CHAPTER XVIII.

CLOSING EVENTS OF LEGENDARY GREECE. — PERIOD OF INTERMEDIATE DARKNESS, BEFORE THE DAWN OF HISTORICAL GREECE.

Section I. — Return of the Herakleids into PeloponnÊsus.

Exile and low condition of the Herakleids. — Their reappearance as a powerful force along with the Dorians. — Mythical account of this alliance, as well as of the three tribes of Dorians. — TÊmenus, KresphontÊs, and AristodÊmus, invade PeloponnÊsus across the gulf of Corinth. — The prophet Karnus slain by HippotÊs. — Oxylus chosen as guide. — Division of the lands of PeloponnÊsus among the invaders. — Explanatory value of these legendary events. — Mythical title of the Dorians to PeloponnÊsus. — Plato makes out a different title for the same purpose. — Other legends respecting the AchÆans and Tisamenus. — Occupation of Argos, Sparta, and MessÊnia, by the Dorians. — Dorians at Corinth — AlÊtÊs. — Oxylus and the Ætolians at Elis. — Rights of the Eleians to superintend the Olympic games. — Family of TÊmenus and KresphontÊs lowest in the series of subjects for the heroic drama. — Pretence of the historical Spartan kings to AchÆan origin. — Emigrations from PeloponnÊsus consequent on the Dorian occupation. — Epeians, Pylians, AchÆans, Ionians. — Ionians in the north of PeloponnÊsus — not recognized by Homer. — Date assigned by ThucydidÊs to the return of the Herakleids.

pages 1-14

Section II. — Migration of Thessalians and Boeotians.

Thessalians move from ThesprÔtis into Thessaly. — Non-Hellenic character of the Thessalians. — Boeotians — their migration from Thessaly into Boeotia. — Discrepant legends about the Boeotians. — Affinities between Boeotia and Thessaly. — Transition from mythical to historical Boeotia.

14-19

Section III — Emigrations from Greece to Asia and the Islands of the ÆgÆan.

1. Æolic Emigration.

Secession of the mythical races of Greece. — Æolic migration under the Pelopids.

19-21

2. Ionic Emigration.

Ionic emigration — branches off from the legendary history of Athens. — ThÊseus and Menestheus. — Restoration of the sons of ThÊseus to their father’s kingdom. — They are displaced by the Neleids. — Melanthus and Kodrus. — Devotion and death of Kodrus. — No more kings at Athens. — Quarrel of the sons of Kodrus, and emigration of Neileus. — Different races who furnished the emigrants to IÔnia.

21-25

3. Doric Emigrations.

Dorian colonies in Asia. — ThÊra. — Legend of the MinyÆ from Lemnos. — MinyÆ in Triphylia. — Migrations of Dorians to Krete. — Story of AndrÔn. — AlthÆmenÊs, founder of Rhodes. — KÔs, Knidus, and Karpathus.

25-31

Intervening blank between legend and history. — Difficulty of explaining that blank, on the hypothesis of continuous tradition. — Such an interval essentially connected with the genesis of legend.

31-34

CHAPTER XIX.

APPLICATION OF CHRONOLOGY TO GRECIAN LEGEND.

Different schemes of chronology proposed for the mythical events. — The data essential to chronological determination are here wanting. — Modern chronologists take up the same problem as ancient, but with a different canon of belief. — Mr. Clinton’s opinion on the computations of the date of the Trojan war. — Value of the chronological computations depends on the trustworthiness of the genealogies. — Mr. Clinton’s vindication of the genealogies — his proofs. — 1. Inscriptions — none of proved antiquity. — Genealogies — numerous, and of unascertainable date. — 2. Early poets. — Mr. Clinton’s separation of the genealogical persons into real and fabulous: principles on which it is founded. — Remarks on his opinion. — His concessions are partial and inconsistent, yet sufficient to render the genealogies inapplicable for chronology. — Mr. Clinton’s positions respecting historical evidence. — To what extent presumption may stand in favor of the early poets. — Plausible fiction satisfies the conditions laid down by Mr. Clinton — not distinguishable from truth without the aid of evidence. — Kadmus, Danaus, Hyllus, etc., all eponyms, and falling under Mr. Clinton’s definition of fictitious persons. — What is real in the genealogies cannot be distinguished from what is fictitious. — At what time did the poets begin to produce continuous genealogies, from the mythical to the real world? — Evidence of mental progress when men methodize the past, even on fictitious principles.

34-57

CHAPTER XX.

