[75] Herodot. iv, 186, 187, 189, 190. ???de? ??e?f???? ?a? ?a?a?t?p?ta?. Pindar, Pyth. ix, 127, ?ppe?ta? ???de?. Pompon. Mela, i, 8.

[76] See the fourth, fifth, and ninth Pythian Odes of Pindar. In the description given by SophoklÊs (Electra, 695) of the Pythian contests, in which pretence is made that OrestÊs has perished, ten contending chariots are supposed, of which two are Libyan, from Barka: of the remaining eight, one only comes from each place named.

[77] Herodot. iv, 172-182. Compare Hornemann’s Travels in Africa, p. 48, and Heeren, Verkehr und Handel der Alten Welt, Th. ii, Abth. 1, Abschnitt vi, p. 226.

[78] Herodot. iv, 175-188.

[79] Herodot. iv, 178, 179, 195, 196.

[80] Herodot. iv, 42.

[81] Herodot. iv, 170. ????? d? t??? p?e?st??? ??es?a? ?p?t?de???s? t??? ?????a???.

[82] Herodot. iv, 161. T??a??? ?a? t?? pe???????, etc.

[83] Herodot. iv, 186-189. Compare, also, the story in Pindar. Pyth. ix, 109-126, about Alexidamus, the ancestor of TelesikratÊs the KyrenÆan; how the former won, by his swiftness in running, a Libyan maiden, daughter of AntÆus of Irasa,—and Kallimachus, Hymn. Apoll. 86.

[84] Herodot. iv, 155.

[85] Herodot. iv, 164.

[86] Respecting the chronology of the Battiad princes, see Boeckh, ad Pindar. Pyth. iv, p. 265, and Thirge, Histor. Cyrenes, p. 127, seq.

[87] Herodot. iv, 159.

[88] Herodot. ii, 180-181.

[89] Herodot. iv, 160; Skylax, c. 107; HekatÆus, Fragm. 300, ed. Klausen.

[90] Herodot. iv, 204.

[91] Herodot. iv, 160. Plutarch (De Virtutibus Mulier. p. 261) and PolyÆnus (viii, 41) give various details of this stratagem on the part of EryxÔ; Learchus being in love with her. Plutarch also states that Learchus maintained himself as despot for some time by the aid of Egyptian troops from Amasis, and committed great cruelties. His story has too much the air of a romance to be transcribed into the text, nor do I know from what authority it is taken.

[92] Herodot. iv, 161. ?? as???? ??tt? te??ea ??e??? ?a? ???s??a?, t? ???a p??ta t? p??te??? e???? ?? as??e?? ?? ?s?? t? d?? ????e.

I construe the word te??ea as meaning all the domains, doubtless large, which had belonged to the Battiad princes; contrary to Thrige (Historia CyrÊnÊs, ch. 38, p. 150), who restricts the expression to revenues derived from sacred property. The reference of Wesseling to Hesych.—??tt?? s??f???—is of no avail for illustrating this passage.

The supposition of O. MÜller, that the preceding king had made himself despotic by means of Egyptian soldiers, appears to me neither probable in itself, nor admissible upon the simple authority of Plutarch’s romantic story, when we take into consideration the silence of Herodotus. Nor is MÜller correct in affirming that DemÔnax “restored the supremacy of the community:” that legislator superseded the old kingly political privileges, and framed a new constitution (see O. MÜller, History of Dorians, b. iii, ch. 9. s. 13.)

[93] Both O. MÜller (Dor. b. iii, 4, 5), and Thrige (Hist. Cyren. c. 38, p. 148), speak of DemÔnax as having abolished the old tribes and created new ones. I do not conceive the change in this manner. DemÔnax did not abolish any tribes, but distributed for the first time the inhabitants into tribes. It is possible indeed that, before his time, the TherÆans of KyrÊnÊ may have been divided among themselves into distinct tribes; but the other inhabitants, having emigrated from a great number of different places, had never before been thrown into tribes at all. Some formal enactment or regulation was necessary for this purpose, to define and sanction that religious, social, and political communion, which went to make up the idea of the Tribe. It is not to be assumed, as a matter of course, that there must necessarily have been tribes anterior to DemÔnax, among a population so miscellaneous in its origin.

