[64] Plutarch, QuÆst. GrÆc. c. 18, p. 295.

[65] Aristot. Polit. iv, 12, 10; v, 2, 6; 4, 3.

[66] Theognis, vv. 682, 715, 720, 750, 816, 914, Welcker’s edition:—

[67] Theognis, v, 20.—

[68] See, especially, the lines from 500-560, 816-830, in Welcker’s edition.

[69] Consult the Prolegomena to Welcker’s edition of Theognis; also, those of Schneidewin (Delectus Elegiac. Poetar. pp. 46-55)

The Prolegomena of Welcker are particularly valuable and full of instruction. He illustrates at great length the tendency common to Theognis, with other early Greek poets, to apply the words good and bad, not with reference to any ethical standard, but to wealth as contrasted with poverty,—nobility with low birth,—strength with weakness,—conservative and oligarchical politics as opposed to innovation (sect. 10-18). The ethical meaning of these words is not absolutely unknown, yet rare, in Theognis: it gradually grew up at Athens, and became popularized by the Socratic school of philosophers as well as by the orators. But the early or political meaning always remained, and the fluctuation between the two has been productive of frequent misunderstanding. Constant attention is necessary when we read the expressions ?? ??a???, ?s????, ??t?st??, ?a?????a???, ???st??, etc., or on the other hand, ?? ?a???, de????, etc., to examine whether the context is such as to give to them the ethical or the political meaning. Welcker seems to go a step too far, when he says that the latter sense “fell into desuetude, through the influence of the Socratic philosophy.” (Proleg. sect. 11, p. xxv.) The two meanings both remained extant at the same time, as we see by Aristotle (Polit. iv, 8, 2),—s?ed?? ??? pa?? t??? p?e?st??? ?? e?p????, t?? ?a??? ???a??? d????s? ?at??e?? ???a?. A careful distinction is sometimes found in Plato and Thucydides, who talk of the oligarchs as “the persons called super-excellent,”—t??? ?a???? ???a???? ???a??????? (Thucyd. viii, 48),—?p? t?? p???s??? te ?a? ?a??? ???a??? ?e?????? ?? t? p??e? (Plato, Rep. viii, p. 569).

The same double sense is to be found equally prevalent in the Latin language: “Bonique et mali cives appellati, non ob merita in rempublicam, omnibus pariter corruptis: sed uti quisque locupletissimus, et injuri validior, quia prÆsentia defendebat, pro bono habebatur.” (Sallust, Hist. Fragment. lib. i, p. 935, Cort.) And again, Cicero (De Republ. i, 34): “Hoc errore vulgi cum rempublicam opes paucorum, non virtutes, tenere coeperunt, nomen illi principes optimatium mordicus tenent, re autem carent eo nomine.” In Cicero’s Oration pro Sextio (c. 45) the two meanings are intentionally confounded together, when he gives his definition of optimus quisque. Welcker (Proleg. s. 12) produces several other examples of the like equivocal meaning. Nor are there wanting instances of the same use of language in the laws and customs of the early Germans,—boni homines, probi homines, Rachinburgi, GudemÄnner. See Savigny, Geschichte des RÖmisch. Rechts im Mittelalter, vol. i, p. 184; vol. ii, p. xxii.

[70] Herod. vi. 128.

[71] Justin. ii, 7.

[72] Pausan. i, 3, 2; Suidas, ?pp?????; Diogenian. Centur. Proverb. iii, 1. ?se?ste??? ?pp??????.

[73] See Boeckh on the Parian Marble, in Corp. Inscrip. GrÆc. part 12, sect. 6, pp. 307, 310, 332.

From the beginning of the reign of MedÔn son of Kodrus, to the first annual archon KreÔn, the Parian Marble computes 407 years, Eusebius 387.

[74] Philochorus ap. Strabo, ix, p. 396. See SchÖmann, Antiq. J. P. GrÆc. b. v, sect. 2-5.

[75] Strabo, ix, p. 392. Philochorus and AndrÔn extended the kingdom of Nisus from the isthmus of Corinth as far as the Pythium (near ŒnoÊ) and Eleusis (Str. ib.); but there were many different tales.

[76] Pollux, viii, c. 9, 109-111.

[77] IÔn, the father of the four heroes after whom these tribes were named, was affirmed by one story to be the primitive civilizing legislator of Attica, like Lykurgus, Numa, or DeukaliÔn (Plutarch. adv. KolÔten, c. 31, p. 1125).

[78] Thus Euripides derives the ???????e??, not from a??, a goat, but from ?????, the Ægis of AthÊnÊ (Ion. 1581): he also gives Teleontes, derived from an eponymous TeleÔn, son of IÔn, while the inscriptions at Kyzikus concur with Herodotus and others in giving Geleontes. Plutarch (Solon, 25) gives Gedeontes. In an Athenian inscription recently published by Professor Ross (dating, seemingly, in the first century after the Christian era), the worship of Zeus GeleÔn at Athens has been for the first time verified,—???? Ge????t?? ?e??????? (Ross, Die Attischen Demen, pp. vii-ix. Halle 1846).

[79] Plutarch (Solon, c. 25); Strabo, viii, p. 383. Compare Plato, Kritias, p. 110.

[80] Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Nos. 3078, 3079, 3665. The elaborate commentary on this last-mentioned inscription, in which Boeckh vindicates the early historical reality of the classification by professions, is noway satisfactory to my mind.

K. F. Hermann (Lehrbuch der Griechischen Staats AlterthÜmer, sect. 91-96) gives a summary of all that can be known respecting these old Athenian tribes. Compare Ilgen, De Tribubus Atticis, p. 9, seq.; Tittmann, Griechische Staats Verfassungen, pp. 570-582; Wachsmuth, Hellenische Alterthumskunde, sect. 43, 44.

[81] About the naukraries, see Aristot. Fragment. Rerum Public., p. 89, ed. Neumann; Harpokration, vv. ??a????, ?a???a????; Photius, v. ?a???a??a; Pollux, viii, 108; Schol. ad Aristoph. Nubes, 37.

?? p??t??e?? t?? ?a???????, Herodot. v, 71: they conducted the military proceedings in resistance to the usurpation of KylÔn.

The statement that each naukrary was obliged to furnish one ship can hardly be true of the time before Solon: as Pollux states it, we should be led to conceive that he only infers it from the name ?a???a??? (Pollux, viii, 108), though the real etymology seems rather to be from ?a?? (Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alt. sect. 44, p. 240). There may be some ground for believing that the old meaning, also, of the word ?a?t?? connected it with ?a??; such a supposition would smooth the difficulty in regard to the functions of the ?a?t?d??a? as judges in cases of illicit admission into the phratores. See Hesychius and Harpokration, v. ?a?t?d??a?; and Baumstark, De Curatoribus Emporii, Friburg, 1828, p. 67, seq.: compare, also, the fragment of the Solonian law, ? ?e??? ?????? ? ?a?ta?, which Niebuhr conjecturally corrects. Rom. Gesch. v. i, p. 323, 2d ed.; Hesychius, ?a?st??e?—?? ????ta?. See Pollux, ?a????, and Lobeck, ??at????, sect. 3, p. 7; ?e??a?ta? pa?? ????s????? Plutarch, QuÆst. GrÆc. c. 32, p. 298.

[82] Meier, De Gentilitate AtticÂ, pp. 22-24, conceives that this numerical completeness was enacted by Solon; but of this there is no proof, nor is it in harmony with the general tendencies of Solon’s legislation.

[83] So in reference to the Anglo-Saxon Tythings and Hundreds, and to the still more widely-spread division of the Hundred, which seems to pervade the whole of Teutonic and Scandinavian antiquity, much more extensively than the tything;—there is no ground for believing that these precise numerical proportions were in general practice realized: the systematic nomenclature served its purpose by marking the idea of graduation and the type to which a certain approach was actually made. Mr. Thorpe observes, respecting the Hundred, in his Glossary to the “Ancient Laws and Institutes of England,” v. Hundred, Tything, Frid-Borg, etc. “In the Dialogus de Scaccario, it is said that a Hundred ‘ex hydarum aliquot centenariis, sed non determinatis, constat: quidam enim ex pluribus, quidam ex paucioribus constat.’ Some accounts make it consist of precisely a hundred hydes, others of a hundred tythings, others of a hundred free families. Certain it is, that whatever may have been its original organization, the Hundred, at the time when it becomes known to us, differed greatly in extent in various parts of England.”

[84] See the instructive inscription in Professor Ross’s work (Über die Demen von Attika, p. 26) of the ????? ???a?d??d??, commemorating the archon of that gens, the priest of Kekrops, the ?a?a?, or treasurer, and the names of the members, with the deme and tribe of each individual. Compare Bossler, De Gent. Atticis, p. 53. About the peculiar religious rites of the gens called GephyrÆi, see Herodot. v, 61.

[85] F??a? ?e???a?, opposed to f??a? t?p??a?.—Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. iv, 14.

[86] Plato, Euthydem. p. 302; Aristot. ap. Schol. in Platon. Axioch. p. 465, ed. Bek. ???st?t???? f?s?? t?? ???? p?????? d???????? ?????s?? e?? te t??? ?e?????? ?a? t??? d?????????, f???? a?t?? e??a? t?ssa?a?, t?? d? f???? ???st?? ????? e??a? t?e??, ?? t??tt?a? te ?a???s? ?a? f?at??a?? ???st?? d? t??t?? t??????ta e??a? ????, t? d? ????? ?? t??????ta ??d??? s???st??a?? t??t??? d? t??? e?? ta ???? teta?????? ?e???ta? ?a???s?. Pollux, viii, 3. ?? et????te? t?? ??????, ?e???ta? ?a? ?????a?te?? ???e? ?? ?? p??s????te?, ?? d? t?? s???d?? ??t? p??sa???e??e???: compare also iii, 52; Moeris. Atticist. p. 108.

Harpokrat. v. ?p????? ?at????, Te??????, Ge???ta?, ???e??e?, etc. Etymol. Magn. v. Ge???ta?; Suidas, v. ???e??e?; Pollux, viii, 85; Demosthen. cont. Eubulid. p. 1319, e?ta f??t??e?, e?ta ?p??????? pat???? ?a? ???? ?????? ?e???ta?; and cont. NeÆram, p. 1365. IsÆus uses ???e??e? as synonymous with ?e???ta? (see Orat. ii, pp. 19, 20-28, ed. Bek.). SchÖmann (Antiq. J. P. GrÆc. § xxvi) considers the two as essentially distinct. F??t?? and f???? both occur in the Iliad, ii, 362. See the Dissertation of Buttmann Über den Begriff von f?at??a (Mythologus, c. 24, p. 305); and that of Meier, De Gentilitate AtticÂ, where the points of knowledge attainable respecting the gentes are well put together and discussed.

In the TherÆan Inscription (No. 2448 ap. Boeckh. Corp. Inscr., see his comment, page 310) containing the testament of EpiktÊta, whereby a bequest is made to ?? s???e?e??—? ??d?e??? t?? s???e???,—this latter word does not mean kindred or blood relations, but a variety of the gentile union—“thiasus,” or “sodalitium.” Boeckh.

[87] Herodot. ii, 143. ??ata??—?e?e?????sa?t? te ???t?? ?a? ??ad?sa?t? t?? pat???? ?? ???a?d??at?? ?e??. Again, ?e?e?????sa?t? ???t??, ?a? ??ad?sa?t? ?? ???a?d??at?? ?e??. The Attic expression,—????ste?a ?e??? ?a? ?s???,—illustrates the intimate association between family relationship and common religious privileges.—IsÆus, Orat. vi, p. 89, ed. Bek.

[88] IsÆus, Or. vi, p. 61; ii, p. 38; Demosth. adv. Makartatum, pp. 1053-1075; adv. Leochar. p. 1093. Respecting this perpetuation of the family sacred rites, the feeling prevalent among the Athenians is much the same as what is now seen in China.

Mr. Davis observes: “Sons are considered in this country, where the power over them is so absolute through life, as a sure support, as well as a probable source of wealth and dignities, should they succeed in learning. But the grand object is, the perpetuation of the race, to sacrifice at the family tombs. Without sons, a man lives without honor or satisfaction, and dies unhappy; and as the only remedy, he is permitted to adopt the sons of his younger brothers.

“It is not during life only, that a man looks for the service of his sons. It is his consolation in declining years, to think that they will continue the performance of the prescribed rites in the hall of ancestors, and at the family tombs, when he is no more: and it is the absence of this prospect which makes the childless doubly miserable. The superstition derives influence from the importance attached by the government to this species of posthumous duty: a neglect of which is punishable, as we have seen, by the laws. Indeed, of all the subjects of their care, there are none which the Chinese so religiously attend to as the tombs of their ancestors, conceiving that any neglect is sure to be followed by worldly misfortune.”—(The Chinese, by John Francis Davis, chap. ix, pp. 131-134. ed. Knight, 1840.)

Mr. Mill notices the same state of feeling among the Hindoos.—(History of British India, book ii, chap. vii. p. 381, ed. 8vo.)

[89] Xenoph. Hellen. i, 5, 8; Herodot. i, 147; Suidas, ?pat????a—?e?? F??t????—????a?a f?at??a, the presiding god of the phratric union.—Plato, Euthydem. c. 28, p. 302; Demosth. adv. Makart. p. 1054. See Meier, De Gentilitate AtticÂ, pp. 11-14.

The p?t??a? at Byzantium, which were different from ??as??, and which possessed corporate property (t? te ??as?t??? ?a? t? pat???t???, Aristot. Œconomic. ii, 4), are doubtless the parallel of the Athenian phratries.

[90] DikÆarchus ap. Stephan. Byz. v. ?at??; Aristot. Polit. i, 1, 6: ??s?p??? and ????p???? are the old words cited by the latter from Charondas and EpimenidÊs.

[91] Niebuhr, RÖmische Geschichte, vol. i, pp. 317-337. Varro’s language on that point is clear: “Ut in hominibus quÆdam sunt cognationes et gentilitates, sic in verbis. Ut enim ab Æmilio homines orti Æmilii et gentiles, sic ab Æmilii nomine declinatÆ voces in gentilitate nominali.” Paul. Diacon. p. 94. “Gentilis dicitur ex eodem genere ortus, et is qui simili nomine appellatur,” etc. See Becker, Handbuch der RÖmischen AlterthÜmer, part 2, abth. 2, p. 36.

The last part of the definition ought to be struck out for the Grecian gentes. The passage of Varro does not prove the historical reality of the primitive father, or genarch, Æmilius, but it proves that the members of the gens believed in him.

Dr. Wilda, in his learned work, “Das Deutsche Strafrecht,” (Halle, 1842,) dissents from Niebuhr in the opposite direction, and seems to maintain that the Grecian and Roman gentes were really distant blood relations (p. 123). How this can be proved, I do not know: and it is inconsistent with the opinion which he advances in the preceding page (p. 122), very justly,—that these quasi families are primordial facts in early human society, beyond which we cannot carry our researches. “The farther we go back in history, the more does the community exhibit the form of a family, though in reality it is not a mere family. This is the limit of historical research, which no man can transgress with impunity,” (p. 122).

[92] Diogen. LaËrt. v, 1.

[93] See Colonel Leake’s Travels in Northern Greece, ch. 2, p. 85 (the Greek word f??t??a? seems to be adopted in Albania); BouÉ, La Turquie en Europe, vol. ii, ch. 1, pp. 15-17; chap. 4, p. 530; Spenser’s View of the State of Ireland (vol. vi, pp. 1542-1543, of Tonson’s edition of Spenser’s Works, 1715); Cyprien Robert, Die Slaven in Turkey, b. 1, chs. 1 and 2.

So, too, in the laws of king Alfred in England, on the subject of murder, the guild-brethren, or members of the same guild, are made to rank in the position of distant relatives, if there happen to be no blood relatives:—

“If a man, kinless of paternal relatives, fight and slay a man, then, if he have maternal relatives, let them pay a third of the wer: his guild-brethren a third part: for a third let him flee. If he have no maternal relatives, let his guild-brethren pay half: for half let him flee.... If a man kill a man thus circumstanced, if he have no relatives, let half be paid to the king, half to his guild-brethren.” (Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, vol. i, pp. 79-81.) Again, in the same work, Leges Henrici Primi, vol. i, p. 596, the ideas of the kindred and the guild run together in the most intimate manner: “Si quis hominem occidat,—Si eum tunc cognatio sua deserat, et pro eo gildare nolit,” etc. In the Salic law, the members of a contubernium were invested with the same rights and obligations one towards the other (Rogge, Gerichtswesen der Germanen, ch. iii, p. 62). Compare Wilda, Deutsches Strafrecht, p. 389, and the valuable special treatise of the same author (Das Gildenwesen im Mittelalter. Berlin, 1831), where the origin and progress of the guilds from the primitive times of German heathenism is unfolded. He shows that these associations have their basis in the earliest feelings and habits of the Teutonic race,—the family was, as it were, a natural guild,—the guild, a factitious family. Common religious sacrifices and festivals,—mutual defence and help, as well as mutual responsibility,—were the recognized bonds among the congildones: they were sororitates as well as fraternitates, comprehending both men and women (deren Genosser wie die Glieder einer Familie enge unter einander verbunden waren, p. 145). Wilda explains how this primitive social and religious phratry (sometimes this very expression fratria is used, see p. 109) passed into something like the more political tribe, or phylÊ (see pp. 43, 57, 60, 116, 126, 129, 344). The sworn commune, which spread so much throughout Europe in the beginning of the twelfth century, partakes both of the one and of the other,—conjuratio,—amicitia jurata (pp. 148, 169).

The members of an Albanian phara are all jointly bound to exact, and each severally exposed to suffer, the vengeance of blood, in the event of homicide committed upon, or by, any one of them (BouÉ, ut supra).

[94] See the valuable chapter of Niebuhr, RÖm. Gesch. vol. i, pp. 317, 350, 2d edit.

The Alberghi of Genoa in the Middle Ages were enlarged families created by voluntary compact: “De tout temps (observes Sismondi) les familles puissantes avaient ÉtÉ dans l’usage, À GÊnes, d’augmenter encore leur puissance en adoptant d’autres familles moins riches, moins illustres, ou moins nombreuses,—auxquelles elles communiquoient leur nom et leurs armes, qu’elles prenoient ainsi l’engagement de protÉger,—et qui en retour s’associoient À toutes leurs quÉrelles. Les maisons dans lesquelles on entroit ainsi par adoption, Étoient nommÉes des alberghi (auberges), et il y avoit peu de maisons illustres qui ne se fussent ainsi rÉcrutÉes a l’aide de quelque famille ÉtrangÈre.” (RÉpubliques Italiennes, t. xv, ch. 120, p. 366.)

Eichhorn (Deutsche Staats und Rechts-Geschichte, sect. 18, vol. i, p. 84, 5th edit.) remarks in regard to the ancient Germans, that the German “familiÆ et propinquitates,” mentioned by Tacitus (Germ. c. 7), and the “gentibus cognationibusque hominum” of CÆsar (B. G. vi. 22), bore more analogy to the Roman gens than to relationship of blood or wedlock. According to the idea of some of the German tribes, even blood-relationship might be formally renounced and broken off, with all its connected rights and obligations, at the pleasure of the individual: he might declare himself ??p???t??, to use the Greek expression. See the Titul. 63 of the Salic law, as quoted by Eichhorn, l.c.

Professor Koutorga of St. Petersburg (in his Essai sur l’Organisation de la Tribu dans l’AntiquitÉ, translated from Russian into French by M. Chopin, Paris, 1839) has traced out and illustrated the fundamental analogy between the social classification, in early times, of Greeks, Romans, Germans, and Russians (see especially, pp. 47, 213). Respecting the early history of Attica, however, many of his positions are advanced upon very untrustworthy evidence (see p. 123, seq.).

[95] Pindar, Pyth. viii, 53; Isthm. vi, 92; Nem. vii, 103; Strabo, ix, p. 421; Stephan. Byz. v. ???; Herodot. v, 44; vii, 134; ix, 37; Pausan. x, 1, 4; Kallimachus, Lavacr. Pallad. 33; Schol. Pindar. Pyth. ii. 27; Aristot. Pol. v, 8, 13: ??e??d?? t??? p??t???, Plato, Menon. 1, which marks them as a numerous gens. See Buttmann, Dissert. on the AleuadÆ in the Mythologus, vol. ii, p. 246. BacchiadÆ at Corinth, ?d?d?sa? ?a? ????t? ?? ??????? (Herod. v, 92).

[96] Harpokration, v. ?te???t?da?, ???t?da?; Thucyd. viii, 53; Plutarch, Theseus, 12; ThemistoklÊs, 1; Demosth. cont. NeÆr. p. 1365: Polemo ap. Schol. ad Soph. Œdip. Kol. 489; Plutarch, Vit. x, Orator. pp. 841-844. See the Dissertation of O. MÜller, De Minerv Poliade, c. 2.

[97] Demosth. cont. NeÆr. p. 1365. Tittmann (Griechische Staatsverfass, p. 277) thinks that every citizen, after the Kleisthenean revolution, was of necessity a member of some phratry, as well as of some deme: but the evidence which he produces is, in my judgment, insufficient. The ideas of the phratry and the tribe are often confounded together; thus the ÆgeidÆ of Sparta, whom Herodotus (iv, 149) calls a tribe, are by Aristotle called a phratry of Thebans (ap. Schol. ad Pindar. Isthm. vii, 18). Compare Wachsmuth, Hellenische Alterthumskunde, sect. 83, p. 17.

A great many of the demes seem to have derived their names from the shrubs or plants which grew in their neighborhood (Schol. ad Aristophan. Plutus, 586, ?????????, ?a????, etc.).

[98] For example, ÆthalidÆ, ButadÆ, KothÔkidÆ, DÆdalidÆ, EiresidÆ, EpieikidÆ, EroeadÆ, EupyridÆ, EchelidÆ, KeiriadÆ, KydantidÆ, LakiadÆ, PambÔtadÆ, PeritheidÆ, PersidÆ, SemachidÆ, SkambÔnidÆ, SybridÆ, TitakidÆ, ThyrgonidÆ, HybadÆ, ThymoetadÆ, PÆonidÆ, PhilaidÆ, ChollidÆ: all these names of demes, bearing the patronymic form, are found in Harpokration and Stephanus Byz. alone.

We do not know that the ?e?ae?? ever constituted a ?????, but the name of the deme ?e?ae?? is evidently given, upon the same principle, to a place chiefly occupied by potters. The gens ???????da? are said to have been called F???e?? (? F??e??) and ?e?????da? as well as ???????da?: the names of gentes and those of demes seem not always distinguishable.

The ButadÆ, though a highly venerable gens, also ranked as a deme (see the Psephism about Lykurgus in Plutarch, Vit. x. Orator, p. 852): yet we do not know that there was any locality called ButadÆ. Perhaps some of the names above noticed may be simply names of gentes, enrolled as demes, but without meaning to imply any community of abode among the members.

The members of the Roman gens occupied adjoining residences, on some occasions,—to what extent we do not know (Heiberg, De Familiari Patriciorum Nexu, ch. 24, 25. Sleswic, 1829).

We find the same patronymic names of demes and villages elsewhere: in KÔs and Rhodes (Ross, Inscr. Gr. ined., Nos. 15-26. Halle, 1846); LÊstadÆ in Naxos (Aristotle ap. AthenÆ. viii, p. 348); BotachidÆ at Tegea (Steph. Byz. in v); BranchidÆ, near Miletus, etc.; and an interesting illustration is afforded, in other times and other places, by the frequency of the ending ikon in villages near Zurich in Switzerland,—Mezikon, Nennikon, Wezikon, etc. BlÜntschli, in his history of Zurich, shows that these terminations are abridgments of inghoven, including an original patronymic element,—indicating the primary settlement of members of a family, or of a band bearing the name of its captain, on the same spot (BlÜntschli, Staats und Rechts Geschichte der Stadt Zurich, vol. i, p. 26).

In other Inscriptions from the island of KÔs, published by Professor Ross, we have a deme mentioned (without name), composed of three coalescing gentes, “In hoc et sequente titulo alium jam deprehendimus demum Coum, e tribus gentibus appellatione patronymic conflatum, Antimachidarum, Ægiliensium, Archidarum.” (Ross, Inscript. GrÆc. Ined. Fascic. iii, No. 307, p. 44. Berlin, 1845.) This is a specimen of the process systematically introduced by KleisthenÊs in Attica.

[99] Plutarch, Solon. 21. We find a common cemetery exclusively belonging to the gens, and tenaciously preserved (Demosth. cont. Eubulid. p. 1307; Cicero, Legg. ii, 26).

[100] Demosth. cont. Makartat. p. 1068. See the singular additional proviso in Plutarch, Solon, c. 20.

[101] See Meursius, Themis Attica, i, 13.

[102] That this was the primitive custom, and that the limitation ????? ??e??ad?? (Meier, De Bonis Damnat. p. 23, cites ??e??ad?? ?a? f?at????) was subsequently introduced (Demosth. cont. Euerg. et Mnesib. p. 1161), we may gather from the law as it stands in Demosth. cont. Makartat. p. 1069, which includes the phrators, and therefore, À fortiori, the gennÊtes, or gentiles.

The same word ????? is used to designate both the circle of nameable relatives, brothers, first cousins (????ste??, Demosth. cont. Makartat. c. 9, p. 1058), etc., going beyond the ?????,—and the quasi-family, or gens. As the gentile tie tended to become weaker, so the former sense of the word became more and more current, to the extinction of the latter. ?? ?? ???e?, or ?? p??s????te?, would have borne a wider sense in the days of Drako than in those of Demosthenes: S???e??? usually belongs to ????? in the narrower sense, ?e???t?? to ????? in the wider sense; but IsÆus sometimes uses the former word as an exact equivalent of the latter (Orat. vii, pp. 95, 99, 102, 103, Bekker). ???a??? appears to be noted in Pollux as the equivalent of ?????, or gens (viii, 111), but the word does not occur in the Attic orators, and we cannot make out its meaning with certainty: the Inscription of the Deme of PeirÆeus given in Boeckh (Corp. Insc. No. 101, p. 140,) rather adds to the confusion by revealing the existence of a t??a??? constituting the fractional part of a deme, and not connected with a gens: compare Boeckh’s Comment. ad loc. and his Addenda and Corrigenda, p. 900.

Dr. Thirlwall translates ?????, house; which I cannot but think inconvenient, because that word is the natural equivalent of ?????,—a very important word in reference to Attic feelings, and quite different from ????? (Hist. of Greece, vol. ii, p. 14, ch. 11). It will be found impossible to translate it by any known English word which does not at the same time suggest erroneous ideas: which I trust will be accepted as my excuse for adopting it untranslated into this History.

[103] Demosthen. cont. Makartat l. c.

[104] See Æschines de Fals Legat. p. 292, c. 46; Lysias cont. Andokid. p. 108; Andokid. de Mysteriis, p. 63, Reiske; Deinarchus and Hellanikus ap. Harpokration. v. ?e??f??t??.

In case of crimes of impiety, particularly in offences against the sanctity of the Mysteries, the EumolpidÆ had a peculiar tribunal of their own number, before which offenders were brought by the king archon. Whether it was often used, seems doubtful; they had also certain unwritten customs of great antiquity, according to which they pronounced (Demosthen. cont. Androtion. p. 601; Schol. ad Demosth. vol. ii, p. 137, Reiske: compare Meier and SchÖmann, Der Attische Prozess, p. 117). The ButadÆ, also, had certain old unwritten maxims (Androtion ap. AthenÆ. ix, p. 374).

Compare Bossler, De Gentibus et Familiis AtticÆ, p. 20, and Ostermann, De PrÆconibus GrÆcor. sect. 2 and 3 (Marburg, 1845).

[105] Lykurgus the orator is described as t?? d??? ???t?d??, ?????? t?? t?? ?te???tad?? (Plutarch, Vit. x. Orator. p. 841).

[106] In an inscription (apud Boeckh. Corpus Inscrip. No. 465).

Four names of the phratries at the Greek city of Neapolis, and six names out of the thirty Roman curiÆ, have been preserved (Becker, Handbuch der RÖmischen AlterthÜmer, p. 32; Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. ii, p. 650).

Each Attic phratry seems to have had its own separate laws and customs, distinct from the rest, t??? f??t??s?, ?at? t??? ??e???? ????? (IsÆus, Or. viii, p. 115, ed. Bek.; vii, p. 99; iii, p. 49).

Bossler (De Gentibus et Familiis AtticÆ, Darmstadt, 1833), and Meier (De Gentilitate AtticÂ, pp. 41-54) have given the names of those Attic gentes that are known: the list of Meier comprises seventy-nine in number (see Koutorga, Organis. Trib. p. 122).

[107] Tittmann (Griech. Staats AlterthÜmer, p. 271) is of opinion that KleisthenÊs augmented the number of phratries, but the passage of Aristotle brought to support this opinion is insufficient proof (Polit. vi, 2, 11). Still less can we agree with Platner (BeytrÄge zur Kenntniss des Attischen Rechts, pp. 74-77), that three new phratries were assigned to each of the new Kleisthenean tribes.

Allusion is made in Hesychius, ?t????ast??, ??? t??a??d??, to persons not included in any gens, but this can hardly be understood to refer to times anterior to KleisthenÊs, as Wachsmuth would argue (p. 238).

[108] The language of Photius on this matter (v. ?a???a??a ?? ?p???? t? ? s????a ?a? ? d???? ?a???a??? d? ?p???? t? ? d?a????) is more exact than that of Harpokration, who identifies the two completely,—v. ??a????. If it be true that the naukraries were continued under the Kleisthenean constitution, with the alteration that they were augmented to fifty in number, five to every Kleisthenean tribe, they must probably have been continued in name alone without any real efficiency or function. KleidÊmus makes this statement, and Boeckh follows it (Public Economy of Athens, l. ii, ch. 21, p. 256): yet I cannot but doubt its correctness. For the t??tt?? (one-third of a Kleisthenean tribe) was certainly retained and was a working and available division (see DÊmosthenÊs de Symmoriis, c. 7, p. 184), and it seems hardly probable that there should be two coexistent divisions, one representing the third part, the other the fifth part, of the same tribes.

[109] Strabo, ix, p. 396.

[110] Strabo, ix, p. 396, pet?? ?? ped?? pe?????????? ?????. Euripid. Ion, 1578, s??pe??? ?? ?a???s? ??? (AthÊnÊ).

[111] Thucyd. ii, 15; Theophrast. Charact. 29, 4. Plutarch (Theseus, 24) gives the proceedings of Theseus in greater detail, and with a stronger tinge of democracy.

[112] Pausan. i, 2, 4; 38, 2; Diodor. Sicul. iv, 2; Schol. ad Aristophan. Acharn. 242.

The Athenians transferred from EleutherÆ to Athens both a venerable statue of Dionysus and a religious ceremony in honor of that god. The junction of the town with Athens is stated by Pausanias to have taken place in consequence of the hatred of its citizens for Thebes, and must have occurred before 509 B.C., about which period we find HysiÆ to be the frontier deme of Attica (Herodot. v, 72; vi, 108).

[113] Thucyd. ii, 15, 16. ??d?? ???? ? p???? t?? ?a?t?? ?p??e?p?? ??ast??,—respecting the Athenians from the country who were driven into Athens at the first invasion during the Peloponnesian war.

[114] Etymologicon Magn. v. ?pa???a ????; Strabo, viii, p. 383; Stephan. Byz. v. ?et??p????.

The tet?????? comprised the four demes, ?e??a?e??, Fa???e??, ??pete??e?, T???tada? (Pollux, iv, 105): whether this is an old division, however, has been doubted (see Ilgen, De Tribubus Atticis, p. 51).

The ?pa????? t??tt?? is mentioned in an inscription apud Ross (Die Demen von Attika, p. vi). Compare Boeckh ad Corp. Inscr. No. 82: among other demes, it comprised the deme PlÔtheia. MesogÆa also (or rather the Mesogei, ?? ?es??e???) appears as a communion for sacrifice and religious purposes, and as containing the deme BatÊ. See Inscriptiones AtticÆ nuper repertÆ duodecim, by Ern. Curtius; Berlin, 1843; Inscript. i, p. 3. The exact site of the deme BatÊ in Attica is unknown (Ross, Die Demen von Attica, p. 64); and respecting the question, what portion of Attica was called MesogÆa, very different conjectures have been started, which there appears to be no means of testing. Compare SchÖmann de Comitiis, p. 343, and Wordsworth, Athens and Attica, p. 229, 2d edit.

[115] DikÆarchus, Fragm. p. 109, ed. Fuhr; Plutarch, Theseus, c. 33.

[116] Such as that between the PallenÆans and Agnusians (Plutarch, Theseus, 12).

AcharnÆ was the largest and most populous deme in Attica (see Ross, Die Demen von Attika, p. 62; Thucyd. ii, 21); yet Philochorus does not mention it as having ever constituted a substantive p????.

Several of the demes seem to have stood in repute for peculiar qualities, good or bad: see Aristophan. Acharn. 177, with Elmsley’s note.

[117] Strabo, ix, p. 396; Plutarch, Theseus, 14. Polemo had written a book expressly on the eponymous heroes of the Attic demes and tribes (Preller. Polemonis Fragm. p. 42): the Atthidographers were all rich on the same subject: see the Fragments of the Atthis of Hellanikus (p. 24, ed. Preller), also those of Istrus, Philochorus, etc.

[118] J. H. Voss, ErlaÜterungen, p. 1: see the Hymn, 96-106, 451-475: compare Hermesianax ap. Athen. xiii, p. 597.

[119] Herodot. i, 30.

[120] DikÆarch. Vita GrÆciÆ, p. 141, Fragm. ed. Fuhr.

[121] Plutarch, Theseus, c. 25: Dionys. Hal. ii, 8.

[122] Etymologic. Magn. ??pat??da?—?? a?t? t? ?st? ??????te?, ?a? et????te? t?? as?????? ??????, ?a? t?? t?? ?e??? ?p???e?a? p????e???. The as?????? ????? includes not only the Kodrids, but also the Erechtheids, Pandionids, Pallantids, etc. See also Plutarch, Theseus, c. 24; Hesychius, ??????ta?.

Yet IsokratÊs seems to speak of the great family of the AlkmÆonidÆ as not included among the eupatridÆ. (Orat. xvi, De Bigis, p. 351, p. 506, Bek.)

[124] Plutarch, Solon, c. 19; Aristotle, Polit. ii. 9, 2; Cicero, De Offic. i. 22. Pollux seems to follow the opinion that Solon first instituted the senate of areopagus (viii, 125).

[125] Pollux, viii, 89-91.

[126] We read the ?es???t?? ??????s?? in Demosthen. cont. Eubulidem, c. 17, p. 1319, and Pollux, viii, 85; a series of questions which it was necessary for them to answer before they were admitted to occupy their office. Similar questions must have been put to the archon, the basileus, and the polemarch: so that the words ?es???t?? ??????s?? may reasonably be understood to apply to all the nine archons, as, indeed, we find the words t??? ????a ?????ta? ??a????ete shortly afterwards, p. 1320.

[127] Respecting the word ???ste? in the Homeric sense, see above, vol. ii, ch. xx.

Both Aristotle (Polit. ii, 9, 9) and DÊmosthenÊs (contr. Euerg. et MnÊsibul. c. 18, p. 1161) call the ordinances of Drako ????, not ?es??. AndokidÊs distinguishes the ?es?? of Drako and the ???? of Solon (De Mysteriis, p. 11). This is the adoption of a phrase comparatively modern; Solon called his own laws ?es??. The oath of the pe??p???? ?f??? (the youth who formed the armed police of Attica during the first two years of their military age), as given in Pollux (viii, 106), seems to contain at least many ancient phrases: this phrase,—?a? t??? ?es??? t??? ?d??????? pe?s?a?,—is remarkable, as it indicates the ancient association of religious sanction which adhered to the word ?es??; for ?d??es?a? is the word employed in reference to the establishment and domiciliation of the gods who protected the country,—??s?a? ????? is the later expression for making laws. Compare StobÆus De Republic. xliii, 48, ed. Gaisford, and DÊmosthen. cont. Makartat. c. 13, p. 1069.

[128] ?te ?es?? ?f??? ?de,—such is the exact expression of Solon’s law (Plutarch, Solon, c. 19); the word ?es?? is found in Solon’s own poems, ?es??? d? ?????? t? ?a?? te ???a??.

[129] Aristot. Polit. ii, 9, 9; Rhetoric. ii. 25, 1; Aulus Gell. N. A. xi, 18; Pausanias, ix, 36, 4; Plutarch, Solon, c. 19; though Pollux (viii, 42) does not agree with him. Taylor, Lectt. LysiacÆ, ch. 10.

Respecting the ?es?? of Drako, see Kuhn. ad Ælian. V. II. viii, 10. The preliminary sentence which Porphyry (De AbstinentiÂ, iv, 22) ascribes to Drako can hardly be genuine.

[130] Pausanias, ix, 36, 4. ??????t?? ????a???? ?es??et?sa?t?? ?? t?? ??e???? ?at?st? ???? ??? ???afe? ?p? t?? ?????, ????? te ?p?s?? ?de?a? e??a? ???, ?a? d? ?a? t????a? ?????: compare DÊmosthen. cont. Aristokrat. p. 637; Lysias de CÆde Eratosthen. p. 31.

[131] Harpokration, vv. ?f?ta?, ?p? ?e?f????, ?p? ?a??ad??, ?? F?eatt??; Pollux, viii, 119, 124, 125; Photius, v. ?f?ta?; Hesychius, ?? F??at??; DÊmosthen. cont. Aristokrat. c. 15-18, pp. 642-645; cont. Makartat. c. 13, p. 1068. When Pollux speaks of the five courts in which the ephetÆ judged, he probably includes the areopagus (see DÊmosth. cont. Aristokrat. c. 14, p. 641).

About the judges ?? F?eatt??, see Aristot. Polit. iv, 13, 2. On the general subject of this ancient and obscure criminal procedure, see MatthiÆ, De Judiciis Atheniensium (in Miscellan. Philologie, vol. i, p. 143, seq.); also SchÖmann, Antiq. Jur. Pub. Att. sect. 61, p. 288; Platner, Prozess und Klagen bey den Attikern, b. i, ch. 1; and E. W. Weber, Comment. ad DÊmosthen. cont. Aristokrat. pp. 627, 641; Meier und SchÖmann, Attisch. Prozess, pp. 14-19.

I cannot consider the ephetÆ as judges in appeal, and I agree with those (SchÖmann, Antiq. Jur. Pub. Gr. p. 171; Meier und SchÖmann, Attisch. Prozess, p. 16; Platner, Prozess und Klagen, t. i, p. 18) who distrust the etymology which connects this word with ?f?s???. The active sense of the word, akin to ?f?ea? (Æsch. Prom. 4) and ?fet?, meets the case better: see O. MÜller, Prolegg. ad Mythol. p. 424 (though there is no reason for believing the ephetÆ to be older than Drako): compare, however, K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griechischen Staats AlterthÜmer, sects. 103, 104, who thinks differently.

The trial, condemnation, and banishment of inanimate objects which had been the cause of death, was founded on feelings widely diffused throughout the Grecian world (see Pausan. vi, 11, 2; and Theokritus, Idyll, xxiii, 60): analogous in principle to the English law respecting deodand, and to the spirit pervading the ancient Germanic codes generally (see Dr. C. TrÜmmer, Die Lehre von der Zurechnung, c. 28-38. Hamburg, 1845).

The Germanic codes do not content themselves with imposing a general obligation to appease the relatives and gentiles of the slain party, but determine beforehand the sum which shall be sufficient to the purpose, which, in the case of involuntary homicide, is paid to the surviving relatives as a compensation; for the difference between culpable homicide, justifiable homicide, and accidental homicide, see the elaborate treatise of Wilda, Das Deutsche Strafrecht, ch. viii, pp. 544-559, whose doctrine, however, is disputed by Dr. TrÜmmer, in the treatise above noticed.

At Rome, according to the Twelve Tables, and earlier, involuntary homicide was to be expiated by the sacrifice of a ram (Walter, Geschichte des RÖmisch. Rechts, sect. 768).

[132] DÊmosthen. cont. Euerg. et MnÊsib. p. 1161.

[133] DÊmosthen. cont. Aristokrat. p. 647. t?s??t??? d??ast??????, ? ?e?? ?at?de??a?, ?a? et? ta?ta ?????p?? ????ta? p??ta t?? ??????, p. 643.—?? ta?t? ??a???? t? ???sa d?a???te?, ??t???? p??? ?sa?, e??? ???e?, e?te ?e??. See also the Oration cont. Makartat. p. 1069; Æschin. cont. Ktesiphon. p. 636; Antiph. De CÆde Herodis, c. 14.

The popular dikastery, in the age of IsokratÊs and DÊmosthenÊs, held sittings ?p? ?a??ad?? for the trial of charges of unintentional homicide,—a striking evidence of the special holiness of the place for that purpose (see Isokrat. cont. Kallimachum, Or. xviii, p. 381; DÊmosth. cont. NeÆr. p. 1348).

The statement of Pollux (viii, 125), that the ephetÆ became despised, is not confirmed by the language of DÊmosthenÊs.