STATE OF SOCIETY AND MANNERS AS EXHIBITED IN GRECIAN LEGEND.

Legendary poems of Greece valuable pictures of real manners, though giving no historical facts. — They are memorials of the first state of Grecian society — the starting-point of Grecian history. — Comparison of legendary with historical Greece — government of the latter — of the former. — The king — in legendary Greece. — His overruling personal ascendency. — Difficulty which Aristotle found in explaining to himself the voluntary obedience paid to the early kings. — The boulÊ — the agora: their limited intervention and subordination to the king. — The agora — a medium for promulgation of the intentions of the king. — Agora summoned by Telemachus in Ithaka. — Agora in the second book of the Iliad — picture of submission which it presents. — Conduct of Odysseus to the people and the chiefs. — Justice administered in the agora by the king or chiefs. — Complaints made by Hesiod of unjust judgment in his own case. — The king among men is analogous to Zeus among gods. — The Council and Assembly, originally media through which the king acted, become, in historical Greece, the paramount depositaries of power. — Spartan kings an exception to the general rule — their limited powers. — Employment of public speaking as an engine of government — coeval with the earliest times. — Its effects in stimulating intellectual development. — Moral and social feeling in legendary Greece. — Omnipotence of personal feeling towards the gods, the king, or individuals. — Effect of special ceremonies. — Contrast with the feelings in historical Athens. — Force of the family tie. — Marriage — respect paid to the wife. — Brothers, and kinsmen. — Hospitality. — Reception of the stranger and the suppliant. — Personal sympathies the earliest form of sociality. — Ferocious and aggressive passions unrestrained. — Picture given by Hesiod still darker. — Contrast between heroic and historical Greece. — Orphans. — Mutilation of dead bodies. — Mode of dealing with homicide. — Appeased by valuable compensation (p????) to the kinsman of the murdered man. — Punished in historical Greece as a crime against society. — Condition, occupations, and professions of the Homeric Greeks. — Slaves. — ThÊtes. — Limited commerce and navigation of the Homeric Greeks. — Kretans, Taphians, Phoenicians. — Nature of Phoenician trade as indicated by Homer. — Weapons and mode of fighting of the Homeric Greeks. — Contrast with the military array of historical Greece. — Analogous change — in military array and in civil society. — Fortification of towns. — Earliest residences of the Greeks — hill-villages lofty and difficult of access. — Homeric society recognizes walled towns, individual property, and strong local attachments. — Means of defence superior to those of attack. — Habitual piracy. — Extended geographical knowledge in the Hesiodic poems, as compared with Homer. — Astronomy and physics. — Coined money, writing, arts. — Epic poetry. — Its great and permanent influence on the Greek mind.

57-118

CHAPTER XXI.

GRECIAN EPIC. HOMERIC POEMS.

