain that they are not independent, “according to the treaty;” for the thirty years’ truce (I. 115.) cannot be meant, as it was not concluded till after the subjection of Ægina (the former in Olymp. 83. 3. the latter in Olymp. 80. 4.); whence it is likewise evident that the treaty, which was violated by the siege of Potidæa, and the exclusion of the Megarians from the market of Attica, (I. 67, 87. cf. c. 144.) was the same ancient act, only renewed by later treaties. Thus Plutarch states that the latter prohibition was “contrary to the common principles of justice, and the solemn oaths of _the Greeks_.”(2163) And in another place he mentions that, in a general assembly of the Greeks after the battle of Platæa, Aristides proposed a decree that the Greeks should annually send deputies and sacred messengers to Platæa, and that the Eleutheria should be solemnised every five years.(2164) Also, that it was agreed that an allied Greek armament should be organised against the Persians, consisting of 10,000 heavy-armed infantry, 1000 cavalry, and 100 ships: and that the Platæans should be considered sacred and inviolable. From what has been stated above, it is clear how much of this account is true, and how much added by Athenian partiality.

5. In the following years, when Sparta still continued the war against the Persians and their allies by means of Pausanias and Leotychidas, there must have been a congress, though not constantly sitting; since the Spartans would not have determined the amount of “the war contribution”(2165) on their own authority; and there is much probability in the account of Diodorus (XI. 55.), that the Spartans summoned Themistocles for his share in the treason of Pausanias before the common-council of the Greeks, which used at this time to assemble at Sparta. At least it is not contradicted by Thucydides; indeed his narrative (I. 135.) perfectly agrees in this point with that of Diodorus. The words ἐν τῇ Σπάρτῃ, which are omitted in some MSS. of Diodorus, and suspected by Wesseling (yet, it should be observed, _only_ these words), cannot be well spared; and, even if they were expunged, the whole chapter would show that the congress was sitting at Sparta; for it was evidently under Lacedæmonian influence, and therefore met in the Peloponnese; and, since the instance mentioned above, it does not appear that any of its meetings were held at the Isthmus.

This account likewise proves that, after Pausanias had occasioned the defection of the Ionians and Æolians from Sparta, who were now considered as the separate allies of Athens, a confederate council, which included other states besides the Peloponnesians, continued to sit at Sparta; and affords fresh grounds for supposing that this abandonment of the Spartan alliance was not considered as a transfer of the chief command to Athens, but that Sparta only intrusted the Athenians, together with those Greeks who dwelt in the territory of the Persian king, with the continuation of the war in Asia, and the management of all affairs connected with it; and still considered Athens as under her command, until that state revolted in Olymp. 79. At last the internal wars of Peloponnesus, Olymp. 79-81, subverted all the relations of Athens and Sparta.

End Of Vol. I.

[Transcriber’s Note: The following images are sections of the large map attached to the binding of the book. To allow it to be represented in this e-book, it has been divided into 16 sections. They are laid out in this manner:]

A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4

[Map section A1.]

Map section A1.

[Map section A2.]

Map section A2.

[Map section A3.]

Map section A3.

[Map section A4.]

Map section A4.

[Map section B1.]

Map section B1.

[Map section B2.]

Map section B2.

[Map section B3.]

Map section B3.

[Map section B4.]

Map section B4.

[Map section C1.]

Map section C1.

[Map section C2.]

Map section C2.

[Map section C3.]

Map section C3.

[Map section C4.]

Map section C4.

[Map section D1.]

Map section D1.

[Map section D2.]

Map section D2.

[Map section D3.]

Map section D3.

[Map section D4.]

Map section D4.

FOOTNOTES

1 The map of Northern Greece was not received until that of the
Peloponnese had been engraved; and being intended by the author for
circulation in Germany, as well as in England, the names are given
in Latin. This must serve as an apology for this want of uniformity
in the two maps.

2 See particularly Pouqueville’s list of Albanian words. Compare
Thunmann’s Geschichte der Europäischen Völker, p. 250. Concerning
the Illyrians, see App. 1, § 21, 28.

3 Strabo VII. p. 321 A.

4 Illyrian words in use among the Macedonians: σαυάδαι (_Sileni_) in
Macedonian, δευάδαι in Illyrian; δράμις, _bread_, in Macedonian,
δράμικης among the Athamanes. _Orchomenos_, p. 254. Compare
Hesychius in βατάρα. See the copious collection in Sturz de Dialecto
Macedonica.

5 As this expression is often used in the following pages, I take this
opportunity of stating, that by _an aboriginal people_, I mean one
which, as far as our knowledge extends, first dwelt in a country,
_before_ which we know of no other inhabitants of that country.

6 Justin, VII. 1. Compare Æsch. Suppl. 261.

7 Herod. I. 57. See _Orchomenos_, p. 444.

8 Compare, for example, δαίνειν _to kill_, δάνος _death_, with θανεῖν,
θάνατος; ἐέλδω (ἐέλδωρ in Homer) with ἐθέλω; ἀδραία for αἰδρία, in
which θ loses its aspiration, as φ does in κεφαλὴ (so in German
_haubet_ for _haupt_), ἀφροῦτις for ὀφρὺς (_brow_), Βίλιππος,
Βερενίκη, βαλακρὸς, &c. The aspirate is also frequently lost;
ἐνδομενία or ἐνδυμενία, _furniture_ (in Polybius), with a change of
υ and ο.

_ 9 E.g._ the nominatives ἵπποτα, &c., which are also called
Æolico-Bœotic, Doric, and Thessalian. Sturz _ut sup._ p. 28.

_ 10 E.g._ ζέρεθρα for βάραθρα.

_ 11 E.g._ ταγῶν ἀγὰ, _the leading of the Tagus_, as in Thessaly;
ματτύα, _dainties_, a Thessalian, Macedonian, and also Spartan word.

_ 12 E.g._ βίρροξ, _hirsutus_, _hirtus_; γάρκαν, _virgam_; ἴλεξ, _ilex_.
The want of aspirates also forms a point of comparison.

13 Apollodorus, III. 8, 1.

14 Ap. Constant. Porph. de Themat. II. 2, p. 1453. Sturz Hellan. Fragm.
p. 79. The passage of Hesiod is probably from the Ἠοῖαι, and there
is no reason for supposing it spurious. The second verse should be
read, υἶε δύω Μάγνητα Μάκεδνόν θ᾽ ἱππιοχάρμην.

15 Concerning the Macedonians, see Appendix I.

16 I allude here particularly to the ending of the genitive case of the
second declension in οιο, which the grammarians quote as Thessalian.