[134] Plutarch, Solon, c. 19; Aristot. Polit. ii, 9, 2.

[135] Read on this subject the maxims laid down by Plato (Legg. xii, p. 941). Nevertheless, Plato copies, to a great degree, the arrangements of the ephetic tribunals in his provisions for homicide (Legg. ix. pp. 865-873).

[136] I know no place in which the special aptitude of particular localities consecrated each to its own purpose, is so powerfully set forth, as in the speech of Camillus against the transfer of Rome to Veii (Livy, v, 52).

[137] The narrative is given in Thucyd. i, 126; Herod. v, 71; Plutarch, Solon, 12.

[138] Aristophan. Equit. 445, and the Scholia; Herodot. v, 70.

[139] Plutarch, Solon, c. 12. If the story of the breaking of the cord had been true, ThucydidÊs could hardly have failed to notice it; but there is no reason to doubt that it was the real defence urged by the AlkmÆÔnids.

When Ephesus was besieged by Croesus, the inhabitants sought protection to their town by dedicating it to Artemis: they carried a cord from the walls of the town to the shrine of the goddess, which was situated without the walls (Herod. i, 26). The Samian despot PolykratÊs, when he consecrated to the Delian Apollo the neighboring island of RhÊneia, connected it with the island of Delos by means of a chain (Thucyd. iii, 104).

These analogies illustrate the powerful effect of visible or material continuity on the Grecian imagination.

[140] Herodot. i, 61.

[141] See Thucyd. v, 16, and his language respecting Pleistoanax of Sparta.

[142] Plutarch, Solon, c. 12. ?a? f??? t???? ?? de?s?da????a? ?a ?a? f?sata ?ate??e t?? p????, etc.

[143] Lobeck, Aglaophamus, ii, p. 313; Hoeckh, Kreta, iii, 2, p. 252.

[144] The statements respecting EpimenidÊs are collected and discussed in the treatise of Heinrich, Epimenides aus Kreta. Leipsic, 1801.

[145] Diogen. LaËrt. i, 114, 115.

[146] Plutarch, Solon, c. 12; Diogen. LaËrt. i, 109-115; Pliny, H. N. vii, 52. ?e?f???? ?a? s?f?? pe?? t? ?e?a t?? ?????s?ast???? ?a? te?est???? s?f?a?, etc. Maxim. Tyrius, xxxviii, 3, de???? t? ?e?a, ?? a??? ???? ?p??? a?t? d???e?t? a???? ?a? ??e???? d?d?s?a???.

?at??a?t??, Æschyl. Supplic. 277; ?a?a?t??, Iamblichus, Vit. Pythagor. c. 28.

Plutarch (Sept. Sapient. Conviv. p. 157) treats EpimenidÊs simply as having lived up to the precepts of the Orphic life, or vegetable diet: to this circumstance, I presume, Plato (Legg. iii, p. 677) must be understood to refer, though it is not very clear. See the Fragment of the lost KrÊtes of Euripides, p. 98, ed. Dindorf.

Karmanor of Tarrha in Krete had purified Apollo himself for the slaughter of Pytho (Pausan. ii, 30, 3).

[147] Plutarch, De MusicÂ, pp. 1134-1146; Pausanias, i, 14, 3.

[148] Cicero (Legg. ii, 11) states that EpimenidÊs directed a temple to be erected at Athens to ???? and ??a?de?a (Violence and Impudence): Clemens said that he had erected altars to the same two goddesses (Protrepticon, p. 22): Theophrastus said that there were altars at Athens (without mentioning EpimenidÊs) to these same (ap. Zenobium, Proverb. Cent. iv, 36). Ister spoke of a ?e??? ??a?de?a? at Athens (Istri Fragm. ed. Siebelis, p. 62). I question whether this story has any other foundation than the fact stated by Pausanias, that the stones which were placed before the tribunal of areopagus, for the accuser and the accused to stand upon, were called by these names,—??e??, that of the accused; ??a?de?a?, that of the accuser (i, 28, 5). The confusion between stones and altars is not difficult to be understood. The other story, told by NeanthÊs of Kyzikus, respecting EpimenidÊs, that he had offered two young men as human sacrifices, was distinctly pronounced to be untrue by Polemo: and it reads completely like a romance (AthenÆus, xiii, p. 602).

[149] Plutarch. PrÆcept. Reipubl. Gerend. c. 27, p. 820.

[150] Diogen. LaËrt. l.c.

[151] Plato, Legg. i, p. 642; Cicero, De Divinat. i, 18; Aristot. Rhet. iii, 17.

Plato places EpimenidÊs ten years before the Persian invasion of Greece, whereas his real date is near upon 600 B.C.; a remarkable example of carelessness as to chronology.

[152] Respecting the characteristics of this age, see the second chapter of the treatise of Heinrich, above alluded to, Kreta und Griechenland in Hinsicht auf Wunderglauben.

[153] Plato, Kratylus, p. 405; PhÆdr. p. 244.

[154] Eurip. Hippolyt. 957; Plato, Republ. ii, p. 364; Theophrast. Charact. c. 16.

[155] Herodot. i, 60.

[156] Plutarch, Solon, i; Diogen. LaËrt. iii, 1; Aristot. Polit. iv, 9, 10.

[157] Plutarch, Solon, v.

[158] Plutarch, Solon, viii. It was a poem of one hundred lines, ?a????t?? p??? pep???????.

DiogenÊs tells us, that “Solon read the verses to the people through the medium of the herald,”—a statement not less deficient in taste than in accuracy, and which spoils the whole effect of the vigorous exordium, ??t?? ????? ????? ?f? ?e?t?? Sa?a????, etc.

[159] Plutarch, l.c.; Diogen. LaËrt. i, 47. Both Herodotus (i, 59) and some authors read by Plutarch ascribed to Peisistratus an active part in the war against the Megarians, and even the capture of NisÆa, the port of Megara. Now the first usurpation of Peisistratus was in 560 B.C., and we can hardly believe that he can have been prominent and renowned in a war no less than forty years before.

It will be seen hereafter—see the note on the interview between Solon and Kroesus, towards the end of this chapter—that Herodotus, and perhaps other authors also, conceived the Solonian legislation to date at a period later than it really does; instead of 594 B.C., they placed it nearer to the usurpation of Peisistratus.

[160] Plutarch, Solon, ??????? e??a? t?? p???te?at??. The strict meaning of these words refers only to the government of the island; but it seems almost certainly implied that they would be established in it as klÊruchs, or proprietors of land, not meaning necessarily that all the preËxisting proprietors would be expelled.

[161] Plutarch, Solon, 8, 9, 10. DaÏmachus of PlatÆa, however, denied to Solon any personal share in the Salaminian war (Plutarch, comp. Solon and Public. c. 4).

PolyÆnus (i, 20) ascribes a different stratagem to Solon: compare Ælian, V. H. vii, 19. It is hardly necessary to say that the account which the Megarians gave of the way in which they lost the island was totally different: they imputed it to the treachery of some exiles (Pausan. i, 40, 4): compare Justin, ii, 7.

[162] Aristot. Rhet. i, 16, 3.

[163] Plutarch, Solon, 10: compare Aristot. Rhet. i, 16. AlkibiadÊs traced up his ????? to EurysakÊs (Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 1); MiltiadÊs traced up his to PhilÆus (Herodot. vi, 35).

According to the statement of HÊreas the Megarian, both his countrymen and the Athenians had the same way of interment: both interred the dead with their faces towards the west. This statement, therefore, affords no proof of any peculiarity of Athenian custom in burial.

The Eurysakeium, or precinct sacred to the hero EurysakÊs, stood in the deme of MelitÊ (Harpokrat. ad v), which formed a portion of the city of Athens.

[164] Æschin. Fals. Legat. p. 250, c. 14.

[165] Plutarch, Solon, c. 13. The language of Plutarch, in which he talks of the pedieis as representing the oligarchical tendency, and the diakrii as representing the democratical, is not quite accurate when applied to the days of Solon. Democratical pretensions, as such, can hardly be said to have then existed.

[166] Plutarch, Solon, 13. ?pa? ?? ??? ? d??? ?? ?p???e?? t?? p???s???? ? ??? ??e?????? ??e????? ??ta t?? ???????? te????te?, ??t?????? p??sa???e??e??? ?a? ??te?? ? ???a ?a????te? ?p? t??? s?as??, ??????? t??? da?e????s?? ?sa?? ?? ?? a?t?? d???e???te?, ?? d? ?p? t? ???? p?p?as??e???. ?????? d? ?a? pa?da? ?d???? ??a??????t? p??e??, ?a? t?? p???? fe??e?? d?? t?? ?a?ep?t?ta t?? da?e?st??. ?? d? p?e?st?? ?a? ??a?e?tat?? s???sta?t? ?a? pa?e?????? ???????? ? pe??????, etc.

Respecting these hektÊmori, “tenants paying one-sixth portion,” we find little or no information: they are just noticed in Hesychius (v. ??t?????, ?p???t??) and in Pollux, vii, 151; from whom we learn that ?p???t?? ?? was an expression which occurred in one of the Solonian laws. Whether they paid to the landlord one-sixth, or retained for themselves only one-sixth, has been doubted (see Photius, ?e??ta?).

Dionysius Hal. (A. R. ii, 9) compares the thÊtes in Attica to the Roman clients: that both agreed in being relations of personal and proprietary dependence is certain; but we can hardly carry the comparison farther, nor is there any evidence in Attica of that sanctity of obligation which is said to have bound the Roman patron to his client.

[167] So the Frisii, when unable to pay the tribute imposed by the Roman empire, “primo boves ipsos, mox agros, postremo corpora conjugum et liberorum, servitio tradebant.” (Tacit. Annal. iv, 72.) About the selling of children by parents, to pay the taxes, in the later times of the Roman empire see Zosimus, ii, 38; Libanius, t. ii, p. 427, ed. Paris, 1627.

[168] See the Fragment pe?? t?? ????a??? p???te?a?, No. 2, Schneidewin.

[169] Aristot. Polit. ??????ta? d? a? st?se?? ?? pe?? ?????, ???? ?? ?????.

[170] Livy, ii, 23; Dionys. Hal. A. R. vi, 26: compare Livy, vi, 34-36.

“An placeret, foenore circumventam plebem, potius quam sorte creditum solvat, corpus in nervum ac supplicia dare? et gregatim quotidie de foro addictos duci, et repleri vinctis nobiles domos? et ubicumque patricius habitet, ibi carcerem privatum esse?”

The exposition of Niebuhr, respecting the old Roman law of debtor and creditor (RÖm. Gesch. i, p. 602, seq.; Arnold’s Roman Hist., ch. viii, vol. i, p. 135), and the explanation which he there gives of the nexi, as distinguished from the addicti, have been shown to be incorrect by M. von Savigny, in an excellent Dissertation Über das AltrÖmische Schuldrecht (Abhandlungen Berlin Academ. 1833, pp. 70-73), an abstract of which will be found in an Appendix, at the close of this chapter.

[171] See Plutarch, Solon, 14; and above all the Trochaic tetrameters of Solon himself, addressed to PhÔkus, Fr. 24-26, Schneidewin:—

[172] Aristides, ?e?? t?? ?a?af???at??, ii, p. 397; and Fragm. 29, Schn. of the Iambics of Solon:—

[173] See the valuable fragment of his Iambics, preserved by Plutarch and AristidÊs, the expression of which is rendered more emphatic by the appeal to the personal Earth, as having passed by his measures from slavery into freedom (compare Plato, Legg. v, pp. 740-741):—

also Plutarch, Solon, c. 15.

[174] Plutarch, Solon, c. 23: compare c. 13. The statement in Sextus Empiricus (Pyrrhon. Hypot. iii, 24, 211), that Solon enacted a law permitting fathers to kill (f??e?e??) their children, cannot be true, and must be copied from some untrustworthy authority: compare Dionys. Hal. A. R. ii, 26, where he contrasts the prodigious extent of the patria potestas among the early Romans, with the restrictions which all the Greek legislators alike,—Solon, Pittakus, Charondas,—either found or introduced: he says, however, that the Athenian father was permitted to disinherit legitimate male children, which does not seem to be correct.

Meier (Der Attische Prozess, iii, 2, p. 427) rejects the above-mentioned statement of Sextus Empiricus, and farther contends that the exposure of new-born infants was not only rare, but discountenanced as well by law as by opinion; the evidence in the Latin comedies to the contrary, he considers as manifestations of Roman, and not of Athenian, manners. In this latter opinion I do not think that he is borne out, and I agree in the statement of SchÖmann (Ant. J. P. GrÆc. sect. 82), that the practice and feeling of Athens as well as of Greece generally, left it to the discretion of the father whether he would consent, or refuse, to bring up a new-born child.

[175] Plutarch, Solon, c. 15. See the full exposition given of this debasement of the coinage, in Boeckh’s Metrologie, ch. ix, p. 115.

M. Boeckh thinks (ch. xv, s. 2) that Solon not only debased the coin, but also altered the weights and measures. I dissent from his opinion on this latter point, and have given my reasons for so doing, in a review of his valuable treatise in the Classical Museum, No. 1.

[176] Plutarch, Solon, c. 19. In the general restoration of exiles throughout the Greek cities, proclaimed first by order of Alexander the Great, afterwards by Polysperchon, exception is made of men exiled for sacrilege or homicide (Diodor. xvii, 109; xviii, 8-46).

[177] Plutarch, Solon, c. 15. ??d? a?a???, ??d? ?pe???? t??? d??a?????, ??d? p??? ?d???? t?? ???????, ??et? t??? ?????, etc.

[178] Plutarch, Solon, c. 16.

[179] See above, vol. ii, part ii, ch. vi.

[180] Plutarch, l.c. ???s?? te ?????, Se?s???e?a? t?? ??s?a? ???????te?, etc.

[181] The anecdote is again noticed, but without specification of the names of the friends, in Plutarch, Reipub. Gerend. PrÆcep. p. 807.

[182] Plutarch, Solon, c. 15. The statement of Dionysius of Hal., in regard to the bearing of the seisachtheia, is in the main accurate,—??e?? ?fes?? ??f?sa???? t??? ?p????? (v, 65),—to the debtors who were liable on the security of their bodies and their lands, and who were chiefly poor,—not to all debtors.

HerakleidÊs Pontic. (????t. c. 1) and Dio Chrysostom (Or. xxxi, p. 331) express themselves loosely.

Both Wachsmuth (Hell. Alterth. v. i, p. 249) and K. F. Hermann (Gr. Staats Alter. c. s. 106) quote the heliastic oath, and its energetic protest against repudiation, as evidence of the bearing of the Solonian seisachtheia. But that oath is referable only to a later period; it cannot be produced in proof of any matter applicable to the time of Solon; the mere mention of the senate of Five Hundred in it, shows that it belongs to times subsequent to the Kleisthenean revolution. Nor does the passage from Plato (Legg. iii, p. 684) apply to the case.

Both Wachsmuth and Hermann appear to me to narrow too much the extent of Solon’s measure in reference to the clearing of debtors. But on the other hand, they enlarge the effect of his measures in another way, without any sufficient evidence,—they think that he raised the villein tenants into free proprietors. Of this I see no proof, and think it improbable. A large proportion of the small debtors whom Solon exonerated were probably free proprietors before; the existence of the ????, or mortgage pillars, upon their land proves this.

[183] That which Solon did for the Athenian people in regard to debts, is less than what was promised to the Roman plebs (at the time of its secession to the Mons Sacer in 491 B.C.) by Menenius Agrippa, the envoy of the senate, to appease them, but which does not seem to have been ever realized (Dionys. Hal. vi, 83). He promised an abrogation of all the debts of debtors unable to pay, without exception,—if the language of Dionysius is to be trusted, which probably it cannot be.

Dr. Thirlwall justly observes respecting Solon, “He must be considered as an arbitrator, to whom all the parties interested submitted their claims, with the avowed intent that they should be decided by him, not upon the footing of legal right, but according to his own view of the public interest. It was in this light that he himself regarded his office, and he appears to have discharged it faithfully and discreetly.” (History of Greece, ch. xi. vol. ii, p. 42.)

[184] DÊmosthen. cont. Timokrat. p. 746. ??d? t?? ??e?? t?? ?d??? ?p???p??, ??d? ??? ??adas?? t?? ????a???, ??d? ?????? (??f???a?): compare Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xxxi, p. 332, who also dwells upon the anxiety of various Grecian cities to fix a curse upon all propositions for ??e?? ?p???p? and ??? ??adas??. What is not less remarkable is, that Dio seems not to be aware of any one well-authenticated case in Grecian history, in which a redivision of lands had ever actually taken place—? ?d? ???? ?se? e? p?te s????. (l.c.)

For the law of debtor and creditor, as it stood during the times of the Orators at Athens, see Heraldus, Animadv. ad Salmasium, pp. 174-286; Meier und SchÖmann, Der Attische Prozess, b. iii, c. 2, p. 497, seqq. (though I doubt the distinction which they there draw between ????? and da?e???); Platner, Prozess und Klagen, b. ii, absch. 11, pp. 349, 361.

There was one exceptional case, in which the Attic law always continued to the creditor that power over the person of the insolvent debtor which all creditors had possessed originally,—it was when the creditor had lent money for the express purpose of ransoming the debtor from captivity (DÊmosthen. cont. Nikostr. p. 1249),—analogous to the actio depensi in the old Roman law.

Any citizen who owed money to the public treasury, and whose debt became overdue, was deprived for the time of all civil rights until he had cleared it off.

Diodorus (i, 79) gives us an alleged law of the Egyptian king Bocchoris, releasing the persons of debtors and rendering their properties only liable, which is affirmed to have served as an example for Solon to copy. If we can trust this historian, lawgivers in other parts of Greece still retained the old severe law enslaving the debtor’s person: compare a passage in IsokratÊs (Orat. xiv, Plataicus, p. 305; p. 414, Bek.)

[185] Aristot. Polit. i, 4, 23; Cato ap. Cicero. de Offic. ii, 25. Plato, in his Treatise de Legg. (v, p. 742) forbids all lending on interest: indeed, he forbids any private citizen to possess either gold or silver.

To illustrate the marked difference made in the early Roman law, between the claim for the principal and that for the interest, I insert in an Appendix, at the end of this chapter, the explanation given by M. von Savigny, of the treatment of the nexi and addicti,—connected as it is by analogy with the Solonian seisachtheia.

[186] Aristot. Polit. i, 4, 23. ??? d? eta??t???? ?e?????? d?a???? (?? ??? ?at? f?s??, ???? ?p? ??????? ?st??), e?????tata ?se?ta? ? ????stat???, etc. Compare Ethic. Nikom. iv, 1.

Plutarch borrows from Aristotle the quibble derived from the word t???? (the Greek expression for interest), which has given birth to the well-known dictum of Aristotle,—that money being naturally barren, to extract offspring from it must necessarily be contrary to nature (see Plutarch, De Vit. Ær. Al. p. 829).

[187] Tacit. Germ. 26. “Foenus agitare et in usuras extendere, ignotum: ideoque magis servatur quam si vetitum esset,” (c. 21.) “Gaudent muneribus: sed nec data imputant, nec acceptis obligantur.”

[188] Hesiod, Opp. Di. 647, 404. ?????a? ???a te p??f??e??, ?a? ???? ?te?p?. Some good observations on this subject are to be found in the excellent treatise of M. Turgot, written in 1763, “MÉmoire sur les PrÊts d’Argent:”—

“Les causes qui avoient autrefois rendu odieux le prÊt À intÉrÊt, ont cessÉ d’agir avec tant de force.... De toutes ces circonstances rÉunies, il est rÉsultÉ que les emprunts faits par le pauvre pour subsister ne sont plus qu’un objet À peine sensible dans la somme totale d’emprunts: que la plus grande partie des prÊts se font À l’homme riche, ou du moins À l’homme industrieux, qui espÈre se procurer de grands profits par l’emploi de l’argent qu’il emprunte.... Les prÊteurs sur gage À gros intÉrÊt, les seuls qui prÊtent vÉritablement au pauvre pour ses besoins journaliers et non pour le mettre en État de gagner, ne font point le mÊme mal que les anciens usuriers qui conduisoient par degrÉs À la misÈre et À l’esclavage les pauvres citoyens auxquels ils avoient procurÉ des secours funestes.... Le crÉancier qui pouvait rÉduire son dÉbiteur en esclavage y trouvait un profit: c’Étoit un esclave qu’il acquÉrait: mais aujourd’hui le crÉancier sait qu’en privant son dÉbiteur de la libertÉ, il n’y gagnera autre chose que d’Être obligÉ de le nourrir en prison: aussi ne s’avise-t-on pas de faire contracter À un homme qui n’a rien, et qui est rÉduit À emprunter pour vivre, des engagemens qui emportent la contrainte par corps. La seule sÛretÉ vraiment solide contre l’homme pauvre est le gage: et l’homme pauvre s’estime heureux de trouver un secours pour le moment sans autre danger que de perdre ce gage. Aussi le peuple a-t-il plutÔt de la reconnoissance pour ces petits usuriers qui le secourent dans son besoin, quoiqu’ils lui vendent assez cher ce secours.” (MÉmoire sur les PrÊts d’Argent, in the collection of Œuvres de Turgot, by Dupont de Nemours, vol. v, sects. xxx, xxxi, pp. 326, 327, 329, written in 1763.)

[189] “In Bengal (observes Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, b. i, ch. 9, p. 143, ed. 1812) money is frequently lent to the farmers at 40, 50, and 60 per cent., and the succeeding crop is mortgaged for the payment.”

Respecting this commerce at Florence in the Middle Ages, M. Depping observes: “Il semblait que l’esprit commercial fÛt innÉ chez les Florentins: dÉjÀ aux 12^me et 13^me siÈcles, on les voit tenir des banques et prÊter de l’argent aux princes. Ils ouvrirent partout des maisons de prÊt, marchÈrent de pair avec les Lombards, et, il faut le dire, ils furent souvent maudits, comme ceux-ci, par leurs dÉbiteurs, À cause de leur rapacitÉ. Vingt pour cent par an Était le taux ordinaire des prÊteurs Florentins: et il n’Était pas rare qu’ils en prissent trente et quarante.” Depping, Histoire du Commerce entre le Levant et l’Europe, vol. i, p. 235.

Boeckh (Public Economy of Athens, book i, ch. 22) gives from 12 to 18 per cent. per annum as the common rate of interest at Athens in the time of the orators.

The valuable Inscription (No. 1845, in his Corpus Inser. Pars viii, p. 23, sect. 3) proves, that at Korkyra a rate of 2 per cent. per month, or 24 per cent. per annum, might be obtained from perfectly solvent and responsible borrowers. For this is a decree of the KorkyrÆan government, prescribing what shall be done with a sum of money given to the state for the Dionysiac festivals,—placing that money under the care of certain men of property and character, and directing them to lend it out exactly at 2 per cent. per month, neither more nor less, until a given sum shall be accumulated. This Inscription dates about the third or second century B.C., according to Boeckh’s conjecture.

The Orchomenian Inscription, No. 1569, to which Boeckh refers in the passage above alluded to, is unfortunately defective in the words determining the rate of interest payable to Eubulus: but there is another, the TherÆan Inscription (No. 2446), containing the Testament of EpiktÊta, wherein the annual sum payable in lieu of a principal sum bequeathed, is calculated at 7 per cent.; a rate which Boeckh justly regards as moderate considered in reference to ancient Greece.

[191] Levitic. 25: 35-36; Deuteron. 23: 20. This enactment seems sufficiently intelligible; yet M. Salvador (Histoire des Institutions de MoÏse, liv. iii, ch. 6) puzzles himself much to assign to it some far-sighted commercial purpose. “Unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury, but unto a stranger thou mayst lend upon usury:”—it is of more importance to remark that the word here translated usury really means any interest for money, great or small;—see the opinion of the Sanhedrim of seventy Jewish doctors, assembled at Paris in 1807, cited in M. Salvador’s work, l.c.

The Mosaic law, therefore, (as between Jew and Jew, or even as between Jew and the ?t?????, or resident stranger, distinguished from the foreigner,) went as far as the Koran in prohibiting all taking of interest. That its enactments were not much observed, any more than those of the Koran, we have one proof at least in the proceeding of Nehemiah at the building of the second temple,—which presents so curious a parallel in many respects to the Solonian seisachtheia, that I transcribe the account of it from Prideaux, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, part i, b. 6, p. 290:—

“The burden which the people underwent in the earning on of this work, and the incessant labor which they were enforced to undergo to bring it to so speedy a conclusion, being very great, ... care was taken to relieve them from a much greater burden, the oppression of usurers; which they then in great misery lay under, and had much greater reason to complain of. For the rich, taking advantage of the necessities of the meaner sort, had exacted heavy usury of them, making them pay the centesima for all moneys lent them; that is, 1 per cent. for every month, which amounted to 12 per cent. for the whole year; so that they were forced to mortgage their lands, and sell their children into servitude, to have wherewith to buy bread for the support of themselves and their families; which being a manifest breach of the law of God, given them by Moses (for that forbids all the race of Israel to take usury of any of their brethren), Nehemiah, on his hearing hereof, resolved forthwith to remove so great an iniquity; in order whereto he called a general assembly of all the people, where having set forth unto them the nature of the offence, how great a breach it was of the divine law, and how heavy an oppression upon their brethren, and how much it might provoke the wrath of God against them, he caused it to be enacted by the general suffrage of that whole assembly, that all should return to their brethren whatsoever had been exacted of them upon usury, and also release all the lands, vineyards, olive-yards, and houses, which had been taken of them upon mortgage on the account hereof.”

The measure of Nehemiah appears thus to have been not merely a seisachtheia such as that of Solon, but also a pa???t???a, or refunding of interest paid by the debtor in past time,—analogous to the proceeding of the Megarians on emancipating themselves from their oligarchy, as recounted above, chapter ix, p. 44.

[192] In every law to limit the rate of interest, it is of course implied that the law not only ought to fix, but can fix, the maximum rate at which money is to be lent. The tribunes at Rome followed out this proposition with perfect consistency: they passed successive laws for the reduction of the rate of interest, until at length they made it illegal to take any interest at all: “Gemecium, tribunum plebis, tulisse ad populum, ne foenerari liceret.” (Liv. vii, 42.) History shows that the law, though passed, was not carried into execution.

[193] Boeckh (Public Econ. of Athens, b. i, ch. 22, p. 128) thinks differently,—in my judgment, contrary to the evidence: the passages to which he refers, especially that of Theophrastus, are not sufficient to sustain his opinion, and there are other passages which go far to contradict it.

[194] Lysias cont. TheomnÊst. A. c. 5, p. 360.

[195] Cicero, De Officiis, i, 42.

[196] Plato, Legg. iii, p. 684. ?? ?p??e?????t? d? ?????t? ???e?? t?? t????t?? t? p?? ?pa?t?, ?????, ? ???e?? t? ?????ta, ?a? ?pa??ta? ??? te ??adas??? e?s????e??? ?a? ??e?? ?p???p??, ?st? e?? ?p???a? ?a??stas?a? p??ta ??d?a, etc.: compare also v, pp. 736-737, where similar feelings are intimated not less emphatically.

Cicero lays down very good principles about the mischief of destroying faith in contracts; but his admonitions to this effect seem to be accompanied with an impracticable condition: the lawgiver is to take care that debts shall not be contracted to an extent hurtful to the state: “Quamobrem ne sit Æs alienum, quod reipublicÆ noceat, providendum est (quod multis rationibus caveri potest): non, si fuerit, ut locupletes suum perdant, debitores lucrentur alienum,” etc. What the multÆ rationes were, which Cicero had in his mind, I do not know: compare his opinion about foeneratores, Offic. i, 42 ii, 25.

[197] See Plutarch’s Life of Agis, especially ch. 13, about the bonfire in which the ?????a, or mortgage-deeds, of the creditors were all burnt, in the agora of Sparta: compare also the comparison of Agis with Gracchus, c. 2.

[198] “GrÆc fide mercari.” Polybius puts the Greeks greatly below the Romans in point of veracity and good faith (vi, 56); in another passage, he speaks not quite so confidently (xviii, 17). Even the testimony of the Roman writers is sometimes given in favor of Attic good faith, not against it—“ut semper et in omni re, quicquid sincer fide gereretur, id Romani, Attic fieri, prÆdicarent.” (Velleius Paterc. ii, 23.)

The language of Heffter (AthenÄische Gerichts Verfassung, p. 466), especially, degrades very undeservedly the state of good faith and credit at Athens.

The whole tone and argument of the Oration of DÊmosthenÊs against LeptinÊs is a remarkable proof of the respect of the Athenian dikastery for vested interests, even under less obvious forms than that of pecuniary possession. We may add a striking passage of DÊmosthenÊs cont. Timokrat. wherein he denounces the rescinding of past transactions (t? pep?a???a ??sa?, contrasted with prospective legislation) as an injustice peculiar to an oligarchy, and repugnant to the feelings of a democracy (cont. Timokrat. c. 20, p. 724; c. 36, 747).

[199] A similar credit, in respect to monetary probity, may be claimed for the republic of Florence. M. Sismondi says, “Au milieu des rÉvolutions monÉtaires de tous les pays voisins et tandis que la mauvaise foi des gouvernemens altÉroit le numÉraire d’une extrÉmitÉ À l’autre de l’Europe, le florin ou sÉquin de Florence est toujours restÉ le mÊme: il est du mÊme poids, du mÊme titre: il porte la mÊme empreinte que celui qui fut battu en 1252.” (RÉpubliques Italiennes, vol. iii, ch. 18, p. 176.)

M. Boeckh (Public Econ. of Athens, i, 6; iv, 19), while affirming, justly and decidedly, that the Athenian republic always set a high value on maintaining the integrity of their silver money,—yet thinks that the gold pieces which were coined in Olymp. 93, 2, (408 B.C.) under the archonship of AntigenÊs (out of the golden ornaments in the acropolis, and at a time of public embarrassments) were debased and made to pass for more than their value. The only evidence in support of this position appears to be the passage in AristophanÊs (Ran. 719-737) with the Scholia; but this very passage seems to me rather to prove the contrary. “The Athenian people (says AristophanÊs) deal with their public servants as they do with their coins: they prefer the new and bad to the old and good.” If the people were so exceedingly, and even extravagantly, desirous of obtaining the new coins, this is a strong proof that they were not depreciated, and that no loss was incurred by giving the old coins in exchange for them.

[200] “Sane vetus Urbi foenebre malum (says Tacitus, Ann. vi, 16) et seditionum discordiarumque creberrima causa,” etc: compare Appian, Bell. Civil. PrÆfat.; and Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, l. xxii, c. 22.

The constant hopes and intrigues of debtors at Rome, to get rid of their debts by some political movement, are nowhere more forcibly brought out than in the second Catilinarian Oration of Cicero, c. 8-9: read also the striking harangue of Catiline to his fellow-conspirators (Sallust, B. Catilin. c. 20-21).

[201] The insolvent debtor, in some of the Boeotian towns, was condemned to sit publicly in the agora with a basket on his head, and then disfranchised (Nikolaus Damaskenus, Frag. p. 152, ed. Orelli).

According to Diodorus, the old severe law against the body of a debtor, long after it had been abrogated by Solon at Athens, still continued in other parts of Greece (i, 79).

[202] Solon, Frag. 27, ed. Schneid.—

[203] Plutarch, Solon, 18-23; Pollux, viii. 130; Aristot. Polit. ii, 9, 4; Aristot. Fragm. pe?? ????te???, Fr. 51, ed. Neumann; Harpokration and Photius, v. ?pp??; Etymolog. Mag. ?e???s???, T?t????; the Etym. Mag. ?e???s???, and the Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 627, recognize only three classes.

He took a medimnus (of wheat or barley?) as equivalent to a drachm, and a sheep at the same value (ib. c. 23).

The medimnus seems equal to about 1 2/5 (1·4) English imperial bushel: consequently 500 medimni = 700 English imperial bushels, or 87 1/2 quarters.

[204] The excellent explanation of the Solonian (t??a) property-schedule and graduated qualification, first given by Boeckh, in his Staatshaushaltung der Athener (b. iii, c. 5), has elucidated a subject which was, before him, nothing but darkness and mystery. The statement of Pollux (viii, 130), given in very loose language, had been, before Boeckh, erroneously apprehended; ?????s??? e?? t? d??s???, does not mean the sums which the pentakosiomedimnus, the hippeus, or the zeugite, actually paid to the state, but the sums for which each was rated, or which each was liable to pay, if called upon: of course, the state does not call for the whole of a man’s rated property, but exacts an equal proportion of it from each.

On one point I cannot concur with Boeckh. He fixes the pecuniary qualification of the third class, or zeugites, at one hundred and fifty drachms, not at two hundred. All the positive testimonies (as he himself allows, p. 31) agree in fixing two hundred, and not one hundred and fifty; and the inference drawn from the old law, quoted in DÊmosthenÊs (cont. Makartat. p. 1067) is too uncertain to outweigh this concurrence of authorities.

Moreover, the whole Solonian schedule becomes clearer and more symmetrical if we adhere to the statement of two hundred drachms, and not one hundred and fifty, as the lowest scale of zeugite income; for the scheduled capital is then, in all the three scales, a definite and exact multiple of the income returned,—in the richest class it is twelve times,—in the middle class, ten times,—in the poorest, five times the income. But this correspondence ceases, if we adopt the supposition of Boeckh, that the lowest zeugite income was one hundred and fifty drachms; for the sum of one thousand drachms (at which the lowest zeugite was rated in the schedule) is no exact multiple of one hundred and fifty drachms. In order to evade this difficulty, Boeckh supposes that the adjustment of income to scheduled capital was effected in a way both roundabout and including nice fractions: he thinks that the income of each was converted into capital by multiplying by twelve, and that, in the case of the richest class, or pentakosiomedimni, the whole sum so obtained was entered in the schedule,—in the case of the second class, or hippeis, five-sixths of the sum,—and in the case of the third class, or zeugites, five-ninths of the sum. Now this process seems to me rather complicated, and the employment of a fraction such as five-ninths (both difficult and not much above the simple fraction of one-half) very improbable: moreover, Boeckh’s own table, p. 41, gives fractional sums in the third class, when none appear in the first or second.

Such objections, of course, would not be admissible, if there were any positive evidence to prove the point. But in this case they are in harmony with all the positive evidence, and are amply sufficient, in my judgment, to countervail the presumption arising from the old law on which Boeckh relies.

[205] See Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung der Athener, ut suprÀ. Pollux gives an Inscription describing Anthemion son of Diphilus,—T?t???? ??t? t????? ?pp?d? ?e???e???. The word te?e?? does not necessarily mean actual payment, but “the being included in a class with a certain aggregate of duties and liabilities,”—equivalent to censeri (Boeckh, p. 36).

Plato, in his treatise De Legibus, admits a quadripartite census of citizens, according to more or less of property (Legg. v, p. 744; vi, p. 756). Compare Tittmann, Griechische Staats Verfassungen pp. 648, 653; K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Gr. Staats Alt. § 108.

[206] Plutarch, Solon, 18, 19, 23; Philochorus, Frag. 60, ed. Didot. AthenÆus, iv, p. 168; Valer. Maxim. ii, 6.

[207] Meursius, Solon, passim; Sigonius, De Republ. Athen. i, p. 39 (though in some passages he makes a marked distinction between the time before and after KleisthenÊs, p. 28). See Wachsmuth, Hellenische Alterthumskunde, vol. i, sects. 46, 47; Tittmann, Griechische Staatsverfassungen, p. 146; Platner, Der Attische Prozess, book ii, ch. 5, pp 28-38; Dr. Thirlwall, History of Greece, vol. ii, ch. xi, pp. 46-57.

Niebuhr, in his brief allusions to the legislation of Solon, keeps duly in view the material difference between Athens as constituted by Solon, and Athens as it came to be after KleisthenÊs; but he presumes a closer analogy between the Roman patricians and the Athenian eupatridÆ than we are entitled to count upon.

[208] DÊmosthen. cont. Timokrat. p. 746. ÆschinÊs ascribes this oath to ? ?????t?? (c. Ktesiphon. p. 389).

Dr. Thirlwall notices the oath as prescribed by Solon (History of Greece, vol. ii, ch. xi, p. 47).

So again DÊmosthenÊs and ÆschinÊs, in the orations against LeptinÊs (c. 21, p. 486) and against Timokrat. pp. 706-707,—compare Æschin. c. Ktesiph. p. 429,—in commenting upon the formalities enjoined for repealing an existing law and enacting a new one, while ascribing the whole to Solon,—say, among other things, that Solon directed the proposer “to post up his project of law before the eponymi,” (???e??a? p??s?e? t?? ?p?????): now the eponymi were (the statues of) the heroes from whom the ten Kleisthenean tribes drew their names, and the law making mention of these statues, proclaims itself as of a date subsequent to KleisthenÊs. Even the law defining the treatment of the condemned murderer who returned from exile, which both DÊmosthenÊs and Doxopater (ap. Walz. Collect. Rhetor. vol. ii, p. 223) call a law of Drako, is really later than Solon, as may be seen by its mention of the ???? (DÊmosth. cont. Aristok. p. 629).

AndokidÊs is not less liberal in his employment of the name of Solon (see Orat. i, De Mysteriis, p. 13), where he cites as a law of Solon, an enactment which contains the mention of the tribe Æantis and the senate of five hundred (obviously, therefore, subsequent to the revolution of KleisthenÊs), besides other matters which prove it to have been passed even subsequent to the oligarchical revolution of the four hundred, towards the close of the Peloponnesian war. The prytanes, the proËdri, and the division of the year into ten portions of time, each called by the name of a prytany,—so interwoven with all the public proceedings of Athens,—do not belong to the Solonian Athens, but to Athens as it stood after the ten tribes of KleisthenÊs.

SchÖmann maintains emphatically, that the sworn nomothetÆ, as they stood in the days of DÊmosthenÊs, were instituted by Solon; but he admits at the same time that all the allusions of the orators to this institution include both words and matters essentially post-Solonian, so that modifications subsequent to Solon must have been introduced. This admission seems to me fatal to the cogency of his proof: see SchÖmann, De Comitiis, ch. vii, pp. 266-268; and the same author, Antiq. J. P. Att. sect. xxxii. His opinion is shared by K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech. Staats Alterth. sect. 131; and Platner, Attischer Prozess, vol. ii, p. 38.

Meier, De Bonis Damnatorum, p. 2, remarks upon the laxity with which the orators use the name of Solon: “Oratores Solonis nomine sÆpe utuntur, ubi omnino legislatorem quemquam significare volunt, etiamsi a Solone ipso lex lata non est.” Herman Schelling, in his Dissertation De Solonis Legibus ap. Oratt. Attic. (Berlin, 1842), has collected and discussed the references to Solon and to his laws in the orators. He controverts the opinion just cited from Meier, but upon arguments no way satisfactory to me (pp. 6-8); the more so, as he himself admits that the dialect in which the Solonian laws appear in the citation of the orators can never have been the original dialect of Solon himself (pp. 3-5), and makes also substantially the same admission at SchÖmann, in regard to the presence of post-Solonian matters in the supposed Solonian laws (pp. 23-27).

[209] See Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, book ii, c. 15.

[210] Demosthen. cont. Timokrat. c. 26, p. 731: compare AristophanÊs Ekklesiazus. 302.

[211] Herodot. i, 29; Plutarch, Solon, c. 25. Aulus Gellius affirms that the Athenians swore, under strong religious penalties, to observe them forever (ii, 12).

[212] Livy iii, 34.

[213] Solon, Fragm. ii, 3, ed. Schneidewin:—

The reading ?pa??e? in the first line is not universally approved: Brunck adopts ?pa??e??, which Niebuhr approves. The latter construes it to mean, “I gave to the people only so much power as could not be withheld from them.” (RÖm. Geschicht. t. ii, p. 346, 2d ed.) Taking the first two lines together, I think Niebuhr’s meaning is substantially correct, though I give a more literal translation myself. Solon seems to be vindicating himself against the reproach of having been too democratical, which was, doubtless, addressed to him in every variety of language.

[214] Aristot. Polit. ii, 9, 4. ?pe? S???? ?? ????e t?? ??a??a??t?t?? ?p?d?d??a? t? d?? d??a??, t? t?? ????? a??e?s?a? ?a? e????e??? ?d? ??? t??t?? ?????? ?? ? d???, d????? ?? e?? ?a? p??????.

In this passage respecting Solon (containing sections 2, 3, 4 of the edition of M. BarthÉlemy St. Hilaire), Aristotle first gives the opinion of certain critics who praised Solon, with the reasons upon which it is founded; next, the opinion of certain critics who blamed him, with their reasons; thirdly, his own judgment. The first of these three contains sect. 2 (from S????a d? ?????, down to t? d??ast???a p???sa? ?? p??t??). The second contains the greater part of sect. 3 (from ??? ?a? ?f??ta? t??e? a?t?, down to t?? ??? d????at?a?). The remainder is his own judgment. I notice this, because sections 2 and 3 are not to be taken as the opinion of Aristotle himself, but of those upon whom he was commenting, who considered Solon as the author of the dikasteries selected by lot.