Two classes of epic poetry — Homeric — Hesiodic. — Didactic and mystic Hexameter poetry — later as a genus than the epic. — Lost epic poems. — Epic poets and their probable dates. — Epic cycle. — What the epic cycle was — an arrangement of the poems according to continuity of narrative. — Relation of the epic cycle to Homer. — What poems were included in the cycle. — The Iliad and Odyssey are the only poems of the cycle preserved. — Curiosity which these two poems provoke — no data to satisfy it. — Different poems ascribed to Homer. — Nothing known, and endless diversity of opinion, respecting the person and date of Homer. — Poetical gens of the HomÊrids. — Homer, the superhuman eponymus and father of this gens. — What may be the dates of the Iliad and Odyssey. — Date assigned by Herodotus the most probable. — Probable date of the Iliad and Odyssey between 850 and 776 B.C. — Epic poems recited to assembled companies, not read by individuals apart. — Lyric and choric poetry, intended for the ear. — Importance of the class of rhapsodes, singers, and reciters. — Rhapsodes condemned by the Socratic philosophers — undeservedly. — Variations in the mode of reciting the ancient epic. — At what time the Homeric poems began to be written. — Prolegomena of Wolf — raised new questions respecting the Homeric text — connected unity of authorship with poems written from the beginning. — The two questions not necessarily connected, though commonly discussed together. — Few traces of writing, long after the Homeric age. — Bards or rhapsodes of adequate memory, less inconsistent with the conditions of the age than long MSS. — Blind bards. — Possibility of preserving the poems by memory, as accurately as in fact they were preserved. — Argument from the lost letter Digamma. — When did the Homeric poems begin to be written? — Reasons for presuming that they were first written about the middle of the seventh century B.C. — Condition of the Iliad and Odyssey down to the reign of Peisistratus. — Theory of Wolf. — Authorities quoted in its favor. — Objections against it. — Other long epic poems besides the Iliad and Odyssey. — Catalogue in the Iliad — essentially a part of a long poem — its early authority. — Iliad and Odyssey were entire poems long anterior to Peisistratus, whether they were originally composed as entire or not. — No traces in the Homeric poems, of ideas or customs belonging to the age of Peisistratus. — Homeric poems. 1. Whether by one author or several. 2. Whether of one date and scheme. — Question raised by Wolf — Sagen-poesie. — New standard applied to the Homeric poems. — Homeric unity — generally rejected by German critics in the last generation — now again partially revived. — Scanty evidence — difficulty of forming any conclusive opinion. — Method of studying the question of Homeric unity. — Odyssey to be studied first, as of more simple and intelligible structure than the Iliad — Odyssey — evidences of one design throughout its structure. — Exhibits very few marks of incoherence or contradiction. — Chronological reckoning in the Odyssey, inaccurate in one case. — Inference erroneously drawn from hence, that the parts of the poem were originally separate. — Double start and double stream of events, ultimately brought into confluence in the Odyssey. — Skill displayed in this point by the poet. — Difficulty of imagining the Odyssey broken up into many existing poems or songs. — Structure of the Odyssey — essentially one — cannot have been pieced together out of preËxisting epics. — Analogy of the Odyssey shows that long and premeditated epical composition consists with the capacities of the early Greek mind. — Iliad — much less coherent and uniform than the Odyssey. — Incoherence prevails only in parts of the poem — manifest coherence in other parts. — Wolfian theory explains the former, but not the latter. — Theory of Welcker, Lange, and Nitzsch. — Age of the Epos preparatory to that of the Epopee. — Iliad essentially an organized poem — but the original scheme does not comprehend the whole poem. — Iliad — originally an AchillÊis built upon a narrower plan, then enlarged. — Parts which constitute the primitive AchillÊis exhibit a coherent sequence of events. — Disablement of AgamemnÔn, Odysseus, and DiomÊdÊs, all in the battle of the eleventh book. — The first book concentrates attention upon Achilles, and upon the distress which the Greeks are to incur in consequence of the injury done to him. — Nothing done to realize this expectation until the eighth book. — Primitive AchillÊis includes books i, viii, xi to xxii. — Ninth book an unsuitable addition. — Transition from the AchillÊis into the Iliad, in the beginning of the second book. — Transition from the Iliad back into the AchillÊis at the end of the seventh book. — Fortification of the Grecian camp. — Zeus in the fourth book, or Iliad, different from Zeus in the first and eighth, or AchillÊis. — Continuous AchillÊis — from the eleventh book onward. — Supposition of an enlarged AchillÊis is the most consonant to all the parts of the poem as it stands. — Question of one or many authors — difficult to decide. — Odyssey all by one author, Iliad probably not. — Difference of style in the last six books — may be explained without supposing difference of authorship. — Last two books — probably not parts of the original AchillÊis. — Books ii. to vii. inclusive. — Book x. — Odyssey — probably by a different author from the Iliad — but perhaps of the same age. — Real character of the Homeric poems — essentially popular. — Addressed to unlettered minds, but touching those feelings which all men have in common. — No didactic purpose in Homer.

118-209

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL GEOGRAPHY AND LIMITS OF GREECE.

Northern boundary of Greece — Olympus. — Scardus and Pindus — their extension and dissemination through southern Greece and Peloponnesus. — Ossa and Pelion — to the Cyclades. — Geological features. — Irregularity of the Grecian waters — rivers dry in summer. — Frequent marshes and lakes. — Subterranean course of rivers, out of land-locked basins. — Difficulty of land communication and transport in Greece. — Indentations in the line of coast — universal accessibility by sea. — Sea communication essential for the islands and colonies. — Views of the ancient philosophers on the influence of maritime habits and commerce. — Difference between the land-states and the sea-states in Greece. — Effects of the configuration of Greece upon the political relations of the inhabitants. — Effects upon their intellectual development. — Limits of Greece. — Its chief productions. — Climate — better and more healthy in ancient times than it is now. — Great difference between one part of Greece and another. — Epirots, Macedonians, etc. — Islands in the Ægean. — Greeks on the coast of Asia Minor.

211-236

CHAPTER II.

THE HELLENIC PEOPLE GENERALLY IN THE EARLY HISTORICAL TIMES.