17 See Appendix I. § 28. The ancient Macedonian coins represent
precisely the same dress as the Thessalian.

18 Compare Θετταλικὰ πτερὰ in several grammarians, with Didymus in
Ammonius in χλαμύς. More will be found on this subject in book IV.
c. 2, § 4.

19 Compare Theocritus XII. 14, with Alcman quoted in the Scholia, and
b. IV. c. 4, § 6.

20 Hesychius in δεσποίνας. See book IV. c. 4, § 4.

21 According to Ælian, V. H. III. 15, the women of Illyria were present
at banquets and wine-parties; Herod. V. 18, says the contrary of the
Macedonians.

22 Strabo, V. p. 221.

23 See particularly Stephan. Byzant. in Ἔφυρα.

24 Alexander Ephesius ap. Stephan. Byz. in Χαονία.

25 Niebuhr’s Roman History, vol. i. p. 46, ed. 2, English tr. Hence
many names were the same in both countries; as, _e.g._, Pandosia
(Justin, XII. 2), Acheron, Acherontia, &c.

26 Herodotus also says, that the Ionians and Æolians had formerly been
Pelasgians, having, as it were, swallowed up that nation; he must
however assume that they changed their language (μετέμαθον τὴν
γλῶσσαν), as the language of the Pelasgi who dwelt near Creston and
Placia (which was probably nothing more than an ancient dialect)
appeared to him barbarous. Æschylus (Suppl. 911) opposes them, as
genuine Greeks, to the καρβανοι, or barbarians.

27 Thus, _e.g._, the Amphilochians and Chaonians, according to Thucyd.
II. 68, 80. The following ancient Greek forms occur in the Epirot
dialect: γδοῦποσ for δοῦποσ (Maittaire, p. 141), γνώσκω, nosco,
Orion p. 42, 17. Ἄσπετος Achilles, Plut. Pyrrh. 1. (α-ἕπομαι.)—The
account in Strabo VII. p. 327, of two languages being spoken in some
districts, doubtless refers to the coexistence of Grecian and
Illyrian dialects.

28 Polyb. XVII. 5, 8.

_ 29 Orchomenos_, p. 253.

30 According to Hesychius, Βρέκυς (Βερεκύντιος) is the same word as
Βρύξ. _Bruges_ was also used by Ennius, and, as it appears, by
Marcus Brutus (Plutarch, Brut. 45).

31 See the Chrestomathia of Proclus. _Briges_, or _Phryges_, in the
region of Dyrrachium, Appian, Bell. Civ. II., 39.

32 Creuzer Fragment. Histor. p. 171. Strabo XIV. p. 680. Compare Conon
in Photius I.

33 Concerning this point, see Hoeck’s History of Crete, vol. I. p. 109,
sqq.

34 According to the opinion of their colonists, Herod. VII. 73. Eudoxus
ap. Steph. in Ἀρμενία. Compare Heeren _De Linguarum Asiaticarum in
Persarum Imperio Cognatione_, Comment. Gotting. vol. XIII.

35 The Armenians frequently occur in the ancient traditional history of
the oriental kingdoms; _e.g._, in Diod. II. 1 as conquered by Ninus.
They are likewise represented as the original inhabitants in the
native legends collected by Moses of Chorene.

36 Plato, Cratyl. p. 410 A. It is remarkable that these words are also
in the German language. Πῦρ (see Grimm’s Deutsche Grammatik, vol. I.
p. 584, 2d ed.) in ancient High German was _viuri_, in Low German
_für_. Κύων, _canis_, _hund_ (_d_ added as in μὴν, μὰν—Phrygian for
_moon_—and _mahnd_, _mond_). Ὕδωρ, in High German _wazar_, in Low
German _water_; the digamma is present the genuine Phrygian form
βéδυ, which, on account of ancient vicinity, was also a Macedonian
and _Orphic_ word (see Neanth. Cyzicen. ap. Clem. Alexand. Strom. V.
p. 673. Jablonsky de Lingua Phrygia, p. 76), and is sometimes
translated _water_, and sometimes _air_.

Lastly, the Phrygian inscription in Walpole’s Memoirs, especially
the words ΜΙΔΑΙ ΛΑϜΑΓΤΑΕΙ ϜΑΝΑΚΤΕΙ, prove that it had a great
resemblance, both in radical forms and inflexion, with the Greek.

37 Thus the verb _sum_ keeps in the Armenian or Haicanian the same
fundamental form which it has in all the languages allied to the
Greek (_yem_, _yes_, _e_—_sum_, _es_, _est_). And it is remarkable,
that the three Phrygian Greek words noticed in the text have been
likewise preserved in the Haicanian: πῦρ is _hur_ (as πατὴρ _hair_,
πéντε _hink_); ὕδωρ, _tschur_ (as θερμὸς tscherm); κύων is _shun_.
See Klaproth, Asia Polyglotta, p. 99.

38 See Jablonsky de Lingua Lycaon. Opusc. vol. III. p. 119.

39 That is, if the epic poet Chœrilus spoke of Lyctian Solymi in the
well-known passage preserved in Josephus cont. Apion. vol. II. p.
454, ed. Haverc. &c. See Naeke’s Chœrilus, p. 130, sq.

_ 40 E.g._ ἀδαγοὺς, an androgynous deity (Hesych. in v.), from _Dagon_;
the name _Adon_ (Athen. XIV. p. 624); βαλλὴν _king_, (Hesych. in v.
Eustath. ad Od. τ. p. 680. Bas.) from _Baal_, &c. See Blomf. ad
Æsch. Pers. 663.

41 See _Orchomenos_, p. 379-390.

42 Herod. VII. 111.

43 All their words with which we are acquainted are very unlike the
Greek; _e.g._ the word βρία and βρέα for _city_, which frequently
occurs, ζίλα _wine_, πιτῦγες _treasure_, Schol. Apollon. Rhod. I.
933, &c.

44 Herod. V. 13. VII, 20, 75. Compare Hellanicus _ut sup._; where read,
ἐφ᾽ οὖ νῦν Μακεδόνες καλοῦνται μόνοι μετὰ Μυσῶν τότε οἰκοῦντες. This
at the same time probably refers to the tradition, that the Mysians
(as well as the Thynians and others) came from Thrace to Asia,
according to Strabo, and Pliny H. N. V. 32, 41. VII. 57.

45 Homer, Hymn. Ven. 113.

46 Æginetica, pp. 12, 155. Compare also Phavorinus in Ἀχαιοὺς ἄρξωσιν.
In the later times they were probably still in the territory of the
Molossians, who were considered as Greeks, Herod. VI. 127.