[94] Hesychius, ???a??t???; Eustath. ad Hom. Odyss. p. 303; HerakleidÊs Pontic. De Polit. c.4.

[95] Herodot. iv, 163. ?p? ?? t?sse?a? ??tt???, ?a? ???es????? t?sse?a?, d?d?? ??? ?????? as??e?e?? ???????? p???? ??t?? t??t?? ??d? pe???s?a? pa?a???e?.

[96] Herodot. iv, 163-164.

[97] Herodot. iii, 13; iv, 165-166.

[98] PolyÆnus (Strateg. vii, 28) gives a narrative in many respects different from this of Herodotus.

[99] Herodot. iv, 203-204.

[100] Herodot. iv, 205.

[101] Thucyd. i, 15.

[102] Thucyd. i, 26. See the tale in Pausanias (v, 25, 1) of the ancient chorus sent annually from MessÊnÊ in Sicily across the strait to Rhegium, to a local festival of the Rhegians,—thirty-five boys with a chorus-master and a flute-player: on one unfortunate occasion, all of them perished in crossing. For the TheÔry (or solemn religious deputation) periodically sent by the Athenians to Delos, see Plutarch, Nicias, c. 3; Plato, PhÆdon, c. 1, p. 58. Compare also Strabo, ix, p. 419, on the general subject.

[103] Homer, Iliad, xi, 879, xxiii, 679; Hesiod, Opp. Di. 651.

[104] Homer, Hymn. Apoll. 150; Thucyd. iii, 104.

[105] Pausan. v, 6, 5; Ælian, N. H. x, 1; Thucyd. iii, 104. When Ephesus, and the festival called Ephesia, had become the great place of Ionic meeting, the presence of women was still continued (Dionys. Hal. A. R. iv, 25).

[106] Strabo, viii, p. 353; Pindar, Olymp. viii, 2; Xenophon, Hellen. iv, 7, 2; iii, 2, 22.

[107] See K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griechischen Staats-AlterthÜmer, sect. 10.

[108] Dionys. Halikarn. Ant. Rom. i, 71; Phlegon. De Olympiad. p. 140. For an illustration of the stress laid by the Greeks on the purely honorary rewards of Olympia, and on the credit which they took to themselves as competitors, not for money, but for glory, see Herodot. viii, 26. Compare the Scholia on Pindar, Nem. and Isthm. Argument, pp. 425-514, ed. Boeckh.

[109] See the sentiment of Agesilaus, somewhat contemptuous, respecting the chariot-race, as described by Xenophon (Agesilaus, ix, 6); the general feeling of Greece, however, is more in conformity with what ThucydidÊs (vi, 16) puts into the mouth of AlkibiadÊs, and Xenophon into that of SimonidÊs (Xenophon, Hiero, xi, 5). The great respect attached to a family which had gained chariot victories is amply attested: see Herodot. vi, 35, 36, 103, 126,—????? te???pp?t??f??,—and vi, 70, about Demaratus king of Sparta.

[110] Antholog. Palatin. ix, 588; vol. ii. p. 299, Jacobs.

[111] The original Greek word for this covering (which surrounded the middle hand and upper portion of the fingers, leaving both the ends of the fingers and the thumb exposed) was ???, the word for a thong, strap, or whip, of leather: the special word ???? seems to have been afterwards introduced (Hesychius, v. ???): see Homer, Iliad, xxiii, 686. Cestus, or CÆstus, is the Latin word (Virg. Æn. v, 404), the Greek word ?est?? is an adjective annexed to ???—?est?? ???ta—p????est?? ??? (Iliad, xiv, 214; iii, 371). See Pausan. viii, 40, 3, for the description of the incident which caused an alteration in this hand-covering at the Nemean games: ultimately, it was still farther hardened by the addition of iron.

[112] ?????? pepa????? ????a??,—Pindar, Olymp. v, 6: compare Schol. ad Pindar. Olymp. iii, 33.