The Hellens generally. — Barbarians — the word used as antithesis to Hellens. — Hellenic aggregate — how held together. 1. Fellowship of blood. 2. Common language. — Greek language essentially one with a variety of dialects. 3. Common religious sentiments, localities, and sacrifices. — Olympic and other sacred games. — Habit of common sacrifice an early feature of the Hellenic mind — began on a small scale. — Amphiktyonies — exclusive religious partnerships. — Their beneficial influence in creating sympathies. — What was called the Amphiktyonic Council. — Its twelve constituent members and their mutual position. — Antiquity of the Council — simplicity of the old oath. — Amphiktyonic meeting originally at ThermopylÆ. — Valuable influence of these Amphiktyonies and festivals in promoting Hellenic union. — Amphiktyons had the superintendence of the temple of Delphi. — But their interference in Grecian affairs is only rare and occasional. — Many Hellenic states had no participation in it. — Temple of Delphi. — Oracles generally — habit of the Greek mind to consult them. — General analogy of manners among the Greeks. — Political sovereignty attached to each separate city — essential to the Hellenic mind. — Each city stood to the rest in an international relation. — But city government is essential — village residence is looked upon as an inferior scale of living. — Village residents — numerous in early Greece — many of them coalesced into cities. — Sparta retained its old village trim even at the height of its power. — Hellenic aggregate accepted as a primary fact — its preËxisting elements untraceable. — Ancient Pelasgians not knowable. — Historical Pelasgians — spoke a barbarous language. — Historical Leleges — barbarians in language also. — Statements of good witnesses regarding the historical Pelasgians and Leleges are to be admitted, — whether they fit the legendary Pelasgians and Leleges or not. — Alleged ante-Hellenic colonies from Phoenicia and Egypt — neither verifiable nor probable. — Most ancient Hellas — GrÆci.

236-269

CHAPTER III.

MEMBERS OF THE HELLENIC AGGREGATE, SEPARATELY TAKEN. — GREEKS NORTH OF PELOPONNESUS.

Amphiktyonic races. — Non-Amphiktyonic races. — First period of Grecian history — from 776-560 B.C. — Second period — from 560-300 B.C. — Important differences between the two — the first period preparatory and very little known. — Extra-Peloponnesian Greeks (north of Attica) not known at all during the first period. — General sketch of them. — Greeks north of ThermopylÆ. — Thessalians and their dependents. — Thessalian character. — Condition of the population of Thessaly — a villein race — the PenestÆ. — Who the PenestÆ were — doubtful. — Quadruple division of Thessaly. — Disorderly confederacy of the Thessalian cities. — Great power of Thessaly, when in a state of unanimity. — AchÆans, PerrhÆbi, MagnÊtes, Malians, Dolopes, etc., all tributaries of the Thessalians, but all Amphiktyonic races. — Asiatic MagnÊtes. — The Malians. — The ŒtÆi. — The Ænianes. — Lokrians, Phocians, Dorians. — The Phocians. — Doris — Dryopis. — Historical Dryopes. — The Ætolians. — The Akarnanians. — Ozolian Lokrians, Ætolians, and Akarnanians, were the rudest of all Greeks. — The Boeotians. — Orchomenus. — Cities of Boeotia. — Confederation of Boeotia. — Early legislation of Thebes. — Philolaus and DioklÊs.

269-298

CHAPTER IV.

EARLIEST HISTORICAL VIEW OF PELOPONNESUS. DORIANS IN ARGOS AND THE NEIGHBORING CITIES.

Distribution of Peloponnesus about 450 B.C. — Continuous Dorian states. — Western Peloponnesus. — Northern Peloponnesus — Achaia. — Central region — Arcadia. — Difference between this distribution and that of 776 B.C. — Portions of the population which were believed to be indigenous Arcadians, Kynurians. AchÆans. — Emigrant portions — Dorians, Ætolo-Eleians, Dryopes, Triphylians. — Legendary account of the Dorian emigration. — Alexandrine chronology from the return of the Herakleids to the first Olympiad. — Spartan kings. — Herakleid kings of Corinth. — Argos and the neighboring Dorians greater than Sparta in 770 B.C. — Early settlements of the Dorians at Argos and Corinth — Temenion — Hill of Solygeius. — Dorian settlers arrived by sea. — Early Dorians in Krete. — The Dryopians — their settlements formed by sea. — Dorian settlements in Argos quite distinct from those in Sparta and in Messenia. — Early position of Argos — metropolis of the neighboring Dorian cities. — PheidÔn the Temenid — king of Argos. — His claims and projects as representative of HÊraklÊs. — He claims the right of presiding at the Olympic games. — Relations of Pisa with PheidÔn, and of Sparta with Elis. — Conflict between PheidÔn and the Spartans, at or about the 8th Olympiad, 747 B.C. — PheidÔn the earliest Greek who coined money and determined a scale of weight. — Coincidence of the ÆginÆan scale with the Babylonian. — Argos at this time the first state in Peloponnesus. — Her subsequent decline, from the relaxation of her confederacy of cities. — Dorians in the Argolic peninsula — their early commerce with the Dorian islands in the Ægean. — From hence arose the coinage of money, etc., by PheidÔn. — Pheidonian coinage and statical scale — belong originally to Argos, not to Ægina.