47 Il. XVI. 233.

48 See _Orchomenos_, pp. 139, 248, sqq. Buttmann, indeed, in his Memoir
on the Minyæ (Berlin Transactions for 1820, p. 13), denies the
existence of these places; but several of the passages which I have
quoted are decisive.

49 According to the genealogy from the Ἠοῖαι—Dorus, Xuthus (from whom
Achæus and Ion), and Æolus; see Appendix II. The genealogy in
Euripides, Ion 1608. viz. Xuthus, father of Ion, Dorus, and Achæus,
is distorted to suit the national feelings of the Athenians. The
passage from the Ἠοῖαι, however, although in a poetical garb, is
more credible than the testimony of Herodotus, who considers the
Ionians as _aborigines_.

50 Concerning what follows, see Apollonius Rhod. IV. 521, sqq. Schol.
ad 1. et ad IV. 1125, 1149. Apollodorus ap. Stephan. Byzant. in
Ὑλλεῖς (p. 434, ed. Heyn.) Scylax, p. 7. ed. Voss. Scymnus Chius
404, from Timæus (Fragm. 121. ed. Goeller) and Eratosthenes. Dionys.
Perieg. 386, with Eustathius and the Scholia. Etymol. Magn. p. 776.
39, where they are called a Celtic nation (ἔθνος Κελτικον). Compare
Schoenemann Geograph. Argonaut. p. 53, and book III. c. 5.

51 Apollon. Rh. IV. 538, and others. Panyasis appears from the
Scholiast to Apollonius Rhod. IV. 1149, to have mentioned two
Hylluses, viz. the son of Melite and the son of Deianira. Compare
Schol. Soph. Trachin. 53. Vales, ad Harpocrat. p. 126. In the
Scholiast to Pindar Pyth. I. 120, Ὕλλος, ὄς ἑβασίλευσε τῶν περὶ τὴν
Ἰταλίαν οἱκησάντων, where Hemsterhuis reads Οἰχαλίαν, Raoul-Rochette
(Histoire de l’Etablissement des Colonies Grecques, tom. II. p. 280)
proposes, not without some probability, Ἰλλυρίαν.

52 Apollon. Rh. IV. 528.

53 Thucyd. III. 81.

54 Especially the connected chain of Ætolians, Epeans, Locrians
(concerning whose affinity see Boeckh ad Pind. Olymp. IX. 61. p.
191), and Lelegians (Hesiod ap. Strab. VII. p. 322); and if these,
as some say, are the same as the Carian nation, to which the Lydians
and a part of the Mysians belonged, they would seem to compose a
very numerous race.

55 See book II. ch. 7.

56 The ancients frequently say, that the Ionians in Asia ἐλυμήναντο τῆς
διαλέκτου τὸ πάτριον. Photius in v. φαρμακός.

57 Concerning the Doric dialect, see Appendix VI.

58 Herod. I. 56; concerning which passage see Salmasius, de Lingua
Hellenica, p. 276, and Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom.
XXV. p. 11-28. Compare VIII. 43. Ἐόντες Δωρικόν τε καὶ Μακεδνὸν
ἔθνος ἐξ Ἐρινεοῦ τε καὶ Πίνδου καὶ τῆς Δρυοπίδος ὕστατα ὁρμηθέντες.

59 See, on the subject of this genealogy, Appendix II.

60 Apollod. I. 7, 2.

61 Thus Pindar, Olymp. VIII. 30, calls the Myrmidons Δωριεὺς λαὸς, in
order, as I conceive, to oppose them as genuine Greeks to nations of
a different origin.

62 From the circumstance that, in Homer, Achilles the Æacides is
represented as chief of the Hellenes, and that the Æacidæ were also
ancient princes of Ægina, the author has in a former work
(Æginetica, p. 18) explained the name of the temple of Zeus in
Ægina, Ἑλλάνιον, in later times called Πανελλήνιον. For this temple
is assuredly more ancient than the time when all the Greeks were
called Hellenes; and it must therefore be considered as a sanctuary
of the original Hellenes, who also dwelt in Phthia, as an ancient
national temple of the Myrmidons.

63 Appendix I., last note.

64 The height of mount Olympus, according to Bernouille, is 1017
toises, or 6501 English feet; of Ossa, according to Dodwell, about
5000 feet.

65 A more accurate description of this valley than those of Ælian and
Barthélemy is given by Bartholdy, Bruchstücke zur Kentniss
Griechenlands, p. 112; Clarke, Travels, part II. sect. iii. p. 273;
Hawkins, in Walpole’s Memoirs relating to European Turkey, p. 528;
Holland, Albania, p. 291; Dodwell, Travels, vol. I. p. 103; and
Pouqueville, tom. III. c. 73. Among the ancients, Theopompus, in his
Φιλιππικὰ, gave an accurate description of Tempe. See Theo. Sophist.
Progymn. II. p. 19; Frommel, in Creuzer’s Meletemata, III. p. 141,
6.

66 XX. _m. p. in ipsis faucibus saltus_, Livy from Polyb. XVIII. 10, 2,
on the side of Olympus. Meletius mentions here a place called
Goniga.

67 Liv. XXXIX. 25.

68 Il. B. 753.

69 Herod. VII. 128, 173.

70 Liv. XLIV. 6. Polyb. XXVIII. 11. 1. Ἀζορίου μεταξὺ καὶ Δολιχῆς.

71 See, besides Herodotus, Liv. XLIV. 2, and Plutarch, Æmil. 9.

72 Concerning the situation of this place see Liv. XLIV. 2 and 6.

73 Πυθίου Ἀπολλωνος ἱερὸν, τὸ Πύθιον καὶ τὴν Πέτραν Plutarch. Æmil. 15.
_Pythoum_ (Πυθῷον) _et Petra_ Liv. XLIV. 2, 32, 35. XLII. 53. That
there was only _one_ Pythium in this district is evident from an
accurate examination of the marches. Mannert (vol. VII. p. 520, 563)
has placed Pythium on the pass through the Cambunian mountains
(above the modern Alesson and Sarviza), of which it lay far to the
right. His opinion is contradicted by Liv. XLIV. 2. and Plutarch,
ubi sup. Compare Stephanus in Πύθιον, Πυθιεῖς οἱ τὸ Πύθιον
οἰκοῦντες, ἐν ῷ Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερον ἐστι, and in Βάλλα.

74 960 toises. See above.