[215] Herodot. v, 69. t?? ????a??? d???, p??te??? ?p?s???? p??t??, etc.

[216] Herodot. v, 66-69. ??t?? ?? ??d?e? (KleisthenÊs and Isagoras) ?stas?asa? pe?? d???e??? ?ss??e??? d? ? ??e?s????? t?? d??? p??seta????eta? ...

... ?? ??? d? t?? ????a??? d???, p??te??? ?p?s???? p??t??, t?te p??? t?? ???t?? ????? p??se???at?, (KleisthenÊs) t?? f???? et???ase ... ?? d?, t?? d??? p??s??e??? p???? ?at?pe??e t?? ??t?stas??te??.

As to the marked democratical tendency of the proceedings of KleisthenÊs, see Aristot. Polit. vi, 2, 11; iii, 1, 10.

[217] Lysias cont. Theomnest. A. c. 5, p. 357, who gives ??? ? p??st??s? ? ???a?a as a Solonian phrase; though we are led to doubt whether Solon can ever have employed it, when we find Pollux (vii, 5, 22) distinctly stating that Solon used the word ?pa?t?a to signify what the orators called p??st??ata.

The original and proper meaning of the word ???a?a is, the public assembly (see Tittmann, Griech. Staatsverfass. pp. 215-216); in subsequent times we find it signifying at Athens—1. The aggregate of six thousand dikasts chosen by lot annually and sworn, or the assembled people considered as exercising judicial functions; 2. Each of the separate fractions into which this aggregate body was in practice subdivided for actual judicial business. ?????s?a became the term for the public deliberative assembly properly so called, which could never be held on the same day that the dikasteries sat (DÊmosthen. cont. Timokrat. c. 21, p. 726): every dikastery is in fact always addressed as if it were the assembled people engaged in a specific duty.

I imagine the term ???a?a in the time of Solon to have been used in its original meaning,—the public assembly, perhaps with a connotation of employment in judicial proceeding. The fixed number of six thousand does not date before the time of KleisthenÊs, because it is essentially connected with the ten tribes; while the subdivision of this body of six thousand into various bodies of jurors for different courts and purposes did not commence, probably, until after the first reforms of KleisthenÊs. I shall revert to this point when I touch upon the latter, and his times.

[218] The statement of Plutarch, that Solon gave an appeal from the decision of the archon to the judgment of the popular dikastery (Plutarch, Solon, 18), is distrusted by most of the expositors, though Dr. Thirlwall seems to admit it, justifying it by the analogy of the ephetÆ, or judges of appeal, constituted by Drako (Hist. of Greece, vol. ii, ch. xi, p. 46).

To me it appears that the Drakonian ephetÆ were not really judges in appeal: but be that as it may, the supposition of an appeal from the judgment of the archon is inconsistent with the known course of Attic procedure, and has apparently arisen in Plutarch’s mind from confusion with the Roman provocatio, which really was an appeal from the judgment of the consul to that of the people. Plutarch’s comparison of Solon with Publicola leads to this suspicion,—?a? t??? fe????s? d???, ?p??a?e?s?a? t?? d???, ?spe? ? S???? t??? d??ast??, ?d??e (Publicola). The Athenian archon was first a judge without appeal; and afterwards, ceasing to be a judge, he became president of a dikastery, performing only those preparatory steps which brought the case to an issue fit for decision: but he does not seem ever to have been a judge subject to appeal.

It is hardly just to Plutarch to make him responsible for the absurd remark that Solon rendered his laws intentionally obscure, in order that the dikasts might have more to do and greater power: he gives the remark, himself, only with the saving expression ???eta?, “it is said;” and we may well doubt whether it was ever seriously intended even by its author, whoever he may have been.

[219] Kratinus ap. Plutarch. Solon. 25.—

IsokratÊs praises the moderate democracy in early Athens, as compared with that under which he lived; but in the Orat. vii (Areopagitic.) he connects the former with the names of Solon and KleisthenÊs, while in the Orat. xii (Panathenaic.), he considers the former to have lasted from the days of Theseus to those of Solon and Peisistratus. In this latter oration he describes pretty exactly the power which the people possessed under the Solonian constitution,—t?? t?? ????? ?atast?sa? ?a? ?ae?? d???? pa?? t?? ??aa?ta???t??, which coincides with the phrase of Aristotle—t?? ????? a??e?s?a? ?a? e????e??,—supposing ?????t?? to be understood as the substantive of ??aa?ta???t??.

Compare IsokratÊs, Or. vii, p. 143 (p. 192 Bek.) and p. 150 (202 Bek.) and Orat. xii, pp. 260-264 (351-356 Bek.).

[220] Cicero, Orat. pro Sext. Roscio, c. 25; Ælian, V. H. viii, 10.

[221] This seems to be the opinion of Dr. Thirlwall, against Wachsmuth though he speaks with doubt. (History of Greece, vol. ii, ch. 11, p. 48, 2d ed.)

[222] Plutarch, Solon, 23-25. He particularly mentions the sixteenth ????: we learn, also, that the thirteenth ???? contained the eighth law (c. 19): the twenty-first law is alluded to in Harpokration, v. ?t? ?? p???t??.

Some remnants of these wooden rollers existed in the days of Plutarch, in the Athenian prytaneium. See Harpokration and Photius, v. ???e??; Aristot. pe?? ????te???, Frag. 35, ed. Neumann; Euphorion ap. Harpokrat. ? ??t??e? ????. Bekker, Anecdota, p. 413.

What we read respecting the ????e? and the ???e?? does not convey a clear idea of them. Besides Aristotle, both Seleukus and Didymus are named as having written commentaries expressly about them (Plutarch, Solon, i; Suidas, v. ???e??e?; compare also Meursius, Solon, c. 24; Vit. Aristotelis ap. Westermann. Vitarum Scriptt. GrÆc. p. 404), and the collection in Stephan. Thesaur. p. 1095.

[223] Plutarch, Solon, c. 17; Cyrill. cont. Julian, v, p. 169, ed. Spanheim. The enumeration of the different admitted justifications for homicide, which we find in DÊmosth. cont. Aristokrat. p. 637, seems rather too copious and systematic for the age of Drako; it may have been amended by Solon, or, perhaps, in an age subsequent to Solon.

[224] See Boeckh, Public Economy of the Athenians, book iii, sect. 5. Tittmann (Griechisch. Staatsverfass. p. 651) and others have supposed (from Aristot. Polit. ii, 4, 4) that Solon enacted a law to limit the quantity of land which any individual citizen might acquire. But the passage does not seem to me to bear out such an opinion.

[225] Plutarch, Solon, 24. The first law, however, is said to have related to the insuring of a maintenance to wives and orphans (Harpokration, v. S?t??).

By a law of Athens (which marks itself out as belonging to the century after Solon, by the fulness of its provisions, and by the number of steps and official persons named in it), the rooting up of an olive-tree in Attica was forbidden, under a penalty of two hundred drachms for each tree so destroyed,—except for sacred purposes, or to the extent of two trees per annum for the convenience of the proprietor (DÊmosthen. cont. Makartat c. 16, p. 1074).

[226] Plutarch, Solon, 22. ta?? t???a?? ????a pe??????e.

[227] Plutarch, Solon, 22-24. According to Herodotus, Solon had enacted that the authorities should punish every man with death who could not show a regular mode of industrious life (Herod. ii, 177; Diodor. i, 77).

So severe a punishment is not credible; nor is it likely that Solon borrowed his idea from Egypt.

According to Pollux (viii, 6) idleness was punished by atimy (civil disfranchisement) under Drako: under Solon, this punishment only took effect against the person who had been convicted of it on three successive occasions. See Meursius, Solon, c. 17; and the “Areopagus” of the same author, c. 8 and 9; and Taylor, Lectt. Lysiac. cap. 10.

[228] Xenophon, De Vectigalibus, iii, 2.

[229] Thucyd. ii, 40 (the funeral oration delivered by PeriklÊs),—?a? t? p??es?a? ??? ?????e?? t??? a?s????, ???? ? d?afe??e?? ???? a?s????.

[230] Herodot. ii, 167-177: compare Xenophon, Œconomic. iv, 3.

The unbounded derision, however, which Aristophanes heaps upon KleÔn as a tanner, and upon Hyperbolus as a lamp-maker, proves that, if any manufacturer engaged in politics, his party opponents found enough of the old sentiment remaining to turn it to good account against him.

[231] This seems the just meaning of the words, ?? t? ???e? t?? te?????t?? ?de? t? ???ata ?a? t?? ????? ?ata??e??, for that early day (Plutarch, Solon, 21): compare Meier, De Gentilitate AtticÂ, p. 33.

[232] Tacitus, German, c. 20; Halhed, Preface to Gentoo Code, p. i, iii; Mill’s History of British India, b. ii, ch. iv, p. 214.

[233] See the Dissertation of Bunsen, De Jure Hereditario Atheniensium. pp. 28, 29; and Hermann Schelling. De Solonis Legibus ap. Oratt. Atticos, ch. xvii.

The adopted son was not allowed to bequeathe by will that property of which adoption had made him the possessor: if he left no legitimate children, the heirs at law of the adopter claimed it as of right (DÊmosthen. cont. Leochar p. 1100; cont. Stephan. B. p. 1133; Bunsen, ut sup. pp. 55-58).

[234] Plutarch, Solon, 21. t? ???ata, ?t?ata t?? ????t?? ?p???se?.

[235] According to ÆschinÊs (cont. Timarch. pp. 16-78), the punishment enacted by Solon against the p??a?????, or procurer, in such cases of seduction, was death.

[236] Plutarch, Solon, 20. These fe??a? were independent of the dowry of the bride, for which the husband, when he received it, commonly gave security, and repaid it in the event of his wife’s death: see Bunsen, De Jure Hered. Ath. p. 43.

[237] Plutarch, l.c. The Solonian restrictions on the subject of funerals were to a great degree copied in the twelve tables at Rome: see Cicero, De Legg. ii, 23, 24. He esteems it a right thing to put the rich and the poor on a level in respect to funeral ceremonies. Plato follows an opposite idea, and limits the expense of funerals upon a graduated scale, according to the census of the deceased (Legg. xii, p. 959).

DÊmosthenÊs (cont. Makartat. p 1071) gives what he calls the Solonian law on funerals, different from Plutarch on several points.

Ungovernable excesses of grief among the female sex are sometimes mentioned in Grecian towns: see the a????? p????? among the Milesian women (PolyÆn. viii, 63): the Milesian women, however, had a tinge of Karian feeling.

Compare an instructive inscription, recording a law of the Greek city of Gambreion in Æolic Asia Minor, wherein the dress, the proceedings, and the time of allowed mourning, for men, women, and children who had lost their relatives, are strictly prescribed under severe penalties (Franz, FÜnf Inschriften und fÜnf StÄdte in Kleinasien, Berlin, 1840, p. 17). Expensive ceremonies in the celebration of marriage are forbidden by some of the old Scandinavian laws (Wilda, Das Gildenwesen im Mittelalter, p. 18).

[238] Plutarch, Solon, 23. XenophanÊs, Frag. 2, ed. Schneidewin. If DiogenÊs is to be trusted, the rewards were even larger anterior to Solon: he reduced them (Diog. l. i, 55).

[239] Plutarch, Solon, c. 23. See Suidas, v. Fe?s?e?a.

[240] See the laws in DÊmosthen. cont. Timokrat. pp. 733-736. Notwithstanding the opinion both of Heraldus (Animadversion. in Salmas. iv, 8) and of Meier (Attischer Prozess, p. 356), I cannot imagine anything more than the basis of these laws to be Solonian,—they indicate a state of Attic procedure too much elaborated for that day (Lysias c. Theomn. p. 356). The word p?d?????? belongs to Solon, and probably the penalty of five days’ confinement in the stocks, for the thief who had not restored what he had stolen.

Aulus Gell. (xi, 18) mentions the simple poena dupli: in the authors from whom he copied, it is evident that Solon was stated to have enacted this law generally for all thefts: we cannot tell from whom he copied, but in another part of his work, he copies a Solonian law from the wooden ????e? on the authority of Aristotle (ii, 12).

Plato, in his Laws, prescribes the poena dupli in all cases of theft, without distinction of circumstances (Legg. ix, p. 857; xii, p. 941); it was also the primitive law of Rome: “Posuerunt furem duplo condemnari, foeneratorem quadruplo.” (Cato, De Re RusticÂ, Prooemium),—that is to say, in cases of furtum nec manifestum (Walter, Geschichte des RÖmisch. Rechts. sect. 757).

[241] Plutarch, Solon, 24; AthenÆ. iv, p. 137; Diogen. LaËrt. i, 58: ?a? p??t?? t?? s??a????? t?? ????a ?????t?? ?p???se?, e?? t? s??e?pe??,—where perhaps, s??de?p?e?? is the proper reading.

[242] Plutarch, Solon, 20, and De Ser Numinis VindictÂ, p. 550; Aulus Gell. ii, 12.

[243] See a case of such indifference manifested by the people of Argos, in Plutarch’s Life of Aratus, c. 27.

[245] Plutarch, Solon, 15.

[246] Herodot. i, 29. S????, ???? ????a???, ?? ????a???s? ????? ?e?e?sas? p???sa?, ?ped??se ?tea d??a, ??a d? ? t??a t?? ???? ??a???s?? ??sa? t?? ??et?? a?t?? ??? ??? ???? te ?sa? a?t? p???sa? ????a???? ??????s? ??? e?????s? ?ate????t?, d??a ?tea ???ses?a? ????s? t??? ?? sf? S???? ??ta?.

One hundred years is the term stated by Plutarch (Solon, 25).

[247] Plutarch, Solon, 26; Herodot. v, 113. The statements of DiogenÊs that Solon founded Soli in Kilikia, and that he died in Cyprus, are not worthy of credit (Diog. LaËrt. i, 51-62).

[248] Plutarch tells us that several authors rejected the reality of this interview as being chronologically impossible. It is to be recollected that the question all turns upon the interview as described by Herodotus and its alleged sequel; for that there may have been an interview between Solon and Croesus at Sardis, at some period between B.C. 594 and 560, is possible, though not shown.

It is evident that Solon made no mention of any interview with Croesus in his poems; otherwise, the dispute would have been settled at once. Now this, in a man like Solon, amounts to negative evidence of some value for he noticed in his poems both Egypt and the prince Philokyprus in Cyprus, and had there been any conversation so impressive as that which Herodotus relates, between him and Croesus, he could hardly have failed to mention it.

Wesseling, Larcher, Volney, and Mr. Clinton, all try to obviate the chronological difficulties, and to save the historical character of this interview, but in my judgment unsuccessfully. See Mr. Clinton’s F. H. ad ann. 546 B.C., and Appendix, c. 17, p. 298. The chronological data are these,—Croesus was born in 595 B.C., one year before the legislation of Solon: he succeeded to his father at the age of thirty-five, in 560 B.C.: he was overthrown, and Sardis captured, in 546 B.C., by Cyrus.

Mr. Clinton, after Wesseling and the others, supposes that Croesus was king jointly with his father HalyattÊs, during the lifetime of the latter, and that Solon visited Lydia and conversed with Croesus during this joint reign in 570 B.C. “We may suppose that Solon left Athens in B.C. 575, about twenty years after his archonship, and returned thither in B.C. 565, about five years before the usurpation of Peisistratus.” (p. 300.) Upon which hypothesis we may remark:—

1. The arguments whereby Wesseling and Mr. Clinton endeavor to show that Croesus was king jointly with his father, do not sustain the conclusion. The passage of Nikolaus Damaskenus, which is produced to show that it was HalyattÊs (and not Croesus) who conquered Karia, only attests that HalyattÊs marched with an armed force into Karia (?p? ?a??a? st?ate???): this same author states, that Croesus was deputed by HalyattÊs to govern Adramyttium and the plain of ThÊbÊ (???e?? ?p?dede??????), but Mr. Clinton stretches this testimony to an inadmissible extent when he makes it tantamount to a conquest of Æolis by HalyattÊs, (“so that Æolis is already conquered.”) Nothing at all is said about Æolis, or the cities of the Æolic Greeks, in this passage of Nikolaus, which represents Croesus as governing a sort of satrapy under his father HalyattÊs, just as Cyrus the younger did in after-times under ArtaxerxÊs. And the expression of Herodotus, ?pe? te, d??t?? t?? pat???, ????t?se t?? ?p??? ? ????s??, appears to me, when taken along with the context, to indicate a bequest or nomination of successor, and not a donation during life.

2. The hypothesis, therefore, that Croesus was king 570 B.C., during the lifetime of his father, is one purely gratuitous, resorted to on account of the chronological difficulties connected with the account of Herodotus. But it is quite insufficient for such a purpose; it does not save us from the necessity of contradicting Herodotus in most of his particulars; there may, perhaps, have been an interview between Solon and Croesus in B.C. 570, but it cannot be the interview described by Herodotus. That interview takes place within ten years after the promulgation of Solon’s laws,—at the maximum of the power of Croesus, and after numerous conquests effected by himself as king,—at a time when Croesus had a son old enough to be married and to command armies (Herod, i, 35),—at a time, moreover, immediately preceding the turn of his fortunes from prosperity to adversity, first in the death of his son, succeeded by two years of mourning, which were put an end to (p???e?? ?p?pa?se, Herod. i, 46) by the stimulus of war with the Persians. That war, if we read the events of it as described in Herodotus, cannot have lasted more than three or four years,—so that the interview between Solon and Croesus, as Herodotus conceived it, may be fairly stated to have occurred within seven years before the capture of Sardis.

If we put together all these conditions, it will appear that the interview recounted by Herodotus is a chronological impossibility: and Niebuhr (Rom. Gesch. vol. i, p. 579) is right in saying that the historian has fallen into a mistake of ten olympiads, or forty years; his recital would consist with chronology, if we suppose that the Solonian legislation were referable to 554 B.C., and not 594.

In my judgment, this is an illustrative tale, in which certain real characters,—Croesus and Solon; and certain real facts,—the great power and succeeding ruin of the former by the victorious arm of Cyrus,—together with certain facts probably altogether fictitious, such as the two sons of Croesus, the Phyrgian Adrastus and his history, the hunting of the mischievous wild boar on Mount Olympus, the ultimate preservation of Croesus, etc., are put together so as to convey an impressive moral lesson. The whole adventure of Adrastus and the son of Croesus is depicted in language eminently beautiful and poetical.

Plutarch treats the impressiveness and suitableness of this narrative as the best proof of its historical truth, and puts aside the chronological tables as unworthy of trust. Upon which reasoning Mr. Clinton has the following very just remarks: “Plutarch must have had a very imperfect idea of the nature of historical evidence, if he could imagine that the suitableness of a story to the character of Solon was a better argument for its authenticity than the number of witnesses by whom it is attested. Those who invented the scene (assuming it to be a fiction) would surely have had the skill to adapt the discourse to the character of the actors.” (p. 300.)

To make this remark quite complete, it would be necessary to add the words “trustworthiness and means of knowledge,” in addition to the “number,” of attesting witnesses. And it is a remark the more worthy of notice, inasmuch as Mr. Clinton here pointedly adverts to the existence of plausible fiction, as being completely distinct from attested matter of fact,—a distinction of which he took no account in his vindication of the historical credibility of the early Greek legends.

[249] Herod, i, 32. ? ????se, ?p?st?e??? e t? ?e???, p?? ??? f???e??? te ?a? ta?a??de?, ?pe???t?? e ?????p???? p????t?? p???. i, 34. ?et? d? S????a ????e???, ??ae? ?? ?e?? ??es?? e???? ????s??, ?? e???sa? ?t? ????se ???t?? e??a? ?????p?? ?p??t?? ????tat??.

The hunting-match, and the terrible wild boar with whom the Mysians cannot cope, appear to be borrowed from the legend of KalydÔn. The whole scene of Adrastus, returning after the accident in a state of desperate remorse, praying for death with outstretched hands, spared by Croesus, and then killing himself on the tomb of the young prince, is deeply tragic (Herod. i, 44-45).

[250] Herodot. i, 85.

[251] Herodot. i, 86, 87: compare Plutarch, Solon, 27-28. See a similar story about GygÊs king of Lydia (Valerius Maxim. vii, 1, 2).

[252] Xenoph. Memorab. ii, 1, 21. ???d???? ? s?f?? ?? t? s?????at? t? pe?? ??a??????, ?pe? d? ?a? p?e?st??? ?p?de????ta?, etc.

[253] Herodot. vii, 10. f???e? ??? ? ?e?? t? ?pe?????ta p??ta ?????e??.... ?? ??? ?? f????e?? ??a ? ?e?? ????? ? ???t??.

[254] Herodot. i, 59. I record this allusion to NisÆa and the Megarian war, because I find it distinctly stated in Herodotus; and because it may possibly refer to some other later war between Athens and Megara than that which is mentioned in Plutarch’s Life of Solon as having taken place before the Solonian legislation (that is, before 594 B.C.), and therefore nearly forty years before this movement of Peisistratus to acquire the despotism. Peisistratus must then have been so young that he could not with any propriety be said to have “captured NisÆa” (??sa??? te ????): moreover, the public reputation, which was found useful to the ambition of Peisistratus in 560 B.C., must have rested upon something more recent than his bravery displayed about 597 B.C.; just as the celebrity which enabled Napoleon to play the game of successful ambition on the 18th Brumaire (Nov. 1799) was obtained by victories gained within the preceding five years, and could not have been represented by any historian as resting upon victories gained in the Seven Years’ war, between 1756-1763.

At the same time, my belief is that the words of Herodotus respecting Peisistratus do really refer to the Megarian war mentioned in Plutarch’s Life of Solon, and that Herodotus supposed that Megarian war to have been much more near to the despotism of Peisistratus than it really was. In the conception of Herodotus, and by what (after Niebuhr) I venture to call a mistake in his chronology, the interval between 600-560 B.C. shrinks from forty years to little or nothing. Such mistake appears, not only on the present occasion, but also upon two others: first, in regard to the alleged dialogue between Solon and Croesus, described and commented upon a few pages above; next, in regard to the poet AlkÆus and his inglorious retreat before the Athenian troops at Sigeium and Achilleium, where he lost his shield, when the Mityleneans were defeated. The reality of this incident is indisputable, since it was mentioned by AlkÆus himself in one of his songs; but Herodotus represents it to have occurred in an Athenian expedition directed by Peisistratus. Now the war in which AlkÆus incurred this misfortune, and which was brought to a close by the mediation of Periander of Corinth, must have taken place earlier than 584 B.C., and probably took place before the legislation of Solon; long before the time when Peisistratus had the direction of Athenian affairs,—though the latter may have carried on, and probably did carry on, another and a later war against the Mityleneans in those regions, which led to the introduction of his illegitimate son, Hegesistratus, as despot of Sigeium (Herod. v. 94-95).

If we follow the representation given by Herodotus of these three different strings of events, we shall see that the same chronological mistake pervades all of them,—he jumps over nearly ten olympiads, or forty years. AlkÆus is the contemporary of Pittakus and Solon.

I have already remarked, in the previous chapter respecting the despots of SikyÔn (ch. ix.), another instance of confused chronology in Herodotus respecting the events of this period,—respecting Croesus, MegaklÊs, AlkmÆÔn and KleisthenÊs of SikyÔn.

[255] Aristot. Politic. v, 4, 5; Plutarch, Solon, 29.

[256] Plato, Republic, viii, p. 565. t? t??a?????? a?t?a t? p?????????t?? ... a?te?? t?? d??? f??a??? t??a? t?? s?at??, ??a s?? a?t??? ? ? t?? d??? ?????.

[257] Diog. LaËrt. i, 49. ? ????, ?e?s?stat?da? ??te?, etc.

[258] Plutarch, Solon, 29-30; Diog. LaËrt. i, 50-51.

[259] Plutarch, Solon, 30; Diogen. LaËrt. i, 49; Diodor. Excerpta., lib. vii-x, ed. Maii. Fr. xix-xxiv.

[260] Solon, Fragment 22, ed. Bergk. IsokratÊs affirms that Solon was the first person to whom the appellation Sophist—in later times carrying with it so much obloquy—was applied, (IsokratÊs, Or. xv, De Permutatione, p. 344; p. 496, Bek.)

[261] Plutarch, Solon, 32; Kratinus ap. Diogen. LaËrt. i, 62.

[262] AristidÊs, in noticing this story of the spreading of the ashes of Solon in Salamis, treats him as ??????t?? of the island (Orat. xlvi, ?p?? t?? tett????, p. 172; p. 230, Dindorf). The inscription on his statue, which describes him as born in Salamis, can hardly have been literally true: for when he was born, Salamis was not incorporated in Attica; but it may have been true by a sort of adoption (see Diogen. LaËrt. i, 62). The statue seems to have been erected by the Salaminians themselves, a long time after Solon: see Menage ad Diogen. LaËrt. l.c.

[263] See Fiedler, Reisen durch Griechenland, vol. ii, p. 87.

[264] Herodot. viii, 46; Thucyd. vii, 57.

[265] Diodor. xiii, 47.

[266] Kallimachus, Hymn. ad Delum, 289, with Spanheim’s note; Theognis, v, 888; Theophrast. Hist. Plant. 8, 5.

See Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. ii, ch. 14, p. 254, seq. The passage of Theognis leads to the belief that KÊrinthus formed a part of the territory of Chalkis.

[267] Skylax (c. 59) treats the island of Skyrus as opposite to Eretria, the territory of which must, therefore, have included a portion of the eastern coast of Euboea, as well as the western. He recognizes only four cities in the island,—Karystus, Eretria, Chalkis, and HestiÆa.

[268] Mannert, Geograph. Gr. RÖm. part viii, book i, c. 16, p. 248; Strabo, x, pp. 445-449.

[269] The seventh Oration of Dio Chrysostom, which describes his shipwreck near Cape Kaphareus, on the island of Euboea, and the shelter and kindness which he experienced from a poor mountain huntsman, presents one of the most interesting pictures remaining, of this purely rustic portion of the Greek population (Or. vii, p. 221, seq.),—men who never entered the city, and were strangers to the habits, manners, and dress there prevailing,—men who drank milk and were clothed in skins (?a?a?t?p?ta? ????, ???e??ta?, Eurip. Elektr. 169), yet nevertheless (as it seems) possessing right of citizenship (p. 238) which they never exercised. The industry of the poor men visited by Dion had brought into cultivation a little garden and field in a desert spot near Kaphareus.

Two-thirds of the territory of this Euboic city consisted of barren mountain (p. 232); it must probably have been Karystus.

The high lands of Euboea were both uninhabited and difficult of approach, even at the time of the battle of Marathon, when Chalkis and Eretria had not greatly declined from the maximum of their power: the inhabitants of Eretria looked to t? ???a t?? ?????? as a refuge against the Persian force under Datis (Herod. vi, 100).

[270] Strabo, x, p. 445.

[271] Plutarch, QuÆst. GrÆc. p. 296; Strab. x, p. 446 (whose statements are very perplexed); Velleius Patercul. i, 4.

According to Skymnus the Chian (v. 572), Chalkis was founded by PandÔrus son of Erechtheus, and KÊrinthus by KothÔn, from Athens.

[272] Strabo, x, p. 446,—??? d? ?a???d??a? sp??a? (AlkÆus, Fragm. 7, Schneidewin),—?a???d???? p?t????? (Aristophan. Equit. 237),—certainly belongs to the Euboic Chalkis, not to the Thrakian ChalkidikÊ. Boeckh, Staatshaushalt. der Athener, vol. ii, p. 284, App. xi, cites ?a???d??? p?t???a in an inscription: compare Steph. Byz. ?a????.—?a?s???e?t?? ??????, Homer, Hymn. Apoll. 219.

[273] See the mineralogical account of the islands in Fiedler (Reisen, vol. ii, pp. 88, 118, 562).

The copper and iron ore near Chalkis had ceased to be worked even in the time of Strabo: Fiedler indicates the probable site (vol. i, p. 443).

[274] Herodot. iii. 57. The Siphnians, however, in an evil hour, committed the wrong of withholding this tithe: the sea soon rushed in and rendered the mines ever afterwards unworkable (Pausan. x, 11, 2).

[275] Strabo, x, p. 448.

[276] Herodot. v, 31. Compare the accounts of these various islands in the recent voyages of Professor Ross, Reisen auf den Griechischen Inseln, vol. i, letter 2; vol. ii, letter 15.

The population of Naxos is now about eleven thousand souls; that of Andros fifteen thousand (Ross, vol. i, p. 28; vol. ii, p. 22).

But the extent and fertility of the Naxian plain perfectly suffice for that aggregate population of one hundred thousand souls, which seems implied in the account of Herodotus.

[277] Strabo, l.c.

[278] Herodot. v, 77; Aristoteles, Fragment. pe?? ????te???, ed. Neumann, pp. 111-112: compare Aristot. Polit. iv, 3, 2.

[279] Hom. Hymn. Apoll. Del. 146-176; Thucyd. iii, 104:—

[280] Thucyd. iii, 104.

[281] Thucyd. i, 6. d?? t? ???d?a?t??, etc.

[282] Herodot. i, 143. ?? ?? ??? ????? ???e? ?a? ?? ????a??? ?f???? t? ????a, ?? ????e??? ???e? ?e???s?a?,—an assertion quite unquestionable with reference to the times immediately preceding Herodotus, but not equally admissible in regard to the earlier times. Compare Thucyd. i, 124 (with the Scholium), and also v, 9; viii, 25.

[283] Thucyd. i, 15. The second Messenian war cannot have appeared to ThucydidÊs as having enlisted so many allies on each side as Pausanias represents.

[284] Strabo, viii, p. 448; Herodot. v, 99; Plutarch, Amator, p. 760,—valuable by the reference to Aristotle.

Hesiod passed over from Askra to Chalkis, on the occasion of the funeral games celebrated by the sons of Amphidamas in honor of their deceased father, and gained a tripod as prize by his song or recital (Opp. Di. 656). According to the Scholia, Amphidamas was king of Chalkis, who perished in the war against Eretria respecting Lelantum. But it appears that Plutarch threw out the lines as spurious, though he acknowledges Amphidamas as a vigorous champion of Chalkis in this war. See Septem Sapient. Conviv. c. 10, p. 153.

This visit of Hesiod to Chalkis was represented as the scene of his poetical competition with and victory over Homer. (See the Certamen Hom. et Hes. p. 315, ed. GÖttl.)

[285] See the striking description of Chalkis given by DikÆarchus in the ???? ????d?? (Fragment. p. 146, ed. Fuhr).

[286] Herodot. i, 94.

[287] See Boeckh’s Metrologie, c. 8 and 9.

[288] Euripid. Ion, 1546. ?t?st??? ?s?ad?? ??????.

[289] Pausan. vii, 4, 6. ??sa?ta e?????ta ?? ????? ???a e???s??? ?? ??t?? ??e???? ?e e????e, ?a?? ??t??a a?t?a? ???? te???s?? ?? ???a?.

Respecting Samos, and its primitive Karian inhabitants, displaced by PatroklÊs, and TembriÔn at the head of Grecian emigrants, see Etymol. Mag. v. ?st?p??a?a.

[290] Herod. i, 146. ?pe?, ?? ?e ?t? ????? ??t?? (i. e. the inhabitants of the Pan-Ionic Dodekapolis) ????? e?s? t?? ????? ????? ? ??????? t? ?e???as?, ???? p???? ???e??? t?? ?a?te? ?? ????e? e?s?? ??? ??a??st? ???a, t??s? ?????? ?ta ??d? t?? ????at?? ??d??? ????a? d? ????????? ??ae??ata?, ?a? ?ade???, ?a? ????pe?, ?a? F???e? ?p?d?s???, ?a? ????ss??, ?a? ????de? ?e?as???, ?a? ?????e? ?p?da?????, ???a te ???ea p???? ??ae??ata?. ?? d? a?t??? ?p? t?? ???ta????? t?? ????a??? ??????te?, ?a? ??????te? ?e??a??tat?? e??a? ?????, ??t?? d? ?? ???a??a? ??a??? e?? t?? ?p??????, ???? ?ae??a? ?s???, t?? ?f??e?sa? t??? ????a? ... ?a?ta d? ?? ????e?a ?? ????t?.

The polemical tone in which this remark of Herodotus is delivered is explained by Dahlmann on the supposition that it was destined to confute certain boastful pretensions of the Milesian HekatÆus (see BÄhr, ad loc., and Klausen ad HekatÆi Frag. 225).

The test of Ionism, according to the statement of Herodotus, is, that a city should derive its origin from Athens, and that it should celebrate the solemnity of the Apaturia (i. 147). But we must construe both these tests with indulgence. Ephesus and KolophÔn were Ionic, though neither of them celebrated the Apaturia. And the colony might be formed under the auspices of Athens, though the settlers were neither natives, nor even of kindred race with the natives, of Attica.

[291] Herod. i, 142. Ephesus, KolophÔn, Lebedus, TeÔs, KlazomenÆ, PhokÆa—a?ta? a? p???e? t?s? p??te??? ?e??e?s?s? ????????s? ?at? ???ssa? ??d??, sf? d? ??f?????s?.

[292] Herodot. i, 146.

[293] Thucyd. vi, 17, about the Sicilian Greeks—?????? te ??? ????t??? p???a?d???s?? a? p??e??, ?a? ??d?a? ????s? t?? p???te??? t?? eta???? ?a? ?p?d????.

[294] See Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, b. iv, c. 10, p. 93.

[295] Herodot. i, 170.

[296] Both Diodorus (xv, 49) and Dionysius of Halikarnassus (A. R. iv, 25) speak as if the convocation or festival had been formally transferred to Ephesus, in consequence of the insecurity of the meetings near MykalÊ: Strabo on the contrary speaks of the Pan-Ionia as if they still in his time celebrated in the original spot (xiv, pp. 636-638), under the care of the PriÊneans. The formal transfer is not probable: ThucydidÊs (iii, 104) proves that in his time the festival of Ephesia was practically the Pan-Ionic rendezvous, though Herodotus does not seem to have conceived it as such. See Guhl, Ephesiaca, part iii, p. 117; and K. F. Hermann, Gottesdienstliche AlterthÜmer der Griechen, c. 66, p. 343.

[297] The site of MilÊtus is best indicated by Arrian, i, 19-20; see that of PhÔkÆa, ErythrÆ, MyonnÊsus, KlazomenÆ, KolophÔn, TeÔs (Strabo, xiv, pp. 644-645; Pausan. vii, 3, 2; Livy, xxxvii, 27-31; Thucyd. viii, 31).

[298] Strabo. xiv, p. 635.

[299] Strabo, xiv, p. 633; Herod. ix, 97-99. ?? ??se?d??? t?? ????s???. Strabo, xiv, p. 651.

[300] Strabo, xiv, p. 636; Vitruvius, iv, 1; PolyÆn. viii, 35.

[301] Strabo, xiv, pp. 636-638.

[302] Thucyd. i, 116.

[303] Conon, Narrat. 29; Strabo, xiv, pp. 636-647.

The story in Parthenius about Leukippus, leader t?? de?ate????t?? ?? F???? ?p? ?d?t??, who came to the Ephesian territory and acquired possession of the place called KretinÆon, by the treachery of LeukophryÊ, daughter of Mandrolytos, whether truth or romance, is one of the notices of Thessalian migration into those parts (Parthen. Narrat. 6).

[304] Strabo, xiii, p. 621. See Niebuhr, Kleine Historische Schriften, p. 371, O. MÜller, Etrusker, Einleitung ii, 5, p. 80. The evidence on which MÜller’s conjecture is built seems, however, unusually slender, and the identity of TyrrhÊnos and TorrhÊbos, or the supposed confusion of the one with the other, is in no way made out. Pelasgians are spoken of in TrallÊs and Aphrodisias as well as in NinoÊ (Steph. Byz. v. ?????), but this name seems destined to present nothing but problems and delusions.

Respecting MagnÊsia on the MÆander, consult Aristot. ap. Athen. iv, p. 173, who calls the town a colony from Delphi. But the intermediate settlement of these colonists in KrÊte, or even the reality of any town called MagnÊsia in KrÊte, appears very questionable: Plato’s statement (Legg. iv, 702; xi, 919) can hardly be taken as any evidence. Compare O. MÜller, History of the Dorians, book ii, ch. 3; Hoeckh, Kreta, book iii, vol. ii, p. 413. MÜller gives these “Sagen” too much in the style of real facts: the worship of Apollo at MagnÊsia on the MÆander (Paus. x, 32, 4) cannot be thought to prove much, considering how extensively that god was worshipped along the Asiatic coast, from Lykia to Troas.

The great antiquity of this Grecian establishment was recognized in the time of the Roman emperors; see Inscript. No. 2910 in Boeckh, Corp. Ins.

[305] ?????? p??s??a (Herodot. v, 28).

[306] Strabo, xiv, p. 635. Ikarus, or Ikaria, however, appears in later times as belonging to Samos, and used only for pasture (Strabo, p. 639; x, p. 488).

[307] Kreophylus ap. Athen. viii, p. 361; Ephor. Fragm. 32, ed Marx; Stephan. Byz. v. ????a: see Guhl, Ephesiaca, p. 29.

[308] Pausan. vii, 4, 3.

[309] The account of Ephorus ap. Steph. Byz. v. ????a, attests at least the existence of the five tribes at Ephesus, whether his account of their origin and primitive history be well founded or not. See also Strabo, xiv, p. 633; Steph. Byz. v. ??????a. KarÊnÊ or KarinÊ is in Æolis, near Pitana and Gryneium (Herod. vii, 42; Steph. Byz. ?a????).

[310] Stephan. Byz. v. S????a; Heysch. Sa???a; AthenÆus, vi, p. 267; HippÔnax, Fragm. 32, Schneid.; Strabo, xiv, p. 633. Some, however, said that the vicus of Ephesus, called Smyrna, derived its name from an Amazon.

[311] Strabo, xiv, p. 620.

[312] Bato ap. Suidas, v. ???a???a?. In this article of Suidas, however, it is stated that “the Ephesian Pythagoras put down, by means of a crafty plot, the government of those who were called the BasilidÆ.” Now Aristotle talks (Polit. v, 5, 4) of the oligarchy of the BasilidÆ at ErythrÆ. It is hardly likely that there should have been an oligarchy called by that same name both at ErythrÆ and Ephesus; there is here some confusion between ErythrÆ and Ephesus which we are unable to clear up. Bato of SinÔpÊ wrote a book pe?? t?? ?? ?f?s? t??????? (AthenÆus, vii, p. 289).

[313] Guhl, Ephesiaca, cap. ii, s. 2, p. 28. The passage which he cites in AristeidÊs (Or. xlii, p. 523) refers, not to Ephesus, but to Pergamus, and to the mythe of AugÊ and TÊlephus: compare ibid. p. 251.

[314] Mimnerm. Fragm. 9, Schneid. ap. Strab. xiv, p. 634:—

Mimnermus, in his poem called Nanno, named AndrÆmÔn as founder (Strabo, p. 633). Compare this behavior with the narrative of Odysseus in Homer (Odyss. ix. 40):—

Mimnermus comes in point of time a little before Solon, B.C. 620-600.

[315] Aristot. Polit. v, 2, 12; Thucyd. iii, 34.

[316] Hesiod. ap. Strab. xiv, p. 643; Conon, Narrat. 6; Argument of the poem called ??st?? (apud DÜntzer), Epicc. GrÆc. Frag. p. 23; Pausan. ix, 33, 1.

[317] Tacit. Annal. ii, 54.

[318] Pausan. vii, 3, 1.

[319] See Welcker, Epischer Kyklus, p. 285.

[320] Steph Byz. v. ????; Pausan. vii, 3, 3; Strabo, xiv, p. 633. Anakreon called the town ??aa?t?da ???. (Strab. l.c.)

[321] Pausan. vii, 3, 3. See the Inscrip. No. 3064 in Boeckh’s Corp. Ins., which enumerates twenty-eight separate p?????: it is a list of archons, with the name and civil designation of each: I do not observe that the name of the same p????? ever occurs twice.—??t???, t?? F??a??? p?????, F??a?d??, etc: there are two p?????, the names of which are effaced on the inscription. In two other inscriptions (Nos. 3065, 3066) there occur ?????? s????a—????ada?—as the title of a civil division without any specification of an ?????? p?????; but it is reasonable to presume that the p????? and the s????a are coincident divisions. The F??a??? p????? occurs also in another Insc. No. 3081. PhilÆus is the Athenian hero, son of Ajax, and eponym of the deme or gens PhilaidÆ in Attica, who existed, as we here see, in TeÔs also. In Inscription, No. 3082, a citizen is complimented as ???? ???a?ta, after the name of the old Minyan hero. In No. 3078, the Ionic tribe of the Ge????te? is named as existing at TeÔs.