298-325

CHAPTER V.

ÆTOLO-DORIAN EMIGRATION INTO PELOPONNESUS. — ELIS, LACONIA, AND MESSENIA.

Ætolian emigration into Peloponnesus. — Dorians of Sparta and StenyklÊrus — accompanying or following them across the Corinthian gulf. — Settlement at Sparta made by marching along the valleys of the Alpheus and Eurotas. — Causes which favored the settlement — Settlements confined at first to Sparta and StenyklÊrus. — First view of historical Sparta. — Messenian kings. — Analogous representations in regard to the early proceedings both of Spartans and Messenians. — The kings of StenyklÊrus did not possess all Messenia. — Olympic festival — the early point of union of Spartans, Messenians, and Eleians. — Previous inhabitants of southern Peloponnesus — how far different from the Dorians. — Doric and Æolic dialect.

325-337

CHAPTER VI.

LAWS AND DISCIPLINE OF LYKURGUS AT SPARTA.

Lykurgus — authorities of Plutarch respecting him. — Uncertainties about his genealogy. — Probable date of Lykurgus. — Opinion of O. MÜller (that Sparta is the perfect type of Dorian character and tendencies) is incorrect. — Peculiarity of Sparta. — Early date of Lykurgus. — View taken of Lykurgus by Herodotus. — Little said about Lykurgus in the earlier authors. — Copious details of Plutarch. — Regency of Lykurgus — his long absence from Sparta. — He is sent by the Delphian oracle to reform the state. — His institutions ascribed to him — senate and popular assembly — ephors. — Constitution ascribed to Lykurgus agrees with that which we find in Homer. — Pair of kings at Sparta — their constant dissensions — a security to the state against despotism. — Idea of KleomenÊs the Third respecting the first appointment of the ephors. — Popular origin of the board of ephors — oath interchanged between them and the kings. — Subordination of the kings, and supremacy of the ephors, during the historical times. — Position and privileges of the kings. — Power of the ephors. — Public assembly. — The Senate. — Spartan constitution — a close oligarchy. — Long duration of the constitution without formal change — one cause of the respect in Greece and pride in the Spartans themselves. — Dorians divided into three tribes, — Hylleis, Pamphyli, and Dymanes. — Local distinctions known among the Spartans. — Population of Laconia — 1. Spartans. — 2. Perioeki. — Special meaning of the word Perioeki in Laconia. — Statement of IsokratÊs as to the origin of the Perioeki. — Statement of Ephorus — different from IsokratÊs, yet not wholly irreconcilable. — Spartans and Perioeki — no distinction of race known between them in historical times. — 3. Helots — essentially villagers. — They were serfs — adscripti glebÆ — their condition and treatment. — Bravery and energy of the Helots — fear and cruelty of the Spartans. — Evidence of the character of the Spartan government. — The Krypteia. — Manumitted Helots. — Economical and social regulations ascribed to Lykurgus. — Partition of lands. — Syssitia, or public mess. — Public training or discipline. — Manners and training of the Spartan women — opinion of Aristotle. — Statement of Xenophon and Plutarch. — Number of rich women in the time of Aristotle — they had probably procured exemption from the general training. — Earnest and lofty patriotism of the Spartan women. — Lykurgus is the trainer of a military brotherhood, more than the framer of a political constitution. — His end exclusively warlike — his means exclusively severe. — Statements of Plutarch about Lykurgus — much romance in them. — New partition of lands — no such measure ascribed to Lykurgus by earlier authors down to Aristotle. — The idea of Lykurgus as an equal partitioner of lands belongs to the century of Agis and KleomenÊs. — Circumstances of Sparta down to the reign of Agis. — Diminished number of citizens and degradation of Sparta in the reign of Agis. — His ardent wish to restore the dignity of the state. — Historic fancy of Lykurgus as an equal partitioner of lands grew out of this feeling. — Partition proposed by Agis. — Opinion that Lykurgus proposed some agrarian interference, but not an entire repartition, gratuitous and improbable. — The statement of Plutarch is best explained by supposing it a fiction of the time of Agis. — Acknowledged difficulty of understanding by what means the fixed number and integrity of the lots was maintained. — Plutarch’s story about the ephor Epitadeus. — Landed property was always unequally divided at Sparta. — Nor were there any laws which tended to equalize it. — Opinions of Aristotle. — Erroneous suppositions with regard to the Spartan law and practice of succession. — Lykurgean system — originally applied only to Sparta — introduced equal severity of discipline, not equality of property. — Original Dorian allotment of land in Sparta unknown — probably not equal. — Gradual conquest of Laconia, the result of the new force imparted by the Lykurgean discipline. — Conquest of AmyklÆ, Pharis, and GeronthrÆ, by king TÊleklus. — Helus conquered by AlkamenÊs. — Progressive increase of Sparta.