75 See Plutarch ubi sup. Liv. ubi sup. and XLIV. 7. comp. Polyb.
XXVIII. 11.

76 Liv. XXXI. 41. XXXVI. 10, 13. XLII. 67. XLIV. 2.

77 Ptolemy includes it in Pelasgiotis. Unfortunately we have not the
Greek original of the passage in Livy concerning the Tripolis, XLII.
53.

_ 78 Orchomenos_, p. 126.

79 Liv. XXXII. 15. Strabo IX. p. 438, 440.

80 Concerning Pelinna, see, besides Cellarius, Spanheim de Usu Numm.
IX. p. 902. Salmasius ad Solin. p. 687. Wesseling ad Diodor. XVIII.
11. and Boeckh Comment. ad Pind. Pyth. X. p. 335.

81 Besides Strabo, see Diodorus XVIII. 56. In Polyænus IV. 2, 18,
should be written, Φίλιππος ἐπολιόρκει Φαρκηδόνα πóλιν Θεσσαλικήν.

82 Concerning Tricca (Tricala 12-3/4 leagues from Larissa, according to
Pouqueville) see Mannert, p. 569, and also Eustathius, vol. II. p.
250. ed. Basil. Tzetzes Chil. IX. 28.

83 See II. B. 370, with the Scholia, and Eustathius. Pelinnus, a son of
Œchalieus, Steph. Byzant. in Πέλιννα.

84 Thus Pouqueville: according to Holland twelve miles, according to
Vaudoncourt four hours.

85 See Meletius, Pouqueville, Holland, Cockerell in Hughes’ Travels,
vol. I. p. 504.

86 The latter according to Arrian I. 7; the former according to Liv.
XXXI. 41. XXXII. 15. XXXVIII. 2. Compare Cæsar B.C. III. 80.

87 Tempe was about 500 stadia from Gomphi, Plin. H. N. IV. 8, which
distance should be thus divided: the length of Tempe 40 stadia, then
to Larissa 160, to Tricca about 240, and to Gomphi 60.

88 Strabo IX. p. 437. II. B. 729. Pausan. IV. 9, 1. Meteora cannot be
Ithome; more probably the ruins of Kastraki. But the passage
concerning Curalius and the temple of the Itonian Minerva, is a
confusion of the geographer. Otherwise de la Porte du Theil
Eclaircissemens sur Strabon I. 76, p. 248.

89 Athen. XIV. p. 639, 640.

90 Pouqueville, p. 37.

_ 91 Orchomenos_, p. 126. Here also Acrisius of Argos dwelt. That it is
this Larissa is plain from Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 40, compare
Hellanicus fragm. 116. Pausan. II. 16. Tzetzes ad Lycoph. 836.

92 Strabo, IX. p. 439.

93 According to modern travellers. The ancients frequently
misinterpreted Homer. In later times Eurotas, or Europus, as in the
Excerpta of Strabo, _i.e._ the _dark-coloured_.

94 Pouqueville.

95 Thus the writers in Strabo VII. p. 328. Steph. Byzant. in Δωδώνη.
See book II. ch. 11, § 3.

96 Hieronymus, ap. Strab. IX. p. 443.

97 Steph. Byzant. in Γόννος Liv. XXXII. 15.

_ 98 Orchomenos_, pp. 248 sqq.

99 If _Oloosson_ is the modern _Alassona_ on the road from Larissa to
Macedonia, according to the opinion of the bishop of Thessalonica on
Il. B. p. 333. ed. Rom. δοκεῖ δὲ φυλάσσειν καὶ νῦν τὴν κλῆσιν
παραφθειρομένην βαρβαρικῶς, ἴσως γὰρ αὔτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἄρτι λεγομένη
Ἐλασσών.

100 See above, § 1. Andron ap. Strab. X. p. 475 E. τῆς Δωρίδος πρότερον,
νῦν δὲ Ἑστιαιώτιδος λεγομένης. The Dorians also dwelt in Hestiæotis
to the west of Pindus, according to Charax ap. Steph. Byzant. in
Δώριον. According to Schol. Pind. Pyth. I. 124, and Schol. Aristoph.
Plut. 385 (as emended by Hemsterhuis, p. 115), they dwelt in
Perrhæbia; and Perrhæbia nearly coincides with Hestiæotis.

101 See book II. ch. I, § 2.

102 There was a hero named Azorus, Hesychius in Ἄζωρος.

103 Hemsterhuis incorrectly considers them as identical, ubi sup. p.
116.

104 Athen. XI. p. 503 D. καὶ ὁ τὸν Αἰγίμιον ποιήσας, εἴθ᾽ Ἡσιοδός ἐστιν
ἢ Κέρκωψ ὁ Μιλήσιος. The confusion of the names of Hesiod and
Cercops may, as it appears to me, be accounted for as follows. A
verse concerning the desertion of Ariadne by Theseus for the sake of
Ægle, is ascribed by Plutarch (vit. Thes. 20) to Hesiod, and by
Athenæus (XIII. p. 557 A.) to Cercops; it is evidently from the
Ægimius which was attributed to both these names. This verse was
expunged from the poem by Pisistratus, as we learn from Hereas,
quoted by Plutarch. The Ægimius therefore was at that time arranged
and set down in writing, together with other epic poems.
Consequently Cercops, an Orphic Pythagorean, who lived about the
time of Pisistratus, cannot have been the author of it, though he
might have been the διασκευαστὴς who arranged it in the same manner
that Onomacritus did the other poems. Now it might easily happen,
especially if his interpolations could be now and then discerned,
that the _whole_ poem should be attributed to him.

105 Wesseling. ad Diod. IV. 37, p. 282.

106 See Valckenaer ad Eurip. Phœn. p. 735.

107 Schol. Apoll. Rhod. III. 584. IV. 816. The character of the ancient
epic poetry, which never admitted of history arranged in a
chronological order, cannot allow us to suppose that the Ægimius
contained an account of the expedition of the Dorians, and of their
colonies, down to the founding of Cyrene.

108 This is the meaning of the passage in Steph. Byzant. Ἀβαντίς,—ὡς
Ἡσίοδος ἐν Αἰγιμίου δευτέρῳ περὶ Ἰοῦς;

—Νήσῳ δ᾽ ἐν Ἀβαντίδι δίῃ,
τὴν πρὶν Ἀβαντίδα κίκλησκον Θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες
τήν ποτ᾽ ἐπώνυμον Εὔβοιαν βοὸς ὠνόμασε Ζεύς.