See the facts respecting the Olympic AgÔn collected by Corsini (Dissertationes AgonisticÆ, Dissert. i, sects. 8, 9, 10), and still more amply set forth with a valuable commentary, by Krause (Olympia, oder Darstellung der grossen Olympischen Spiele, Wien, 1838, sects. 8-11 especially).

[113] Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 262.

Also v. 288-394. ?????? ?p? ?a???s???—484. ?p? pt??? ?a???s???—Pindar, Pyth. viii, 90. ??????? ?? ???????—Strabo, ix, p. 418. pet??d?? ?????? ?a? ?eat??e?d??—Heliodorus, Æthiop. ii, 26: compare Will. GÖtte, Das Delphische Orakel (Leipzig, 1839), pp. 39-42.

[114] ???? ? ?fe???, ??p??? t? ?e? ?????, says Ion (in EuripidÊs, Ion. 334) the slave of Apollo, and the verger of his Delphian temple, who waters it from the Kastalian spring, sweeps it with laurel boughs, and keeps off with his bow and arrows the obtrusive birds (Ion, 105, 143, 154). Whoever reads the description of Professor Ulrichs (Reisen und Forschungen in Griechenland, ch. 7, p. 110) will see that the birds—eagles, vultures, and crows—are quite numerous enough to have been exceedingly troublesome. The whole play of Ion conveys a lively idea of the Delphian temple and its scenery, with which EuripidÊs was doubtless familiar.

[115] There is considerable perplexity respecting Krissa and Kirrha, and it still remains a question among scholars whether the two names denote the same place or different places; the former is the opinion of O. MÜller (Orchomenos, p. 495). Strabo distinguishes the two. Pausanias identifies them, conceiving no other town to have ever existed except the seaport (x, 37, 4). Mannert (Geogr. Gr. RÖm. viii, p. 148) follows Strabo, and represents them as different.

I consider the latter to be the correct opinion, upon the grounds, and partly, also, on the careful topographical examination of Professor Ulrichs, which affords an excellent account of the whole scenery of Delphi (Reisen und Forschungen in Griechenland, Bremen, 1840, chapters 1, 2, 3). The ruins described by him on the high ground near Kastri, called the Forty Saints, may fairly be considered as the ruins of Krissa; the ruins of Kirrha are on the sea-shore near the mouth of the Pleistus. The plain beneath might without impropriety be called either the KrissÆan or the KirrhÆan plain (Herodot. viii, 32; Strabo, ix, p. 419). Though Strabo was right in distinguishing Krissa from Kirrha, and right also in the position of the latter under Kirphis, he conceived incorrectly the situation of Krissa; and his representation that there were two wars,—in the first of which, Kirrha was destroyed by the KrissÆans, while in the second, Krissa itself was conquered by the Amphiktyons,—is not confirmed by any other authority.

The mere circumstance that Pindar gives us in three separate passages, ???s?, ???sa???, ???sa???? (Isth. ii, 26; Pyth. v, 49, vi, 18), and in five other passages, ?????, ????a?, ????a?e? (Pyth. iii, 33, vii, 14, viii, 26, x, 24, xi, 20), renders it almost certain that the two names belong to different places, and are not merely two different names for the same place; the poet could not in this case have any metrical reason for varying the denomination, as the metre of the two words is similar.

[116] AthenÆus, xiii, p. 560; ÆschinÊs cont. Ktesiphont. c. 36, p. 406; Strabo, ix, p. 418. Of the AkragallidÆ, or KraugallidÆ, whom ÆschinÊs mentions along with the KirrhÆans as another impious race who dwelt in the neighborhood of the god,—and who were overthrown along with the KirrhÆans,—we have no farther information. O. MÜller’s conjecture would identify them with the Dryopes (Dorians, i, 2, 5, and his Orchomenos, p. 496); Harpokration, v. ??a??a???da?.

[117] Schol. ad Pindar, Pyth. Introduct.: Schol. ad Pindar, Nem. ix, 2; Plutarch, Solon, c. 11; Pausan. ii, 9, 6. Pausanias (x, 37, 4) and PolyÆnus (Strateg. iii, 6) relate a stratagem of Solon, or of Eurylochus, to poison the water of the KirrhÆans with hellebore.