Among the titles of the towers we find the following,—t?? ??d??? p?????, t?? ???a???? p?????, t?? ?????? p?????, t?? ??dd?? p?????, t?? S??t??? p?????: these names seem to be rather foreign than Hellenic. ??d??, ?????, S??t??, ??dd??, are Asiatic, perhaps Karian or Lydian: respecting the name ??dd??, compare Steph. Byz. v. ????ss?? where ??da? appears as a Karian name: Boeckh (p. 651) expresses his opinion that ??dd?? is Karian or Lydian. Then ????a??? seems plainly not Hellenic: it is rather Phoenician (Annibal, Asdrubal, etc.), though Boeckh (in his Introductory Comment to the Sarmatian Inscriptions, part xi, p. 109) tells us that a??? is also Thracian or Getic,—“a??? haud dubie Thracica aut Getica est radix finalis, quam tenes in Dacico nomine Decebalus, et in nomine populi Triballorum.” The name t?? ????? p?????, ????d??, is Ionic: Æklus and Kothus are represented as Ionic oekists in Euboea. Another name—?????, t?? S?e????? p?????, ?a???de???—affords an instance in which the local or gentile epithet is not derived from the tower; for ?a???de??, or ?a???de?? was the denomination of a village in the Teian territory. In regard to some persons, the gentile epithet is derived from the tower,—t?? F??a??? p?????, F??a?d??—t?? Ga?a?s?? p?????, Ga?a?s?d??—t?? ??dd?? p?????, ??dde???—t?? p????? t?? ???????, ?????: in other cases not—t?? ??ad??? p?????, S????d??—t?? ????d??? p?????, ???s??d??—t?? ?s???? p?????, ?e???d??, etc. In the Inscrip. 3065, 3066, there is a formal vote of the ?????? s????a or ????ada? (both names occur): mention is also made of the ??? t?? s????a?; also the annual solemnity called Leukathea, seemingly a gentile solemnity of the EchinadÆ, which connects itself with the mythical family of Athamas. As an analogy to these Teian towers, we may compare the p????? in the Greek settlement of Olbia in the Euxine (Boeckh, Inscr. 2058), p????? ??s???, p????? ?p?da????,—they were portions of the fortifications. See also Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xxxvi, pp. 76-77. A large tower, belonging to a private individual named Aglomachus is mentioned in KyrÊnÊ (Herod. iv, 164).

[323] Strabo, xiv, p. 633.

[324] Hippias ap. Athen. vi, p. 259; PolyÆn. viii, 44, gives another story about KnÔpus. ErythrÆ, called ???p??p????. (Steph. Byz. v.)

The story told by PolyÆnus about the dictum of the oracle, and the consequent stratagem, whereby KnÔpus made himself master of ErythrÆ, represents that town as powerful anterior to the Ionic occupation (PolyÆn. viii, 43).

[325] Aristot. Polit. v, 5, 4.

[326] Pausan. vii, 3, 3. In Pausanias the name stands Abartus; but it probably ought to be Abarnus, the eponymus of Cape Abarnis in the PhÔkÆan territory: see Stephan. Byz. v. ?a????. Raoul Rochette puts Abarnus without making any remark (Histoire des Colonies Grecques, b. iv, c. 13, p. 95).

[327] Herod. i, 150; Mimnermus, Fragm.—

[328] See Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, b. iv, ch. 5, p. 43; AristeidÊs, Orat. xx-xxi, pp. 260, 267.

[329] Pausan. v, 8, 3.

[330] Vitruvius, iv, 1.

[331] Strabo, xiv, p. 646; Pindar, Frag. 155, Dissen.

[332] Thucydid. viii, 19.

[333] Skylax, c. 97; Thucyd. iii. 34.

[334] Herodot. i, 149. Herodotus does not name ElÆa, at the month of the KaÏkus: on the other hand, no other author mentions ÆgiroËssa (see Mannert, Geogr. der Gr. und RÖmer, b. viii, p. 396).

[335] Herod. ut sup.; Pseudo-Herodot. Vit. Homeri, c. 9. Sa?d???? p?da ?e?at?? ????????.

[336] Strabo, xiii, p. 621.

[337] Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 8, 5. The rhetor AristeidÊs (Orat. Sacr. xxvii, p. 347, p. 535 D.) describes in detail his journey from Smyrna to Pergamus, crossing the Hermus, and passing through Larissa, KymÊ, Myrina, Gryneium, ElÆa. He seems not to have passed through TÊmnos, at least he does not name it: moreover, we know from Pausanias (v, 13, 3) that TÊmnos was on the north bank of the Hermus. In the best maps of this district it is placed, erroneously, both on the south bank, and as if it were on the high road from Smyrna to KymÊ. We may infer from another passage of AristeidÊs (Or. xlviii, p. 351, p. 468 D.) that Larissa was nearer to the mouth of the Hermus than the maps appear to place it. According to Strabo (xiii, p. 622), it would seem that Larissa was on the south bank of the Hermus; but the better testimony of AristeidÊs proves the contrary; Skylax (c. 94) does not name TÊmnos, which seems to indicate that its territory was at some distance from the sea.

The investigations of modern travellers have, as yet, thrown little light upon the situation of TÊmnos or of the other Æolic towns: see Arundel, Discoveries in Asia Minor, vol. ii, pp. 292-298.

[338] Pliny, H. N. v, 30.

[339] Strabo, xiii, pp. 582-621, compared with Pseudo-Herodotus, Vit. Homer, c. 1-38, who says that Lesbos was occupied by the Æolians one hundred and thirty years after the Trojan war: KymÊ, twenty years after Lesbos; Smyrna, eighteen years after KymÊ.

The chronological statements of different writers are collected in Mr. Clinton’s Fast. Hellen. c. 5, pp. 104, 105.

[340] Strabo, xiii, p. 621.

[341] Strabo, xiii, 621; Pseudo-Herodot. c. 14. ?a?? F????????, compared with c. 38.

F????? appears, in later times, as an Ætolian proper name; F????? as a Lokrian. See Anecdota Delphica, by E. Curtius, Inscript. 40, p. 75 (Berlin, 1843).

[342] Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 1, 6; Anabas. vii, 8, 24.

[343] There is a valuable inscription in Boeckh’s collection, No. 3137, containing the convention between the inhabitants of Smyrna and MagnÊsia. PalÆ-MagnÊsia seems to have been a strong and important post.

“MagnÊtes a Sipylo,” Tacit. Annal. ii, 47; Pliny, H. N. v, 29; Pausan. iii, 24, 2. p??? ???a? t?? S?p????.

Stephan. Byzantinus notices only MagnÊsia ad MÆandrum, not MagnÊsia ad Sipylum.

[344] Thucyd. ii, 9.

[345] Strabo, ix, p. 402; Thucyd. viii, 100; Pseudo-Herodot. Vit. Homer, i. ?pe? ??? ? p??a? ??????t?? ??? ??t??et?, s??????? ?? ta?t? pa?t?dap? ???ea ????????, ?a? d? ?a? ?? ?a???s?a?, etc. Etymolog. Magn. v, ????e??.

[346] Herodot. i, 151; Strabo, xiii, p. 590.

[347] Diodor. xiii, 79; Strabo, xiii, p. 617; Thucyd. iii, 6.

[348] Hymn. ad Apollin. v, 37. ??s?? t? ??a???, ???a??? ?d?? ?????????. Myrsilus ap. Clemen. Alexandr. Protreptic. p. 19; Diodor. v, 57-82; Dionys. Halik. A. R. i, 18; Stephan. Byz. v. ??t?????.

Plehn (Lesbiaca, c. 2, pp. 25-37) has collected all the principal fables respecting this Lesbian archÆology: compare also Raoul Rochette (Histoire des Colonies Grecques, t. i, c. 5, p. 182 etc.)

[349] Strabo, xiii, pp. 621, 622. ????st?? d? ?st? t?? ???????? ?a? ???st? ???, ?a? s?ed?? ?t??p???? a?t? te ?a? ? ??s?? t?? ????? p??e?? t??????t? p?? t?? ??????, etc.

[350] Xenophon, Hellen. iii, 1, 10. ???? t?? Fa??a???? ?????d??—? ?????? a?t? ?? ?? Fa??a????.

Xenophon includes the whole of the Troad under the denomination of Æolis. Skylax distinguishes the Troad from Æolis: he designates as the Troad the coast towns from Dardanus seemingly down to Lekton: under Æolis he includes KebrÊn, SkÊpsis, Neandreia, and Pityeia, though how these four towns are to be called ?p? ?a??ss? it is not easy to see (Skylax, 94-95). Nor does Skylax notice either the PerÆa of Tenedos, or Assos and Gargara.

[351] Strabo, xiii, p. 583.

[352] Thucyd. iv, 52; viii, 108; Strabo, xiii, p. 610; Stephan. Byz. ?ss??; Pausan. vi, 4, 5.

[353] Pseudo-Herod. Vit. Hom. c. 20:—

?? d? ?e????a t??t?? t?? ?????? ?t??e?? pa?es?e?????t? ?? ??a??? p??? t? ?d?, ?a? ???eta? a?t??? s?d????.

[354] Herodot. vii, 20.

[355] Kallinus ap. Strabo, xiii, p. 604: compare p. 613, ??? p??t?? pa??d??e ?a??????, etc.

[356] Strabo, xiii, pp. 607-635.

[357] Herodot. v, 122, e??e ?? ?????a? p??ta?, ?s?? t?? ????da ????ta?, e??e d? G?????a?, t??? ?p??e?f???ta? t?? ???a??? ?e?????, etc.

The Teukrians, in the conception of Herodotus, were the Trojans described in the Iliad,—the ?e????? ?? seems the same as ????? ?? (ii, 118).

[358] Herodot. v, 94.

[359] Herodot. ix, 115.

[360] Strabo, xiii, 589-616.

[361] Aristot. Polit. v, 8, 13.

[362] Diogen. LaËrt. i, 74; Suidas, v. ?????, ??tta???; Strabo, xiii, p. 617. Two lines of AlkÆus are preserved, exulting in the death of Myrsilus (AlkÆus, Fragm. 12, ed. Schneidewin). Melanchrus also is named (Fragm. 13), and Pittakus, in a third fragment (73, ed. Schneid.), is brought into connection with Myrsilus.

[363] In regard to the chronology of this war, see a note near the end of my previous chapter on the Solonian legislation. I have there noticed what I believe to be a chronological mistake of Herodotus in regard to the period between 600-560 B.C. Herodotus considers this war between the Mityleneans and Athenians, in which Pittakus and AlkÆus were concerned, to have been directed by Peisistratus, whose government did not commence until 560 B.C. (Herod. v, 94, 95).

My suspicion is, that there were two Athenian expeditions to these regions—one in the time of AlkÆus and Pittakus; a second, much afterwards, undertaken by order of Peisistratus, whose illegitimate son Hegesistratus became, in consequence, despot of Sigeium. Herodotus appears to me to have merged the two into one.

[364] See the difficult fragment of AlkÆus (Fr. 24, ed. Schneidewin), preserved in Strabo, xiii, p. 600; Herodot. v, 94, 95; Archilochus, Eleg. Fr. i, 5, ed. Schneidewin; Horat. Carm. ii, 7, 9; perhaps also Anakreon, but not certainly (see Fr. 81, ed. Schneidewin), is to be regarded as having thrown away his shield.

[365] Aristot. Rhetoric. i, 16, 2, where ??a???? marks the date.

[366] Aristot. Polit. iii, 9, 5, 6; Dionys. Halik. Ant. Rom. v, 73: Plehn, Lesbiaca, pp. 46-50.

[367] Diogen. LaËrt. i, 81.

[368] Strabo, xiii, p. 617; Diogen. LaËrt. i, 75; Valer. Maxim. vi, 5, 1.

[369] Aristot. Polit. ii, 9, 9; Rhetoric ii, 27, 2.

A ditty is said to have been sung by the female grinding-slaves in Lesbos, when the mill went heavily: ??e?, ??a, ??e?? ?a? ??? ??tta??? ??e?, ??? e???a? ??t????a? as??e???,—“Grind, mill, grind; for Pittakus also grinds, the master of great MitylÊnÊ.” This has the air of a genuine composition of the time, set forth by the enemies of Pittakus, and imputing to him (through a very intelligible metaphor) tyrannical conduct; though both Plutarch (Sept. Sap. Conv. c. 14, p. 157) and Diogenes LaËrt. (i, 81) construe it literally, as if Pittakus had been accustomed to take bodily exercise at the hand-mill.

[370] Aristot. Polit. ii, 9, 9. ????et? d? ?a? ??tta??? ???? d????????, ???? ?? p???te?a?.

[371] See the Inscriptions in Boeckh’s collection, 2483-2671: the latter is an Iasian Inscription, reciting a Doric decree by the inhabitants of KalymnÆ; also Ahrens, De Dialecto DoricÂ, pp. 15, 553; Diodor. v, 53-54.

[372] Polyb. xvi, 5.

[373] Herodot. i, 144.

[374] For the general geography of Asia Minor, see Albert Forbiger, Handbuch der Alt. Geogr. part ii, sect. 61, and an instructive little treatise, FÜnf Inschriften und fÜnf StÄdte in Klein Asien, by Franz and Kiepert, Berlin, 1840, with a map of Phrygia annexed. The latter is particularly valuable as showing us how much yet remains to be made out: it is too often the practice with the compilers of geographical manuals to make a show of full knowledge, and to disguise the imperfection of their data. Nor do they always keep in view the necessity of distinguishing between the territorial names and divisions of one age and those of another.

[375] Cicero, Pro Lege ManiliÂ, c. 6; Strabo, xii, p. 572; Herodot. v, 32. See the instructive account of the spread and cultivation of the olive-tree, in Ritter, Erdkunde, West-Asien, b. iii, Abtheilung iii; Abschn. i, s. 50, pp. 522-537.

[376] Herodot. i, 72; Heeren, Ideen Über den Verkehr der Alten Welt, part i, abth. i, pp. 142-145. It may be remarked, however, that the Armenians, eastward of the Halys, are treated by Herodotus as colonists from the Phrygians (vii, 73): Stephanus Byz. says the same, v. ??e??a, adding also, ?a? t? f??? p???? f???????s?. The more careful researches of modern linguists after much groundless assertion on the part of those who preceded them, have shown that the Armenian language belongs in its structure to the Indo-Germanic family, and is essentially distinct from the Semitic: see Ritter, Erdkunde, West-Asien, b. iii, abth. iii; Abschn. i, 5, 36, pp. 577-582. Herodotus rarely takes notice of the language spoken, nor does he on this occasion, when speaking of the river Halys as a boundary.

[377] Herodot. i, 170-171.

[378] Strabo, vii, pp. 295-303; xii, pp. 542, 564, 565, 572; Herodot. i, 28; vii, 74-75; Xenophon. Hellenic. i, 3, 2; Anabasis, vii, 2, 22-32. Mannert, Geographie der Gr. und RÖmer, b. viii, ch. ii, p. 403.

[379] Dionys. PeriegÊt. 805: ApollodÔrus, i, 9, 20. Theokritus puts the Bebrykians on the coast of the Euxine—Id. xxii, 29; Syncell. p. 340, Bonn. The story in Appian, Bell. Mithridat. init. is a singular specimen of Grecian fancy, and anxiety to connect the antiquities of a nation with the Trojan war: the Greeks whom he followed assigned the origin of the Bithynians to Thracian followers of RhÊsus, who fled from Troy after the latter had been killed by DiomÊdes: Dolonkus, eponym of the Thracians in the Chersonesus, is called brother of Bithynus (Steph. Byz. ????????—??????a).

The name ?a??a?-d????, like ??-?????, may probably be an extension or compound of the primitive T????; perhaps, also, ?????e? stands in the same relation to ??????, or F?????. Hellanikus wrote T?????, ?????? (Steph. Byz. in v.).

Kios is Mysian in Herodotus, v, 122: according to Skylax, the coast from the gulf of Astakus to that of Kios is Mysia (c. 93).

[380] Charon of Lampsakus, Fr. 7, ed. Didot. ????? d? f?s? ?a? t?? ?a?a????? ???a? p??t??a? ?e????a? ?a?e?s?a? ?p? t?? ?at????s??t?? a?t?? ?e?????? t? d? ????? a?t?? ?f???sta? d?? t??? ?e??????? p??????. Strabo, xiii, p. 556; Conon, Narr. 12; Dionys. Hal. i, 54.

[381] HekatÆus, Frag. 204, ed. Didot; ApollodÔr. i, 9, 18; Strabo, xii, pp. 564-575.

[382] Xanth. Fragm. 5, ed. Didot.

[383] Herodot. vii, 20-75.

[384] Strabo, vii, p. 295; xii, p. 550; Herodot. vii, 73; Hesych. v. ????a.

[385] Strabo, vii, p. 295; xii, pp. 542, 564, 571, where he cites the geographer ArtemidÔrus. In the passage of the Iliad (xiii, 5), the ??s?? ????a??? appear to be conceived by the poet in European Thrace; but ApollodÔrus does not seem to have so construed the passage. Niebuhr (Kleine Schriften, p. 370) expresses himself more confidently than the evidence warrants.

[386] Strabo, xii, p. 572; Herodot. vii, 74.

[387] Diodor. iii, 59; Arrian, ii, 3, 1; Quint. Curt. iii, 1, 12; AthenÆ. x, p. 415. We may also notice the town of ??t??e??? near ??d?e??? in Phrygia, as connected with the name of the Thracian goddess Kotys (Strabo, x, p. 470; xii, p. 576).

[388] Herodot. viii, 138; Theopompus, Frag. 74, 75, 76, Didot (he introduced a long dialogue between Midas and Silenus,—Dionys. Halik. Vett. Script. Censur. p. 70: Theon. Progymnas. c. 2); Strabo, xiv, p. 680; Xenophon, Anabas. i, 2, 13.

[389] Strabo, xii, pp. 575-576; Steph. Byz. ???d??Ía; Thucyd. ii, 99. The territory Mygdonia and the Mygdonians, in the distant region of Mesopotamia, eastward of the river Chaboras (Plutarch, Lucullus, 32; Polyb. v, 51; Xenophon, Anab. iv, 3, 4), is difficult to understand, since it is surprising to find a branch of these more westerly Asiatics in the midst of the Syro-Arabian population. Strabo (xv, p. 747) supposes it to date only from the times of the Macedonian conquest of Asia, which is disproved by the mention of the name in Xenophon; though this reading in the text of Xenophon is by some called in question. See Forbiger, Handbuch der Alten Geographie, part ii, sect. 98, p. 628.

[390] Iliad, iii, 188; Strabo, xii, p. 551. The town of Otroea, of which Otreus seems to be the eponymus, was situated in Phrygia, just on the borders of Bithynia (Strabo, xii, p. 566).

[391] Archiloch. Fragm. 28 Schneid., 26 Gaisf.—

The passage is too corrupt to support any inference, except the near approximation in the poet’s mind of Thracians and Phrygians.

[392] Iliad, ii, 873; xiii, 792; Arrian, i, 29; Herodot. vii, 30. The boundary of the Phrygians southward towards the Pisidians, and westward as well as north-westward towards the Lydians and Mysians, could never be distinctly traced (Strabo. xii, pp. 564, 576, 628): the volcanic region called KatakekaumenÊ is referred in Xenophon’s time to Mysia (Anabas. i, 2, 10): compare the remarks of Kiepert in the treatise above referred to, FÜnf Inschriften und fÜnf StÄdte, p. 27.

[393] Herodot. i, 72; vii, 30.

[394] Strabo, xiv, p. 678: compare xiii, p. 586. The legend makes DoliÔn son of SilÊnus, who is so much connected with the Phrygian Midas (Alexand. Ætolus ap. Strabo, xiv, p. 681).

[395] PhorÔnis, Fragm. 5, ed. DÜntzer, p. 57—

[396] Ephorus ap. Strabo, xiv, 678; Herodot. v, 49.

[397] See the learned and valuable Dissertation of Boeckh, De Metris Pindari, iii, 8, pp. 235-239.

[398] Plutarch, De MusicÂ, c. 5, 7, p. 1132; Aristoxenus ap. AthenÆ. xiv, p. 624; Alkman, Frag. 104, ed. Bergk.

Aristoxenus seems to have considered the Phrygian Olympus as the great inventive genius who gave the start to Grecian music (Plutarch, ib. pp. 1135-1141): his music was employed almost entirely for hymns to the gods, religious worship, the MÊtrÔa, or ceremonies, in honor of the Great Mother (p. 1140). Compare Clemen. Alexand. Strom. i, p. 306.

?a?s?a? may perhaps have its etymology in the Karian or Lydian language. S??a? was in Karian equivalent to t?f?? (see Steph. Byz. v. S??a???a): ?? was one of the various names of Rhea (Steph. Byz. v. ??sta??a). The word would have been written ?a?s??a? by an Æolic Greek.

Marsyas is represented by TelestÊs the dithyrambist as a satyr, son of a nymph,—??fa?e?e? ?e????t?p? f??? ?a?s?? ????? (TelestÊs ap. AthenÆ xiv. p 617).

[399] Xenoph. Anab. i, 2, 8; Homer, Iliad, ii, 595; Strabo, xii, p. 578: the latter connects Olympus with KelÆnÆ as well as Marsyas. Justin, xi, 7: “Mida, qui ab Orpheo sacrorum solemnibus initiatus, Phrygiam religionibus implevit.”

The coins of Midaeion, Kadi, and PrymnÊssus, in the more northerly portion of Phrygia, bear the impress of the Phrygian hero Midas (Eckhel, Doctrina Nummorum Vet. iii, pp. 143-168).

[400] Part i, ch. xv, p. 453.

[401] The fragment of HippÔnax mentioning an eunuch of Lampsakus, rich and well-fed, reveals to us the Asiatic worship in that place (Fragm. 26, ed. Bergk):—

[402] Strabo, xii, pp. 564-575; Herodot. iv, 76.

[403] Herodot. v, 49. p???p??at?tat?? ?a? p????a?p?tat??.

[404] Herodot. i, 93-94.

[405] ??????? F?????? (Eupolis, Marik. Fr. 23, p. 506, Meineke),—t????, AthenÆ. xii, 516,—?s??de?, Alexis ap. AthenÆ. iii, 75: some Phrygians, however, had never seen a fig-tree (Cicero pro Flacco, c. 17).

Carpets of Sardis (AthenÆ. v, 197); f??????de? Sa?d?a???a? (Plato, Comicus ap. AthenÆ. ii, 48); ?e? f??????? p?? t? S??de?? ????? (Alexis ap. AthenÆ. xv, p. 691, and again ib. p. 690); ??da? d? ???????? ?s???? ?????pte ??d??? ?a??? ????? (Sappho, Fragm. 54, ed. Schneidewin; Schol. Aristoph. Pac. 1174).

[406] Xenophon, Anabas. i, 6, 7; iii, 2, 23; Memorab. iii, 5, 26. ????t?sta? ??s??; Æschyl. Pers. 40. ???d?a?t?? ??d??.

[407] Aristeid. Orat. xxvi, p. 346. The ??f?? ?t??? was very near to this place Laneion, which shows the identity of the religious names throughout Lydia and Mysia (Or. xxv, p. 318). About the Phrygians, AristeidÊs, Orat. xlvi, p. 308, ??? d? p???s??? ??e?a e?? t?? ?pe????a? ?pa????s??, ?spe? ?? F????? t?? ??a?? ??e?a t?? s???????.

The declamatory prolixities of AristeidÊs offer little reward to the reader, except these occasional valuable evidences of existing custom.

[408] Hermippus ap. AthenÆ. i, p. 27. ??d??p?d? ?? F????a?, etc., the saying ascribed to SokratÊs in Ælian, V. H. x, 14; Euripid. Alcest. 691; Strabo, vii, p. 304; Polyb. iv. 38. The Thracians sold their children into slavery,—(Herod. v, 6) as the Circassians do at present (Clarke’s Travels, vol. i, p. 378).

?e???te??? ???? F????? was a Greek proverb (Strabo, i, p. 36: compare Cicero pro Flacco, c. 27).

[409] Philostrat. Vit. Apollon. viii, 7, 12, p. 346. The slave-merchants seem to have visited Thessaly, and to have bought slaves at PagasÆ; these were either Penests sold by their masters out of the country, or perhaps non-Greeks procured from the borderers in the interior (Aristoph. Plutus, 521; Hermippus ap. AthenÆ. i, p. 27. ?? ?a?asa? d?????? ?a? st??at?a? pa?????s?).

[410] Phrygian slaves seem to have been numerous at MilÊtus in the time of HippÔnax, Frag. 36, ed. Bergk:—

[411] Theocrit. Idyll. xxii, 47-133; Apollon. Rhod. i, 937-954; ii, 5-140; Valer. Flacc. iv, 100; ApollodÔr. ii, 5, 9.

[412] Iliad, ii, 138; xii, 97; xx, 219: Virgil, Georgic, iii, 270:—

Klausen (Æneas und die Penaten, vol. i, pp. 52-56, 102-107) has put together with great erudition all the legendary indications respecting these regions.

[413] Arrian, ii, 3; Justin, xi, 7.

According to another tale, Midas was son of the Great Mother herself (Plutarch, CÆsar, 9; Hygin. fab. 191).

[414] Herodot. i, 14, with Wesseling’s note.

[415] Herodot. i, 34.

[416] Pindar. ap. AthenÆ. xiv, p. 635: compare TelestÊs ap. AthenÆ. xiv, p. 626; Pausan. ix, 5, 4.

[417] Herodot. i, 84.

[418] Aristot. Mirabil. Auscultat. 52.

[419] Herodot. i, 94.

[420] Herodot. i, 11. a???eta? a?t?? pe??e??a?,—a phrase to which Gibbon has ascribed an intended irony, which it is difficult to discover in Herodotus.

[421] Herodot. i, 13. t??t?? t?? ?pe?? ... ????? ??d??a ?p??e??t?, p??? d? ?pete??s??.

[422] Plato, Republ. ii, p. 360; Cicero, Offic. iii, 9. Plato (x, p. 612) compares very suitably the ring of GygÊs to the helmet of HadÊs.

[423] See Klausen, Æneas und die Penaten, pp. 34, 110, etc: compare Menke, Lydiaca, ch. 8, 9.

[424] See the article of O. MÜller in the Rheinisch. Museum fÜr Philologie Jahrgang, iii, pp. 22-38; also Movers, Die PhÖnizier, ch. xii, pp. 452-470.

[425] Diodor. ii, 2. Niebuhr also conceives that Lydia was in early days a portion of the Assyrian empire (Kleine Schriften, p. 371).

[426] Xanthi Fragment. 10, 12, 19, ed. Didot; AthenÆ. x, p. 415; Nikolaus Damasc. p. 36, Orelli.

[427] Xanthi Fragm. 1, 2; Dionys. Halik. A. R. i, 28; Stephan. Byz. v. ???????. The whole genealogy given by Dionysius is probably borrowed from Xanthus,—Zeus, ManÊs, Kotys, AsiÊs and Atys, Lydus and TorrhÊbus.

[428] Herod, i, 14; Pausan. ix, 29, 2.

[429] Nikolaus Damasc. p. 52, ed. Orelli.

[430] Strabo, xiii, p. 590.

[431] Herodot. i, 15.

[433] Herodot. i, 95; KtÊsias, Fragm. Assyr. xiii, p. 419, ed. Bahr; Diodor. ii, 21. KtÊsias gives thirty generations of Assyrian kings from Ninyas to Sardanapalus: Velleius, 33; Eusebius, 35; Syncellus, 40; Castor, 27; Cephalion, 23. See Bahr ad Ctesiam, p. 428. The Babylonian chronology of Berosus (a priest of Belus, about 280 B.C.) gave 86 kings and 34,000 years from the Deluge to the Median occupation of Babylon; then 1,453 years down to the reign of Phul king of Assyria (Berosi Fragmenta, p. 8, ed. Richter).

Mr. Clinton sets forth the chief statements and discrepancies respecting Assyrian chronology in his Appendix, c. 4. But the suppositions to which he resorts, in order to bring them into harmony, appear to me uncertified and gratuitous.

Compare the different, but not more successful, track followed by Larcher (Chronologie, c. 3, pp. 145-157).

[434] Here again both Larcher and Mr. Clinton represent the time, at which the Medes made themselves independent of Assyria, as perfectly ascertained, though Larcher places it in 748 B.C., and Mr. Clinton in 711 B.C. “L’Époque ne me paroit pas douteuse,” (Chronologie, c. iv, p. 157,) says Larcher. Mr. Clinton treats the epoch of 711 B.C. for the same event, as fixed upon “the authority of Scripture” and reasons upon it in more than one place as a fact altogether indisputable (Appendix, c. iii, p. 259): “We may collect from Scripture that the Medes did not become independent till after the death of Sennacherib; and accordingly Josephus (Ant. x, 2), having related the death of this king, and the miraculous recovery of Hezekiah from sickness, adds—?? t??t? t? ????? s???? t?? t?? ?ss????? ????? ?p? ??d?? ?ata?????a?. But the death of Sennacherib, as will be shown hereafter, is determined to the beginning of 711 B.C. The Median revolt, then, did not occur before B.C. 711; which refutes Conringius, who raises it to B.C. 715, and Valckenaer, who raises it to B.C. 741. Herodotus, indeed, implies an interval of some space between the revolt of the Medes and the election of DÊÏokÊs to be king. But these anni ?as??e?t?? could not have been prior to the fifty-three years of DÊÏokÊs, since the revolt is limited by Scripture to B.C. 711.” Again, p. 261, he says, respecting the four Median kings mentioned by Eusebius before DÊÏokÊs: “If they existed at all, they governed Media during the empire of the Assyrians, as we know from Scripture.” And again, p. 280: “The precise date of the termination (of the Assyrian empire) in B.C. 711 is given by Scripture, with which Herodotus agrees,” etc.

Mr. Clinton here treats, more than once, the revolt of the Medes as fixed to the year 711 B.C. by Scripture; but he produces no passage of Scripture to justify his allegation: and the passage which he cites from Josephus alludes, not to the Median revolt, but to the destruction of the Assyrian empire by the Medes. Herodotus represents the Medes as revolting from the Assyrian empire, and maintaining their independence for some time (undefined in extent) before the election of DÊÏokÊs as king; but he gives us no means of determining the date of the Median revolt; and when Mr. Clinton says (p. 280, Note O.): “I suppose Herodotus to place the revolt of the Medes in Olymp. 17, 2, since he places the accession of DÊÏokÊs in Olymp. 17, 3,”—this is a conjecture of his own: and the narrative of Herodotus seems plainly to imply that he conceived an interval far greater than one year between these two events. Diodorus gives the same interval as lasting “for many generations.” (Diod. ii, 32.)

We know—both from Scripture and from the Phoenician annals, as cited by Josephus—that the Assyrians of Nineveh were powerful conquerors in Syria, JudÆa, and Phoenicia, during the reigns of Salmaneser and Sennacherib: the statement of Josephus farther implies that Media was subject to Salmaneser, who took the Israelites from their country into Media and Persis, and brought the CuthÆans out of Media and Persis into the lands of the Israelites (Joseph. ix, 14, 1; x, 9, 7). We know farther, that after Sennacherib, the Assyrians of Nineveh are no more mentioned as invaders or disturbers of Syria or JudÆa; the ChaldÆans or Babylonians become then the enemies whom those countries have to dread. Josephus tells us, that at this epoch the Assyrian empire was destroyed by the Medes,—or, as he says in another place, by the Medes and Babylonians (x, 2, 2; x, 5, 1). This is good evidence for believing that the Assyrian empire of Nineveh sustained at this time a great shock and diminution of power; but as to the nature of this diminution, and the way in which it was brought about, it appears to me that there is a discrepancy of authorities which we have no means of reconciling,—Josephus follows the same view as KtÊsias, of the destruction of the empire of Nineveh by the Medes and Babylonians united, while Herodotus conceives successive revolts of the territories dependent upon Nineveh, beginning with that of the Medes, and still leaving Nineveh flourishing and powerful in its own territory: he farther conceives Nineveh as taken by KyaxarÊs the Mede, about the year 600 B.C., without any mention of Babylonians,—on the contrary, in his representation, Nitokris the queen of Babylon is afraid of the Medes (i, 185), partly from the general increase of their power, but especially from their having taken Nineveh (though Mr. Clinton tells us, p. 275, that “Nineveh was destroyed B.C. 606, as we have seen from the united testimonies of the Scripture and Herodotus, by the Medes and Babylonians.”)

Construing fairly the text of Herodotus, it will appear that he conceived the relations of these Oriental kingdoms between 800 and 560 B.C. differently on many material points from KtÊsias, or Berosus, or Josephus: and he himself expressly tells us, that he heard “four different tales” even respecting Cyrus (i, 95); much more, respecting events anterior to Cyrus by more than a century.

The chronology of the Medes, Babylonians, Lydians, and Greeks in Asia, when we come to the seventh century B.C., acquires some fixed points which give us assurance of correctness within certain limits; but above the year 700 B.C. no such fixed points can be detected. We cannot discriminate the historical from the mythical in our authorities,—we cannot reconcile them with each other, except by violent changes and conjectures,—nor can we determine which of them ought to be set aside in favor of the other. The names and dates of the Babylonian kings down from Nabonassar, in the Canon of Ptolemy, are doubtless authentic, but they are names and dates only: when we come to apply them to illustrate real or supposed matters of fact, drawn from other sources, they only create a new embarrassment, for even the names of the kings as reported by different authors do not agree and Mr. Clinton informs us (p. 277): “In tracing the identity of Eastern kings, the times and the transactions are better guides than the names; for these, from many well-known causes (as the changes which they undergo in passing through the Greek language, and the substitution of a title or an epithet for the name), are variously reported, so that the same king frequently appears under many different appellations.” Here, then, is a new problem: we are to employ “the times and transactions” to identify the kings: but unfortunately the times are marked only by the succession of kings, and the transactions are known only by statements always scanty and often irreconcilable with each other. So that our means of identifying the kings are altogether insufficient, and whoever will examine the process of identification as it appears in Mr. Clinton’s chapters, will see that it is in a high degree arbitrary; more arbitrary still are the processes which he employs for bringing about a forced harmony between discrepant authorities. Nor is Volney (Chronologie d’HÉrodote, vol. i, pp. 383-429) more satisfactory in his chronological results.

[435] Herodot. i, 96-100.

[436] Herodot. i, 97. ?? d? ??? d????, ???sta ??e??? ?? t?? ?????e? f????, etc.

[437] Herodot. i, 98, 99, 100. ????d?????t?? d? p??t??, ??s?? t??de ??????? p??t?? ?st?? ? ?atast?s?e???? ?te ?s???a? pa?? as???a ?d??a, d?? ??????? d? p??ta ???es?a?, ???s?a? d? as???a ?p? ?de???? p??? d? t??t??s? ?t? ?e??? te ?a? pt?e?? ??t???, ?a? ?pas? e??a? t??t? ?e a?s????, etc. and ... ?? ?at?s??p?? te ?a? ?at????? ?sa? ??? p?sa? t?? ????? t?? ???e.

[438] Herodot. iii, 80-82. Herodotus, while he positively asserts the genuineness of these deliberations, lets drop the intimation that many of his contemporaries regarded them as of Grecian coinage.

[439] Herodot. i, 96. ???t?? d? a?t????? p??t?? ??? t?? ?pe????, ?de a?t?? ?? t??a???da? pe???????. ???? ?? t??s? ??d??s? ????et? s?f??, t? ????a ?? ???????.... ??t?? ? ???????, ??as?e?? t??a???d??, ?p??ee t???de, etc.... ? d? d?, ??a ?e?e??? ?????, ???? te ?a? d??a??? ??.

[440] Compare the chapters above referred to in Herodotus with the eighth book of the CyropÆdia, wherein Xenophon describes the manner in which the Median despotism was put in effective order and turned to useful account by Cyrus, especially the arrangements for imposing on the imagination of his subjects (?ata???te?e??, viii, 1, 40)—(it is a small thing, but marks the cognate plan of Herodotus and Xenophon). DÊÏokÊs forbids his subjects to laugh or spit in his presence. Cyrus also directs that no one shall spit, or wipe his nose, or turn round to look at anything, when the king is present (Herodot. i, 99; Xen. Cyrop. viii, 1, 42). Again, viii, 3, 1, about the pompous procession of Cyrus when he rides out,—?a? ??? a?t?? t?? ??e??se?? ? se??t?? ??? d??e? ?a t?? te???? e??a? t?? e??a??????, t?? ????? ? e??ataf????t?? e??a?—analogous to the Median DÊÏokÊs in Herodotus—?a?ta d? pe?? ???t?? ?s????e t??de e??e?e?, etc. Cyrus—?fa????? d? ?a? t??t? ?t? pe?? p????? ?p??e?t?, ?d??a ?te f???? ?d??e?? ?te s?a???, ???? t? d??a??? ?s????? ???? (Cyrop. viii, 1, 26). DÊÏokÊs—?? t? d??a??? f???ss?? ?a?ep?? (Herodot. i, 100). Cyrus provides numerous persons who serve to him as eyes and ears throughout the country (Cyrop. viii, 2, 12), DÊÏokÊs has many ?at?s??p?? and ?at????? (Herodot. ib.).

[441] When the Roman emperor Claudius sends the young Parthian prince MeherdatÊs, who had been an hostage at Rome, to occupy the kingdom which the Parthian envoys tendered to him, he gives him some good advice, conceived in the school of Greek and Roman politics: “Addidit prÆcepta, ut non dominationem ac servos, sed rectorem et cives, cogitaret: clementiamque ac justitiam quanto ignara barbaris, tanto toleratiora, capesseret.” (Tacit, Annal. xii, 11.)

[442] The passage of such nomadic hordes from one government in the East to another, has been always, and is even down to the present day, a frequent cause of dispute between the different governments: they are valuable both as tributaries and as soldiers. The Turcoman Ilats—so these nomadic tribes are now called—in the north-east of Persia frequently pass backwards and forwards, as their convenience suits, from the Persian territory to the Usbeks of Khiva and Bokhara: wars between Persia and Russia have been in like manner occasioned by the transit of the Ilats across the frontier from Persia into Georgia: so also the Kurd tribes near Mount Zagros have caused by their movements quarrels between the Persians and the Turks.

See Morier, Account of the Iliyats, or Wandering Tribes of Persia, in the Journal of the Geographical Society of London, 1837, vol. vii, p. 240, and Carl Ritter, Erdkunde von Asien, West-Asien, Band ii, Abtheilung ii, Abschnitt ii, sect. 8, p. 387.

[443] Herodot. i, 74-103.

[444] Compare the analogous case of the prediction of the coming olive crop ascribed to ThalÊs (Aristot. Polit. i, 4, 5; Cicero, De Divinat. i, 3). Anaxagoras is asserted to have predicted the fall of an aËrolithe (Aristot. Meteorol. i, 7; Pliny, H. N. ii, 58; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 5).

ThalÊs is said by Herodotus to have predicted that the eclipse would take place “in the year in which it actually did occur,”—a statement so vague that it strengthens the grounds of doubt.

The fondness of the Ionians for exhibiting the wisdom of their eminent philosopher ThalÊs, in conjunction with the history of the Lydian kings, may be seen farther in the story of ThalÊs and Croesus at the river Halys (Herod. i, 75),—a story which Herodotus himself disbelieves.

[445] Consult, for the chronological views of these events, Larcher ad Herodot. i, 74; Volney, Recherches sur l’Histoire Ancienne, vol. i, pp. 330-355; Mr. Fynes Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. i, p. 418 (Note ad B.C. 617, 2); Des Vignoles, Chronologie de l’Histoire Sainte, vol. ii, p. 245; Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, vol. i, p. 209.

No less than eight different dates have been assigned by different chronologists for this eclipse,—the most ancient 625 B.C., the most recent 583 B.C. Volney is for 625 B.C.; Larcher for 597 B.C.; Des Vignoles for 585 B.C.; Mr. Clinton for 603 B.C. Volney observes, with justice, that the eclipse on this occasion “n’est pas l’accessoire, la broderie du fait, mais le fait principal lui-mÊme,” (p. 347:) the astronomical calculations concerning the eclipse are, therefore, by far the most important items in the chronological reckoning of this event. Now in regard to the eclipse of 625 B.C., Volney is obliged to admit that it does not suit the case; for it would be visible only at half-past five in the morning on February 3, and the sun would hardly be risen at that hour in the latitude of Media and Lydia (p. 343). He seeks to escape from this difficulty by saying that the data for the calculation, according to the astronomer PingrÉ, are not quite accurate for these early eclipses; but after all, if there be error, it may just as well be in one direction as in another, i. e. the true hour at which the eclipse would be visible for those latitudes is as likely to have been earlier than half-past five A.M. as to have been later, which would put this eclipse still more out of the question.

The chronology of that period presents difficulties which our means of knowledge hardly enable us to clear up. Volney remarks, and the language of Herodotus is with him, that not merely the war between KyaxarÊs and AlyattÊs (which lasted five years, and was terminated by the eclipse), but also the conquest made by KyaxarÊs of the territory up to the river Halys, took place anterior (Herodot. i, 103: compare i, 16) to the first siege of Nineveh by KyaxarÊs,—that siege which he was forced to raise by the inroad of the Scythians. This constitutes a strong presumption in favor of Volney’s date for the eclipse (625 B.C.) if astronomical considerations would admit of it, which they will not. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, puts the first siege of Nineveh in the very first year of the reign of KyaxarÊs, which is not to be reconciled with the language of Herodotus. In placing the eclipse, therefore, in 603 B.C., we depart from the relative arrangement of events which Herodotus conceived, in deference to astronomical reasons: and Herodotus is our only authority in regard to the general chronology.