These are followed by the four verses concerning Argos and Io quoted
by Schol. Eurip. Phœn. 1151. Apollodorus II. 1, 3, alludes to this
passage. Also what he mentions from this poem in II. 1, 5, belongs
to the Eubœan fables. Apollodorus, in both passages, quotes the
Ægimius under the name of Cercops. Compare Fabric. Bibliothec. vol.
I. p. 592. ed. Harles.

109 See Ephorus ap. Steph. Byzant. in Δυμᾶνες (p. 96. ed. Marx.),
followed by Strabo IX. p. 427.

110 Book III. ch. 1, § 7.

111 Etymol. Magn. Τριχάϊκες.—Ἠσίοδος διὰ τὸ τριχῇ αὐτοὺς οἰκῆσαι, οἷον;
Πάντες γὰρ τριχάϊκες καλέοντο Οὔνεκα τρισσὴν γαῖαν ἑκὰς πάτρης
ἐδάσαντο. Τρία γὰρ Ἑλληνικὰ ἔθνη τῇ Κρήτῃ ἐπῴκησαν, Πελασγοὶ,
Ἀχαιοὶ, Δωριεῖς. The last words must be considered as a mere
ignorant addition; for the Dorians did not divide _their_ territory
into three parts, _because_ two _other_ Greek races went to Crete.
It is, indeed, evident that a threefold division of the land
conquered by the Dorians is here spoken of, which, as is plain from
the fables concerning Ægimius and Hercules, took place according to
the three tribes. According to the present reading, this division
took place at a distance from the native country of the Dorians.
There might seem some difficulty in this, since Hercules is said to
have given Ægimius the third part of the territory as a παρακαταθήκη
in Hestiæotis, the most ancient habitation of the Dorians (Diod. IV.
37, compare Apollodorus II. 7, 3). Hence πάτρῃς for πάτρης might be
read in this sense: “The Dorians divided their territory into three
parts _for the families_ (of which the φυλαὶ or tribes consisted),”
so that they then dwelt separately from one another (similarly
Pindar Olym. p. VII. 74). This alteration, however, appears to be
unnecessary; and the old reading is defended by the following
explanation, viz., that according to the ancient fable Hyllus and
his descendants did not _dwell_ either near mount Œta, or in
Hestiæotis _together_ with the Dorians, but that they first received
in the Peloponnese the third part of the territory, whither they
came as colonists at a distance from their more ancient abodes (ἔκας
πάτρης).

112 Below, ch. 3, § 1.

113 Hom. Od. XIX. 174.

114 Ap. Strab. X. p. 475 D. and Stephan. Byzant. in Δώριον. Diodorus IV.
60. V. 80, gives nearly the same account, on the authority of Cretan
historians, whom he mentions in V. 80.

115 This may be collected from the passage of Dicæarchus (which, indeed,
is much mutilated) cited in Steph. Byz. in Δώριον. It is given most
faithfully in Montfaucon’s Biblioth. Coislin. p. 286, 59.

116 Τεύταμος appears to be the correct name, the same as that of an
ancient prince of Larissa, on which the ancient Dorians bordered.
The princes of the allied nations were doubtless confounded in
tradition. See the author’s _Etrusker_, vol. I. p. 94.

117 The settlements which here come into consideration are, 1. the
immigration, after the death of Minos (in the third generation
before the siege of Troy), of various races, chiefly Hellenes,
according to Herod. VII. 170; this is a mere tradition of the towns
of Polichna and Præsus, and not a very credible one. 2. The colony
of Althæmenes after the expedition of the Heraclidæ from Argos and
Megara, and in connexion with Rhodes. 3. Dorians from Peloponnesus,
Lyctus, Lampe, and other places settled from Sparta; Pharæ a colony
of the Messenians; Gortyna of Amyclæans (Minyans); Phæstus colonized
from Sicyon; other towns from Argos (Scylax, p. 18, Diod. V. 80). 4.
Æginetans in Cydonia.

118 Strabo X. p. 475 C.

119 The Cretan cities were generally considered as Doric; Menander de
Encom. XXXII. 1, p. 81, ed. Heeren. and others.

120 Od. XIX. 175. ἄλλη δ᾽ ἄλλων γλῶσσα μεμιγμένη.

121 On this migration of the Dorians from their early settlements in the
north of Greece to Crete, see Appendix III.

_ 122 Orchomenos_, pp. 233, 234. According to Andron (Strabo X. p. 475)
they came directly from Hestiæotis under mount Parnassus. According
to Diodorus IV. 67, the Cadmeans drove out the Dorians, who then
_returned_ to Doris (Erineus, Cytinium, Boeum). Lycophron v. 1388,
might be quoted in confirmation of Herodotus, since he calls the
Dorians Λακμώνιοι (Λάκμων ὄρος Περραιβίας ἔνθα ῴκουν Δωριεῖς),
Lacmon being the name of the ridge of Pindus and the Cambunian
mountains. But Lycophron only alludes to their settlements in
Hestiæotis.

123 Il. II. 849, XXI. 159. It is to this that Herodotus alludes, when he
says that the Teucrians, to which race he refers the Pæonians, had
penetrated as far as the Peneus (see the Introduction, and Appendix
I. § 4).

124 See Appendix I. § 17.

125 Introduction, § 3; Appendix I. § 25.

126 Amphicæa near Dadja. See Leake in Walpole’s Travels, p. 509. Clarke,
p. 227. Gell, Itinerary, p. 210.

127 I here chiefly follow Dodwell, vol. II. p. 133, and Gell: compare
_Orchomenos_, p. 41. Pouqueville is completely in error. According
to him the Cephisus rises 11-1/2 hours N.E. of Artotina, which he
supposes to be Erineus, and flows from the north into the Pindus,
which river (he says) runs into the Gulph of Corinth, contrary to
all accounts of ancient writers.

128 The old maps are all incorrect; see now Gell’s map to his Itinerary.
According to Strabo the Tetrapolis lay chiefly to the east of
Parnassus, but it extended also round to the west, IX. p. 417. The
river Pindus is now, according to Dodwell, the _Aniani_.

129 See p. 40, note i. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote below
to “the Locrians,” that starts with “Thucyd. III. 95”.]

130 See Strabo IX. p. 427. X. p. 476 A. Strabo distinguishes Erineus in
Phthiotis from this town, IX. p. 434. Etymol. Mag. p. 373, 56, ὁ
Ἐρινεὸς is the correct form. Mela however, and the scholiasts to
Pindar and Aristophanes quoted below, call it _Erineum_.

131 Strabo IX. p. 427 B. p. 434. Steph. Byz. Ἀκύφας μία τῆς Δωρικῆς
τετραπόλεως.—Ὁ Ἀκύφας, Gen. Ἀκύφα, _Dorice_, see Bekker’s Anecdota,
vol. III. p. 1313.