[118] Eurip. Ion, 230.

[119] Thucyd. i, 112.

[120] Mr. Clinton thinks that the Pythian games were celebrated in the autumn: M. Boeckh refers the celebration to the spring: Krause agrees with Boeckh. (Clinton, Fast. Hell. vol. ii, p. 200, Appendix; Boeckh, ad Corp. Inscr. No. 1688, p. 813; Krause, Die Pythien, Nemeen und Isthmien, vol. ii, pp. 29-35.)

Mr. Clinton’s opinion appears to me nearly the truth; the real time, as I conceive it, being about the beginning of August, or end of July. Boeckh admits that, with the exception of ThucydidÊs (v, 1-19), the other authorities go to sustain it; but he relies on ThucydidÊs to outweigh them. Now the passage of ThucydidÊs, properly understood, seems to me as much against Boeckh’s view as the rest.

I may remark, as a certain additional reason in the case, that the Isthmia appear to have been celebrated in the third year of each Olympiad, and in the spring (Krause, p. 187). It seems improbable that these two great festivals should have come one immediately after the other, which, nevertheless, must be supposed, if we adopt the opinion of Boeckh and Krause.

The Pythian games would be sometimes a little earlier, sometimes a little later, in consequence of the time of full moon: notice being always sent round by the administrators beforehand of the commencement of the sacred month. See the references in K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der gottesdienstl. Alterth. der Griechen, ch. 49, not. 12.—This note has been somewhat modified since my first edition,—see the note vol. vi, ch. liv.

[121] Demosthen. Philipp. iii, p. 119.

[122] Pindar, Nem. x, 28-33.

[123] Strabo, viii, p. 377; Plutarch, Arat. c. 28; Mannert. Geogr. Gr. RÖm. pt. viii, p. 650. Compare the second chapter in Krause, Die Pythien, Nemeen und Isthmien, vol. ii. p. 108, seq.

That the KleÔnÆans continued without interruption to administer the Nemean festival down to Olympiad 80 (460 B.C.), or thereabouts, is the rational inference from Pindar, Nem. x, 42: compare Nem. iv, 17. Eusebius, indeed, states that the Argeians seized the administration for themselves in Olympiad 53, and in order to reconcile this statement with the above passage in Pindar, critics have concluded that the Argeians lost it again, and that the KleÔnÆans resumed it a little before Olympiad 80. I take a different view, and am disposed to reject the statement of Eusebius altogether; the more so as Pindar’s tenth Nemean ode is addressed to an Argeian citizen named TheiÆus. If there had been at that time a standing dispute between Argos and KleÔnÆ on the subject of the administration of the Nemea, the poet would hardly have introduced the mention of the Nemean prizes gained by the ancestors of TheiÆus, under the untoward designation of “prizes received from KleÔnÆan men.”

[124] See Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 1126.

[125] K. F. Hermann, in his Lehrbuch der Griechischen StaatsalterthÜmer (ch. 32, not. 7. and ch. 65, not. 3), and again in his more recent work (Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen AlterthÜmer der Griechen, part iii, ch. 49, also not. 6), both highly valuable publications, maintains,—1. That the exaltation of the Isthmian and Nemean games into Pan-Hellenic importance arose directly after and out of the fall of the despots of Corinth and Sikyon. 2. That it was brought about by the paramount influence of the Dorians, especially by Sparta. 3. That the Spartans put down the despots of both these two cities.

The last of these three propositions appears to me untrue in respect to Sikyon,—improbable in respect to Corinth: my reasons for thinking so have been given in a former chapter. And if this be so, the reason for presuming Spartan intervention as to the Isthmian and Nemean games falls to the ground; for there is no other proof of it, nor does Sparta appear to have interested herself in any of the four national festivals except the Olympic, with which she was from an early period peculiarly connected.