According to Ideler, however (and his authority upon such a point is conclusive, in my judgment), astronomical considerations decisively fix this eclipse for the 30th September 610 B.C., and exclude all those other eclipses which have been named. Recent and more trustworthy calculations made by Oltmanns, from the newest astronomical tables, have shown that the eclipse of 610 B.C. fulfils the conditions required, and that the other eclipses named do not. For a place situated in 40° N. lat. and 36° E. long. this eclipse was nearly total, only one-eightieth of the sun’s disc remaining luminous: the darkness thus occasioned would be sufficient to cause great terror. (Ideler, Handbuch, l.c.)

Since the publication of my first edition, I have been apprized that the late Mr. Francis Baily had already settled the date of this eclipse to the 30th of September 610 B.C., in his first contribution to the Transactions of the Royal Society as long ago as 1811,—much before the date of the publication of Ideler’s Handbuch der Chronologie. Sir John Herschel (in his Memoir of Mr. Francis Baily, in the Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. xv, p. 311), after completely approving Mr. Baily’s calculations, and stating that he had been the first to solve the disputed question, expresses his surprise that various French and German astronomers, writing on the same subject afterwards, have taken no notice of “that remarkable paper.” Though a fellow-countryman of Mr. Baily, I am sorry that I have to plead guilty to a similar ignorance, until the point was specially brought to my notice by a friend. Had I been aware of the paper and the Memoir, it would have been unnecessary to cite any other authority than that of Mr. Baily and Sir John Herschel.

[446] Herodot. iv, 11-12. HekatÆus also spoke of a town ??e??? (Strabo, vii, p. 294).

Respecting the Cimmerians, consult Ukert, Skythien, p. 360, seqq.

[447] Strabo, i, pp. 6, 59, 61.

[448] Homer, Iliad, xiii, 4.—

Compare Strabo, xii, p. 553.

[449] Hesiod, Fragm. 63-64, Marktscheffel:—

Strabo, vii, pp. 300-302.

[450] Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, tom. iii, ch. xiv, p. 297. The dates of these Grecian settlements near the Danube are very vague and untrustworthy.

[451] Skymnus Chius, v, 730, Fragm. 2-25.

[452] AlkÆus, Fragm. 49, Bergk; Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 306.—

Alkman, somewhat earlier, made mention of the IssÊdones (Alkm. Frag. 129, Bergk; Steph. Byz. v. ?ss?d??e?,—he called them AssÊdones) and of the RhipÆan mountains (Fr. 80).

In the old epic of Arktinus, the deceased Achilles is transported to an elysium in the ?e??? ??s?? (see the argument of the Æthiopis in DÜntzer’s Collection of Epicc. Poet. GrÆc. p. 15), but it may well be doubted whether ?e??? ??s?? in his poem was anything but a fancy,—not yet localized upon the little island off the mouth of the Danube.

For the early allusions to the Pontus Euxinus and its neighboring inhabitants, found in the Greek poets, see Ukert, Skythien, pp. 15-18, 78; though he puts the Ionian colonies in the Pontus nearly a century too early, in my judgment.

[453] Compare Dr. Clarke’s description of the present commerce between Taganrock—not far from the ancient Greek settlement of Tanais—and the Archipelago: besides exporting salt-fish, corn, leather, etc. in exchange for wines, fruit, etc. it is the great deposit of Siberian productions: from Orenburg it receives tallow, furs, iron, etc; this is, doubtless, as old as Herodotus (Clarke’s Travels in Russia, ch. xv, p. 330).

[454] HekatÆi Fragment. Fr. 153, 168, ed. Klausen. HekatÆus mentioned the IssÊdones (Fr. 168; Steph. Byz. v. ?ss?d??e?); both he and DamastÊs seem to have been familiar with the poem of Aristeas: see Klausen, ad loc.; Steph. Byz. v. ?pe???e???. Compare also Æschyl. Prometh. 409, 710, 805.

Hellanikus, also, seems to have spoken about Scythia in a manner generally conformable to Herodotus (Strabo, xii, p. 550). It does little credit to the discernment of Strabo that he treats with disdain the valuable Scythian chapter of Herodotus,—?pe? ????????? ?a? ???d?t?? ?a? ??d???? ?atef?????sa? ??? (ib.).

[455] Herodot. iv, 100-101. See, respecting the Scythia of Herodotus, the excellent dissertation of Niebuhr, contained in his Kleine Historische Schriften, “Ueber die Geschichte der Skythen, Geten, und Sarmaten,” p. 360, alike instructive both as to the geography and the history. Also the two chapters in VÖlcker’s Mythische Geographie, ch. vii-viii, sects. 23-26, respecting the geographical conceptions present to Herodotus in his description of Scythia.

Herodotus has much in his Scythian geography, however, which no comment can enable us to understand. Compared with his predecessors, his geographical conceptions evince very great improvement; but we shall have occasion, in the course of this history, to notice memorable examples of extreme misapprehension in regard to distance and bearings in these remote regions, common to him not only with his contemporaries, but also with his successors.

[456] Herodot. iv, 17-21, 46-56; HippokratÊs, De AËre, Locis et Aquis, c. vi; Æschyl. Prometh. 709; Justin, ii, 2.

It is unnecessary to multiply citations respecting nomadic life, the same under such wide differences both of time and of latitude,—the same with the “armentarius Afer” of Virgil (Georgic, iii, 343) and the “campestres ScythÆ” of Horace (Ode iii, 24, 12), and the Tartars of the present day; see Dr. Clarke’s Travels in Russia, ch. xiv, p. 310.

The fourth book of Herodotus, the Tristia and EpistolÆ ex Ponto of Ovid, the Toxaris of Lucian (see c. 36, vol. i, p. 544 Hemst.), and the Inscription of Olbia (No. 2058 in Boeckh’s Collection), convey a genuine picture of Scythian manners as seen by the near observer and resident, very different from the pleasing fancies of the distant poet respecting the innocence of pastoral life. The poisoned arrows, which Ovid so much complains of in the Sarmatians and GetÆ (Trist. iii, 10, 60, among other passages, and Lucan, iii, 270), are not noticed by Herodotus in the Scythians.

The dominant Golden Horde among the Tartars, in the time of Zinghis Khan, has been often spoken of; and among the different Arab tribes now in Algeria, some are noble, others enslaved; the latter habitually, and by inheritance, servants of the former, following wherever ordered (Tableau de la Situation des Établissemens FranÇais en AlgÉrie, p. 393, Paris, Mar. 1846).

[457] Ephorus placed the KarpidÆ immediately north of the Danube (Fragm. 78, Marx; Skymn. Chius, 102). I agree with Niebuhr that this is probably an inaccurate reproduction of the KallippidÆ of Herodotus, though Boeckh is of a different opinion (Introduct. ad Inscriptt. Sarmatic. Corpus Inscript. part xi, p. 81). The vague and dreamy statements of Ephorus, so far as we know them from the fragments, contrast unfavorably with the comparative precision of Herodotus. The latter expressly separates the Androphagi from the Scythians,—????? ??? ?d??? ?a? ??da?? S??????? (iv, 18), whereas when we compare Strabo vii. p. 302 and Skymn. Chi. 105-115, we see that Ephorus talked of the Androphagi as a variety of Scythians,—????? ??d??f???? S?????.

The valuable inscription from Olbia (No. 2058 Boeckh) recognizes ????????e? near that town.

[458] Herod. iv, 17. We may illustrate this statement of Herodotus by an extract from Heber’s journal as cited in Dr. Clarke’s Travels, ch. xv, p. 337: “The Nagay Tartars begin to the west of Marinopol: they cultivate a good deal of corn, yet they dislike bread as an article of food.”

[459] Niebuhr (Dissertat. ut sup. p. 360), Boeckh (Introd. Inscrip. ut sup. p. 110), and Ritter (Vorhalle der Geschichte, p. 316) advance this opinion. But we ought not on this occasion to depart from the authority of Herodotus, whose information respecting the people of Scythia, collected by himself on the spot, is one of the most instructive and precious portions of his whole work. He is very careful to distinguish what is Scythian from what is not: and these tribes, which Niebuhr (contrary to the sentiment of Herodotus) imagines not to be Scythian, were the tribes nearest and best known to him; probably he had personally visited them, since we know that he went up the river Hypanis (Bog) as high as the ExampÆus, four days’ journey from the sea (iv, 52-81).

That some portions of the same ????? should be ???t??e?, and other portions ??ade?, is far from being without parallel; such was the case with the Persians, for example (Herodot. i, 126), and with the Iberians between the Euxine and the Caspian (Strabo, xi, p. 500).

The Pontic Greeks confounded Agathyrsus, GelÔnus, and ScythÊs in the same genealogy, as being three brethren, sons of HÊraklÊs by the ???p???e??? ???d?a of the HylÆa (iv, 7-10). Herodotus is more precise: he distinguishes both the Agathyrsi and GelÔni from Scythians.

[460] Both Niebuhr and Boeckh account the ancient Scythians to be of Mongolian race (Niebuhr in the Dissertation above mentioned, Untersuchungen Über die Geschichte der Skythen, Geten, und Sarmaten, among the Kleine Historische Schriften, p. 362; Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptt. GrÆcarum, Introductio ad Inscriptt. Sarmatic. part xi, p. 81). Paul Joseph Schafarik, in his elaborate examination of the ethnography of the ancient people described as inhabiting northern Europe and Asia, arrives at the same result (Slavische AlterthÜmer, Prag. 1843, vol. i, xiii, 6, p. 279).

A striking illustration of this analogy of race is noticed by Alexander von Humboldt, in speaking of the burial-place and the funeral obsequies of the Tartar Tchinghiz Khan:—

“Les cruautÉs lors de la pompe funÈbre des grands-khans ressemblent entiÈrement À celles que nous trouvons dÉcrites par HÉrodote (iv, 71) environ 1700 ans avant la mort de Tchinghiz, et 65° de longitude plus À l’ouest, chez les Scythes du Gerrhus et du BorysthÈne.” (Humboldt, Asie Centrale, vol. i, p. 244.)

Nevertheless, M. Humboldt dissents from the opinion of Niebuhr and Boeckh, and considers the Scythians of Herodotus to be of Indo-Germanic, not of Mongolian race: Klaproth seems to adopt the same view (see Humboldt, Asie Centrale, vol. i, p. 401, and his valuable work, Kosmos, p. 491, note 383). He assumes it as a certain fact, upon what evidence I do not distinctly see, that no tribe of Turk or Mongol race migrated westward out of Central Asia until considerably later than the time of Herodotus. To make out such a negative, seems to me impossible: and the marks of ethnographical analogy, so far as they go, decidedly favor the opinion of Niebuhr. Ukert also (Skythien, pp. 266-280) controverts the opinion of Niebuhr.

At the same time it must be granted that these marks are not very conclusive, and that many nomadic hordes, whom no one would refer to the same race, may yet have exhibited an analogy of manners and characteristics equal to that between the Scythians and Mongols.

The principle upon which the Indo-European family of the human race is defined and parted off, appears to me inapplicable to any particular case wherein the language of the people is unknown to us. The nations constituting that family have no other point of affinity except in the roots and structure of their language; on every other point there is the widest difference. To enable us to affirm that the MassagetÆ, or the Scythians, or the Alani, belonged to the Indo-European family, it would be requisite that we should know something of their language. But the Scythian language may be said to be wholly unknown; and the very few words which are brought to our knowledge do not tend to aid the Indo-European hypothesis.

[461] See the story of the accidental discovery of this Scythian sword when lost, by Attila, the chief of the Huns (Priscus ap. Jornandem de Rebus Geticis, c. 35, and in Eclog. Legation. p. 50).

Lucian in the Toxaris (c. 38, vol. ii, p. 546, Hemst.) notices the worship of the akinakes, or scymetar, by the Scythians in plain terms without interposing the idea of the god ArÊs: compare Clemen. Alexand. Protrept. p. 25, Syl. Ammianus Marcellinus, in speaking of the Alani (xxxi, 2), as well as Pomponius Mela (ii, 1) and Solinus (c. 20), copy Herodotus. Ammianus is more literal in his description of the Sarmatian sword-worship (xvii, 12). “Eductisque mucronibus, quos pro numinibus colunt,” etc.

[462] Herodot. iv, 3-62, 71-75; SophoklÊs, Œnomaus,—ap. AthenÆ. ix, p. 410; HippokratÊs, De AËre, Locis et Aquis, ch. vi, s. 91-99, etc.

It is seldom that we obtain, in reference to the modes of life of an ancient population, two such excellent witnesses as Herodotus and HippokratÊs about the Scythians.

HippokratÊs was accustomed to see the naked figure in its highest perfection at the Grecian games: hence, perhaps, he is led to dwell more emphatically on the corporeal defects of the Scythians.

[463] See Pallas, Reise durch Russland, and Dr. Clarke, Travels in Russia, ch. xii, p. 238.

[464] Thucyd. ii, 95; Herodot. ii, 46-47: his idea of the formidable power of the Scythians seems also to be implied in his expression (c. 81), ?a? ???????, ?? S???a? e??a?.

Herodotus holds the same language about the Thracians, however, as ThucydidÊs about the Scythians,—irresistible, if they could but act with union (v, 3).

[465] The testimony of Herodotus to this effect (iv, 110-117) seems clear and positive, especially as to the language. HippokratÊs also calls the SauromatÆ ????? S??????? (De AËre, Locis et Aquis, c. vi, sect. 89, Petersen).

I cannot think that there is any sufficient ground for the marked ethnical distinction which several authors draw (contrary to Herodotus) between the Scythians and the Sarmatians. Boeckh considers the latter to be of Median or Persian origin, but to be, also, the progenitors of the modern Sclavonian family: “SarmatÆ, Slavorum haud dubie parentes,” (Introduct. ad Inscr. Sarmatic. Corp. Inscr. part xi, p. 83.) Many other authors have shared this opinion, which identifies the Sarmatians with the Slavi; but Paul Joseph Schafarik (Slavische AlterthÜmer, vol. i, c. 16) has shown powerful reasons against it.

Nevertheless, Schafarik admits the Sarmatians to be of Median origin, and radically distinct from the Scythians. But the passages which are quoted to prove this point from Diodorus (ii, 43), from Mela (i, 19), and from Pliny (H. N. vi. 7), appear to me of much less authority than the assertion of Herodotus. In none of these authors is there any trace of inquiries made in or near the actual spot from neighbors and competent informants, such as we find in Herodotus. And the chapter in Diodorus, on which both Boeckh and Schafarik lay especial stress, appears to me one of the most untrustworthy in the whole book. To believe in the existence of Scythian kings who reigned over all Asia from the eastern ocean to the Caspian, and sent out large colonies of Medians and Assyrians, is surely impossible; and Wesseling speaks much within the truth when he says, “Verum hÆc dubia admodum atque incerta.” It is remarkable to see Boeckh treating this passage as conclusive against Herodotus and HippokratÊs. M. Boeckh has also given a copious analysis of the names found in the Greek inscriptions from Scythian, Sarmatian, and MÆotic localities (ut sup. pp. 107-117), and he endeavors to establish an analogy between the two latter classes and Median names. But the analogy holds just as much with regard to the Scythian names.

[466] The locality which Herodotus assigns to the Budini creates difficulty. According to his own statement, it would seem that they ought to be near to the Neuri (iv, 105), and so in fact Ptolemy places them (v, 9) near about Volhynia and the sources of the Dniester.

Mannert (Geographie der Griech. und RÖmer, Der Norden der Erde, v, iv, p. 138) conceives the Budini to be a Teutonic tribe; but Paul Joseph Schafarik (Slavische AlterthÜmer, i, 10, pp. 185-195) has shown more plausible grounds for believing both them and the Neuri to be of Slavic family. It seems that the names Budini and Neuri are traceable to Slavic roots; that the wooden town described by Herodotus in the midst of the Budini is an exact parallel of the primitive Slavic towns, down even to the twelfth century; and that the description of the country around, with its woods and marshes containing beavers, otters, etc. harmonizes better with southern Poland and Russia than with the neighborhood of the Ural mountains. From the color ascribed to the Budini, no certain inference can be drawn: ??a???? te p?? ?s????? ?st? ?a? p????? (iv, 108). Mannert construes it in favor of Teutonic family, Schafarik in favor of Slavic; and it is to be remarked, that HippokratÊs talks of the Scythians generally as extremely p????? (De AËre, Locis et Aquis, c. vi: compare Aristot. Prob. xxxviii, 2).

These reasonings are plausible; yet we can hardly venture to alter the position of the Budini as Herodotus describes it, eastward of the Tanais. For he states in the most explicit manner that the route as far as the ArgippÆi is thoroughly known, traversed both by Scythian and by Grecian traders, and all the nations in the way to it known (iv, 24): ???? ?? t??t?? p???? pe??f??e?a t?? ????? ?st? ?a? t?? ?p??s?e? ??????? ?a? ??? S?????? t??e? ?p??????ta? ?? a?t???, t?? ?? ?a?ep?? ?st? p???s?a?, ?a? ??????? t?? ?? ????s???e?? te ?p????? ?a? t?? ????? ???t???? ?p?????. These Greek and Scythian traders, in their journey from the Pontic seaports into the interior, employed seven different languages and as many interpreters.

VÖlcker thinks that Herodotus or his informants confounded the Don with the Volga (Mythische Geographie, sect. 24, p. 190), supposing that the higher parts of the latter belonged to the former; a mistake not unnatural, since the two rivers approach pretty near to each other at one particular point, and since the lower parts of the Volga, together with the northern shore of the Caspian, where its embouchure is situated, appear to have been little visited and almost unknown in antiquity. There cannot be a more striking evidence how unknown these regions were, than the persuasion, so general in antiquity, that the Caspian sea was a gulf of the ocean, to which Herodotus, Aristotle, and Ptolemy are almost the only exceptions. Alexander von Humboldt has some valuable remarks on the tract laid down by Herodotus from the Tanais to the ArgippÆi (Asie Centrale, vol. i, pp. 390-400).

[467] Herodot. iv, 80.

[468] Herodot. iv, 99-101. Dionysius PeriÊgÊtÊs seems to identify Cimmerians and Tauri (v, 168: compare v, 680, where the Cimmerians are placed on the Asiatic side of the Cimmerian Bosphorus, adjacent to the Sindi).

[469] Herodot. i, 202. Strabo compares the inroads of the SakÆ, which was the name applied by the Persians to the Scythians, to those of the Cimmerians and the TrÊres (xi, pp. 511-512).

[470] Herodot. iv, 13. f????apt?? ?e??????.

[471] Herodot. iv, 13.

[472] Herodot. iv, 11. ?st? d? ?a? ????? ?????, ???? ?de, t? ???sta ?e????? a?t?? p??s?e?a?.

[473] Herodot. iv, 11.

[474] Herodot. iv, 1-12.

[475] Herodot. iv, 5-9. At this day, the three great tribes of the nomadic Turcomans, on the north-eastern border of Persia near the Oxus,—the Yamud, the Gokla, and the Tuka,—assert for themselves a legendary genealogy deduced from three brothers (Frazer, Narrative of a Journey in Khorasan, p. 258).

[476] Read the description of the difficult escape of Mithridates Eupator, with a mere handful of men, from Pontus to Bosphorus by this route, between the western edge of Caucasus and the Euxine (Strabo, xi, pp. 495-496),—? t?? ??a??? ?a? ????? ?a? ??????? pa?a??a,—all piratical and barbarous tribes,—t? pa?a??? ?a?ep?? ?e?, t? p???? ?a???? ?p? t?? ???assa?: compare Plutarch, Pompeius, c. 34. Pompey thought the route unfit for his march.

To suppose the Cimmerian tribes with their wagons passing along such a track would require strong positive evidence. According to Ptolemy, however, there were two passes over the range of Caucasus,—the Caucasian or Albanian gates, near Derbend and the Caspian, and the Sarmatian gates, considerably more to the westward (Ptolemy, Geogr. v, 9; Forbiger, Handbuch der Alten Geographie, vol. ii, sect. 56, p. 55). It is not impossible that the Cimmerians may have followed the westernmost, and the Scythians the easternmost, of these two passes; but the whole story is certainly very improbable.

[477] See Niebuhr’s Dissertation above referred to, pp. 366-367. A reason for supposing that the Cimmerians came into Asia Minor from the west and not from the east, is, that we find them so much confounded with the Thracian TrÊres indicating seemingly a joint invasion.

[479] Kallinus, Fragment. 2, 3, ed. Bergk. ??? d? ?p? ??e???? st?at?? ???eta? ????e???? (Strabo, xiii, p. 627; xiv, 633-647). O. MÜller (History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, ch. x, s. 4) and Mr. Clinton (Fasti Hellenici, B.C. 716-635) may be consulted about the obscure chronology of these events. The Scythico-Cimmerian invasion of Asia, to which Herodotus alludes, appears fixed for some date in the reign of Ardys the Lydian, 640-629 B.C., and may stand for 635 B.C. as Mr. Clinton puts it; and I agree with O. MÜller that the fragment of the poet Kallinus above cited alludes to this invasion; for the supposition of Mr. Clinton, that Kallinus here alludes to an invasion past and not present, appears to be excluded by the word ???. Mr. Clinton places both Kallinus and Archilochus (in my judgment) half a century too high; for I agree with O. MÜller in disbelieving the story told by Pliny of the picture sold by Bularchus to KandaulÊs. O. MÜller follows Strabo (i, p. 61) in calling Madys a Cimmerian prince, who drove the TrÊres out of Asia Minor; whereas Herodotus mentions him as the Scythian prince, who drove the Cimmerians out of their own territory into Asia Minor (i, 103).

The chronology of Herodotus is intelligible and consistent with itself: that of Strabo we cannot settle, when he speaks of many different invasions. Nor does his language give us the smallest reason to suppose that he was in possession of any means of determining dates for these early times,—nothing at all calculated to justify the positive chronology which Mr. Clinton deduces from him: compare his Fasti Hellenici, B.C. 635, 629, 617. Strabo says, after affirming that Homer knew both the name and the reality of the Cimmerians (i, p. 6; iii, p. 149),—?a? ??? ?a?? ?????, ? p?? a?t?? ?????, ?????s? t?? t?? ??e???? ?f?d?? ?e??s?a? t?? ???? t?? ?????d?? ?a? t?? ????a?,—“which places the first appearance of the Cimmerians in Asia Minor a century at least before the Olympiad of Coroebus,” (says Mr. Clinton.) But what means could Strabo have had to chronologize events as happening at or a little before the time of Homer? No date in the Grecian world was so contested, or so indeterminable, as the time of Homer: nor will it do to reason, as Mr. Clinton does, i. e. to take the latest date fixed for Homer among many, and then to say that the invasion of the Cimmerians must be at least B.C. 876: thus assuming it as a certainty that, whether the date of Homer be a century earlier or later, the invasion of the Cimmerians must be made to fit it. When Strabo employs such untrustworthy chronological standards, he only shows us—what everything else confirms—that there existed no tests of any value for events of that early date in the Grecian world.

Mr. Clinton announces this ante-Homeric calculation as a chronological certainty: “The Cimmerians first appeared in Asia Minor about a century before B.C. 776. An irruption is recorded in B.C. 782. Their last inroad was in B.C. 635. The settlement of AmbrÔn (the Milesian, at SinÔpÊ) may be placed at about B.C. 782, twenty-six years before the era assigned to (the Milesian or SinÔpic settlement of) Trapezus.”

On what authority does Mr. Clinton assert that a Cimmerian irruption was recorded in B.C. 782? Simply on the following passage of Orosius, which he cites at B.C. 635: “Anno ante urbem conditam tricesimo,—Tunc etiam Amazonum gentis et Cimmeriorum in Asiam repentinus incursus plurimum diu lateque vastationem et stragem intulit.” If this authority of Orosius is to be trusted, we ought to say that the invasion of the Amazons was a recorded fact. To treat a fact mentioned in Orosius, an author of the fourth century after Christ, and referred to B.C. 782, as a recorded fact, confounds the most important boundary-lines in regard to the appreciation of historical evidence.

In fixing the Cimmerian invasion of Asia at 782 B.C., Mr. Clinton has the statement of Orosius, whatever it may be worth, to rest upon; but in fixing the settlement of AmbrÔn the Milesian (at SinÔpÊ) at 782 B.C., I know not that he had any authority at all. Eusebius does, indeed, place the foundation of Trapezus in 756 B.C., and Trapezus is said to have been a colony from SinÔpÊ; and Mr. Clinton, therefore, is anxious to find some date for the foundation of SinÔpÊ anterior to 756 B.C.; but there is nothing to warrant him in selecting 782 B.C., rather than any other year.

In my judgment, the establishment of any Milesian colony in the Euxine at so early a date as 756 B.C. is highly improbable: and when we find that the same Eusebius fixes the foundation of SinÔpÊ (the metropolis of Trapezus) as low down as 629 B.C., this is an argument with me for believing that the date which he assigns to Trapezus is by far too early. Mr. Clinton treats the date which Eusebius assigns to Trapezus as certain, and infers from it, that the date which the same author assigns to SinÔpÊ is one hundred and thirty years later than the reality: I reverse the inference, considering the date which he assigns to SinÔpÊ as the more trustworthy of the two, and deducing the conclusion, that the date which he gives for Trapezus is one hundred and thirty years at least earlier than the reality.

On all grounds, the authority of the chronologists is greater with regard to the later of the two periods than to the earlier, and there is, besides, the additional probability arising out of what is a suitable date for Milesian settlement. To which I will add, that Herodotus places the settlement of the Cimmerians near “that spot where SinÔpÊ is now settled,” in the reign of Ardys, soon after 635 B.C. SinÔpÊ was, therefore, not founded at the time when the Cimmerians went there, in the belief of Herodotus.

[480] Strabo i, p. 61; Kallimachus, Hymn. ad Dianam, 251-260—

In the explanation of the proverb S????? ????a, allusion is made to a sudden panic and flight of Scythians from Ephesus (Hesychius, v. S????? ????a),—probably this must refer to some story of interference on the part of Artemis to protect the town against these Cimmerians. The confusion between Cimmerians and Scythians is very frequent.

[481] Herodot. i, 28; Mela, i, 19, 9; Skymn. Chi. Fragm. 207.

[482] The ten thousand Greeks in their homeward march passed through a people called Chalybes between Armenia and the town of Trapezus, and also again after eight days’ march westerly from Trapezus, between the TibarÊni and Mosynoeki: compare Xenophon, Anabas. iv, 7, 15; v, 5, 1; probably different sections of the same people. The last-mentioned Chalybes seem to have been the best known, from their iron works, and their greater vicinity to the Greek ports: Ephorus recognized them (see Ephori Fragm. 80-82, ed. Marx); whether he knew of the more easterly Chalybes, north of Armenia, is less certain: so also Dionysius PeriÊgÊtÊs, v, 768: compare Eustathius, ad loc.

The idea which prevailed among ancient writers, of a connection between the Chalybes in these regions and the Scythians or Cimmerians (?????? S????? ?p?????, Æschyl. Sept. ad Thebas, 729; and Hesiod. ap. Clemen. Alex. Str. i, p. 132), and of which the supposed residence of the Amazons on the river ThermÔdÔn seems to be one of the manifestations, is discussed in Hoeckh, Kreta, book i, pp. 294-305; and Mannert, Geographie der Griechen und RÖmer, vi, 2, pp. 408-416: compare Stephan. Byz. v. ????e?. Mannert believes in an early Scythian emigration into these regions. The ten thousand Greeks passed through the territory of a people called Skythini, immediately bordering on the Chalybes to the north; which region some identify with the SakasÊnÊ of Strabo (xi, 511) occupied, according to that geographer, by invaders from Eastern Scythia.

It seems that SinÔpÊ was one of the most considerable places for the export of the iron used in Greece: the Sinopic as well as the Chalybdic (or Chalybic) iron had a special reputation (Stephan. Byz. v. ?a?eda???).

About the Chalybes, compare Ukert, Skythien, pp. 521-523.

[483] Herodot. i, 15-16.

[484] Strabo, xi, p. 511; xii, p. 552; xiii, p. 627.

The poet Kallinus mentioned both Cimmerians and TrÊres (Fr. 2, 3, ed. Bergk; Strabo. xiv, pp. 633-647).

[485] Herodot. i, 105. The account given by Herodotus of the punishment inflicted by the offended AphroditÊ on the Scythian plunderers, and on their children’s children down to his time, becomes especially interesting when we combine it with the statement of HippokratÊs respecting the peculiar incapacities which were so apt to affect the Scythians, and the religious interpretation put upon them by the sufferers (De AËre, Locis, et Aquis, c. vi, s. 106-109).

[486] See, in reference to the direction of this ditch, VÖlcker, in the work above referred to on the Scythia of Herodotus (Mythische Geographie, ch. vii, p. 177).

That the ditch existed, there can be no reasonable doubt; though the tale given by Herodotus is highly improbable.

[487] Herodot. i. 106. Mr. Clinton fixes the date of the capture of Nineveh at 606 B.C. (F. H. vol. i. p. 269), upon grounds which do not appear to me conclusive: the utmost which can be made out is, that it was taken during the last ten years of the reign of KyaxarÊs.

[488] From whom PolyÆnus borrowed his statement, that AlyattÊs employed with effect savage dogs against the Cimmerians, I do not know (PolyÆn. vii, 2, 1).

[489] Herodot. i, 20-23.

[490] Herodot. i, 18. PolyÆnus (vii, 2, 2) mentions a proceeding of AlyattÊs against the Kolophonians.

[491] Nikolaus Damasken. p. 54, ed. Orelli; Xanthi Fragment. p. 243, Creuzer.

Mr Clinton states AlyattÊs to have conquered Karia, and also Æolis, for neither of which do I find sufficient authority (Fasti Hellen. ch. xvii, p. 298).

[492] Aristoteles ap. Stephan. Byz. v. ?d?a?tte???.

[493] Herodot. i, 92-93.

[494] Herodot. i, 92.

[495] Herodot. v, 28. ?at?pe??e d? t??t???, ?p? d?? ?e??a? ??d??? ??s?sasa t? ???sta st?se?.

AlyattÊs reigned fifty-seven years, and the vigorous resistance which the Milesians offered to him took place in the first six years of his reign. The “two generations of intestine dissension” may well have succeeded after the reign of Thrasybulus. This, indeed, is a mere conjecture, yet it may be observed that Herodotus, speaking of the time of the Ionic revolt (500 B.C.), and intimating that MilÊtus, though then peaceable, had been for two generations at an earlier period torn by intestine dissension, could hardly have meant these “two generations” to apply to a time earlier than 617 B.C.

[496] Herodot. i, 17; v, 99; AthenÆ. vi, p. 267. Compare K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech. Staats AlterthÜmer, sect. 77, note 28.

[497] See the remarkable case of MilÊtus sending no deputies to a Pan-Ionic meeting, being safe herself from danger (Herodot. i, 141).

[498] Herodot. i, 141-170. ???st? d? ?a? p??? ? d?af?a???a? ??????, T??e? ??d??? ????s??? ???? ????et?, etc.

About the Pan-Ionia and the Ephesia, see Thucyd. iii, 104; Dionys. Halik. iv, 25; Herodot. i, 143-148. Compare also Whitte, De Rebus Chiorum Publicis, sect. vii, pp. 22-26.

[499] If we may believe the narrative of Nikolaus Damaskenus, Croesus had been in relations with Ephesus and with the Ephesians during the time when he was hereditary prince, and in the lifetime of AlyattÊs. He had borrowed a large sum of money from a rich Ephesian named PamphaÊs, which was essential to enable him to perform a military duty imposed upon him by his father. The story is given in some detail by Nikolaus, Fragm. p. 54, ed. Orell.,—I know not upon what authority.

[500] Herodot. i, 26; Ælian, V. H. iii, 26; PolyÆn. vi, 50. The story contained in Ælian and PolyÆnus seems to come from BatÔn of SinÔpÊ; see Guhl, Ephesiaca. ii, 3, p. 26, and iv, 5, p. 150.

The article in Suidas, v. ???sta????, is far too vague to be interwoven as a positive fact into Ephesian history, as Guhl interweaves it, immediately consequent on the retirement of Pindarus.

In reference to the rope reaching from the city to the Artemision, we may quote an analogous case of the Kylonian suppliants at Athens, who sought to maintain their contact with the altar by means of a continuous cord,—unfortunately, the cord broke (Plutarch, Solon, c. 12).

[501] Herodot. i, 141. ???e? d?, ?? ????sa?—te??e? te pe??e?????t? ??ast??, etc.: compare also the statement respecting PhÔkÆa, c. 168.

[502] See the discussion in Dr. Prichard, Natural History of Man, sect. xvii, p. 152.

?e?a????e? ?a? ????t???e? (Herodot. ii, 104: compare Ammian. Marcell. xxii, 16, “subfusculi, atrati,” etc.) are certain attributes of the ancient Egyptians, depending upon the evidence of an eye-witness.

“In their complexion, and in many of their physical peculiarities (observes Dr. Prichard, p. 138), the Egyptians were an African race. In the eastern, and even in the central parts of Africa, we shall trace the existence of various tribes in physical characters nearly resembling the Egyptians; and it would not be difficult to observe among many nations of that continent a gradual deviation from the physical type of the Egyptian to the strongly-marked character of the negro, and that without any very decided break or interruption. The Egyptian language, also, in the great leading principles of its grammatical construction, bears much greater analogy to the idioms of Africa than to those prevalent among the people of other regions.”

[503] Homer, Iliad, vi, 290: xxiii, 740; Odyss. xv, 116:—

Tyre is not named either in the Iliad or Odyssey, though a passage in Probus (ad Virg. Georg. ii, 115) seems to show that it was mentioned in one of the epics which passed under the name of Homer: “Tyrum Sarram appellatam esse, Homerus docet: quem etiam Ennius sequitur cum dicit, Poenos Sarr oriundos.”

The Hesiodic catalogue seems to have noticed both Byblus and Sidon: see Hesiodi Fragment. xxx, ed. Marktscheffel, and Etymolog. Magnum, v. ?????.

[504] The name Adramyttion or Atramyttion—very like the Africo-Phenician name AdrumÊtum—is said to be of Phenician origin (Olshausen, De Origine Alphabeti, p. 7, in Kieler Philologische Studien, 1841). There were valuable mines afterwards worked for the account of Croesus near Pergamus, and these mines may have tempted Phenician settlers to those regions (Aristotel. Mirab. Auscult. c. 52).

The African Inscriptions, in the Monumenta Phoenic. of Gesenius, recognize Makar as a cognomen of Baal: and Movers imagines that the hero Makar, who figures conspicuously in the mythology of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, KÔs, Rhodes, etc., is traceable to this Phenician god and Phenician early settlements in those islands (Movers, Die Religion der PhÖnizier, p. 420).

[505] Strabo, xiv, pp. 754-758; Skylax, Peripl.c. 104; Justin, xviii, 3; Arrian, Exp. Al. ii, 16-19; Xenophon, Anab. i, 4, 6.

Unfortunately, the text of Skylax is here extremely defective, and Strabo’s account is in many points perplexed, from his not having travelled in person through Phenicia, Coele-Syria, or JudÆa: see Groskurd’s note on p. 755 and the Einleitung to his Translation of Strabo, sect. 6.

Respecting the original relation between PalÆ-Tyrus and Tyre, there is some difficulty in reconciling all the information, little as it is, which we possess. The name PalÆ-Tyrus (it has been assumed as a matter of course: compare Justin, xi, 10) marks that town as the original foundation from which the Tyrians subsequently moved into the island: there was, also, on the main land a place named PalÆ-Byblos (Plin. H. N. v, 20; Ptolem. v, 15) which was in like manner construed as the original seat from whence the town properly called Byblus was derived. Yet the account of Herodotus plainly represents the insular Tyrus, with its temple of HÊraklÊs, as the original foundation (ii, 44), and the Tyrians are described as living in an island even in the time of their king Hiram, the contemporary of Solomon (Joseph. Ant. Jud. viii, 2, 7). Arrian treats the temple of HÊraklÊs in the island-Tyre as the most ancient temple within the memory of man (Exp. Al. ii, 16). The Tyrians also lived on their island during the invasion of Salmaneser king of Nineveh, and their position enabled them to hold out against him, while PalÆ-Tyrus on the terra firma was obliged to yield itself (Joseph. ib. ix, 14, 2). The town taken (or reduced to capitulate), after a long siege, by Nebuchadnezzar, was the insular Tyrus, not the continental or PalÆ-Tyrus, which had surrendered without resistance to Salmaneser. It is not correct, therefore, to say—with Volney (Recherches sur l’Hist. Anc. ch. xiv, p. 249), Heeren (Ideen Über den Verkehr der Alten Welt, part i, abth. 2, p. 11), and others—that the insular Tyre was called new Tyre, and that the site of Tyre was changed from continental to insular, in consequence of the taking of the continental Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar: the site remained unaltered, and the insular Tyrians became subject to him and his successors until the destruction of the ChaldÆan monarchy by Cyrus. Hengstenberg’s Dissertation, De Rebus Tyriorum (Berlin, 1832), is instructive on many of these points: he shows sufficiently that Tyre was, from the earliest times traceable, an insular city; but he wishes at the same time to show, that it was also, from the beginning, joined on to the main land by an isthmus (pp. 10-25),—which is both inconsistent with the former position and unsupported by any solid proofs. It remained an island strictly so called, until the siege by Alexander: the mole, by which that conqueror had stormed it, continued after his day, perhaps enlarged, so as to form a permanent connection from that time forward between the island and the main land (Plin. H. N. v, 19; Strabo, xvi, p. 757), and to render the insular Tyrus capable of being included by Pliny in one computation of circumference jointly with PalÆ-Tyrus, the main-land town.

It may be doubted whether we know the true meaning of the word which the Greeks called ?a?a?-?????. It is plain that the Tyrians themselves did not call it by that name: perhaps the Phenician name which this continental adjacent town bore, may have been something resembling PalÆ-Tyrus in sound, but not coincident in meaning.

The strength of Tyre lay in its insular situation; for the adjacent main-land, whereon PalÆ-Tyrus was placed, was a fertile plain, thus described by William of Tyre during the time of the Crusaders:—

“Erat prÆdicta civitas non solum munitissima, sed etiam fertilitate prÆcipu et amoenitate quasi singularis: nam licet in medio mari sita est, et in modum insulÆ tota fluctibus cincta; habet tamen pro foribus latifundium per omnia commendabile, et planitiem sibi continuam divitis glebÆ et opimi soli, multas civibus ministrans commoditates. QuÆ licet modica videatur respectu aliarum regionum, exiguitatem suam mult redimit ubertate, et infinita jugera multiplici foecunditate compensat. Nec tamen tantis arctatur angustiis. Protenditur enim in Austrum versus Ptolemaidem usque ad eum locum, qui hodie vulgo dicitur districtum Scandarionis, milliaribus quatuor aut quinque: e regione in Septentrionem versus Sareptam et Sidonem iterum porrigitur totidem milliaribus. In latitudinem vero ubi minimum ad duo, ubi plurimum ad tria, habens milliaria.” (Apud Hengstenberg, ut sup. p. 5.) Compare Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, p. 50, ed. 1749; and Volney, Travels in Egypt and Syria, vol. ii, pp. 210-226.

[506] Justin (xviii, 3) states that Sidon was the metropolis of Tyre, but the series of events which he recounts is confused and unintelligible. Strabo also, in one place, calls Sidon the ?t??p???? t?? F??????? (i, p. 40); in another place he states it as a point disputed between the two cities, which of them was the ?t??p???? t?? F??????? (xvi, p. 756).

Quintus Curtius affirms both Tyre and Sidon to have been founded by AgÊnÔr (iv, 4, 15).

[507] See the interesting citations of Josephus from Dius and Menander, who had access to the Tyrian ??a??afa?, or chronicles (Josephus cont. Apion. i, c. 17, 18, 21; Antiq. J. x, 11, 1).

[508] Joseph. Antiq. J. ix, 14, 2.

[509] Diodor. xvi, 41; Skylax, c. 104.

[510] Strabo, xvi, p. 756.

[511] A Maltese inscription identifies the Tyrian Melkarth with ??a???? (Gesenius, Monument. Phoenic. tab. vi).

[512] Herodot. ii, 44; Sallust, Bell. Jug. c. 18; Pausan. x, 12, 2; Arrian, Exp. Al. ii, 16; Justin, xliv, 5; Appian, vi, 2.