132 Scymnus Chius v. 591. Δωριεῖς Ἐρινεὸν, Βοιὸν, Κυτίνιον ἀρχαιοτάτας
ἔχουσι, Πίνδον τ᾽ ἐχομένην. Comp. Conon. hist. 27. In answer to
those who deny that Pindus was situated in this Tetrapolis, it is
sufficient to quote Herod. VIII. 43. Comp. du Theil Eclairc. sur
Strabon IX. tom. III. p. 118. Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 252, IV.
p. 392.

133 Strabo IX. p. 427 C. arranges them in this manner: Ætolians, Locri
Hesperii, Dorians, Ænianes, Locri Epicnemidii; compare pp. 425, 430
B.

134 Thucyd. III. 95, 102. It is the Kakiscala between Stagni and Salona.
Dodwell, vol. I. p. 149, and Gell, p. 206.

135 See Philochorus ap. Dionys. ad Ammæum c. 11. Philoch. Fragm. ed.
Siebelis p. 76.

136 Pausan. X. 33, 2.

137 This road through Camara, Palæochori, and Neuropoli, is described by
Dodwell, vol. II. p. 126. Gell, p. 241.

138 Holland went over this road near Eleutherochori, p. 383, comp.
Dodwell, p. 74. It is also the way alluded to by Procopius de Ædif.
IV. 2.

139 Liv. XXXVI. 15. For a description of Thermopylæ see _Orchomenos_, p.
486. Clarke, ch. 8, p. 240. Holland, ch. 18, p. 315. Gell,
Itinerary, p. 239.

140 See Stephan. Byz. in Ἀμφαναὶ from Theopompus. Eurip. Herc. Fur. 386.

141 Strabo IX. p. 428. Liv. XXXVI. 16.

142 Steph. Byz. in Φρίκιον, and Hellanicus, ibid.

143 Strabo ubi sup.

144 See Lycophron, Hecatæus, Rhianus quoted by Stephanus.

145 Thus Andron in Strabo X. p. 476. Thucyd. I. 107.

146 Æschin. de Fals. Leg. p. 43, 24, τὸν ἤκοντα ἐκ Δωρίου καὶ Κυτινίου.
[Dr. Cramer, Description of Ancient Greece, vol. II. p. 103,
corrects Δωρικοῦ Κυτίνου in Æschines, after Thucydides, who in III.
95, speaks of Κυτίνιον τὸ Δωρικόν. Transl.]

147 Theopompus ap. Steph. Ἀκύφας. Scymnus Chius ubi sup.

148 Strabo VIII. p. 383. Conon. 27. Scymnus. To this also refers the
statement in Apollodorus I. 7, 3. that Dorus the son of Hellen τὴν
πέραν χώραν Πελοποννήσου ἔλαβεν. Vitruvius IV. 1, however, gives a
different account, _Achaia Peloponnesoque tota Dorus Hellenis et
Orseidis nymphæ_ (a mountain nymph) _filius regnavit_.

149 Hecatæus ap. Stephan.

150 In the scholia to Pindar, Pyth. I. 121, in which, however, there is
some transposition and confusion. There is nowhere else any mention
of a city in Perrhæbia named Pindus. In Pindar Πινδόθεν is used
generally for the earlier settlements; for Hestiæotis and Doris both
touch on the chain of Pindus. See Boeckh. Explic. p. 235. These
scholia are probably followed by the scholiast on Aristoph. Plut.
385, and by Tzetzes ad Lycophr. v. 980. comp. v. 741; but without
separating the erroneous parts.

151 Tarphe was near the Doric Tetrapolis between Œta and Parnassus. It
is mentioned in Iliad II. 533, as a Locrian town; according to
Strabo IX. p. 426, it was afterwards called Pharygæ, which Plutarch,
Phocion 33, includes in Phocis, and names near it a hill called
Acrurion. Tarphe and Carphæa may be considered as different forms of
the same name, _t_ and _k_ being often interchanged. Thus the
mythological hero Talaus is sometimes Calaus. (Schol. Soph. Œd. Col.
1320.)

152 Herod. VIII. 31, comp. Plutarch. Themistocl. 9.

153 P. 24. Διμοδωριεῖς.

154 Herod. VIII. 31 and 43. ἐόντες οὗτοι Δωρικὸν καὶ Μακεδνὸν ἔθνος ἐξ
Ἐρινεοῦ τε καὶ Πίνδου καὶ τῆς Δρυοπίδος ὕστατα ὁρμηθέντες. According
to this passage, therefore, Cytinium and Boeum may both have been
inhabited by the Dryopians.

155 According to Strabo IX. p. 434, there was a Dryopian Tetrapolis as
well as a Dorian.

156 Ap. Strab. p. 373. The scholia to Apollon. Rhod. I. 1283, furnish a
genealogy, viz. Lycaon, Dia, Dryops. Followed by Tzetzes ad Lyc.
480, and Etymol. Mag. p. 288, 32. Pherecydes, however, quoted in the
scholia to Apollonius, gives a different account.

157 See book II. ch. 11, § 3.

158 In the neighbourhood of the Malians and Myrmidonian Achæans,
Pherecydes ap. Schol. Apoll. Rh. I. 1823, pp. 93, 107, ed. Sturz.
Aristotle ubi sup. At the foot of Mount Parnassus, Aristotle and
Pausan. IV. 34, 6. Λυκωρείταις ὅμοροι. The μετοίκησις from the
Spercheus to Trachis is merely a confusion of the scholiast to
Apollonius. Callimachus had only mentioned the migration to
Peloponnesus, Schol. Paris. Clavier’s remarks (ad Apollod. p. 323)
are very inaccurate. Dryops, the son of Spercheus, dwelt at the foot
of mount Œta, according to Antoninus Liberalis, 32.

159 Ibid. 4. Κραγαλεὺς ὁ Δρύοπος ᾢκει γῆς τῆς Δρυοπίδος παρὰ τὰ λουτρὰ
τὰ Ἡρακλέους. In this strange account Melaneus, the son of Apollo, a
king of the Dryopes, is represented as taking Epirus and Ambracia.
It is a part of the same history as the migration of the Ænianes and
Neoptolemus to Molossis, _Æginetica_, p. 18.