Nor can I think that the first of Hermann’s three propositions is at all tenable. No connection whatever can be shown between Sikyon and the Nemean games; and it is the more improbable in this case that the Sikyonians should have been active, inasmuch as they had under KleisthenÊs a little before contributed to nationalize the Pythian games: a second interference for a similar purpose ought not to be presumed without some evidence. To prove his point about the Isthmia, Hermann cites only a passage of Solinus (vii, 14), “Hoc spectaculum, per Cypselum tyrannum intermissum, Corinthii Olymp. 49 solemnitati pristinÆ reddiderunt.” To render this passage at all credible, we must read Cypselidas instead of Cypselum, which deducts from the value of a witness whose testimony can never under any circumstances be rated high. But granting the alteration, there are two reasons against the assertion of Solinus. One, a positive reason, that Solon offered a large reward to Athenian victors at the Isthmian games: his legislation falls in 594 B.C., ten years before the time when the Isthmia are said by Solinus to have been renewed after a long intermission. The other reason (negative, though to my mind also powerful) is the silence of Herodotus in that long invective which he puts into the mouth of SosiklÊs against the Kypselids (v, 92). If Kypselus had really been guilty of so great an insult to the feelings of the people as to suppress their most solemn festival, the fact would hardly have been omitted in the indictment which SosiklÊs is made to urge against him. Aristotle, indeed, representing Kypselus as a mild and popular despot, introduces a contrary view of his character, which, if we admitted it, would of itself suffice to negative the supposition that he had suppressed the Isthmia.

[126] Plutarch, Arat. c. 28. ?a? s??e???? t?te p??t?? (by order of Aratus) ? ded???? t??? ?????sta?? ?s???a ?a? ?sf??e?a, a deadly stain on the character of Aratus.

[127] Festus, v, Perihodos, p. 217, ed. MÜller. See the animated protest of the philosopher XenophanÊs against the great rewards given to Olympic victors (540-520 B.C.), Xenophan. Fragment. 2, p 357, ed. Bergk.

[128] Thucyd. vi, 16. AlkibiadÊs says, ?a? ?sa a? ?? t? p??e? ??????a?? ? ???? t? ?ap????a?, t??? ?? ?st??? f???e?ta? f?se?, p??? d? t??? ?????? ?a? a?t? ?s??? fa??eta?.

The greater PanathenÆa are ascribed to Peisistratus by the Scholiast on AristeidÊs, vol. iii, p. 323, ed. Dindorf: judging by what immediately precedes, the statement seems to come from Aristotle.

[129] SimonidÊs, Fragm. 154-158, ed. Bergk; Pindar, Nem. x, 45; Olymp. xiii, 107.

The distinguished athlete TheagenÊs is affirmed to have gained twelve hundred prizes in these various agÔnes: according to some, fourteen hundred prizes (Pausan. vi, 11, 2; Plutarch, PrÆcept. Reip. Ger. c. 15, p. 811).

An athlete named Apollonius arrived too late for the Olympic games, having stayed away too long, from his anxiety to get money at various agÔnes in Ionia (Pausan. v, 21, 5).

[130] See, particularly, the treaty between the inhabitants of Latus and those of OlÛs in KrÊte, in Boeckh’s Corp. Inscr. No. 2554, wherein this reciprocity is expressly stipulated. Boeckh places this Inscription in the third century B.C.

[131] TimÆus, Fragm. 82, ed. Didot. The Krotoniates furnished a great number of victors both to the Olympic and to the Pythian games (Herodot. viii, 47; Pausan. x, 5, 5–x, 7, 3; Krause, Gymnastik und Agonistik der Hellenen, vol. ii, sect. 29, p. 752).

[132] Herodot. viii, 65. ?a? a?t?? ? ????e??? ?a? t?? ????? ??????? ?e?ta?.

The exclusion of all competitors, natives of Lampsakus, from the games celebrated in the Chersonesus to the honor of the oekist MiltiadÊs, is mentioned by Herodotus as something special (Herodot. vi, 38).

[133] See the remarks, upon the LacedÆmonian discouragement of stranger-visitors at their public festivals, put by ThucydidÊs into the mouth of PeriklÊs (Thucyd. ii, 39).

Lichas the Spartan gained great renown by treating hospitably the strangers who came to the GymnopÆdiÆ at Sparta (Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 61; Plutarch, Kimon, c. 10),—a story which proves that some strangers came to the Spartan festivals, but which also proves that they were not many in number, and that to show them hospitality was a striking distinction from the general character of Spartans.