[513] Herodot. i, 2; Ephorus, Fragm. 40, ed. Marx; Strabo, xvi, pp. 766-784; Justin, xviii, 3. In the animated discussion carried on among the Homeric critics and the great geographers of antiquity, to ascertain where it was that Menelaus actually went during his eight years’ wandering (Odyss. iv, 85)—

one idea started was, that he had visited these Sidonians in the Persian gulf, or in the ErythrÆan sea (Strabo, i, p. 42). The various opinions which Strabo quotes, including those of EratosthenÊs and KratÊs, as well as his own comments, are very curious. KratÊs supposed that Menelaus had passed the straits of Gibraltar and circumnavigated Libya to Æthiopia and India, which voyage would suffice, he thought, to fill up the eight years. Others supposed that Menelaus had sailed first up the Nile, and then into the Red sea, by means of the canal (d?????) which existed in the time of the Alexandrine critics between the Nile and that sea; to which Strabo replies that this canal was not made until after the Trojan war. EratosthenÊs started a still more remarkable idea: he thought that in the time of Homer the strait of Gibraltar had not yet been burst open, so that the Mediterranean was on that side a closed sea; but, on the other hand, its level was then so much higher that it covered the isthmus of Suez, and joined the Red sea. It was, he thought, the disruption of the strait of Gibraltar which first lowered the level of the water, and left the isthmus of Suez dry; though Menelaus, in his time, had sailed from the Mediterranean into the Red sea without difficulty. This opinion EratosthenÊs had imbibed from StratÔn of Lampsakus, the successor of Theophrastus: Hipparchus controverted it, together with many other of the opinions of EratosthenÊs (see Strabo, i, pp. 38, 49, 56; Seidel, Fragmenta Eratosthenis, p. 39).

In reference to the view of KratÊs,—that Menelaus had sailed round Africa,—it is to be remarked that all the geographers of that day formed to themselves a very insufficient idea of the extent of that continent, believing that it did not even reach so far southward as the equator.

Strabo himself adopts neither of these three opinions, but construes the Homeric words describing the wanderings of Menelaus as applying only to the coasts of Egypt, Libya, Phenicia, etc; he suggests various reasons, more curious than convincing, to prove that Menelaus may easily have spent eight years in these visits of mixed friendship and piracy.

[514] See Ritter, Erdkunde von Asien, West-Asien, Buch iii, Abtheilung iii, Abschnitt i, s. 29, p. 50.

[515] Strabo speaks of the earliest settlements of the Phenicians in Africa and Iberia as ????? t?? ??????? ?ste??? (i, p. 48). Utica is affirmed to have been two hundred and eighty-seven years earlier than Carthage (Aristot. Mirab. Auscult. c. 134): compare Velleius Paterc. i, 2.

Archaleus, son of Phoenix, was stated as the founder of GadÊs in the Phenician history of Claudius Julius, now lost (Etymolog. Magn. v. Gade??a). Archaleus is a version of the name Hercules, in the opinion of Movers.

[516] Skylax, Periplus, c. 110. “Carteia, ut quidam putant, aliquando Tartessus; et quam transvecti ex Afric Phoenices habitant, atque unde nos sumus, Tingentera.” (Mela, ii, 6, 75.) The expression, transvecti ex Afric applies as much to the Phenicians as to the Carthaginians: “uterque Poenus” (Horat. Od. ii, 11) means the Carthaginians, and the Phenicians of GadÊs.

[517] Strabo, xvii, p. 836.

[518] Cape Soloeis, considered by Herodotus as the westernmost headland of Libya, coincides in name with the Phenician town Soloeis in western Sicily, also, seemingly, with the Phenician settlement Suel (Mela, ii, 6, 65) in southern Iberia or TartÊssus. Cape HermÆa was the name of the north-eastern headland of the gulf of Tunis, and also the name of a cape in Libya, two days’ sail westward of the Pillars of HÊraklÊs (Skylax, c. 111).

Probably, all the remarkable headlands in these seas received their names from the Phenicians. Both Mannert (Geogr. d. Gr. und RÖm. x, 2, p. 495) and Forbiger (Alte Geogr. sect. 111, p. 867) identify cape Soloeis with what is now called cape Cantin; Heeren considers it to be the same as cape Blanco; Bougainville as cape Boyador.

[519] Sallust, Bell. Jug. c. 78. It was termed Leptis Magna, to distinguish it from another Leptis, more to the westward and nearer to Carthage, called Leptis Parva; but this latter seems to have been generally known by the name Leptis (Forbiger, Alte Geogr. sect. 109, p. 844). In Leptis Magna, the proportion of Phenician colonists was so inconsiderable that the Phenician language had been lost, and that of the natives, whom Sallust calls Numidians, spoken: but these people had embraced Sidonian institutions and civilization. (Sall. ib.)

[520] Strabo, xvii, pp. 825-826. He found it stated by some authors that there had once been three hundred trading establishments along this coast, reaching thirty days’ voyage southward from Tingis or Lixus (Tangier); but that they had been chiefly ruined by the tribes of the interior,—the Pharusians and NigritÆ. He suspects the statement of being exaggerated, but there seems nothing at all incredible in it. From Strabo’s language we gather that EratosthenÊs set forth the statement as in his judgment a true one.

[521] Compare Skylax, c. 111, and the Periplus of Hanno, ap. Hudson, Geogr. GrÆc. Min. vol. i, pp. 1-6. I have already observed that the t?????? (salt provisions) from Gadeira was currently sold in the markets of Athens, from the Peloponnesian war downward.—Eupolis, Fragm. 23; ?a?????, p. 506, ed. Meineke, Comic. GrÆc.

Compare the citations from the other comic writers, AntiphanÊs and Nikostratus ap. AthenÆ. iii, p. 118. The Phenician merchants bought in exchange Attic pottery for their African trade.

[522] About the productiveness of the Spanish mines, Polybius (xxxiv, 9, 8) ap. Strabo, iii, p. 147; Aristot. Mirab. Ausc. c. 135.

[523] Strabo, iii, pp. 156, 158, 161; Polybius, iii, 10, 3-10.

[524] Polyb. i, 10; ii, 1.

[525] Strabo, iii, pp. 141-150. ??t?? ??? F??????? ??t?? ??????t? ?p??e?????, ?ste t?? p?e???? t?? ?? t? ????d?ta??? p????? ?a? t?? p??s??? t?p?? ?p? ??e???? ??? ???e?s?a?.

[526] Thucyd. vi, 3; Diodor. v, 12.

[527] See the reference in Joseph. Antiq. Jud. viii, 5, 3, and Joseph. cont. Apion. i, 18; an allusion is to be found in Virgil, Æneid, i, 642, in the mouth of Dido.—

[528] Respecting the worship at Salamis (in Cyprus) and Paphos, see Lactant. i, 21; Strabo, xiv, p. 683.

[529] Tarsus is mentioned by Dio Chrysostom as a colony from the Phenician Aradus (Orat. Tarsens. ii, p. 20, ed. Reisk.), and Herodotus makes Kilix brother of Phoenix and son of AgÊnÔr (vii, 92).

Phenician coins of the city of Tarsus are found, of a date towards the end of the Persian empire: see Movers, Die PhÖnizier, i, p. 13.

[530] Herodot. i, 170.

[531] Herodot. iv, 151.

[532] Herodot. iv, 152. Te?? p?p? ??e?e???.

[533] Herodot. iv, 152. ?? d? ?p????? t??t? (TartÊssus) ?? ????at?? t??t?? t?? ??????? ?ste ?p???st?sa?te? ??t?? ?p?s? ???sta d? ??????? p??t??, t?? ?e?? ?t?e???? ?de?, ?? f??t??? ????d?sa?, et? ?e S?st?at?? t?? ?a?d?a?t??, ??????t??? t??t? ??? ??? ??? te ???sa? ?????.

Allusions to the prodigious wealth of TartÊssus in Anakreon, Fragm. 8, ed. Bergk; Stephan. Byz. ?a?t?ss??; Eustath. ad Dionys. PeriÊgÊt. 332, ?a?t?ss??, ?? ?a? ? ??a????? f?s? pa?e?da???a; Himerius ap. Photium, Cod. 243, p. 599,—?a?tess?? ???, ?a??e?a? ???a?, p?? ?s?? e?da????a? ?efa?a???.

[534] These talents cannot have been Attic talents; for the Attic talent first arose from the debasement of the Athenian money-standard by Solon, which did not occur until a generation after the voyage of KÔlÆus. They may have been either Euboic or ÆginÆan talents; probably the former, seeing that the case belongs to the island of Samos. Sixty Euboic talents would be about equivalent to the sum stated in the text. For the proportion of the various Greek monetary scales, see above, vol. ii, part 2, ch. iv, p. 425 and ch. xii, p. 171 in the present volume.

[535] Strabo, xvii, p. 802; Aristot. Mirab. Ausc. c. 84-132.

[536] Herodot. i, 163. ?? d? F??a??e? ??t?? ?a?t????s? a???s? p??t?? ??????? ????sa?t?, ?a? t?? ?d???? ?a? t?? ???s????? ?a? t?? ?????? ?a? t?? ?a?t?ss?? ??t?? e?s?? ?? ?atade??a?te?? ??a?t?????t? d? ?? st???????s? ???s??, ???? pe?t????t????s??,—the expressions are remarkable.

[537] Herodot. i, 164-165, gives an example of the jealousy of the Chians in respect to the islands called ŒnussÆ.

[538] Ephorus, Fragm. 52, ed. Marx; Strabo, vi, p. 267.

[539] Herodot. i, 165.

[540] ? ?a?? ??? ???assa (Strabo); t?sde t?? ?a??tt?? (Herod. iv, 41).

[541] The geographer Ptolemy, with genuine scientific zeal, complains bitterly of the reserve and frauds common with the old traders, respecting the countries which they visited (Ptolem. Geogr. i, 11).

[542] Strabo, iii, pp. 175-176; xvii, p. 802.

[543] Herodot. iv, 42. ?a? ??e???, ??? ?? ?? p?st?, ???? d? d? te?, ?? pe??p????te? t?? ?????, t?? ?????? ?s??? ?? t? de???.

[544] Herodot. ??t? ?? a?t? ????s?? t?p??t??? (i. e. ? ???? ????s?? ???sa pe?????t???) et? d?, ?a???d????? e?s?? ?? ?????te?. These Carthaginians, to whom Herodotus here alludes, told him that Libya was circumnavigable; but it does not seem that they knew of any other actual circumnavigation except that of the Phenicians sent by NekÔs; otherwise, Herodotus would have made some allusion to it, instead of proceeding, as he does immediately, to tell the story of the Persian SataspÊs, who tried and failed.

The testimony of the Carthaginians is so far valuable, as it declares their persuasion of the truth of the statement made by those Phenicians.

Some critics have construed the words, in which Herodotus alludes to the Carthaginians as his informants, as if what they told him was the story of the fruitless attempt made by SataspÊs. But this is evidently not the meaning of the historian: he brings forward the opinion of the Carthaginians as confirmatory of the statement made by the Phenicians employed by NekÔs.

[546] Skylax, after following the line of coast from the Mediterranean outside of the strait of Gibraltar, and then south-westward along Africa as far as the island of KernÊ, goes on to say, that “beyond KernÊ the sea is no longer navigable from shallows, and mud, and sea-weed:” ??? d? ?????? ??s?? t? ?p??e??a ????t? ?st? p??t? d?? ?a??t?ta ?a??tt?? ?a? p???? ?a? f????. ?st? d? t? f???? t?? d???? t? p??t?? ?a? ????e? ???, ?ste ?e?te?? (Skylax, c. 109). Nearchus, on undertaking his voyage down the Indus, and from thence into the Persian gulf, is not certain whether the external sea will be found navigable—e? d? p??t?? ?? ?st?? ? ta?t? p??t?? (Nearchi Periplus, p. 2: compare p. 40, ap. Geogr. Minor. vol. i, ed. Hudson). Pytheas described the neighborhood of ThulÊ as a sort of chaos—a medley of earth, sea, and air, in which you could neither walk nor sail: ??te ?? ?a?? a?t?? ?p???e? ?t? ??te ???assa ??te ???, ???? s?????? t? ?? t??t?? p?e???? ?a?ass?? ??????, ?? ? f?s? t?? ??? ?a? t?? ???assa? a???e?s?a? ?a? t? s?pa?ta, ?a? t??t?? ?? ?? des?? e??a? t?? ????, ?te p??e?t?? ?te p??t?? ?p?????ta? t? ?? ??? t? p?e???? ?????? a?t?? (Pytheas) ???a???a?, t???a d? ???e?? ?? ?????. (Strabo, ii, p. 104). Again, the priests of Memphis told Herodotus that their conquering hero Sesostris had equipped a fleet in the Arabian gulf, and made a voyage into the ErythrÆan sea, subjugating people everywhere, “until he came to a sea no longer navigable from shallows,”—????t? p??t?? ?p? ?a???? (Herod. ii, 109). Plato represents the sea without the Pillars of HÊraklÊs as impenetrable and unfit for navigation, in consequence of the large admixture of earth, mud, or vegetable covering, which had arisen in it from the disruption of the great island or continent Atlantis (TimÆus, p. 25; and Kritias, p. 108); which passages are well illustrated by the Scholiast, who seems to have read geographical descriptions of the character of this outer sea: t??t? ?a? ?? t??? ??e??? t?p??? ?st?????te? ?????s??, ?? p??ta te?a??d? t?? ??e? e??a? ?????? t??a??? d? ?st?? ???? t??, ?p?p??????t?? ?dat?? ?? p?????, ?a? ?t???? ?p?fa??????? t??t?. See also Plutarch’s fancy of the dense, earthy, and viscous Kronian sea (some days to the westward of Britain), in which a ship could with difficulty advance, and only by means of severe pulling with the oars (Plutarch, De Facie in Orbe LunÆ, c. 26, p. 941). So again in the two geographical productions in verse by Rufus Festus Avienus (Hudson, Geogr. Minor. vol. iv, Descriptio Orbis TerrÆ, v, 57, and Ora Maritima, v, 406-415): in the first of these two, the density of the water of the western ocean is ascribed to its being saturated with salt,—in the second, we have shallows, large quantities of sea-weed, and wild beasts swimming about, which the Carthaginian Himilco affirmed himself to have seen:—

Compare also v, 115-130 of the same poem, where the author again quotes from a voyage of Himilco, who had been four months in the ocean outside of the Pillars of Hercules:—

The dead calm, mud, and shallows of the external ocean are touched upon by Aristot. Meteorolog. ii, 1, 14, and seem to have been a favorite subject of declamation with the rhetors of the Augustan age. See Seneca, Suasoriar. i, 1.

Even the companions and contemporaries of Columbus, when navigation had made such comparative progress, still retained much of these fears respecting the dangers and difficulties of the unknown ocean: “Le tableau exagÉrÉ (observes A. von Humboldt, Examen Critique de l’Histoire de la GÉographie, t. iii, p. 95) que la ruse des PhÉniciens avait tracÉ des difficultÉs qu’opposaient À la navigation au delÀ des Colonnes d’Hercule, de CernÉ, et de l’Ile SacrÉe (IernÉ), le fucus, le limon, le manque de fond, et le calme perpÉtuel de la mer, ressemble d’une maniÈre frappante aux rÉcits animÉs des premiers compagnons de Colomb.”

Columbus was the first man who traversed the sea of Sargasso, or area of the Atlantic ocean south of the Azores, where it is covered by an immense mass of sea-weed for a space six or seven times as large as France: the alarm of his crew at this unexpected spectacle was considerable. The sea-weed is sometimes so thickly accumulated, that it requires a considerable wind to impel the vessel through it. The remarks and comparisons of M. von Humboldt, in reference to ancient and modern navigation, are highly interesting. (Examen, ut sup. pp. 69, 88, 91, etc.)

J. M. Gesner (Dissertat. de Navigationibus extra Columnas Herculis, sects. 6 and 7) has a good defence of the story told by Herodotus. Major Rennell also adopts the same view, and shows by many arguments how much easier the circumnavigation was from the East than from the West (Geograph. System of Herodotus, p. 680); compare Ukert, Geograph. der Griechen und RÖmer. vol. i, p. 61; Mannert, Geog. d. G. und RÖmer, vol. i, pp. 19-26. Gossellin (Recherches sur la GÉogr. des Anc. i, p. 149) and Mannert both reject the story as not worthy of belief: Heeren defends it (Ideen Über den Verkehr der Alten Welt, i, 2, pp. 86-95).

Agatharchides, in the second century B.C., pronounces the eastern coast of Africa, southward of the Red sea, to be as yet unexamined: he treats it as a matter of certainty, however, that the sea to the south-westward is continuous with the Western ocean (De Rubro Mari, Geog. Minores, ed. Huds. v, i, p. 11).

[547] Strabo, iii, p. 170. SataspÊs (the unsuccessful Persian circumnavigator of Libya, mentioned just above) had violated the daughter of another Persian nobleman, Zopyrus son of Megabyzus, and XerxÊs had given orders that he should be crucified for this act; his mother begged him off by suggesting that he should be condemned to something “worse than death”—the circumnavigation of Libya (Herod. iv, 43). Two things are to be remarked in respect to his voyage: 1. He took with him a ship and seamen from Egypt; we are not told that they were Phenician: probably no other mariners than Phenicians were competent to such a voyage,—and even if the crew of SataspÊs had been Phenicians, he could not offer rewards for success equal to those at the disposal of NekÔs. 2. He began his enterprise from the strait of Gibraltar instead of from the Red sea; now it seems that the current between Madagascar and the eastern coast of Africa sets very strongly towards the cape of Good Hope, so that while it greatly assists the southerly voyage, on the other hand, it makes return by the same way very difficult. (See Humboldt, Examen Critique de l’Histoire de la GÉographie, t. i, p. 343.) Strabo, however, affirms that all those who had tried to circumnavigate Africa, both from the Red sea and from the strait of Gibraltar, had been forced to return without success (i, p. 32), so that most people believed that there was a continuous isthmus which rendered it impracticable to go by sea from the one point to the other: he is himself, however, persuaded that the Atlantic is s?????? on both sides of Africa, and therefore that circumnavigation is possible. He as well as Poseidonius (ii, pp. 98-100) disbelieved the tale of the Phenicians sent by NekÔs. He must have derived his complete conviction, that Libya might be circumnavigated, from geographical theory, which led him to contract the dimensions of that continent southward,—inasmuch as the thing in his belief never had been done, though often attempted. Mannert (Geog. d. G. und RÖm. i, p. 24) erroneously says that Strabo and others founded their belief on the narrative of Herodotus.

It is worth while remarking that Strabo cannot have read the story in Herodotus with much attention, since he mentions Darius as the king who sent the Phenicians round Africa, not NekÔs; nor does he take notice of the remarkable statement of these navigators respecting the position of the sun. There were doubtless many apocryphal narratives current in his time respecting attempts, successful and unsuccessful, to circumnavigate Africa, as we may see by the tale of Eudoxus (Strabo, ii, 98; Cornel. Nep. ap. Plin. H. N. ii, 67, who gives the story very differently; and Pomp. Mela, iii, 9).

[548] Arrian, Exp. Al. vii, 1, 2.

[549] Herodot. i, 1. F?????a?—?pa??????ta? f??t?a ?ss???? te ?a? ????pt?a.

[550] See the valuable chapter in Heeren (Ueber den Verkehr der Alten Welt i, 2, Abschn. 4, p. 96) about the land trade of the Phenicians.

The twenty-seventh chapter of the prophet Ezekiel presents a striking picture of the general commerce of Tyre.

[551] Herodot. i, 178. ??? d? ?ss????? ?st? ?? ??? ?a? ???a p???sata e???a p????? t? d? ???ast?tat?? ?a? ?s????tat??, ?a? ???a sf?, t?? ????? ??ast?t?? ?e??????, t? as????a ?atest??ee, ?? ?a????.

The existence of these and several other great cities is an important item to be taken in, in our conception of the old Assyria: Opis on the Tigris, and SittakÊ on one of the canals very near the Tigris, can be identified (Xenoph. Anab. ii, 4, 13-25): compare Diodor. ii, 11.

[552] Herodot. i, 72; iii, 90-91; vii, 63; Strabo, xvi, p. 736, also ii, p. 84, in which he takes exception to the distribution of the ???????? (inhabited portion of the globe) made by EratosthenÊs, because it did not include in the same compartment (sf?a???) Syria proper and Mesopotamia: he calls Ninus and Semiramis, Syrians. Herodotus considers the Armenians as colonists from the Phrygians (vii, 73).

The Homeric names ?????, ??e?? (the first in the Iliad, ii, 783, the second in the Odyssey, iv, 84) coincide with the Oriental name of this race Aram; it seems more ancient, in the Greek habits of speech, than Syrians (see Strabo, xvi, p. 785).

The Hesiodic Catalogue too, as well as StÊsichorus, recognized Arabus as the son of HermÊs, by ThroniÊ, daughter of BÊlus (Hesiod, Fragm. 29, ed. Marktscheffel; Strabo, i, p. 42).

[553] Heeren, in his account of the Babylonians (Ideen Über den Verkehr der Alten Welt, part i, Abtheilung 2, p. 168), speaks of this conquest of Babylon by ChaldÆan barbarians from the northern mountains as a certain fact, explaining the great development of the Babylonian empire under Nabopolasar and Nebuchadnezzar from 630-580 B.C.; it was, he thinks, the new ChaldÆan conquerors who thus extended their dominion over JudÆa and Phenicia.

I agree with Volney (Chronologie des Babyloniens, ch. x, p. 215) in thinking this statement both unsupported and improbable. Mannert seems to suppose the ChaldÆans of Arabian origin (Geogr. der Gr. und RÖm., part v, s. 2, ch. xii, p. 419). The passages of Strabo (xvi, p. 739) are more favorable to this opinion than to that of Heeren; but we make out nothing distinct respecting the ChaldÆans except that they were the priestly order among the Assyrians of Babylon, as they are expressly termed by Herodotus—?? ?????s? ?? ?a?da???, ???te? ???e? t??t?? t?? ?e?? (of Zeus BÊlus) (Herodot. i, 181).

The Chalybes and ChaldÆi of the northern mountains seem to be known only through Xenophon (Anab. iv, 3, 4; v, 5, 17; Cyrop. iii, 2, 1); they are rude barbarians, and of their exploits or history no particulars reach us.

[554] The earliest ChaldÆan astronomical observation, known to the astronomer Ptolemy, both precise and of ascertained date to a degree sufficient for scientific use, was a lunar eclipse of the 19th March 721 B.C.—the 27th year of the era of Nabonassar (Ideler, Ueber die Astronomischen Beobachtungen der Alten, p. 19, Berlin, 1806). Had Ptolemy known any older observations conforming to these conditions, he would not have omitted to notice them: his own words in the Almagest testify how much he valued the knowledge and comparison of observations taken at distant intervals (Almagest, b. 3, p. 62, ap. Ideler, l.c. p. 1), and at the same time imply that he had none more ancient than the era of Nabonassar (Alm. iii, p. 77, ap. Idel. p. 169).

That the ChaldÆans had been, long before this period, in the habit of observing the heavens, there is no reason to doubt; and the exactness of those observations cited by Ptolemy implies (according to the judgment of Ideler ib. p. 167) long previous practice. The period of two hundred and twenty-three lunations, after which the moon reverts nearly to the same positions in reference to the apsides and nodes, and after which eclipses return nearly in the same order and magnitude, appears to have been discovered by the ChaldÆans (“Defectus ducentis viginti tribus mensibus redire in suos orbes certum est,” Pliny, H. N. ii, 13), and they deduced from hence the mean daily motions of the moon with a degree of accuracy which differs only by four seconds from modern lunar tables (Geminus, Isagoge in Arati PhÆnomena, c. 15; Ideler, l.c. pp. 153, 154, and in his Handbuch der Chronologie, vol. i, Absch. ii, p. 207).

There seem to have been ChaldÆan observations, both made and recorded, of much greater antiquity than the era of Nabonassar; though we cannot lay much stress on the date of 1903 years anterior to Alexander the Great, which is mentioned by Simplicius (ad Aristot. de Coelo, p. 123) as being the earliest period of the ChaldÆan observations sent from Babylon by KallisthenÊs to Aristotle. Ideler thinks that the ChaldÆan observations anterior to the era of Nabonassar were useless to astronomers from the want of some fixed era, or definite cycle, to identify the date of each of them. The common civil year of the ChaldÆans had been from the beginning (like that of the Greeks) a lunar year, kept in a certain degree of harmony with the sun by cycles of lunar years and intercalation. Down to the era of Nabonassar, the calender was in confusion, and there was nothing to verify either the time of accession of the kings, or that of astronomical phenomena observed, except the days and months of this lunar year. In the reign of Nabonassar, the astronomers at Babylon introduced (not into civil use, but for their own purposes and records) the Egyptian solar year,—of three hundred and sixty-five days, or twelve months of thirty days each, with five added days, beginning with the first of the month Thoth, the commencement of the Egyptian year,—and they thus first obtained a continuous and accurate mode of marking the date of events. It is not meant that the ChaldÆans then for the first time obtained from the Egyptians the knowledge of the solar year of three hundred and sixty-five days, but that they then for the first time adopted it in their notation of time for astronomical purposes, fixing the precise moment at which they began. Nor is there the least reason to suppose that the era of Nabonassar coincided with any political revolution or change of dynasty. Ideler discusses this point (pp. 146-173, and Handbuch der Chronol. pp. 215-220). Syncellus might correctly say—?p? ?a??as???? t??? ??????? t?? t?? ?st??? pa?at???s??? ?a?da??? ?????sa? (Chronogr. p. 207).

We need not dwell upon the back reckonings of the ChaldÆans for periods of 720,000, 490,000, 470,000 years, mentioned by Cicero, Diodorus, and Pliny (Cicero, De Divin. ii, 46; Diod. ii, 31; Pliny, H. N. vii, 57), and seemingly presented by Berosus and others as the preface of Babylonian history.

It is to be noted that Ptolemy always cited the ChaldÆan observations as made by “the ChaldÆans,” never naming any individual; though in all the other observations to which he alludes, he is very scrupulous in particularizing the name of the observer. Doubtless he found the ChaldÆan observations registered just in this manner; a point which illustrates what is said in the text respecting the collective character of their civilization, and the want of individual development or prominent genius.

The superiority of the ChaldÆan priests to the Egyptian, as astronomical observers, is shown by the fact that Ptolemy, though living at Alexandria, never mentions the latter as astronomers, and cites no Egyptian observations while he cites thirteen ChaldÆan observations in the years B.C. 721, 720, 523, 502, 491, 383, 382, 245, 237, 229: the first ten being observations of lunar eclipses; the last three, of conjunctions of planets and fixed stars (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, vol. i, Ab. ii, pp. 195-199).

[555] Herodot. ii, 109.

[556] The ancient Ninus or Nineveh was situated on the eastern bank of the Tigris, nearly opposite the modern town of Mousul or Mosul. Herodotus (i, 193) and Strabo (xvi, p. 737) both speak of it as being destroyed; but Tacitus (Ann. xii, 13) and Ammian. Marcell. (xviii, 7) mention it as subsisting. Its ruins had been long remarked (see Thevenot, Voyages, lib. i, ch. xi, p. 176, and Niebuhr, Reisen, vol. ii, p. 360), but have never been examined carefully until recently by Rich, Ainsworth, and others: see Ritter, West-Asien, b. iii, Abtheil. iii, Abschn. i, s. 45, pp. 171-221.

KtÊsias, according to Diodorus (ii, 3), placed Ninus or Nineveh on the Euphrates, which we must presume to be an inadvertence,—probably of Diodorus himself, for KtÊsias would be less likely than he to confound the Euphrates and the Tigris. Compare Wesseling ad Diodor. ii, 3, and BÄhr ad KtesiÆ Fragm. ii, Assyr. p. 392.

Mannert (Geographie der Gr. und RÖm. part v, c. 14, pp. 439-448) disputes the identity of these ruins with the ancient city of Ninus or Nineveh, because, if this had been the fact, Xenophon and the Ten Thousand Greeks must have passed directly over them in the retreat along the eastern bank of the Tigris upward: and Xenophon, who particularly notices the deserted cities of Larissa and Mespila, says nothing of the great ruin of this once flourishing Assyrian capital. This argument once appeared to me so forcible, that I came to the same negative conclusion as Mannert, though his conjectures, as to the real site of the city, never appeared to me satisfactory. But Ritter has removed the difficulty, by showing that the ruins opposite Mosul exactly correspond to the situation of that deserted city which Xenophon calls Mespila: the difference of name in this case is not of very great importance (Ritter, ut sup. p. 175). Consult also Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, sect. 96, p. 612.

The situation of Nineveh here pointed out is exactly what we should expect in reference to the conquests of the Median kings: it lies in that part of Assyria bordering on Media, and in the course of the conquests which the king KyaxarÊs afterwards extended farther on to the Halys. (See Appendix at the end of this chapter.)

[557] Herodot. i, 193. ? ?? t?? ?ss????? ?eta? ?? ?????—while he speaks of rain falling at Thebes in Egypt as a prodigy, which never happened except just at the moment when the country was conquered by CambysÊs,—?? ??? d? ?eta? t? ??? t?? ????pt?? t? pa??pa? (iii, 10). It is not unimportant to notice this distinction between the little rain of Babylonia, and the no rain of Upper Egypt,—as a mark of measured assertion in the historian from whom so much of our knowledge of Grecian history is derived.

It chanced to rain hard during the four days which the traveller Niebuhr spent in going from the ruins of Babylon to Bagdad, at the end of November 1763 (Reisen, vol. ii, p. 292).

[558] Herodot. i, 193; Xenophon, Anab. i, 7, 15; ii, 4, 13-22.

[559] About the date-palms (f?????e?) in the ancient Babylonia, see Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. ii, 6, 2-6; Xenoph. Cyrop. vii, 5, 12; Anab. ii, 3, 15; Diodor. ii, 53: there were some which bore no fruit, but which afforded good wood for house-purposes and furniture.

Theophrastus gives the same general idea of the fertility and produce of the soil in Babylonia as Herodotus, though the two hundred-fold, and sometimes three hundred-fold, which was stated to the latter as the produce of the land in grain, appears in his statement cut down to fifty-fold, or one hundred-fold (Hist. Plant. viii, 7, 4).

Respecting the numerous useful purposes for which the date-palm was made to serve (a Persian song enumerated three hundred and sixty), see Strabo, xiv, p. 742; Ammian. Marcell. xxiv, 3.

[560] Herodot. i, 178, Strabo, xiv, p. 738; Arrian, E. A. vii, 17, 7. Strabo does not say that it was a stadium in perpendicular height: we may suppose that the stadium represents the entire distance in upward march from the bottom to the top. He as well as Arrian say that XerxÊs destroyed both the temple of BÊlus and all the other temples at Babylon (?a?e??e?, ?at?s?a?e?, iii, 16, 6; vii, 17, 4); he talks of the intention of Alexander to rebuild it, and of his directions given to level new foundations, carrying away the loose earth and ruins. This cannot be reconciled with the narrative of Herodotus, nor with the statement of Pliny (vi, 30), nor do I believe it to be true. XerxÊs plundered the temple of much of its wealth and ornaments, but that he knocked down the vast building and the other Babylonian temples, is incredible. Babylon always continued one of the chief cities of the Persian empire.

[561] What is stated in the text respecting Babylon, is taken almost entirely from Herodotus: I have given briefly the most prominent points in his interesting narrative (i, 178-193), which well deserves to be read at length.

Herodotus is in fact our only original witness, speaking from his own observation and going into details, respecting the marvels of Babylon. KtÊsias, if his work had remained, would have been another original witness; but we have only a few extracts from him by Diodorus. Strabo seems not to have visited Babylon, nor can it be affirmed that Kleitarchus did so. Arrian had Aristobulus to copy, and is valuable as far as he goes; but he does not enter into many particulars respecting the magnitude of the city or its appurtenances. Berosus also, if we possessed his book, would have been an eye-witness of the state of Babylon more than a century and a half later than Herodotus, but the few fragments remaining are hardly at all descriptive (see Berosi Fragm. pp. 64-67, ed. Richter).

The magnitude of the works described by Herodotus naturally provokes suspicions of exaggeration; but there are good grounds for trusting him, in my judgment, on all points which fell under his own vision and means of verification, as distinguished from past facts, on which he could do no more than give what he heard. He had bestowed much attention on Assyria and its phenomena, as is evident from the fact that he had written (or prepared to write, if the suspicion be admissible that the work was never completed,—Fabricius, Biblioth. GrÆc. ii, 20, 5) a special Assyrian history, which has not reached us (?ss?????s? ?????s?, i, 106-184). He is very precise in the measures of which he speaks; thus having described the dimensions of the walls in “royal cubits,” he goes on immediately to tell us how much that measure differs from an ordinary cubit. He designedly suppresses a part of what he had heard respecting the produce of the Babylonian soil, from the mere apprehension of not being believed.

To these reasons for placing faith in Herodotus we may add another, not less deserving of attention. That which seems incredible in the constructions which he describes, arises simply from their enormous bulk, and the frightful quantity of human labor which must have been employed to execute them. He does not tell us, like Berosus (Fragm. p. 66), that these wonderful fortifications were completed in fifteen days,—nor like Quintus Curtius, that the length of one stadium was completed on each successive day of the year (v, 1, 26). To bring to pass all that Herodotus has described, is a mere question of time, patience, number of laborers, and cost of maintaining them,—for the materials were both close at hand and inexhaustible.

Now what would be the limit imposed upon the power and will of the old kings of Babylonia on these points? We can hardly assign that limit with so much confidence as to venture to pronounce a statement of Herodotus incredible, when he tells us something which he has seen, or verified from eye-witnesses. The Pyramids and other works in Egypt are quite sufficient to make us mistrustful of our own means of appreciation; and the great wall of China (extending for twelve hundred English miles along what was once the whole northern frontier of the Chinese empire,—from twenty to twenty-five feet high,—wide enough for six horses to run abreast, and furnished with a suitable number of gates and bastions) contains more material than all the buildings of the British empire put together, according to Barrow’s estimate (Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. i, p. 7, t. v.; and Ideler, Ueber die Zeitrechnung der Chinesen, in the Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy for 1837, ch. 3, p. 291).

KtÊsias gave the circuit of the walls of Babylon as three hundred and sixty stadia; Kleitarchus, three hundred and sixty-five stadia; Quintus Curtius, three hundred and sixty-eight stadia; and Strabo, three hundred and eighty-five stadia; all different from Herodotus, who gives four hundred and eighty stadia, a square of one hundred and twenty stadia each side. Grosskurd (ad Strabon. xvi, p. 738), Letronne, and Heeren, all presume that the smaller number must be the truth, and that Herodotus must have been misinformed; and Grosskurd further urges, that Herodotus cannot have seen the walls, inasmuch as he himself tells us that Darius caused them to be razed after the second siege and reconquest (Herodot. iii, 159). But upon this we may observe: First, the expression (t? te???? pe??e??e) does not imply that the wall was so thoroughly and entirely razed by Darius as to leave no part standing,—still less, that the great and broad moat was in all its circuit filled up and levelled. This would have been a most laborious operation in reference to such high and bulky masses, and withal not necessary for the purpose of rendering the town defenceless; for which purpose the destruction of certain portions of the wall is sufficient. Next, Herodotus speaks distinctly of the walls and ditch as existing in his time, when he saw the place, which does not exclude the possibility that numerous breaches may have been designedly made in them, or mere openings left in the walls without any actual gates, for the purpose of obviating all idea of revolt. But, however this latter fact may be, certain it is that the great walls were either continuous, or discontinuous only to the extent of these designed breaches, when Herodotus saw them. He describes the town and its phenomena in the present tense: ??eta? ?? ped?? e????, ??a??? ???sa ?t?p?? ??ast?? 120 stad???, ???s?? tet?a?????? ??t?? st?d??? t?? pe???d?? t?? p????? ?????ta? s???pa?te? 480. ?? ?? ??? ??a??? t?s??t?? ?st? t?? ?ste?? t?? ?a???????. ??e??s?t? d? ?? ??d?? ???? p???sa t?? ?e?? ?de?? taf??? ?? p??t? ?? a??a te ?a? e??ea ?a? p??? ?dat?? pe????e?? et? d?, te???? pe?t????ta ?? p????? as?????? ??? t? e????, ???? d?, d????s??? p?????. ? d? as?????? p???? t?? et???? ?st? p??e?? ???? t??s? da?t?????s? (c. 178). Again (c. 181),—???t? ?? d? t? te???? ????? ?st?? ?te??? d? ?s??e? te???? pe???e?, ?? p???? t?? ?s?e??ste??? t?? ?t???? te?????, ste???te??? d?. Then he describes the temple of Zeus BÊlus, with its vast dimensions,—?a? ?? ?? t??t? ?t? ???, d?? stad??? p??t?, ??? tet???????,—in the language of one who had himself gone up to the top of it. After having mentioned the striking present phenomena of the temple, he specifies a statue of solid gold, twelve cubits high, which the ChaldÆans told him had once been there, but which he did not see, and he carefully marks the distinction in his language,—?? d? ?? t? te??e? t??t? ?t? t?? ?????? ??e???? ?a? ??d???? d??de?a p??e??, ???se?? st??e??. ??? ?? ?? ??? e?d??? t? d? ???eta? ?p? ?a?da???, ta?ta ???? (c. 183).

The argument, therefore, by which Grosskurd justifies the rejection of the statement of Herodotus is not to be reconciled with the language of the historian: Herodotus certainly saw both the walls and the ditch. KtÊsias saw them too, and his statement of the circuit, as three hundred and sixty stadia, stands opposed to that of four hundred and eighty stadia, which appears in Herodotus. But the authority of Herodotus is, in my judgment, so much superior to that of KtÊsias, that I accept the larger figure as more worthy of credit than the smaller. Sixty English miles of circuit is, doubtless, a wonder, but forty-five miles in circuit is a wonder also: granting means and will to execute the lesser of these two, the Babylonian kings can hardly be supposed inadequate to the greater.

To me the height of these artificial mountains, called walls, appears even more astonishing than their length or breadth. Yet it is curious that on this point the two eye-witnesses, Herodotus and KtÊsias, both agree, with only the difference between royal cubits and common cubits. Herodotus states the height at two hundred royal cubits: KtÊsias, at fifty fathoms, which are equal to two hundred common cubits (Diod. ii, 7),—t? d? ????, ?? ?? ?t?s?a? f?s?, pe?t????ta ???????, ?? d? ????? t?? ?e?t???? ???a?a?, p???? pe?t????ta. Olearius (ad Philostratum Vit. Apollon. Tyan. i, 25) shows plausible reason for believing that the more recent writers (?e?te???) cut down the dimensions stated by KtÊsias simply because they thought such a vast height incredible. The difference between the royal cubit and the common cubit, as Herodotus on this occasion informs us, was three digits in favor of the former; his two hundred royal cubits are thus equal to three hundred and thirty-seven feet eight inches: KtÊsias has not attended to the difference between royal cubits and common cubits, and his estimate, therefore, is lower than that of Herodotus by thirty-seven feet eight inches.

On the whole, I cannot think that we are justified, either by the authority of such counter-testimony as can be produced, or by the intrinsic wonder of the case, in rejecting the dimensions of the walls of Babylon as given by Herodotus.

Quintus Curtius states that a large proportion of the inclosed space was not occupied by dwellings, but sown and planted (v, 1, 26: compare Diodor. ii, 9).

[562] Herodot. i, 196.

[563] Arrian, Exp. Al. iii, 16, 6; vii, 17, 3; Quint. Curtius, iii, 3, 16.

[564] Xenoph. Anab. i, 4, 11; Arrian. Exp. Al. iii. 16, 3. ?a? ?a t?? p????? t? ????? ? ?a???? ?a? t? S??sa ?fa??et?.

[565] See the statement of the large receipts of the satrap TritantÆchmes and his immense establishment of horses and Indian dogs (Herodot. i 192).

[566] There is a valuable examination of the lower course of the Euphrates, with the changes which it has undergone, in Ritter, West-Asien, b. iii. Abtheil. iii, Abschnitt i, sect. 29, pp. 45-49, and the passage from Abydenus in the latter page.

For the distance between TerÊdon or DiridÔtis, at the mouth of the Euphrates (which remained separate from that of the Tigris until the first century of the Christian era), to Babylon, see Strabo, ii, p. 80; xvi, p. 739.

It is important to keep in mind the warning given by Ritter, that none of the maps of the course of the river Euphrates, prepared previously to the publication of Colonel Chesney’s expedition in 1836, are to be trusted. That expedition gave the first complete and accurate survey of the course of the river, and led to the detection of many mistakes previously committed by Mannert, Reichard, and other able geographers and chartographers. To the immense mass of information contained in Ritter’s comprehensive and laborious work, is to be added the farther merit, that he is always careful in pointing out where the geographical data are insufficient and fall short of certainty. See West-Asien, B. iii, Abtheilung iii, Abschnitt i, sect. 41, p 959.

[567] Strabo, xiii, p. 617, with the mutilated fragment of AlkÆus, which O MÜller has so ingeniously corrected (Rhenisch. Museum, i, 4, p. 287).

[568] Strabo, xvi, p. 740.

[569] Diodor. (i. 31) states this point justly with regard to the ancient kings of Egypt—???a e???a ?a? ?a?ast? d?? t?? p????e???a? ?atas?e??sa?ta?, ????ata t?? ?a?t?? d??e? ?ata??pe?? ?p???ata.

[570] See the description of this desert in Xenoph. Anab. i, 5, 1-8.