160 Book II. ch. 3, § 3.

161 Aristot. ap. Strab. ubi sup. Apollod. II. 7, 7. Diod. IV. 37.
Pausan. IV. 34, 6. Servius ad Æn. IV. 146. Πράξεις Ἡρακλέους, p.
152. Marini Ville Albani. comp. _Æginetica_, p. 33. Heyne Exc. ad
Æn. IV. 2, p. 610. Raoul-Rochette, tom. I. p. 434. Herod. VIII. 43,
οἱ δὲ Ἑρμιονέες εἰσὶ Δρύοπες ὑπὸ Ἡρακλέος τε καὶ Μηλιέων ἐκ τῆς νῦν
Δωρίδος καλεομένης χώρης ἐξαναστάντες. A peculiar application of the
tradition in Suidas in Δρύοπες, Κάρπος. The verse of Callimachus
preserved in Etymol. Magn. p. 154, 7, should apparently be thus
written, Δειλαίοις Ἀσινεῦσιν ἐπιτριπτῆρας ὀπάσσας, the explanation
is given by the etymologist himself. See above, p. 45, note k.
[Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Parnassus,” starting
“In the neighbourhood of the Malians.”]

162 Herodot. VIII. 46. Diodor. IV. 57. Thucydides VII. 57, however,
considers the Styrians as Ionians.

163 Herodot. ubi sup. Diodor. ubi sup. The fabulous war of Amphitryon
against Cythnus is probably connected with it.

164 Herodot. VII. 90. Diodor. ubi sup. Asine in Cyprus, Stephan. Byz.
Also in Cyzicus, according to Strabo XIII. p. 586.

165 See _Orchomenos_, p. 496. In Æschines adv. Ctesiph. p. 68, 40,
according to Didymus and Xenagoras in Harpocration, Κραυγαλλίδαι
should be written.

166 Antonin. Liberal. 4.

167 Book II. ch. 3, § 3.

168 Παράλιοι, Ἱερῆς, Τραχίνιοι Thucyd. III. 92. comp. Dodwell, II. p.
71. I may also remark that Scylax and Diodorus, XVIII. 11, appear to
make a distinction between Melians and Malians; but in both places
ΛΑΜΙΕΙΣ should be written for Μαλιεῖς and Μαλεῖς. Wesseling’s
opinion concerning the last passage is untenable, since there never
was a town of the name of Malea. Diodorus is not quite accurate.

169 Diodor. XII. 59.

170 Aristot. Polit. IV. 13.

171 Thucyd. IV. 100.

172 See Tittmann’s Amphiktyonenbund, p. 41.

173 Strabo IX. p. 434.

_ 174 Æginetica_, p. 17.

_ 175 Orchomenos_, p. 253.

176 Book II. ch. 3, § 12.

177 Thucyd. III. 92.

178 Strab. IX. p. 442.

179 Thucyd. VIII. 3. Concerning the founding of Heraclea, see also
Stephan. Byz. in v. Δώριον, after the hiatus.

180 Book II. ch. 1. § 8, ch. 3. § 5.

_ 181 Orchomenos_, p. 238. Compare in general with this chapter,
Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 249.

182 ἡ τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν κάϑοδος. Thucydides I. 12, says Δωριεῖς ξὺν
Ἡρακλεíδαις. Isocrates Archidam. p. 119 C. mentions an oracle
enjoining them ἐπì τὴν πατρῴαν ἰέναι χώραν.

183 XIX. 105.

184 See Pausan. VII. 25. 3.

185 Αὐτὸς γὰρ Κρονίων, καλλιστεφάνου πόσις Ἥρης,
Ζεὺς Ἡρακλείδαις τήνδε δέδωκε πόλιν.
Οἷσιν ἅμα προλιπόντες Ἐρινεὸν ἠνεμόεντα,
Εὐρεῖαν Πέλοπος νῆσον ἀφικόμεθα.

τήνδε πόλιν is Laconia. _We_ mean the Dorians: Erineus the
Tetrapolis. Strabo VIII. p. 362 has not correctly understood and
applied these verses. (See below, note to ch. 7. § 10.) Tyrtæus also
calls the Dorians generally Ἡρακλῆος γένος—whence Plutarch de Nobil.
2. p. 388.

186 Herodot. V. 72. According to VI. 53, he might also have said, “I am
an Egyptian.”

187 A similar idea is entertained by Plato in his Laws, III. p.
682—viz., that the Dorians were properly Achæans, expelled from
their own country after the Trojan war, and afterwards collected and
brought back by one Dorieus.

188 Pind. Pyth. V. 70. In Pyth. I. 61, he calls them descendants of
Pamphylus and the Heraclidæ, not mentioning Dymas. Compare the
fragment of the Isthmians, Ὕλλου στρατὸς Δωριεύς.

189 See Pausan. IV. 2. 1. There are two other passages of Hesiod
referring to the expedition of the Heraclidæ. Schol. Apollon I. 824.

Θεσσάμενος γενεὴν Κλεαδαίου κυδαλίμοιο,

the connexion of which is very obscure (see Bentley ad Callim. Cer.
Calath. 48); and Schol. Pind. Olymp. XI. 79. _e cod. Vratisl_.

Τιμάνδην Ἔχεμος θαλερὴν ποιήσατ᾽ ἄκοιτιν.

From this passage Apollod. III. 10. 6. Pausan. VIII. 5. 1. draw
their materials. This, however, might also occur among the actions
of Hercules, particularly at the first Olympian festival, as may be
seen from Pindar.

190 VI. 52.

191 Compare Pausan. IV. 2. 1. with V. 17. 4. and Valckenar. Diatrib.
Eurip. pp. 58, 59.

192 Herod. ubi sup. et c. 51. Wesseling misinterprets the first passage;
its purport is, “_The Lacedæmonians give a different account from
all the poets, who make Eurysthenes and Procles first come to
Sparta._” Schweighæuser does not see the exact meaning of the
second; the sense is, “_So far is the national tradition of the
Lacedæmonians; in what follows, I relate the common tradition of
Greece._”

193 Herodot. IX. 26.

194 IX. 26.

195 In general the tragic poets successively descend, according to their
age, to a later date of mythological history.

196 Pausan. IV. 2. 1.

197 I take this opportunity of renewing the memory of one of these
Doric-Heraclide leaders, who has been so far forgotten, that in the
passage of Pausanias IV. 30. 1. his name has been driven from the
text. It should be thus written from the MSS.: Ὕλλου δὲ καὶ Δωριέων
μάχῃ κρατηθέντων ὑπὸ Ἀχαιῶν, ἐνταῦθα Ἀβίαν Γλήνου τοῦ Ἡρακλέους
τροφὸν ἀποχωρῆσαι λέγουσι, &c. This Glenus occurs as the son of
Deianira in Apollod. II. 7. 8. and Schol. Soph. Trachin. 53.
Diodorus IV. 37. calls him Gleneus. Pherecydes ap. Schol. Pind.
Isth. IV. 104. reckons him among the children of Megara by Hercules.