[134] Aristot. Poetic, c. 3 and 4; Maximus Tyrius. Diss. xxi. p. 215; Plutarch. De Cupidine Divitiarum. c. 8. p. 527: compare the treatise, “Quod non potest suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum.” c. 16. p. 1098. The old oracles quoted by DemosthenÊs, cont. Meidiam (c. 15. p. 531. and cont. Makartat. p. 1072: see also Buttmann’s note on the former passage), convey the idea of the ancient simple Athenian festival.

[135] Plutarch. Solon, c. 29: see above, chap. xi. vol. iii. p. 195.

[136] The orator Lysias, in a fragment of his lost Panegyrical Oration preserved by Dionysius of Halikarnassus (vol. v. p. 520 R.), describes the influence of the games with great force and simplicity. HÊraklÊs, the founder of them, ????a ?? s??t?? ?p???se, f???t??a? d? p???t?, ????? d? ?p?de???? ?? t? ?a???st? t?? ????d??? ??a t??t?? ?p??t?? ??e?a ?? t? a?t? ????e?, t? ?? ???e???, t? d? ????s?e???. ???sat? ??? t?? ????de s??????? ????? ?e??s?a? t??? ????s? t?? p??? ???????? f???a?.

[137] Cicero, Tusc. QuÆst. v, 3. “Mercatum eum, qui haberetur maximo ludorum apparatu totius GrÆciÆ celebritate: nam ut illic alii corporibus exercitatis gloriam et nobilitatem coronÆ peterent, alii emendi aut vendendi quÆstu et lucro ducerentur,” etc.

Both Velleius Paterculus also (i, 8) and Justin (xiii, 5), call the Olympic festival by the name mercatus.

There were booths all round the Altis, or sacred precinct of Zeus (Schol. Pindar. Olymp. xi, 55), during the time of the games.

Strabo observes with justice, respecting the multitudinous festivals generally—? pa???????, ?p?????? t? p???a (x, p. 486), especially in reference to Delos: see Cicero pro Lege ManiliÂ, c. 18: compare Pausanias, x, 32, 9, about the Panegyris and fair at Tithorea in Phokis, and Becker, ChariklÊs, vol. i, p. 283.

At the Attic festival of the Herakleia, celebrated by the communion called Mesogei, or a certain number of the demes constituting MesogÆa, a regular market-due, or ????ast????, was levied upon those who brought goods to sell (Inscriptiones AtticÆ nuper repertÆ 12, by E. Curtius, pp. 3-7).

[138] Pausan. vi, 23, 5; Diodor. xiv, 109, xv, 7; Lucian, Quomodo Historia sit conscribenda, c. 42. See Krause, Olympia, sect. 29. pp. 183-186.

[139] Thucyd. i, 120; Herodot. v, 22-71. EurybatÊs of Argos (Herodot. vi, 92); Philippus and Phayllus of Kroton (v, 47; viii, 47); EualkidÊs of Eretria (v, 102); Hermolykus of Athens (ix, 105).

Pindar (Nem. iv and vi) gives the numerous victories of the BassidÆ and TheandridrÆ at Ægina: also Melissus the pankratiast and his ancestors the KleonymidÆ of Thebes—t??e?te? ?????e? p???e??? t? ?p??????? (Isthm. iii, 25).

Respecting the extreme celebrity of Diagoras and his sons, of the Rhodian gens EratidÆ, DamagÊtus, Akusilaus, and Dorieus, see Pindar, Olymp. vii, 16-145, with the Scholia; Thucyd. iii, 11; Pausan. vi, 7, 1-2; Xenophon, Hellenic. i, 5, 19: compare Strabo. xiv, p. 655.