[571] The Ten Thousand Greeks passed from the outside to the inside of the wall of Media: it was one hundred feet high, twenty feet wide, and was reported to them as extending twenty parasangs or six hundred stadia (= seventy miles) in length (Xenoph. Anab. ii, 4, 12). EratosthenÊs called it t? Se????d?? d?ate???sa (Strabo, ii, p. 80): it was seemingly about twenty-five miles north of Bagdad.

There is some confusion about the wall of Media: Mannert (Geogr. der G. und R. v. 2, p. 280) and Forbiger also (Alte Geogr. sect. 97, p. 616, note 94) appear to have confounded the ditch dug by special order of ArtaxerxÊs to oppose the march of the younger Cyrus, with the Nahar-Malcha or Royal canal between the Tigris and the Euphrates: see Xenoph. Anab. i, 7, 15.

It is singular that Herodotus makes no mention of the wall of Media, though his subject (i, 185) naturally conducts him to it: he seems to have sailed down the Euphrates to Babylon, and must, therefore, have seen it, if it had really extended to the Euphrates, as some authors have imagined. Probably, however, it was not kept up with any care, even in his time, seeing that its original usefulness was at an end, after the whole of Asia, from the Euxine to the Persian gulf, became subject to the Persians.

[572] Strabo, xvi, p. 744.

[573] Strabo, xvi, pp. 766, 776, 778; Pliny, H. N. vi, 32. “Arabes, mirum dictu, ex innumeris populis pars Æqua in commerciis aut latrociniis degunt: in universum gentes ditissimÆ, ut apud quas maximÆ opes Romanorum Parthorumque subsistant,—vendentibus quÆ a mari aut sylvis capiunt, nihil invicem redimentibus.”

The latter part of this passage of Pliny presents an enunciation sufficiently distinct, though by implication only, of what has been called the mercantile theory in political economy.

[574] To give one example: Herodotus mentions an opinion given to him by the ??aat?st?? (comptroller) of the property of AthÊnÊ at Sais, to the effect that the sources of the Nile were at an immeasurable depth in the interior of the earth, between SyÊnÊ and ElephantinÊ, and that Psammetichus had vainly tried to sound them with a rope many thousand fathoms in length (ii, 28). In mentioning this tale (perfectly deserving of being recounted at least, because it came from a person of considerable station in the country), Herodotus expressly says: “This comptroller seemed to me to be only bantering, though he professed to know accurately,”—??t?? d? ????e pa??e?? ?d??ee, f?e??? e?d??a? ?t?e????. Now Strabo (xvii, p. 819), in alluding to this story, introduces it just as if Herodotus had told it for a fact,—????? d? ???d?t?? te ?a? ????? f??a???s??, ????, etc.

Many other instances might be cited, both from ancient and modern writers, of similar carelessness or injustice towards this admirable author.

[575] ?? ???e? t?? ?e????, Herod. ii, 90.

[576] The seven mouths of the Nile, so notorious in antiquity, are not conformable to the modern geography of the country: see Mannert, Geogr. der Gr. und RÖm. x, 1, p. 539.

The breadth of the base of the Delta, between Pelusium and KanÔpus, is overstated by Herodotus (ii, 6-9) at three thousand six hundred stadia; Diodorus (i, 34) and Strabo, at thirteen hundred stadia, which is near the truth, though the text of Strabo in various passages is not uniform on this matter, and requires correction. See Grosskurd’s note on Strabo, ii, p. 64 (note 3, p. 101), and xvii, p. 186 (note 9, p. 332). Pliny gives the distance at one hundred and seventy miles (H. N. v, 9).

[577] Herod, i, 193. ?a?a???eta? ? s?t?? (in Babylonia) ??, ?at?pe? ?? ????pt?, a?t?? t?? p?ta?? ??aa????t?? ?? t?? ?????a?, ???? ?e?s? te ?a? ?????????s? ??d?e???? ? ??? ?a?????? ???? p?sa, ?at?pe? ? ????pt??, ?atat?t?ta? ?? d?????a?, etc.

Herodotus was informed that the canals in Egypt had been dug by the labor of that host of prisoners whom the victorious Sesostris brought home from his conquests (ii, 108). The canals in Egypt served the purpose partly of communication between the different cities, partly of a constant supply of water to those towns which were not immediately on the Nile: “that vast river, so constantly at work,” (to use the language of Herodotus—?p? t?s??t?? te p?t??? ?a? ??t?? ???at????, ii, 11), spared the Egyptians all the toil of irrigation which the Assyrian cultivator underwent (ii, 14).

Lower Egypt, as Herodotus saw it, though a continued flat, was unfit either for horse or car, from the number of intersecting canals,—???pp?? ?a? ??a??e?t?? (ii, 108). But lower Egypt, as Volney saw it, was among the countries in the world best suited to the action of cavalry, so that he pronounces the native population of the country to have no chance of contending against the Mamelukes (Volney, Travels in Egypt and Syria, vol. i, ch. 12, sect. 2, p. 199). The country has reverted to the state in which it was (?ppas?? ?a? ?a?e????? p?sa) before the canals were made,—one of the many striking illustrations of the difference between the Egypt which a modern traveller visits, and that which Herodotus and even Strabo saw,—???? p??t?? d??????? ?p? d?????? t??e?s?? (Strabo, xvii, p. 788).

Considering the early age of Herodotus, his remarks on the geological character of Egypt as a deposit of the accumulated mud by the Nile, appear to me most remarkable (ii, 8-14). Having no fixed number of years included in his religious belief as measuring the past existence of the earth, he carries his mind back without difficulty to what may have been effected by this river in ten or twenty thousand years, or “in the whole space of time elapsed before I was born,” (ii, 11).

About the lake of Moeris, see a note a little farther on.

[579] Herodot. ii, 35. ????pt??? ?a t? ???a?? t? ?at? sf?a? ???t? ?te????, ?a? t? p?t?? f?s?? ??????? pa?e????? ? ?? ????? p?ta??, t? p???? p??ta ?pa??? t??s? ?????s? ?????p??s? ?st?sa?t? ??ea ?a? ?????.

[580] Theokritus (Idyll, xvii, 83) celebrates Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt as ruling over thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three cities: the manner in which he strings these figures into three hexameter verses is somewhat ingenious. The priests, in describing to Herodotus the unrivalled prosperity which they affirmed Egypt to have enjoyed under Amasis, the last king before the Persian conquest, said that there were then twenty thousand cities in the country (ii, 177). Diodorus tells us that eighteen thousand different cities and considerable villages were registered in the Egyptian ??a??afa? (i, 31) for the ancient times, but that thirty thousand were numbered under the Ptolemies.

[581] Respecting the monuments of ancient Egyptian art, see the summary of O. MÜller, ArchÄologie der Kunst, sects. 215-233, and a still better account and appreciation of them in Carl Schnaase, Geschichte der bildenden KÜnste bei den Alten, DÜsseldorf, 1843, vol. i, book ii, chs. 1 and 2.

In regard to the credibility and value of Egyptian history anterior to Psammetichus, there are many excellent remarks by Mr. Kenrick, in the preface to his work, “The Egypt of Herodotus,” (the second book of Herodotus, with notes.) About the recent discoveries derived from the hieroglyphics, he says: “We know that it was the custom of the Egyptian kings to inscribe the temples and obelisks which they raised with their own names or with distinguishing hieroglyphics; but in no one instance do these names, as read by the modern decipherers of hieroglyphics on monuments said to have been raised by kings before Psammetichus, correspond with the names given by Herodotus.” (Preface, p. xliv.) He farther adds in a note, “A name which has been read phonetically Mena, has been found at Thebes, and Mr. Wilkinson supposes it to be Menes. It is remarkable, however, that the names which follow are not phonetically written, so that it is probable that this is not to be read Mena. Besides, the cartouche, which immediately follows, is that of a king of the eighteenth dynasty; so that, at all events, it cannot have been engraved till many centuries after the supposed age of Menes; and the occurrence of the name no more decides the question of historical existence than that of Cecrops in the Parian Chronicle.”

[582] Heeren, Ideen Über den Verkehr der Alten Welt, part ii, 1, p. 403. The opinion given by Parthey, however (De Philis InsulÂ, p. 100, Berlin, 1830), may perhaps be just: “Antiquissim Ætate eundem populum, dicamus Ægyptiacum, Nili ripas inde a MeroË insul usque ad Ægyptum inferiorem occupÂsse, e monumentorum congruenti apparet: posteriore tempore, tabulis et annalibus nostris longe superiore, alia stirps Æthiopica interiora terrÆ usque ad cataractam Syenensem obtinuit. Ex qu Ætate certa rerum notitia ad nos pervenit, Ægyptiorum et Æthiopum segregatio jam facta est. Herodotus cÆterique scriptores GrÆci populos acute discernunt.”

At this moment, SyÊnÊ and its cataract mark the boundary of two people and two languages,—Egyptians and Arabic language to the north, Nubians and Berber language to the south. (Parthey, ibid.)

[583] Compare Herodot. ii, 30-32; iii, 19-25; Strabo, xvi, p. 818. Herodotus gives the description of their armor and appearance as part of the army of XerxÊs (vii, 69); they painted their bodies: compare Plin. H. N. xxxiii, 36. How little Ethiopia was visited in his time, may be gathered from the tenor of his statements: according to Diodorus (i, 37), no Greeks visited it earlier than the expedition of Ptolemy Philadelphus,—??t?? ??e?a ?? t? pe?? t??? t?p??? t??t???, ?a? pa?te??? ?p????d??a. Diodorus, however, is incorrect in saying that no Greek had ever gone as far southward as the frontier of Egypt: Herodotus certainly visited ElephantinÊ, probably other Greeks also.

The statements respecting the theocratical state of MeroÊ and its superior civilization come from Diodorus (iii, 2, 5, 7), Strabo (xvii, p. 822), and Pliny (H. N. vi, 29-33), much later than Herodotus. Diodorus seems to have had no older informants before him, about Ethiopia, than AgatharchidÊs and ArtemidÔrus, both in the second century B.C. (Diod. iii, 10.)

[584] Wesseling ad Diodor. iii, 3.

[585] Herodot. ii, 37. Te?se?e? d? pe??ss?? ???te? ???sta p??t?? ?????p??, etc. He is astonished at the retentiveness of their memory; some of them had more stories to tell than any one whom he had ever seen (ii, 77-109; Diodor. i, 73).

The word priest conveys to a modern reader an idea very different from that of the Egyptian ?e?e??, who were not a profession, but an order comprising many occupations and professions,—Josephus the Jew was in like manner an ?e?e?? ?at? ????? (cont. Apion. c. 3).

[586] Diodorus (i, 70-73) gives an elaborate description of the monastic strictness with which the daily duties of the Egyptian king were measured out by the priests: compare Plutarch, De Isid. et Osirid. p. 353, who refers to HekatÆus (probably HekatÆus of AbdÊra) and Eudoxus. The priests represented that Psammetichus was the first Egyptian king who broke through the priestly canon limiting the royal allowance of wine: compare Strabo, xvii, p, 790.

The Ethiopian kings at MeroÊ are said to have been kept in the like pupillage by the priestly order, until a king named ErgamenÊs, during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus in Egypt, emancipated himself and put the chief priests to death (Diodor. iii, 6).

[587] Herodot. ii, 82-83.

[588] Herodot. ii, 143.

[589] Herodot. ii, 113; st??ata ???.

[590] Herodot. ii, 30.

[591] Herodot. i, 165-166; Diodor. i, 73.

[592] Diodor. i, 73.

[593] Besides this general rent or land-tax received by the Egyptian kings, there seem, also, to have been special crown-lands. Strabo mentions an island in the Nile (in the Thebaid) celebrated for the extraordinary excellence of its date-palms; the whole of this island belonged to the kings, without any other proprietor: it yielded a large revenue, and passed into the hands of the Roman government in Strabo’s time (xvii, p. 818).

[594] Herodot. ii, 30-141.

[595] Herodot. ii, 164.

[596] Diodor. i, 74. About the Egyptian castes generally, see Heeren, Ideen Über den Verkehr der Alten Welt, part ii, 2, pp. 572-595.

[597] See the citation from Maillet’s Travels in Egypt, in Heeren, Ideen, p. 590; also Volney’s Travels, vol. i, ch. 6, p. 77.

The expression of Herodotus—?? pe?? t?? spe??????? ????pt?? ??????s?—indicates that the portion of the soil used as pasture was not inconsiderable.

The inhabitants of the marsh land were the most warlike part of the population (Thucyd. i, 110).

[598] Herodot. ii, 59-60.

[599] Herodot. ii, 35; Sophokl. Œdip. Colon. 332: where the passage cited by the Scholiast out of NymphodÔrus is a remarkable example of the habit of ingenious Greeks to represent all customs which they thought worthy of notice, as having emanated from the design of some great sovereign: here NymphodÔrus introduces Sesostris as the author of the custom in question, in order that the Egyptians might be rendered effeminate.

[600] The process of embalming is minutely described (Herod. ii, 85-90); the word which he uses for it is the same as that for salting meat and fish,—ta???e?s??: compare Strabo, xvi, p. 764.

Perfect exactness of execution, mastery of the hardest stone, and undeviating obedience to certain rules of proportion, are general characteristics of Egyptian sculpture. There are yet seen in their quarries obelisks not severed from the rock, but having three of their sides already adorned with hieroglyphics; so certain were they of cutting off the fourth side with precision (Schnaase, Gesch. der Bild. KÜnste, i, p. 428).

All the nomes of Egypt, however, were not harmonious in their feelings respecting animals: particular animals were worshipped in some nomes which in other nomes were objects even of antipathy, especially the crocodile (Herod. ii, 69; Strabo, xvii, p. 817: see particularly the fifteenth Satire of Juvenal).

[601] Herodot. ii, 65-72; Diodor. i, 83-90; Plutarch, Isid. et Osir. p. 380.

Hasselquist identified all the birds carved on the obelisk near Matarea (Heliopolis), (Travels in Egypt, p. 99.)

[602] Herodot. ii, 82-83; iii, 1, 129. It is one of the points of distinction between Egyptians and Babylonians, that the latter had no surgeons or ?at???: they brought out the sick into the market-place, to profit by the sympathy and advice of the passers-by (Herodot. i, 197).

[603] Herodot. ii, 141.

[604] Herodot. iii, 177.

[605] Herodot. ii, 158. Read the account of the foundation of Petersburg by Peter the Great: “Au milieu de ces rÉformes, grandes et petites, qui faisaient les amusemens du czar, et de la guerre terrible qui l’occupoit contre Charles XII, il jeta les fondemens de l’importante ville et du port de PÉtersbourg, en 1714, dans un marais oÙ il n’y avait pas une cabane. Pierre travailla de ses mains À la premiÈre maison: rien ne le rebuta: des ouvriers furent forcÉs de venir sur ce bord de la mer Baltique, des frontiÈres d’Astrachan, des bords de la Mer Noire et de la Mer Caspienne. Il pÉrit plus de cent mille hommes dans les travaux qu’il fallut faire, et dans les fatigues et la disette qu’on essuya: mais enfin la ville existe.” (Voltaire, Anecdotes sur Pierre le Grand, en Œuvres ComplÈtes, ed. Paris, 1825, tom. xxxi, p. 491.)

[606] Herodot. ii, 124-129. t?? ???? tet?????? ?? t? ?s?at?? ?a???. (Diodor. i, 63-64.)

?e?? t?? ???a?d?? (Diodorus observes) ??d?? ???? ??d? pa?? t??? ?????????, ??d? pa?? t??? s????afe?s??, s?f??e?ta?. He then alludes to some of the discrepant stories about the date of the Pyramids, and the names of their constructors. This confession, of the complete want of trustworthy information respecting the most remarkable edifices of lower Egypt, forms a striking contrast with the statement which Diodorus had given (c. 44), that the priests possessed records, “continually handed down from reign to reign respecting four hundred and seventy Egyptian kings.”

[607] It appears that the lake of Moeris is, at least in great part, a natural reservoir, though improved by art for the purposes wanted, and connected with the river by an artificial canal, sluices, etc. (Kenrick ad Herodot. ii, 149.)

“The lake still exists, of diminished magnitude, being about sixty miles in circumference, but the communication with the Nile has ceased.” Herodotus gives the circumference as three thousand six hundred stadia, = between four hundred and four hundred and fifty miles.

I incline to believe that there was more of the hand of man in it than Mr. Kenrick supposes, though doubtless the receptacle was natural.

[608] Herodot. ii, 38-46, 65-72; iii, 27-30: Diodor. i, 83-90.

It is surprising to find Pindar introducing into one of his odes a plain mention of the monstrous circumstances connected with the worship of the goat in the Mendesian nome (Pindar, Fragm. Inc. 179, ed. Bergk). Pindar had also dwelt, in one of his Prosodia, upon the mythe of the gods having disguised themselves as animals, when seeking to escape Typhon; which was one of the tales told as an explanation of the consecration of animals in Egypt: see Pindar, Fragm. Inc. p. 61, ed. Bergk; Porphyr. de Abstinent. iii, p. 251, ed. Rhoer.

[609] Herodot. ii, 65. Diodorus does not feel the same reluctance to mention these ?p????ta (i, 86).

[610] Diodor. i, 86-87; Plutarch, De Isid. et Osirid. p. 377, seq.

[611] On this early trade between Egypt, Phenicia, and Palestine, anterior to any acquaintance with the Greeks, see Josephus cont. Apion. i, 12.

[612] Herodotus notices the large importation of wine into Egypt in his day, from all Greece as well as from Phenicia, as well as the employment of the earthen vessels in which it was brought for the transport of water, in the journeys across the desert (iii, 6).

In later times, Alexandria was supplied with wine chiefly from Laodikeia, in Syria, near the mouth of the Orontes (Strabo, xvi, p. 751).

[613] Herodot. ii, 147-154. ?p? ?a?t????,—p??ta ?a? t? ?ste??? ?p?st?e?a ?t?e????.

[614] See these differences stated and considered in Boeckh, Manetho und die Hundssternperiode. pp. 326—336, of which some account is given in the Appendix to this chapter.

[615] Herodot. ii, 149-152. This narrative of Herodotus, however little satisfactory in an historical point of view, bears evident marks of being the genuine tale which he heard from the priests of HephÆstos. Diodorus gives an account more historically plausible, but he could not well have had any positive authorities for that period, and he gives us seemingly the ideas of Greek authors of the days of the Ptolemies. Psammetichus (he tells us), as one of the twelve kings, ruled at SaÏs and in the neighboring part of the delta: he opened a trade, previously unknown in Egypt, with Greeks and Phenicians, so profitable that his eleven colleagues became jealous of his riches and combined to attack him. He raised an army of foreign mercenaries and defeated them (Diodor. i, 66-67). PolyÆnus gives a different story about Psammetichus and the Karian mercenaries (vii 3).

[616] Herodot. ii, 154.

[617] Strabo, xvii, p. 801. ?a? t? ????s??? te????? p?e?sa?te? ??? ?p? ?a?t???? t??????ta ?a?s?? ????s??? ?at? ??a???? (??t?? d? t?? ??d??) ??tes??? e?? t? st?a t? ????t????? e?t? ????te? ?te???sa? t? ?e???? ?t?sa? ????? d? ??ap?e?sa?te? e?? t?? Sa?t???? ????, ?ata?a?a??sa?te? ??a???, p???? ??t?sa? ?a???at?? ?? p??? t?? S?ed?a? ?pe??e?.

What is meant by the allusion to KyaxarÊs, or to Inarus, in this passage, I do not understand. We know nothing of any relations either between KyaxarÊs and Psammetichus, or between KyaxarÊs and the Milesians. moreover, if by ?at? ??a???? be meant in the time of KyaxarÊs, as the translators render it, we have in immediate succession ?p? ?a?t????—?at? ??a????, with the same meaning, which is, to say the least of it, a very awkward sentence. The words ??t?? d? t?? ??d?? look not unlike a comment added by some early reader of Strabo, who could not understand why KyaxarÊs should be here mentioned, and who noted his difficulty in words which have subsequently found their way into the text. Then again, Inarus belongs to the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars: at least we know no other person of that name than the chief of the Egyptian revolt against Persia (Thucyd. i, 114) who is spoken of as a “Libyan, the son of Psammetichus.” The mention of KyaxarÊs, therefore, here appears unmeaning, while that of Inarus is an anachronism: possibly, the story that the Milesians founded Naukratis “after having worsted Inarus in a sea-flight,” may have grown out of the etymology of the name Naukratis, in the mind of one who found Inarus the son of Psammetichus mentioned two centuries afterwards, and identified the two Psammetichuses with each other.

The statement of Strabo has been copied by Steph. Byz. v. ?a???at??. Eusebius also announces (Chron. i, p. 168) the Milesians as the founders of Naukratis, but puts the event at 753 B.C., during what he calls the Milesian thalassokraty: see Mr. Fynes Clinton ad ann. 732 B.C. in the Fasti Hellenici.

[618] Herodot. ii, 166

[619] Herodot. ii, 30: Diodor. i, 67.

[620] ?p????—?? et? ?a?t???? t?? ???t?? p??p?t??a ????et? e?da????stat?? t?? p??te??? as????? (Herodot. ii, 161).

[621] Herodot. i, 105; ii, 157.

[622] The chronology of the Egyptian kings from Psammetichus to Amasis is given in some points differently by Herodotus and by Manetho:—

Diodorus gives 22 years for ApriÊs and 55 years for Amasis (i, 68).

Now the end of the reign of Amasis stands fixed for 526 B.C., and, therefore, the beginning of his reign (according to both Herodotus and Manetho) to 570 B.C. or 569 B.C. According to the chronology of the Old Testament, the battles of Megiddo and Carchemisch, fought by NekÔs, fall from 609-605 B.C., and this coincides with the reign of NekÔs as dated by Herodotus, but not as dated by Manetho. On the other hand, it appears from the evidence of certain Egyptian inscriptions recently discovered, that the real interval from the beginning of Nechao to the end of Uaphris is only forty years, and not forty-seven years, as the dates of Herodotus would make it (Boeckh, Manetho und die Hundsternperiode, pp. 341-348), which would place the accession of NekÔs in 610 or 609 B.C. Boeckh discusses at some length this discrepancy of dates, and inclines to the supposition that NekÔs reigned nine or ten years jointly with his father, and that Herodotus has counted these nine or ten years twice, once in the reign of Psammetichus, once in that of NekÔs. Certainly, Psammetichus can hardly have been very young when his reign began, and if he reigned fifty-four years, he must have reached an extreme old age, and may have been prominently aided by his son. Adopting the suppositions, therefore, that the last ten years of the reign of Psammetichus may be reckoned both for him and for NekÔs,—that for NekÔs separately only six years are to be reckoned,—and that the number of years from the beginning of NekÔs’s separate reign to the end of Uaphris is forty,—Boeckh places the beginning of Psammetichus in 654 B.C., and not in 670 B.C., as the data of Herodotus would make it (ib. pp. 342-350).

Mr. Clinton, Fast. Hellen. B.C. 616, follows Herodotus.

[623] Herodot. ii, 158. Respecting the canal of NekÔs, see the explanation of Mr. Kenrick on this chapter of Herodotus. From Bubastis to Suez the length would be about ninety miles.

[624] Herodot. ii, 159. Diodorus makes no mention of NekÔs.

The account of Herodotus coincides in the main with the history of the Old Testament about Pharaoh Necho and Josiah. The great city of Syria which he calls ??d?t?? seems to be Jerusalem, though Wesseling (ad Herodot. iii, 5) and other able critics dispute the identity. See Volney, Recherches sur l’Hist. Anc. vol. ii, ch. 13, p. 239: “Les Arabes ont conservÉ l’habitude d’appeler Jerusalem la Sainte par excellence, el Qods. Sans doute les ChaldÉens et les Syriens lui donnÈrent le mÊme nom, qui dans leur dialecte est Qadouta, dont HÉrodote rend bien l’orthographie quand il Écrit ??d?t??.”

[625] Jeremiah, xlvi, 2; 2d book of Kings, xxiii and xxiv; Josephus, Ant. J. x, 5, 1; x, 6, 1.

About Nebuchadnezzar, see the Fragment of Berosus ap. Joseph. cont. Apion. i, 19-20, and Antiqq. J. x, 11, 1, and Berosi Fragment. ed. Ritcher pp. 65-67.

[626] Menander ap. Joseph. Antiq. J. ix, 14, 2. ?p? ???????? t?? as????? ?p???????se ?a????d???s???? t?? ????? ?p? ?te de??t??a. That this siege of thirteen years ended in the storming, capitulation, or submission (we know not which, and Volney goes beyond the evidence when he says, “Les Tyriens furent emportÉs d’assaut par le roi de Babylone,” Recherches sur l’Histoire Ancienne, vol. ii, ch. 14, p. 250) of Tyre to the ChaldÆan king, is quite certain from the mention which afterwards follows of the Tyrian princes being detained captive in Babylonia. Hengstenberg (De Rebus Tyriorum, pp. 34-77) heaps up a mass of arguments, most of them very inconclusive, to prove this point, about which the passage cited by Josephus from Menander leaves no doubt. What is not true, is, that Tyre was destroyed and laid desolate by Nebuchadnezzar: still less can it be believed that that king conquered Egypt and Libya, as Megasthenes, and even Berosus, so far as Egypt is concerned, would have us believe,—the argument of Larcher ad Herodot. ii, 168, is anything but satisfactory. The defeat of the Egyptian king at Carchemisch, and the stripping him of his foreign possessions in JudÆa and Syria, have been exaggerated into a conquest of Egypt itself.

[627] Herodot. ii, 161. He simply mentions what I have stated in the text; while Diodorus tells us (i, 68) that the Egyptian king took Sidon by assault, terrified the other Phenician towns into submission, and defeated the Phenicians and Cyprians in a great naval battle, acquiring a vast spoil.

What authority Diodorus here followed, I do not know; but the measured statement of Herodotus is far the most worthy of credit.

[628] Herodot. iii, 19.

[629] Herodot. ii, 161; iv, 159.

[630] Herodot. ii, 162-169; Diodor. i, 68.

[631] Herodot. ii, 153.

[632] Herodot. ii, 178. The few words of the historian about these Greek establishments at Naukratis are highly valuable, and we can only wish that he had told us more: he speaks of them in the present tense, from personal knowledge—t? ?? ??? ???st?? a?t??? t?e??? ?a? ????ast?tat?? ??? ?a? ???s??tat??, ?a?e?e??? d? ????????, a?de p???? e?s?? a? ?d????a?—???t??? ?? ?st? t??t? t? t?e???, ?a? p??st?ta? t?? ?p????? a?ta? a? p???? e?s?? a? pa?????sa?. ?sa? d? ???a? p???? etap??e??ta?, ??d?? sf? ete?? etap??e??ta?.

We are here let into a vein of commercial jealousy between the Greek cities about which we should have been glad to be farther informed.

[633] Herodot. ii, 179. ?? d? t?pa?a??? ???? ? ?a???at?? ?p?????, ?a? ???? ??d?? ????pt??.... ??t? d? ?a???at?? ?tet??t?.

[634] The beautiful Thracian courtezan, RhodÔpis, was purchased by a Samian merchant named XanthÊs, and conveyed to Naukratis, in order that he might make money by her (?at? ???as???). The speculation proved a successful one, for Charaxus, brother of Sappho, going to Naukratis with a cargo of wine, became so captivated with RhodÔpis, that he purchased her for a very large sum of money, and gave her her freedom. She then carried on her profession at Naukratis on her own account, realized a handsome fortune, the tithe of which she employed in a votive offering at Delphi, and acquired so much renown, that the Egyptian Greeks ascribed to her the building of one of the pyramids,—a supposition, on the absurdity of which Herodotus makes proper comments, but which proves the great celebrity of the name of RhodÔpis (Herodot. ii, 134). AthenÆus calls her DÔrichÊ, and distinguishes her from RhodÔpis (xiii. p. 596, compare Suidas, v. ??d?p?d?? ?????a). When Charaxus returned to MitylÊnÊ, his sister Sappho composed a song, in which she greatly derided him for this proceeding,—a song which doubtless Herodotus knew, and which gives to the whole anecdote a complete authenticity.

Now we can hardly put the age of Sappho lower than 600-580 B.C. (see Mr. Clinton, Fasti Hellen ad ann. 595 B.C., and Ulrici, Geschichte der Griech. Lyrik, ch. xxiii, p. 360): AlkÆus, too, her contemporary, had himself visited Egypt. (AlcÆi Fragm. 103, ed. Bergk; Strabo, i, p. 63). The Greek settlement at Naukratis, therefore, must be decidedly older than Amasis, who began to reign in 570 B.C., and the residence of RhodÔpis in that town must have begun earlier than Amasis, though Herodotus calls her ?at? ?as?? ??????sa (ii, 134). Nor can we construe the language of Herodotus strictly, when he says that it was Amasis who permitted the residence of Greeks at Naukratis (ii, 173).

[635] Herodot. ii, 181.

[636] Herodot. i, 77; iii, 39.

[637] Herodot. ii, 182, 154. ?at????se ?? ??f??, f??a??? ???t?? p??e?e??? p??? ????pt???.

[638] Herodot. ii, 175-177.

[639] Thucyd. i, 13.

[640] Herodot. iii, 107.

[641] The various statements or conjectures to be found in Greek authors (all comparatively recent) respecting the origin of the Greek alphabet, are collected by Franz, EpigraphicÊ GrÆca, s. iii, pp. 12-20: “Omnino GrÆci alphabeti ut certa primordia sunt in origine PhoeniciÂ, ita certus terminus in litteratur Ionic seu SimonideÂ. QuÆ inter utrumque a veteribus ponuntur, incerta omnia et fabulosa.... Non commoramur in iis quÆ de litterarum origine et propagatione ex fabulos Pelasgorum histori (cf. Knight, pp. 119-123; Raoul Rochette, pp. 67-87) neque in iis quÆ de Cadmo narrantur quem unquam fuisse hodie jam nemo crediderit.... Alphabeti Phoenicii omnes 22 literas cum antiquis GrÆcis congruere, hodie nemo est qui ignoret.” (pp. 14-15.) Franz gives valuable information respecting the changes gradually introduced into the Greek alphabet, and the erroneous statements of the Grammatici as to what letters were original, and what were subsequently added.

Kruse also, in his “Hellas,” (vol. i, p. 13, and in the first Beylage, annexed to that volume,) presents an instructive comparison of the Greek, Latin, and Phenician alphabets.

The Greek authors, as might be expected, were generally much more fond of referring the origin of letters to native heroes or gods, such as PalamÊdÊs, PromÊtheus, MusÆus, Orpheus, Linus, etc., than to the Phenicians. The oldest known statement (that of StÊsichorus, Schol. ap. Bekker. Anecdot. ii, p. 786) ascribes them to PalamÊdÊs.

Both Franz and Kruse contend strenuously for the existence and habit of writing among the Greeks in times long anterior to Homer: in which I dissent from them.

[642] See O. MÜller, Die Etrusker (iv, 6), where there is much instruction on the Tuscan alphabet.

[643] This question is raised and discussed by Justus Olshausen, Ueber den Ursprung des Alphabetes (pp. 1-10), in the Kieler Philologische Studien, 1841.

[644] See Boeckh, Metrologie, chs. iv, v, vi; also the preceding volume of this History.

[645] Utica is said to have been founded 287 years earlier than Carthage; the author who states this, professing to draw his information from Phenician histories (Aristot. Mirab. Auscult. c. 134). Velleius Paterculus states GadÊs to be older than Utica, and places the foundation of Carthage B.C. 819 (i, 2, 6). He seems to follow in the main the same authority as the composer of the Aristotelic compilation above cited. Other statements place the foundation of Carthage in 878 B.C. (Heeren, Ideen Über den Verkehr, etc., part ii, b. i, p. 29). Appian states the date of the foundation as fifty years before the Trojan war (De Reb. Punic. c. 1); Philistus, as twenty-one years before the same event (Philist. Fragm. 50, ed. GÖller); TimÆus, as thirty-eight years earlier than the 1st Olympiad (TimÆi Fragm. 21, ed. Didot); Justin, seventy-two years earlier than the foundation of Rome (xviii, 6).

The citation which Josephus gives from Menander’s work, extracted from Tyrian ??a??afa?, placed the foundation of Carthage 143 years after the building of the temple of Jerusalem (Joseph. cont. Apion. i, c. 17-18). Apion said that Carthage was founded in the first year of Olympiad 7 (B.C. 748), (Joseph. c. Apion. ii, 2.)

[646] “Quamdiu Carthago invicta fuit, pro De culta est.” (Justin. xviii, 6; Virgil, Æneid, i, 340-370.) We trace this legend about Dido up to TimÆus (TimÆi Frag. 23, ed. Didot): Philistus seems to have followed a different story;—he said that Carthage had been founded by Azor and KarchÊdÔn (Philist. Fr. 50). Appian notices both stories (De Reb. Pun. 1): that of Dido was current both among the Romans and Carthaginians: of ZÔrus (or EzÔrus) and KarchÊdÔn, the second is evidently of Greek coinage, the first seems genuine Phenician: see Josephus cont. Apion. i, c. 18-21.

[647] See Movers, Die PhÖnizier, pp. 609-616.

[648] Strabo, xvii, p. 826.

[649] Herodot. iii, 19.

[650] Thucyd. vi, 2; Philistus, Fragm. 3, ed. GÖller, ap. Diodor. v, 6. TimÆus adopted the opposite opinion (Diodor. l.c.), also Ephorus, if we may judge by an indistinct passage of Strabo (vi, p. 270). Dionysius of Halikarnassus follows ThucydidÊs (A. R. i, 22).

The opinion of Philistus is of much value on this point, since he was, or might have been, personally cognizant of Iberian mercenaries in the service of the elder Dionysius.

[651] Pherekyd. Fragm. 85, ed. Didot; Hellanik. Fr. 53, ed. Didot; Dionys. Halik. A. R. i, 11, 13, 22; Skymnus Chius, v. 362; Pausan. viii, 3, 5.

[652] Stephan. Byz. v. ????.

[653] Aristot. Polit. vii, 9, 3. ????? d? t? p??? t?? ?ap???a? ?a? t?? ?????? ???e? (or ????e?) t?? ?a??????? S????? ?sa? d? ?a? ?? ???e? ????t??? t? ?????.

Antiochus Fr. 3, 4, 6, 7, ed. Didot; Strabo, vi, p. 254; Hesych. v. ?????, Dionys. Hal. A. R. i, 12.

[655] For the early habitation of Sikels or Siculi in Latium and Campania, see Dionys. Hal. A. R. i, 1-21: it is curious that Siculi and Sicani, whether the same or different, the primitive ante-Hellenic population of Sicily, are also numbered as the ante-Roman population of Rome: see Virgil, Æneid, viii, 328, and Servius ad Æneid. xi, 317.

The alleged ancient emigration of Evander from Arcadia to Latium forms a parallel to the emigration of Œnotrus from Arcadia to southern Italy as recounted by PherekydÊs: it seems to have been mentioned even as early as in one of the Hesiodic poems (Servius ad Virg. Æn. viii, 138): compare Steph. Byz. v. ?a????t???. The earliest Latin authors appear all to have recognized Evander and his Arcadian emigrants: see Dionys. Hal. i, 31-32, ii, 9, and his references to Fabius Pictor and Ælius Tubero, i, 79-80; also Cato ap. Solinum, c. 2. If the old reading ????d??, in Thucyd. vi, 2 (which Bekker has now altered into S??e???), be retained, ThucydidÊs would also stand as witness for a migration from Arcadia into Italy. A third emigration of Pelasgi, from Peloponnesus to the river Sarnus in southern Italy (near Pompeii), was mentioned by Conon (ap. Servium ap. Virg. Æn. vii, 730).

[656] Herodotus (i, 24-167) includes Elea (or Velia) in Œnotria,—and Tarentum in Italia; while Antiochus considers Tarentum as in Iapygia, and the southern boundary of the Tarentine territory as the northern boundary of Italia: Dionysius of Halikarnassus (A. R. ii, 1) seems to copy from Antiochus when he extends the Œnotrians along the whole south-western corner of Italy, within the line drawn from Tarentum to Poseidonia, or PÆstum. Hence the appellation ????t??de? ??s?? to the two islands opposite Elea (Strabo, vi, p. 253). Skymnus Chius (v. 247) recognizes the same boundaries.

Twelve Œnotrian cities are cited by name (in Stephanus Byzantinus) from the ????p? of HekatÆus (Frag. 30-39, ed. Didot): Skylax in his Periplus does not name Œnotrians; he enumerates Campanians, Samnites, and Lucanians (cap. 9-13). The intimate connection between MilÊtus and Sybaris would enable HekatÆus to inform himself about the interior Œnotrian country.

Œnotria and Italia together, as conceived by Antiochus and Herodotus, comprised what was known a century afterwards as Lucania and Bruttium: see Mannert, Geographie der Griech. und RÖmer, part ix, b. 9, ch. i, p. 86. Livy, speaking with reference to 317 B.C., when the Lucanian nation as well as the Bruttians were in full vigor, describes only the sea-coast of the lower sea as Grecian,—“cum omni or GrÆcorum inferi maris a Thuriis Neapolim et Cumas,” (ix, 19.) Verrius Flaccus considered the Sikels as GrÆci (Festus, v, Major GrÆcia, with MÜller’s note).

[657] SophoklÊs, Triptolem. Fr. 527, ed. Dindorf. He places the lake Avernus, which was close to the Campanian CumÆ, in Tyrrhenia: see Lexicon Sophocleum, ad calc. ed. Brunck, v. ??????. EuripidÊs (Medea, 1310-1326) seems to extend Tyrrhenia to the strait of Messina.

[658] Aristot. Polit. vii, 9, 3. ????? d? t? ?? p??? t?? ???????a? ?p????, ?a? p??te??? ?a? ??? ?a???e??? t?? ?p????s?? ??s??e?. Festus: “Ausoniam appellavit Auson, Ulyssis et CalypsÛs filius, eam primam partem ItaliÆ in qu sunt urbes Beneventum et Cales: deinde paulatim tota quoque Italia quÆ Apennino finitur, dicta est Ausonia,” etc. The original Ausonia would thus coincide nearly with the territory called Samnium, after the Sabine emigrants had conquered it: see Livy, viii, 16; Strabo, v, p. 250; Virg. Æn. vii, 727, with Servius. Skymnus Chius (v, 227) has copied from the same source as Festus. For the extension of Ausonians along various parts of the more southern coast of Italy, even to Rhegium, as well as to the LiparÆan isles, see Diodor. v, 7-8; Cato, Origg. Fr. lib. iii, ap. Probum ad Virg. Bucol. v, 2. The Pythian priestess, in directing the Chalkidic emigrants to Rhegium, says to them,—???a p???? ?????e, d?d?? d? s?? ??s??a ???a? (Diodor. Fragm. xiii, p. 11, ap Scriptt. Vatic. ed. Maii). Temesa is Ausonian in Strabo, vi, p. 255.

[659] Thucyd. vi. 3; Aristot. ap. Dionys. Hal. A. R. i, 72. ??a??? t??a? t?? ?p? ?????? ??a?????????,—???e?? e?? t?? t?p?? t??t?? t?? ?p????, ?? ?a?e?ta? ??t???.

Even in the time of Cato the elder, the Greeks comprehended the Romans under the general, and with them contemptuous, designation of Opici (Cato ap. Plin. H. N. xxii, 1: see Antiochus ap. Strab. v, p. 242).

[660] Thucyd. vi, 2. S??e??? d? ?? ?ta??a? fe????te? ?p????? d???sa? ?? S??e??a? (see a Fragment of the geographer Menippus of Pergamus, in Hudson’s Geogr. Minor. i, p. 76). Antiochus stated that the Sikels were driven out of Italy into Sicily by the Opicians and Œnotrians; but the Sikels themselves, according to him, were also Œnotrians (Dionys. H. i, 12-22). It is remarkable that Antiochus (who wrote at a time when the name of Rome had not begun to exercise that fascination over men’s minds which the Roman power afterwards occasioned), in setting forth the mythical antiquity of the Sikels and Œnotrians, represents the eponymous Sikelus as an exile from Rome, who came into the south of Italy to the king MorgÊs, successor of Italus,—?pe? d? ?ta??? ?ate???a, ?????? ?as??e?se?. ?p? t??t?? d? ???? ?f??et? ?? ???? f????, S??e??? ???a a?t? (Antiochus ap. Dionys. H. i, 73: compare c. 12).

Philistus considered Sikelus to be a son of Italus: both he and Hellanikus believed in early migrations from Italy into Sicily, but described the emigrants differently (Philistus, Frag. 2, ed. Didot).

[661] See the learned observations upon the early languages of Italy and Sicily, which MÜller has prefixed to his work on the Etruscans (Einleitung, i, 12). I transcribe the following summary of his views respecting the early Italian dialects and races: “The notions which we thus obtain respecting the early languages of Italy are as follows: the Sikel, a sister language, nearly allied to the Greek or Pelasgic; the Latin, compounded from the Sikel and from the rougher dialect of the men called Aborigines; the Oscan, akin to the Latin in both its two elements; the language spoken by the Sabine emigrants in their various conquered territories, Oscan; the Sabine proper, a distinct and peculiar language, yet nearly connected with the non-Grecian element in Latin and Oscan, as well as with the language of the oldest Ausonians and Aborigines.”