337-421

CHAPTER VII.

FIRST AND SECOND MESSENIAN WARS.

Authorities for the history of the Messenian wars. — Chiefly belong to the time after the foundation of MessÊnÊ by Epameinondas. — Absence of real or ancient traditions concerning these wars: contradictions about the Messenian hero AristomenÊs. — Dates of the first wars — B.C. 743-724. — Causes alleged by the Spartans. — Spartan king TÊleklus slain by the Messenians at the temple of Artemis Limnatis. — First Messenian war. — Messenian kings, EuphaÊs and AristodÊmus. — Messenians concentrate themselves on Mount IthÔme — after a long siege they are completely conquered. — Harsh treatment and Helotism of the conquered Messenians under Sparta. — Revolt of the Messenians against Sparta — second Messenian war — AristomenÊs. — His chivalrous exploits and narrow escapes — end of the second war. — The Messenians again conquered. — Narrative of Pausanias, borrowed from the poet Rhianus, is undeserving of credit. — The poet TyrtÆus, the ally of Sparta — his great efficiency and influence over the Spartan mind. — Musical susceptibilities of the Spartans. — Powerful ethical effect of the old Grecian music. — Sufferings of the Spartans in the second Messenian war. — Date of the second war, B.C. 648-631. — Punishment of the traitor AristokratÊs, king of the Arcadian Orchomenus. — Spartans acquire the country west of Taygetus. — The Messenian Dorians had no considerable fortified places — lived in small townships and villages. — Relations of Pisa and Elis. — Struggles of the PisatÆ and Triphylians for autonomy — the latter in after times sustained by the political interests of Sparta.

421-440

CHAPTER VIII.

CONQUESTS OF SPARTA TOWARDS ARCADIA AND ARGOLIS.

State of Arcadia. — Tegea and Mantineia the most powerful Arcadian towns, before the building of Megalopolis. — Encroachments of Sparta upon the southern boundary of Arcadia. — Unsuccessful attempts of the Spartans against Tegea. — They are directed by the oracle to bring to Sparta the bones of the hero OrestÊs. — Their operations against Tegea become more successful; nevertheless, Tegea maintains her independence. — Boundaries of Sparta towards Argos — conquest of Thyreatis by Sparta. — Battle of the three hundred select champions, between Sparta and Argos, to decide the possession of the Thyreatis — valor of Othryades. — Thyreatis comes into possession of Sparta — efforts of the Argeians to recover it. — Alteration of Grecian opinion, as to the practice of deciding disputes by select champions. — Kynurians in Argolis, said to be of Ionic race, but Dorized. — Full acquisition of the southern portion of Peloponnesus, from sea to sea, by the Spartans before 540 B.C. — Great comparative power of Sparta at that early time. — Careful personal training of the Spartans at a time when other states had no training at all. — Military institutions of Sparta. — Peculiar and minute military subdivisions, distinct from the civil EnÔmoties, etc. — Careful drilling of the EnÔmoties. — In other Grecian cities there were no peculiar military divisions distinct from the civil. — Recognized superiority of Sparta — a part of early Grecian sentiment — coincident with the growing tendency to increased communion. — Homeric mode of fighting — probably belonged to Asia, not to Greece. — Argos — her struggles to recover the headship of Greece. — Her conquest of MykenÆ, Tiryns, and KleÔnÆ. — Nemean games. — Achaia — twelve autonomous towns, perhaps more — little known.

441-466