[140] The Latin writers remark it as a peculiarity of Grecian feeling, as distinguished from Roman, that men of great station accounted it an honor to contend in the games: see, as a specimen, Tacitus, Dialogus de Orator. c. 9. “Ac si in GrÆci natus esses, ubi ludicras quoque artes exercere honestum est, ac tibi Nicostrati robur Dii dedissent, non paterer immanes illos et ad pugnam natos lacertos levitate jaculi vanescere.” Again, Cicero, pro Flacco, c. 13, in his sarcastic style: “Quid si etiam occisus est a piratis Adramyttenus, homo nobilis, cujus est fere nobis omnibus nomen auditum, Atinas pugil, Olympionices? hoc est apud GrÆcos (quoniam de corum gravitate dicimus) prope majus et gloriosius, quam RomÆ triumphasse.”

[141] Lichas, one of the chief men of Sparta, and moreover a chariot-victor, received actual chastisement on the ground, from these staff-bearers, for an infringement of the regulations (Thucyd. v, 50).

[142] Thucyd. v, 18-47. and the curious ancient Inscription in Boeckh’s Corpus Inscr. No. 11. p. 28. recording the convention between the Eleians and the inhabitants of the Arcadian town of HerÆa.

The comparison of various passages referring to the Olympia, Isthmia, and Nemea (ThucydidÊs iii, 11; viii, 9-10; v, 49-51; and Xenophon, Hellenic. iv, 7, 2; v, 1, 29) shows that various political business was often discussed at these Games,—that diplomatists made use of the intercourse for the purpose of detecting the secret designs of states whom they suspected, and that the administering state often practised manoeuvres in respect to the obligations of truce for the Hieromenia, or Holy Month.

[143] Himerius, Orat. iii, p. 426, Wernsdorf—???????? ?a? ??a????e?.

[144] For the whole subject of this chapter, the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth chapters of O. MÜller’s History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, wherein the lyric poets are handled with greater length than consists with the limits of this work, will be found highly valuable,—chapters abounding in erudition and ingenuity, but not always within the limits of the evidence.

The learned work of Ulrici (Geschichte der Griechischen Poesie—Lyrik) is still more open to the same remark.

[145] These early innovators in Grecian music, rhythm, metre, and poetry, belonging to the seventh century B.C., were very imperfectly known, even to those contemporaries of Plato and Aristotle who tried to get together facts for a consecutive history of music. The treatise of Plutarch, De MusicÂ, shows what very contradictory statements he found. He quotes from four different authors,—HerakleidÊs, Glaukus, Alexander, and Aristoxenus, who by no means agreed in their series of names and facts. The first three of them blend together mythe and history; while even the AnagraphÊ or inscription at Sikyon, which professed to give a continuous list of such poets and musicians as had contended at the Sikyonian games, began with a large stock of mythical names,—Amphion, Linus, Pierius, etc. (Plutarch, Music. p. 1132.) Some authors, according to Plutarch (p. 1133), made the great chronological mistake of placing Terpander as contemporary with HippÔnax; a proof how little of chronological evidence was then accessible.

That Terpander was victor at the Spartan festival of the Karneia, in 676 B.C., may well have been derived by Hellanikus from the Spartan registers: the name of the Lesbian harper Perikleitas, as having gained the same prize at some subsequent period (Plutarch, De Mus. p. 1133), probably rests on the same authority. That Archilochus was rather later than Terpander, and ThalÊtas rather later than Archilochus, was the statement of Glaukus (Plutarch, De Mus. p. 1134). Klonas and PolymnÊstus are placed later than Terpander; Archilochus later than Klonas: Alkman is said to have mentioned PolymnÊstus in one of his songs (pp. 1133-1135). It can hardly be true that Terpander gained four Pythian prizes, if the festival was octennial prior to its reconstitution by the Amphiktyons (p. 1132). Sakadas gained three Pythian prizes after that period, when the festival was quadrennial (p. 1134).

Compare the confused indications in Pollux, iv, 65-66, 78-79. The abstract given by Photius of certain parts of the Chrestomathia of Proclus (published in Gaisford’s edition of HephÆstion, pp. 375-389), is also extremely valuable, in spite of its brevity and obscurity, about the lyric and choric poetry of Greece.