[N. B. This last statement, respecting the original Sabine language, is very imperfectly made out: it seems equally probable that the Sabellians may have differed from the Oscans no more than the Dorians from the Ionians: see Niebuhr, RÖm. Gesch. tom. i, p. 69.]

“Such a comparison of languages presents to us a certain view, which I shall here briefly unfold, of the earliest history of the Italian races. At a period anterior to all records, a single people, akin to the Greeks, dwelling extended from the south of Tuscany down to the straits of Messina, occupies in the upper part of its territory only the valley of the Tiber,—lower down, occupies the mountainous districts also, and in the south, stretches across from sea to sea,—called Sikels, Œnotrians, or Peucetians. Other mountain tribes, powerful, though not widely extended, live in the northern Abruzzo and its neighborhood: in the east, the Sabines, southward from them the cognate Marsi, more to the west the Aborigines, and among them probably the old Ausonians or Oscans. About 1000 years prior to the Christian era, there arises among these tribes—from whom almost all the popular migrations in ancient Italy have proceeded—a movement whereby the Aborigines more northward, the Sikels more southward, are precipitated upon the Sikels of the plains beneath. Many thousands of the great Sikel nation withdraw to their brethren the Œnotrians, and by degrees still farther across the strait to the island of Sicily. Others of them remain stationary in their residences, and form, in conjunction with the Aborigines, the Latin nation,—in conjunction with the Ausonians, the Oscan nation: the latter extends itself over what was afterwards called Samnium and Campania. Still, the population and power of these mountain tribes, especially that of the Sabines, goes on perpetually on the increase: as they pressed onward towards the Tiber, at the period when Rome was only a single town, so they also advanced southwards, and conquered,—first, the mountainous Opica; next, some centuries later, the Opician plain, Campania; lastly, the ancient country of the Œnotrians, afterwards denominated Lucania.”

Compare Niebuhr, RÖmisch. Geschicht. vol. i, p. 80, 2d edit., and the first chapter of Mr. Donaldson’s Varronianus.

[662] Thucyd. vi, 2; Philistus, Frag. 2, ed. Didot.

[663] Strabo, v, p. 243; Velleius Patercul. i, 5; Eusebius, p 121. M. Raoul Rochette, assuming a different computation of the date of the Trojan war, pushes the date of CumÆ still farther back to 1139 B.C. (Histoire des Colonies Grecques, book iv, c. 12, p. 100.)

The mythes of CumÆ extended to a period preceding the Chalkidic settlement. See the stories of AristÆus and DÆdalus ap. Sallust. Fragment. Incert. p. 204, ed. Delphin.; and Servius ad Virgil. Æneid. vi, 17. The fabulous ThespiadÆ, or primitive Greek settlers in Sardinia, were supposed in early ages to have left that island and retired to CumÆ (Diodor. v, 15).

[664] Ephorus, Frag. 52, ed. Didot.

[665] Strabo, v, p. 243; Velleius Paterc. i, 5.

[666] See the site of CumÆ as described by Agathias (on occasion of the siege of the place by Narses, in 552 A. D.), Histor. i, 8-10; also by Strabo, v, p. 244.

[667] Diodor. iv, 21, v, 71; Polyb. iii, 91; Pliny, H. N. iii, 5; Livy, viii, 22. “In Baiano sinu CampaniÆ contra Puteolanam civitatem lacus sunt duo, Avernus et Lucrinus: qui olim propter piscium copiam vectigalia magna prÆstabant,” (Servius ad Virg. Georgic. ii, 161.)

[668] Strabo, v, p. 243. ?a? e?s?p?e?? ?e ?? p????s?e??? ?a? ??as?e??? t??? ?ata???????? da???a?, ??t?? t?? ?f???????? t? t???de ?e????, ?????a???t?? t?? t?p??.

[669] Dionys. H. iv, 61-62, vi, 21; Livy, ii, 34.

[670] See, respecting the transmission of ideas and fables from the Æolic KymÊ to CumÆ in Campania, the first volume of this History, chap. xv, p. 457.

The father of Hesiod was a native of the Æolic KymÊ: we find in the Hesiodic Theogony (ad fin.) mention of Latinus as the son of Odysseus and CircÊ: Servius cites the same from the ?sp?d?p???a of Hesiod (Servius ad Virg. Æn. xii, 162; compare Cato, Fragment. p. 33, ed. Lion). The great family of the Mamilii at Tusculum, also derived their origin from Odysseus and CircÊ (Livy, i, 49).

The tomb of ElpÊnÔr, the lost companion of Odysseus, was shown at Circeii in the days of Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. v, 8, 3) and Skylax (c. 10).

Hesiod notices the promontory of PelÔrus. the strait of Messina, and the islet of Ortygia near Syracuse (Diodor. iv, 85; Strabo, i, p. 23).

[671] Livy, ii. 9.

[672] Niebuhr, RÖmisch. Geschicht. vol. i. p. 76, 2d edit.

[673] The history of AristodÊmus Malakus is given at some length by Dionysius of Halikarnassus (viii, 3-10).

[674] Livy, ii, 21.

[675] Velleius Patercul. i, 5.

[676] Compare Strabo, v, p. 250; vi. p. 264. “Cumanos Osca mutavit vicinia,” says Velleius, l.c.

[677] Diodor. xi, 51; Pindar, Pyth. i, 71.

[678] Thucyd. vi, 3; Strabo, vi, p. 267.

[679] The admixture of Naxian colonists may be admitted, as well upon the presumption arising from the name, as from the statement of Hellanikus, ap. Stephan. Byz. v. ?a????.

Ephorus put together into one the Chalkidian and the Megarian migrations, which ThucydidÊs represents as distinct (Ephorus ap. Strabo, vi, p. 267).

[680] Thucyd. vi, 3; Diodor. xiv, 59-88.

[681] Mannert places the boundary of Sikels and Sikans at these mountains: Otto Siefert (Akragas und sein Gebiet, Hamburg, 1845, p. 53) places it at the Gemelli Colles, rather more to the westward,—thus contracting the domain of the Sikans: compare Diodor. iv, 82-83.

[682] Thucyd. vi, 2.

[683] Mr. Fynes Clinton discusses the era of Syracuse, Fasti Hellenici, ad B.C. 734, and the same work, vol. ii. Appendix xi, p. 264.

[684] See Colonel Leake, notes on the Topography of Syracuse, p. 41.

[685] AthenÆ. iv, 167; Strabo, ix, p. 380.

[686] Diodor. Frag. Lit. viii, p. 24; Plutarch, Narrat. Amator. p. 772; Schol. Apollon. Rhod. iv, 1212.

[687] PolyÆnus (v. 5. 1) describes the stratagem of TheoklÊs on this occasion.

[688] PolyÆnus details a treacherous stratagem whereby this expulsion is said to have been accomplished (v, 5. 2).

[689] Thucydid. vi, 3. ?????? t?? as????? p??d??t?? t?? ???a? ?a? ?a????sa????.

[690] Thucydid. vi, 4; Diodor. Excerpt. Vatican. ed. Maii, Fragm. xiii, p. 13; Pausanias, viii, 46, 2.

[691] Thucydid. vi, 4.

[692] Strabo, vi, p. 272.

[693] Stephanus Byz. S??a??a, ? pe??????? ???a?a?t????. Herodot. vii, 170; Diodor. iv, 78.

Vessa, the most considerable among the Sikanian townships or villages, with its prince Teutus, is said to have been conquered by Phalaris despot of Agrigentum, through a mixture of craft and force (PolyÆn. v, 1, 4).

[694] Of these Sikel or Sikan caverns many traces yet remain: see Otto Siefert, Akragas und sein Gebiet, pp. 39, 45, 49, 55, and the work of Captain W. H. Smyth,—Sicily and its Islands, London, 1824, p. 190.

“These cryptÆ (observes the latter) appear to have been the earliest effort of a primitive and pastoral people towards a town, and are generally without regularity as to shape and magnitude: in after-ages they perhaps served as a retreat in time of danger, and as a place of security in case of extraordinary alarm, for women, children, and valuables. In this light, I was particularly struck with the resemblance these rude habitations bore to the caves I had seen in Owhyhee, for similar uses. The Troglodyte villages of Northern Africa, of which I saw several, are also precisely the same.”

About the early cave-residences in Sardinia and the Balearic islands, consult Diodor. v, 15-17.

[695] Thucydid. vi, 45. t? pe??p???a t? ?? t? ???? (of Syracuse).

[696] Respecting the statical and monetary system, prevalent among the Italian and Sicilian Greeks, see Aristot. Fragment. pe?? ????te???, ed. Neumann, p. 102; Pollux, iv, 174, ix, 80-87; and above all, Boeckh, Metrologie, ch. xviii, p. 292, and the abstract and review of that work in the Classical Museum, No. 1; also, O. MÜller, Die Etrusker, vol. i, p. 309.

The Sicilian Greeks reckoned by talents, each consisting of 120 litrÆ or librÆ: the ÆginÆan obolus was the equivalent of the litra, having been the value in silver of a pound-weight of copper, at the time when the valuation was taken.

The common denominations of money and weight—with the exception of the talent, the meaning of which was altered while the word was retained—seem to have been all borrowed by the Italian and Sicilian Greeks from the Sikel or Italic scale, not from the Grecian,—?????, ??t?a, de????t???, pe?te???t???t???, pe?t???????, ????, tet???, t????, ???a, ????t???? (see Fragments of Epicharmus and Sophron, ap. Ahrens de Dialecto DoricÂ, Appendix, pp 435, 471, 472, and AthenÆ. xi, p. 479).

[697] Thucyd. vi, 88.

[698] Thucyd. vi, 62-87; vii, 13.

[699] Cicero in Verrem, Act. ii, lib. iv, c. 26-51; Diodor. v. 6.

Contrast the manner in which Cicero speaks of Agyrium, Centuripi, and Enna, with the description of these places as inhabited by autonomous Sikels, B.C. 396, in the wars of the elder Dionysius (Diodor. xiv, 55, 58, 78). Both Sikans and Sikels were at that time completely distinguished from the Greeks, in the centre of the island.

O. MÜller states that “Syracuse, seventy years after its foundation, colonized AkrÆ, also Enna, situated in the centre of the island,” (Hist. of Dorians, i, 6, 7). Enna is mentioned by Stephanus Byz. as a Syracusan foundation, but without notice of the date of its foundation, which must have been much later than MÜller here affirms. Serra di Falco (AntichitÀ di Sicilia, Introd. t. i, p. 9) gives Enna as having been founded later than AkrÆ, but earlier than KasmenÆ: for which date I find no authority. Talaria (see Steph. Byz. ad voc.) is also mentioned as another Syracusan city, of which we do not know either the date or the particulars of foundation.

[700] Ahrens, De Dialecto DoricÂ, sect. 1, p. 3.

[701] Plato, Epistol. vii, p. 326; Plautus, Rudens, Act i, Sc. 1, 56; Act ii. Sc. 6, 58.

[702] Timokreon, Fragment. 5 ap. Ahrens, De Dialecto DoricÂ, p. 478,—S??e??? ????? ???? ??t? t?? at??? ?fa.

Bernhardy, Grundriss der Geschichte der Griech. Litteratur, vol. ii, ch. 120, sects. 2-5; Grysar, De Doriensium Comoedia, Cologne, 1828, ch. i, pp. 41, 55, 57, 210; Boeckh, De GrÆcÆ Tragoed. Princip. p. 52; Aristot. ap. AthenÆ. xi, 505. The ??tta?? seems to have been a native Sikel fashion, borrowed by the Greeks (AthenÆus, xv, pp. 666-668).

The Sicilian ??????as?? was a fashion among the Sicilian herdsmen earlier than Epicharmus, who noticed the alleged inventor of it, Diomus, the ??????? S??e???t?? (AthenÆ. xiv, p. 619). The rustic manners and speech represented in the Sicilian comedy are contrasted with the town manners and speech of the Attic comedy, by Plautus, PersÆ. Act. iii. Sc. 1, v, 31:—

Compare the beginning of the prologue to the MenÆchmi of Plautus.

The comic ???? began at Syracuse with Epicharmus and Phormis (Aristot. Poet, v, 5).

[703] Zenobius, Proverb. v, 84.—S??e??? st?at??t??.

[704] Diodor. xi, 90-91; xii, 9.

[705] See Dolomieu, Dissertation on the Earthquakes of Calabria Ultra, in 1783, in Pinkerton, Collection of Voyages and Travels, vol. v, p. 280.

“It is impossible (he observes) to form an adequate idea of the fertility of Calabria Ultra, particularly of that part called the Plain (south-west of the Apennines, below the gulf of St. Eufemia). The fields, productive of olive-trees of larger growth than any seen elsewhere, are yet productive of grain. Vines load with their branches the trees on which they grow, yet lessen not their crops. All things grow there, and nature seems to anticipate the wishes of the husbandman. There is never a sufficiency of hands to gather the whole of the olives, which finally fall and rot at the bottom of the trees that bore them, in the months of February and March. Crowds of foreigners, principally Sicilians, come there to help to gather them, and share the produce with the grower. Oil is their chief article of exportation: in every quarter their wines are good and precious.” Compare pp. 278-282.

[706] Mr. Keppel Craven observes (Tour through the Southern Provinces of Naples, ch. xiii, p. 254), “The earthquake of 1783 may be said to have altered the face of the whole of Calabria Ultra, and extended its ravages as far northward as Cosenza.”

[707] Aristot. Polit. vii, 9, 3.

[708] Strabo, vi, p. 263. Kramer, in his new edition of Strabo follows Koray in suspecting the correctness of the name ?se???e??, which certainly departs from the usual analogy of Grecian names. Assuming it to be incorrect, however, there are no means of rectifying it: Kramer prints,—????st?? d? a?t?? ? ?s...????e??: thus making ????e?? the ethnicon of the AchÆan town HelikÊ.

There were also legends which connected the foundation of KrotÔn with HÊraklÊs, who was affirmed to have been hospitably sheltered by the eponymous hero KrotÔn. HÊraklÊs was ???e??? at KrotÔn: see Ovid, Metamorph. xv, 1-60; Jamblichus, Vit. Pythagor. c. 8, p. 30, c. 9, p. 37, ed Kuster.

[709] Herodot. i, 145.

[710] Strabo, vi, p. 262; Livy, xxiv, 3.

[711] Aristot. Polit. v, 2, 10

[712] Strabo, vi, p. 263, v, p. 251; Skymn. Chi. v, 244; Herodot. vi, 21.

[713] Stephan. Byz. v. ?????a—?a?t????; Skymn. Chi. 305.

[714] Thucydid. v, 5; Strabo, vi, p. 256; Skymn. Chi. 307. Steph. Byz. calls Mataurum p???? S??e??a?.

[715] Herodot. viii, 47. ???t????ta?, ????? e?s?? ??a???: the date of the foundation is given by Dionysius of Halikarnassus (A. R. ii, 59).

The oracular commands delivered to Myskellus are found at length in the Fragments of Diodorus, published by Maii (Scriptt. Vet. Fragm. x, p. 8): compare Zenob. Proverb. Centur. iii, 42.

Though Myskellus is thus given as the oekist of KrotÔn, yet we find a Krotoniatic coin with the inscription ??a???? ????sta? (Eckhel, Doctrin. Numm. Vet. vol. i, p. 172): the worship of HÊraklÊs at KrotÔn under this title is analogous to that of ?p????? ????st?? ?a? ??at?t?? at Ægina (PythÆnÊtus ap. Schol. Pindar. Nem. v, 81). There were various legends respecting HÊraklÊs, the Eponymus KrotÔn, and Lakinius. HerakleidÊs Ponticus, Fragm. 30, ed. KÖller; Diodor. iv, 24; Ovid, Metamorph. xv, 1-53.

[716] Strabo, vi, p. 259. Euantheia, Hyantheia, or Œantheia, was one of the towns of the Ozolian Lokrians on the north side of the KrissÆan gulf, from which, perhaps, the emigrants may have departed, carrying with them the name and patronage of its eponymous oekist (Plutarch, QuÆst. GrÆc. c. 15; Skylax, p. 14).

[717] Polyb. xii, 5, 8, 9; Dionys. Perieget. v, 365.

[718] This fact may connect the foundation of the colony of Lokri with Sparta; but the statement of Pausanias (iii, 3, 1), that the Spartans in the reign of king Polydorus founded both Lokri and KrotÔn, seems to belong to a different historical conception.

[719] Polyb. xii, 5-12.

[720] Strabo, vi, p. 259. We find that, in the accounts given of the foundation of Korkyra, KrotÔn, and Lokri, reference is made to the Syracusan settlers, either as contemporary in the way of companionship, or as auxiliaries: perhaps the accounts all come from the Syracusan historian Antiochus, who exaggerated the intervention of his own ancestors.

[721] “Nil patrium, nisi nomen, habet Romanus alumnus,” observes Propertius (iv, 37) respecting the Romans: repeated with still greater bitterness in the epistle in Sallust from MithridatÊs to ArsacÊs, (p. 191, Delph. ed.) The remark is well-applicable to Lokri.

[722] Aristot. ap. Schol. Pindar. Olymp. x, 17.

[723] Proverb. Zenob. Centur. iv, 20. ?a?e???? ????, ?p? t?? ?p?t???.

[724] Strabo, vi, p. 259; Skymnus Chius, v, 313; Cicero de Legg. ii, 6, and Epist. ad Atticum, vi, 1.

Heyne, Opuscula, vol. ii, Epimetrum ii, pp. 60-68; GÖller ad TimÆi Fragment, pp. 220-259. Bentley (on the Epistles of Phalaris, ch. xii, p 274) seems to countenance, without adequate reason, the doubt of TimÆus about the existence of Zaleukus. But the statement of Ephorus, that Zaleukus had collected his ordinances from the Kretan, Laconian, and Areiopagitic customs, when contrasted with the simple and far more credible statement above cited from Aristotle, shows how loose were the affirmations respecting the Lokrian lawgiver (ap. Strabo, vi, p. 260). Other statements, also, concerning him, alluded to by Aristotle (Politic. ii, 9, 3), were distinctly at variance with chronology.

Charondas, the lawgiver of the Chalkidic towns in Italy and Sicily, as far as we can judge amidst much confusion of testimony, seems to belong to an age much later than Zaleukus: I shall speak of him hereafter.

[725] DÊmosthen. cont. Timokrat. p. 744; Polyb. xii, 10.

[726] Strabo, vi, p. 257; Pausan. iv, 23, 2.

[727] Strabo, vi, p. 258. ?s??se d? ???sta ? t?? ??????? p????, ?a? pe??????da? ?s?e s?????, etc.

[728] Strabo, vi. p. 263; Aristot. Mirab. Ausc. c. 106; AthenÆ. xii, p. 523. It is to these reputed Rhodian companions of TlÊpolemus before Troy, that the allusion in Strabo refers, to Rhodian occupants near Sybaris (xiv, p. 655).

[729] See Mannert, Geographie, part ix, b. 9, ch. 11, p. 234.

[730] Archiloch. Fragm. 17, ed. Schneidewin.

[731] Herodot. vi, 127; Strabo, vi, p. 263. The name Polieion seems to be read ??e??? in Aristot. Mirab. Auscult. 106.

Niebuhr assigns this Kolophonian settlement of Siris to the reign of GygÊs in Lydia; for which I know no other evidence except the statement that GygÊs took t?? ????f????? t? ?st? (Herodot. i, 14); but this is no proof that the inhabitants then emigrated; for KolophÔn was a very flourishing and prosperous city afterwards.

Justin (xx, 2) gives a case of sacrilegious massacre committed near the statue of AthÊnÊ at Siris, which appears to be totally different from the tale respecting the Kolophonians.

[732] Herodot. viii, 62.

[733] Strabo, vi, p. 264.

[734] Strabo, vi, p. 264.

[735] Strabo, l.c.; Justin, xx, 2; Velleius Paterc. i, 1; Aristot. Mirab. Auscult. c. 108. This story respecting the presence and implements of Epeius may have arisen through the Phocian settlers from Krissa.

[736] The words of Strabo—?fa??s?? d? ?p? Sa???t?? (vi, p. 264) can hardly be connected with the immediately following narrative, which he gives out of Antiochus, respecting the revival of the place by new AchÆan settlers, invited by the AchÆans of Sybaris. For the latter place was reduced to impotence in 510 B.C.: invitations by the AchÆans of Sybaris must, therefore, be anterior to that date. If Daulius despot of Krissa is to be admitted as the oekist of Metapontium, the plantation of it must be placed early in the first half of the sixth century B.C.; but there is great difficulty in admitting the extension of Samnite conquests to the gulf of Tarentum at so early a period as this. I therefore construe the words of Antiochus as referring to the original settlement of Metapontium by the Greeks, not to the revival of the town after its destruction by the Samnites.

[737] Strabo, l.c.; Stephanus Byz. (v. ?etap??t???) identifies Metapontium and Siris in a perplexing manner.

Livy (xxv, 15) recognizes Metapontium as AchÆan: compare Heyne Opuscula, vol. ii, Prolus. xii, p. 207.

[738] PartheniÆ, i. e. children of virgins: the description given by Varro of the Illyrian virgines illustrates this phrase: “Quas virgines ibi appellant, nonnunquam annorum xx, quibus mos eorum non denegavit, ante nuptias ut succumberent quibus vellent, et incomitatis ut vagari liceret, et liberos habere.” (Varro, De Re RusticÂ, ii, 10, 9.)

[739] For this story respecting the foundation of Tarentum, see Strabo, vi, pp. 278-280 (who gives the versions both of Antiochus and Ephorus); Justin, iii, 4; Diodorus, xv, 66; Excerpta Vatican. lib. vii-x, ed. Maii, Fr. 12; Servius ad Virgil. Æneid. iii, 551.

There are several points of difference between Antiochus, Ephorus, and Servius; the story given in the text follows the former.

The statement of Hesychius (v. ?a??e?e?a?) seems on the whole some what more intelligible than that given by Strabo,—?? ?at? t?? ?ess???a??? p??e?? a?t??? ?e??e??? ?? t?? ?e?apa????? ?a? ?? ?? ??e?d?t?? ????a ?e???e??? pa?de?. Justin translates PartheniÆ, Spurii.

The local eponymous heroes Taras and Satyrus (from Satyrium) were celebrated and worshipped among the Tarentines. See Cicero, Verr. iv, 60, 13; Servius ad Virg. Georg. ii, 197; Zumpt. ap. Orelli, Onomasticon Tullian. ii, p. 570.

[740] Compare Strabo, vi, p. 264 and p. 280.

[741] Strabo, vi, p. 278; Polyb. x, 1.

[742] Juvenal, Sat. vi, 297. “Atque coronatum et petulans madidumque Tarentum:” compare Plato, Legg. i, p. 637; and Horat. Satir. ii, 4, 34. Aristot. Polit. iv, 4, 1. ?? ???e?? ?? ???a?t? ?a? ???a?t??. “Tarentina ostrea,” Varro, Fragm. p. 301, ed. Bipont.

To illustrate this remark of Aristotle on the fishermen of Tarentum, as the predominant class in the democracy, I transcribe a passage from Mr. Keppel Craven’s Tour in the Southern Provinces of Naples, ch. x, p. 182. “Swinburne gives a list of ninety-three different sorts of shell-fish which are found in the gulf of Taranto; but more especially in the Mare Piccolo. Among these, in ancient times, the murex and purpura ranked foremost in value; in our degenerate days, the mussel and oyster seem to have usurped a preËminence as acknowledged but less dignified; but there are numerous other tribes held in proportionate estimation for their exquisite flavor, and as greedily sought for during their respective seasons. The appetite for shell-fish of all sorts, which seems peculiar to the natives of these regions, is such as to appear exaggerated to a foreigner, accustomed to consider only a few of them as eatable. This taste exists at Taranto, if possible, in a stronger degree than in any other part of the kingdom, and accounts for the comparatively large revenue which government draws from this particular branch of commerce. The Mare Piccolo is divided into several portions, which are let to different societies, who thereby become the only privileged fishermen; the lower classes are almost all employed by these corporations, as every revolving season of the year affords occupation for them, so that Nature herself seems to have afforded the exclusive trade most suited to the inhabitants of Taranto. Both seas abound with varieties of testacea, but the inner gulf (the Mare Piccolo) is esteemed most favorable to their growth and flavor; the sandy bed is literally blackened by the mussels that cover it; the boats that glide over its surface are laden with them; they emboss the rocks that border the strand, and appear equally abundant on the shore, piled up in heaps.” Mr. Craven goes on to illustrate still farther the wonderful abundance of this fishery; but that which has been already transcribed, while it illustrates the above-noticed remark of Aristotle, will at the same time help to explain the prosperity and physical abundance of the ancient Tarentum.

For an elaborate account of the state of cultivation, especially of the olive, near the degenerate modern Taranto, see the Travels of M. De Salis Marschlins in the Kingdom of Naples (translated by Aufrere, London, 1795), sect. 5, pp. 82-107, 163-178.

[744] Herodot. vii, 170: Pliny, H. N. iii, 16; AthenÆ. xii, p. 523; Servius ad Virgil. Æneid. viii, 9.

[745] Herodot. iv. 99.

[746] Servius ad Virgil. Æneid. vii, 691. Polybius distinguishes Iapygians from Messapians (ii, 24).

[747] Pausanias, x, 10, 3; x, 13, 5; Strabo, vi, p. 282: Justin, iii, 4.

[748] See a description of the French military operations in these almost inaccessible regions, contained in a valuable publication by a French general officer, on service in that country for three years, “Calabria during a Military Residence of three years,” London, 1832, Letter xx, p. 201.

The whole picture of Calabria contained in this volume is both interesting and instructive: military operations had never before been carried on, probably, in the mountains of the Sila.

[749] See Theokritus, Idyll, iv, 6-35, which illustrates the point here stated.

[750] Suidas, v. ??????; Stephan. Byz. v. ???a?: compare Bernhardy, Grundriss der RÖmischen Litteratur, Abschnitt ii, pt. 2, pp. 185-186, about the analogy of these f??a?e? of Rhinthon with the native Italic Mimes.

The dialect of the other cities of Italic Greece is very little known: the ancient Inscription of Petilia is Doric: see Ahrens, De Dialecto DoricÂ, sect. 49, p. 418.

[751] Aristophan. Vesp. 1260. ??s?p???? ?e?????, ? S?a??t????. What is meant by S?a??t???? ?e????? is badly explained by the Scholiast, but is perfectly well illustrated by AristophanÊs himself, in subsequent verses of the same play (1427-1436), where Philokleon tells two good stories respecting “a Sybaritan man,” and a “woman in Sybaris:” ???? S?a??t?? ???pese? ?? ??at??, etc.—?? S???e? ???? p?te ?at?a?? ??????, etc.

These S????a ?p?f???ata are as old as Epicharmus, whose mind was much imbued with the Pythagorean philosophy. See Etymolog. Magn. S?a???e??. Ælian amused himself also with the ?st???a? S?a??t??a? (V. H. xiv, 20): compare Hesychius, S?a??t???? ?????, and Suidas, S?a??t??a??.

[752] Thus Herodotus (vi, 127) informs us that, at the time when KleisthenÊs of Sikyon invited from all Greece suitors of proper dignity for the hand of his daughter, SmindyridÊs of Sybaris came among the number, “the most delicate and luxurious man ever known,” (?p? p?e?st?? d? ???d?? e?? ???? ?f??et?—Herodot. vi, 127), and Sybaris was at that time (B.C. 580-560) in its greatest prosperity. In ChamÆleon, TimÆus, and other writers subsequent to Aristotle, greater details were given. SmindyridÊs was said to have taken with him to the marriage one thousand domestic servants, fishermen, bird-catchers, and cooks (AthenÆ. vi, 271; xii, 541). The details of Sybaritic luxury, given in AthenÆus, are chiefly borrowed from writers of this post-Aristotelian age,—HerakleidÊs of Pontus, Phylarchus, Klearchus, TimÆus (AthenÆ. xii, 519-522). The best-authenticated of all the examples of Sybaritic wealth, is the splendid figured garment, fifteen cubits in length, which AlkimenÊs the Sybarite dedicated as a votive offering in the temple of the Lakinian HÊrÊ. Dionysius of Syracuse plundered that temple, got possession of the garment, and is said to have sold it to the Carthaginians for the price of one hundred and twenty talents: Polemon, the Periegetes, seems to have seen it at Carthage (Aristot. Mirab. Ausc. 96; AthenÆ. xii, 541). Whether the price be correctly stated, we are not in a situation to determine.

[753] Herodot. vii, 102. t? ????d? pe??? ?? a?e? ??te s??t??f?? ?st?.

[754] Varro, De Re RusticÂ, i, 44. “In Sybaritano dicunt etiam cum centesimo redire solitum.” The land of the Italian Greeks stands first for wheaten bread and beef; that of Syracuse for pork and cheese (Hermippus ap. AthenÆ. i, p. 27): about the excellent wheat of Italy, compare SophoklÊs, Triptolem. Fragm. 529, ed. Dindorf.

Theophrastus dwells upon the excellence of the land near MylÆ, in the territory of the Sicilian MessÊnÊ, which produced, according to him, thirty-fold. (Hist. Plant. ix, 2, 8, p. 259, ed. Schneid.) This affords some measure of comparison, both for the real excellence of the ancient Sybaritan territory, and for the estimation in which it was held; its estimated produce being more than three times that of MylÆ.

See in Mr. Keppel Craven’s Tour in the Southern Provinces of Naples (chapters xi, xii, pp. 212-218), the description of the rich and productive plain of the Krathis (in the midst of which stood the ancient Sybaris), extending about sixteen miles from Cassano to Corigliano, and about twelve miles from the former town to the sea. Compare, also, the picture of the same country, in the work by a French officer, referred to in a previous note, “Calabria during a Military Residence of three years,” London, 1832, Letter xxii, pp. 219-226.

HekatÆus (c. 39, ed. Klausen) calls Cosa,—??ssa, p???? ????t??? ?? es??a??. Cosa is considered to be identical, seemingly on good grounds, with the modern Cassano (CÆsar, Bell. Civ. iii, 22): assuming this to be correct, there must have been an Œnotrian dependent town within eight miles of the ancient city of Sybaris.

[755] Diodor xii, 9.

[756] AthenÆus, xii, p. 519.

[757] Herodot. vi, 21. Respecting the great abundance of ship-timber in the territory of the Italiots (Italian Greeks), see Thucyd. vi, 90; vii, 25.

The pitch from the pine forests in the Sila was also abundant and celebrated (Strabo, vi, p. 261).

[758] Herodot. iii, 138.

[759] AthenÆus, xii, p. 519.

[760] Festus, v. bilingues Brutates.

[761] Strabo, vi, p. 262.

[762] Jamblichus, Vit. Pythagor. c. 9, p. 33; c. 35, p. 210.

[763] AthenÆus, xii, 541.

[764] This date depends upon TimÆus (as quoted by Skymnus Chius, 210) and Solinus; there seems no reason for distrusting it, though ThucydidÊs (i, 13) and IsokratÊs (Archidamus, p. 316) seem to conceive Massalia as founded by the PhokÆans about 60 years later, when Ionia was conquered by Harpagus (see Bruckner, Historia Reip. Massiliensium, sect. 2, p. 9, Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, vol. iii, pp. 405-413, who, however, puts the arrival of the PhokÆans, in these regions and at TartÊssus much too early).

[765] Aristotle, ?assa???t?? p???te?a, ap. AthenÆum, xiii, p. 576; Justin, xliii, 3. Plutarch (Solon, c. 2) seems to follow the same story as Justin.

[766] Strabo, iv, pp. 179-182: Justin, xliii, 4-5; Cicero, Pro Flacco. 26. It rather appears from Aristotle (Polit. v, 5, 2; vi, 4-5), that the senate was originally a body completely close, which gave rise to discontent on the part of wealthy men not included in it: a mitigation took place by admitting into it, occasionally, men selected from the latter.

Some authors seem to have accused the Massaliots of luxurious and effeminate habits (see AthenÆus, xii, p. 523).

[767] Strabo, vi, p. 269: compare TimÆus, Fragm. 49, ed. GÖller; Fr. 53, ed Didot.

[768] Thucyd. i, 25.

[769] Strabo, l.c.; Plutarch, QuÆst. GrÆc. c. 11; a different fable in Conon. Narrat. 3, ap. Photium Cod. 86.

[770] Herodot. iii, 49.

[771] Thucyd. i, 108; iii, 102.

[772] Thucyd. i, 13.

[773] Herodot. iii, 49-51: see above, chap. ix, p. 42 of this volume.

[774] Thucyd. i, 25-37.

[775] Herodot. vii. 155.

[776] Thucyd. iii, 85. These fortifications are probably alluded to also i, 45-54. ? ?? t?? ??e???? ??????.

[777] Thucyd. i, 47.

[778] Strabo, vii, p. 325, x. p. 452; Skymn. Chi. 453, Raoul Rochette, Hist. des Colon. Grecq. vol. iii, p. 294.

[779] Aristot. Polit. v, 3, 5; v, 8, 9.

[780] About Leukas, see Strabo, x, p. 452; Skylax, p. 34; Steph. Byz. v. ?p??e???d???.

Strabo seems to ascribe the cutting through of the isthmus to the original colonists. But ThucydidÊs speaks of this isthmus in the plainest manner (iii, 81), and of the Corinthian ships of war as being transported across it. The Dioryktos, or intervening factitious canal, was always shallow, only deep enough for boats, so that ships of war had still to be carried across by hand or machinery (Polyb. v, 5): both Plutarch (De Ser Num. Vind. p. 552) and Pliny treat Leukadia as having again become a peninsula, from the accumulation of sand (H. N. iv, 1): compare Livy, xxxiii, 17.

Mannert (Geograph. der Gr. und RÖm. part viii, b. 1, p. 72) accepts the statement of Strabo, and thinks that the Dioryktos had already been dug before the time of ThucydidÊs. But it seems more reasonable to suppose that Strabo was misinformed as to the date, and that the cut took place at some time between the age of ThucydidÊs and that of Skylax.

Boeckh (ad Corp. Inscriptt. Gr. t. i, p. 58) and W. C. MÜller (De CorcyrÆor RepublicÂ, GÖtting. 1835, p. 18) agree with Mannert.

[781] Skymn. Chius, 458; Thucyd. i, 55; Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 24.

[782] Thucyd. i, 46; Strabo, x, p. 452. Before 220 B.C., the temple of Apollo Aktius, which in the time of ThucydidÊs belonged to Anaktorium, had come to belong to the Akarnanians; it seems, also, that the town itself had been merged in the Akarnanian league, for Polybius does not mention it separately (Polyb. iv, 63).

[783] Thucyd. iii, 94, 95, 115.

[784] Thucyd. i, 24-26.

[785] The rhetor AristeidÊs pays a similar compliment to Kyzikus, in his Panegyrical Address at that city,—the god Apollo had founded it personally and directly himself, not through any human oekist, as was the case with other colonies (AristeidÊs, ????? pe?? ???????, Or. xvi, p. 414; vol. i, p, 384, Dindorf).

[786] Thucyd. i, 24. ????et? e???? ?a? p????????p??; Strabo, vii, p. 316, viii, p. 357; Steph. Byz. v. ?p??????a; Plutarch, De Ser Numin. Vind. p. 553; Pausan. v, 22, 2.

Respecting the plain near the site of the ancient Apollonia, Colonel Leake observes: “The cultivation of this noble plain, capable of supplying grain to all Illyria and Epirus, with an abundance of other productions, is confined to a few patches of maize near the villages,” (Travels in Northern Greece, vol. i, ch. vii, p. 367.) Compare c. ii, p. 70.

The country surrounding Durazzo (the ancient Epidamnus) is described by another excellent observer as highly attractive, though now unhealthy. See the valuable topographical work, “Albanien, Rumelien, und die Oesterreichisch-montenegrinische GrÄnze,” von Dr. Joseph MÜller (Prag. 1844), p. 62.

[787] Thucyd. i, 25; Aristot. Polit. ii, 4, 13; iii, 11, 1; iv, 3, 8; v, 1, 6; v, 3, 4.

The allusions of the philosopher are so brief, as to convey little or no knowledge: see O. MÜller, Dorians, b. iii, 9, 6; Tittmann, Griech. Staatsverfass. p. 491.

[788] Plutarch, QuÆst. GrÆc. p. 297, c. 29; Ælian, V. H. xiii, 16.

[789] W. C. MÜller. De CorcyrÆor. Repub. ch. 3, pp. 60-63: Aristot. Mirab. Ausc. c. 104;. Hesychius, v. ?e????a??? ?f??e??; Herodot. i, 145.

The story given in the above passage of the Pseudo-Aristotle is to be taken in connection with the succeeding chapter of the same work (105), wherein the statement, largely credited in antiquity, is given that the river Danube forked at a certain point of its course into two streams, one flowing into the Adriatic, the other into the Euxine.

[790] See the Inscriptions No. 1838 and No. 1845, in the collection of Boeckh, and Boeckh’s Metrologie, vii, 8, p. 97. Respecting the Corinthian coinage our information is confused and imperfect.

[791] Thucyd. ii, 30-66.

[792] See Aristot. Fragm. pe?? ????te???, ed. Neumann: Fragm. 2, ??a?????? p???te?a.

[793] Pollux, i, 150; Thucyd. ii. 81.

[794] Thucyd. ii, 102; iii, 105.

[795] Thucyd. ii, 68-102; Stephan. Byz. v. F??t?a?. See the discussion in Strabo (x, p. 462), whether the Akarnanians did, or did not, take part in the expedition against Troy; Ephorus maintaining the negative, and stringing together a plausible narrative to explain why they did not. The time came when the Akarnanians gained credit with Rome for this supposed absence of their ancestors.

[796] Polyb. iv, 30: compare also ix, 40.

[797] Diodor. xix, 67; Livy, xxxiii, 16-17; xlv, 31.

[798] Skylax. c. 28-32.

[799] Herodot. ii, 56, v, 92, vi, 127; Thucyd. ii, 80; Plato, Minos, p. 315. The Chaonians and Thesprotians were separated by the river Thyamis (now Kalamas),—Thucyd. i, 46; Stephanus Byz. v. ????a.

[800] HekatÆus, Fr. 77, ed. Klausen; Strabo, vii, p. 326; Appian, Illyric. c. 7. In the time of ThucydidÊs, the Molossi and the AtintÂnes were under the same king (ii, 80). The name ?pe???ta?, with ThucydidÊs, means only inhabitants of a continent,—?? ta?t? ?pe???ta? (i, 47; ii, 80) includes Ætolians and Akarnanians (iii, 94-95), and is applied to inhabitants of Thrace (iv, 105).

Epirus is used in its special sense to designate the territory west of Pindus by Xenophon, Hellen. vi, 1, 7.

Compare Mannert. Geographie der Griech. und RÖmer, part vii, book 2 p. 283.

[801] Strabo, vii, p. 324.

[802] Thucyd. ii, 68.

[803] Strabo, vii, p. 324. In these same regions, under the Turkish government of the present day, such is the mixture and intercourse of Greeks, Albanians, Bulgaric Sclavonians, Wallachians, and Turks, that most of the natives find themselves under the necessity of acquiring two, sometimes three, languages: see Dr. Grisebach, Reise durch Rumelien und nach Brussa, ch. xii, vol. ii, p. 68.

[804] Livy, xlv, 34; Thucyd. i, 47. PhanotÊ, in the more northerly part of Epirus, is called only a castellum, though it was an important military post (Livy, xliii, 21).

[805] Leake’s Travels in Northern Greece, ch. xxxviii, vol. iv, pp. 207, 210, 233; ch. ix. vol. i, p. 411; Cyprien Robert, Les Slaves de Turquie, book iv, ch. 2.

????ta? p???e? ??????—Pindar, Nem. iv, 81; CÆsar, Bell. Civil. iii, 47.

[806] Polybius, ii, 5, 8.

[807] Plutarch, Pyrrh. c. i; Livy, xlv, 26.

[808] See the description of the geographical features of Epirus in BouÉ, La Turquie en Europe, GÉographie GÉnÉrale, vol. i, p. 57.

[809] See the account of this territory in Colonel Leake’s Travels in Northern Greece, vol. i. ch. v; his journey from Janina, through the district of Suli and the course of the Acheron, to the plain of Glyky and the Acherusian lake and marshes near the sea. Compare, also, vol. iv, ch. xxxv, p. 73.

“To the ancient sites (observes Colonel Leake) which are so numerous in the great valleys watered by the lower Acheron, the lower Thyamis, and their tributaries, it is a mortifying disappointment to the geographer not to be able to apply a single name with absolute certainty.”

The number of these sites affords one among many presumptions that each must have been individually inconsiderable.

[810] DÊmosthenÊs, De Haloneso, ch. 7, p. 84 R; Strabo, vii, p. 324.

[811] Skylax, c. 32; Pausanias, i, 11; Justin, xvii, 6.

That the Arrhybas of Justin is the same as the Tharypas of Pausanias,—perhaps, also, the same as Tharyps in ThucydidÊs, who was a minor at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war,—seems probable.

[812] Thucyd. ii, 81.