198 Ap. Longin. 27. Creuzer. Fragment. p. 54. Apollodorus II. 8. 1.
almost makes it appear that the Heraclidæ had been entertained by
Eurystheus; but this does not agree with what precedes. Euripides
Heraclid. 13. 195. represents them as flying first from Argos to
Trachis, and to Achaia in Thessaly, and then to Athens.

199 Thus Pherecydes in Antonin. Liber. 33. Sturz (Fragm. 50. p. 196.)
does not quite understand this passage.

200 At Marathon, according to most authors. Diodorus IV. 57. mentions
Tricorythus; Compare XII. 45.

201 The outline of the narrative is furnished by Pherecydes and Herod.
IX. 27. the details by Euripides in the Heraclidæ, whose account was
influenced by the circumstances of the time (Boeckh. trag. Gr.
princ. p. 190). Whether the Heraclidæ of Pamphilus (Aristoph. Plut.
385. Schol. ad I. p. 112, Hemsterh.) was a _tragedy_ or a _picture_,
was frequently contested by the ancients. The latter appears to be
most probable: see Winckelmann and Meyer Kunstgeschichte, p. 166.
Pamphilus painted the battle of Phlius, one of those which took
place in the 102nd or 103rd Olympiad; and it may be fairly supposed
that he flourished about Olymp. 97, 4, the year in which the second
edition of the Plutus was brought forward, and he might have lived
to be the master of Apelles, who had obtained great celebrity in the
reign of Philip.—Concerning the battle, see Elmsley ad Eur.
Heraclid. 860; concerning the death of Eurystheus, Wesseling. ad
Diod. IV. 57. and Staveren. Misc. Obs. vol. X. p. 383. Pallene is
between Marathon and Athens;—according to Strabo VIII. p. 377. the
tomb was at Gargettus on the western coast; according to Pausanias
I. 40. in Megaris. Concerning Macaria, see Pausan. I. 32. Schol.
Aristoph. Eq. 1148. Zenob II. 61. and other grammarians in v. βάλλ᾽
εἰς Μακαρíαν. A totally different tradition is preserved by Duris
ap. Schol. Plat. p. 134, Ruhnk. In the above quoted passage of
Strabo, τὴν δὲ κεφαλὴν χωρὶσ ἐν ΤΗΙ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΩΙ, ἀποκόπσαντος αὐτὴν
Ἰολάου περὶ τὴν κρὴνην τὴν Μακαρίαν should probably be written ἐν
ΤΡΙΚΟΡΥΘΩΙ; thus in VIII. p. 383. one MS. has Τρικόρινθος. (In this
correction I now find that I was anticipated by Elmsley ad Eurip.
Heracl. 103.) Heyne indeed (_ad Apollod._ II. 8. 1.) explains ἐν τῇ
Κορίνθῳ of the tomb of Eurystheus in Pausan. I. 44. 14.; but this
was in Megaris, and there never was any change in the boundaries of
Corinth and Megaris. Heyne also considers the tomb near the temple
of the Pallenian Minerva and that at Gargettus as identical; but
this is not possible, on account of the situation of the two
places.—Concerning Gargettus see the article _Attika_ in Ersch’s
Encyclopædia, p. 222.

202 Demosth. de Corona, p. 147.

203 It does not follow from Pindar Pyth. IX. 82. that Iolaus was
restored to life, which must have been alluded to elsewhere. I
follow the second Scholiast, ηὔξατο δὲ τῷ Διὶ ἐπὶ μίαν ὤραν ἡβῆσαι,
&c. Compare Ovid. Met. IX. 408.

204 See book II. ch. 11. § 10.

205 Ap. Antonin. Lib. 33.—There is also a trace of another tradition in
Apostolius XVIII. 7.

206 See book II. ch. 11. § 7.

207 Thus also Thucyd. I. 9. Plat. Leg. III. p. 686. In Schol. Eurip.
Orest. 5. write αὐτοὺς μὲν (the Atridæ) ἀποστῆσαι Λακεδοίμονες, τοὺς
δὲ Περοείδας βασιλεῦσαι. Polyænus I. 10. is singular in mentioning
Eurysthidæ in Sparta at the time of the migration; but by Eurysthidæ
must be meant “_descendants_ of Eurysthenes,” not “Eurysthenes and
his party.” See Clinton F. H. vol. I. p. 333.

208 See particularly Plato ubi sup.

209 Apollod. II. 8. 2. ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἀντεῖπε τῶν ἀτυχημάτων αὑτοὺς αἰτίους
εἶναι. τοὺς γὰρ χρησμοὺς οὐ συμβάλλειν. λέγειν γὰρ οὐ γῆς ἀλλὰ
γενεᾶς καρπὸν τρίτον καὶ στενυγρὰν τὴν εὐρυγάστορα, δεξίαν κατὰ τὸν
Ἰσθμὸν ἔχοντι τὴν θάλασσαν. With the word εὐρυγάστωρ compare κύτους
κοιλογάστορος, Æschyl. Theb. 478. and 1026. In later times, however,
these oracles were put into an epic form, as may be seen from
Œnomaus ap. Euseb. Præp. Ev. V. 20.

210 See Herod. IX. 26. Pausan. I. 41. 3. I. 44. VIII. 5. 1. VIII. 45. 2.
Diod. IV. 58. Schol. Pind. Olymp. N. 80. Van Staveren Misc. Observ.
X. 3. p. 385.

211 Pausan. VIII. 5. Apollod. II. 7. 7. Diod. IV. 58. Strabo IV. p. 427
C. Isocrat. Archidam. p. 119 B. τελευτήσαντος Εὐρυσθέως.

212 Manso, Sparta, vol. I. p. 61.

213 Apollod. II. 8. 3. In Pausan. II. 28. 3. Orsobia, a daughter of
Deiphontes of Epidaurus, is the wife of Pamphylus.

214 He was mentioned by Hesiod; see above, p. 55. note k. [Transcriber’s
Note: No such note on that page, nor any reference to Cleodæus.] A
different genealogy is given by Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 804, viz., that
Cleodæus was the son of Hyllus, the brother of Lichas and Ceyx, the
husband of a certain Peridea, and the father of Temenus.

215 See Crates ap. Tatian. cont. Græcos, p. 107. ed. Oxf. Interpret. ad
Vellei. I. 1.