[146] The difference between ???? and ????? appears in Plutarch, De MusicÂ, p. 1132—?a? t?? ???pa?d???, ???a??d???? p???t?? ??ta ????, ?at? ???? ??ast?? t??? ?pes? t??? ?a?t?? ?a? t??? ????? ??? pe??t????ta, ?de?? ?? t??? ???s?? ?p?f??a? d? t??t?? ???e? ???ata p??t?? t??? ???a??d????? ?????.

The nomes were not many in number; they went by special names; and there was a disagreement of opinion as to the persons who had composed them (Plutarch, Music. p. 1133). They were monodic, not choric,—intended to be sung by one person (Aristot. Problem. xix, 15). Herodot. i, 23, about Arion and the Nomus Orthius.

[147] Mr. Clinton (Fasti Hellen. ad ann. 671, 665, 644) appears to me noway satisfactory in his chronological arrangements of the poets of this century. I agree with O. MÜller (Hist. of Literat. of Ancient Greece, ch. xii, 9) in thinking that he makes Terpander too recent, and ThalÊtas too ancient; I also believe both Kallinus and Alkman to have been more recent than the place which Mr. Clinton assigns to them; the epoch of TyrtÆus will depend upon the date which we assign to the second Messenian war.

How very imperfectly the chronology of the poetical names even of the sixth century B.C.—Sappho, Anakreon, HippÔnax—was known even to writers of the beginning of the Ptolemaic age (or shortly after 300 B.C.), we may see by the mistakes noted in AthenÆus, xiii, p. 599. Hermesianax of Kolophon, the elegiac poet, represented Anakreon as the lover of Sappho; this might perhaps be not absolutely impossible, if we supposed in Sappho an old age like that of Ninon de l’Enclos; but others (even earlier than Hermesianax, since they are quoted by ChamÆleon) represented Anakreon, when in old age, as addressing verses to Sappho, still young. Again, the comic writer Diphilus introduced both Archilochus and HippÔnax as the lovers of Sappho.

[148] The Latin poets and the Alexandrine critics seem to have both insisted on the natural mournfulness of the elegiac metre (Ovid, Heroid. xv, 7; Horat. Art. Poet. 75): see also the fanciful explanation given by Didymus in the Etymologicon Magnum, v. ??e???.

We learn from HephÆstion (c. viii, p. 45, Gaisf.) that the anapÆstic march-metre of TyrtÆus was employed by the comic writers also, for a totally different vein of feeling. See the Dissertation of Franck, Callinus, pp. 37-48 (Leips. 1816).

Of the remarks made by O. MÜller respecting the metres of these early poets (History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, ch. xi, s. 8-12, etc.; ch. xii, s. 1-2, etc.), many appear to be uncertified and disputable.

For some good remarks on the fallibility of men’s impressions respecting the natural and inherent ???? of particular metres, see Adam Smith (Theory of Moral Sentiment, part v, ch. i, p. 329), in the edition of his works by Dugald Stewart.

[149] See the observations in Aristotle (Rhetor. iii, 9) on the ????? e?????? as compared with ????? ?atest?a????—????? e??????, ? ??d?? ??e? t???? a?t? ?a?? a?t??, ?? ? t? p???a t? ?e??e??? te?e?????—?atest?a??? d?, ? ?? pe???d???? ???? d? pe???d??, ????? ????sa? ????? ?a? te?e?t?? a?t?? ?a?? a?t?? ?a? ??e??? e?s???pt??.

[151] Homer, Hymn. ad Cererem. 202; Hesychius, v. Gef????; Herodot. v, 83; Diodor. v, 4. There were various gods at whose festivals scurrility (t??as??) was a consecrated practice, seemingly different festivals in different places (Aristot. Politic. vii, 15, 8).

The reader will understand better what this consecrated scurrility means by comparing the description of a modern traveller in the kingdom of Naples (Tour through the Southern Provinces of the Kingdom of Naples, by Mr. Keppel Craven, London, 1821, ch. xv, p. 287):—

“I returned to Gerace (the site of the ancient Epizephyrian Lokri) by one of those moonlights which are known only in these latitudes, and which no pen or pencil can portray. My path lay along some cornfields, in which the natives were employed in the last labors of the harvest, and I was not a little surprised to find myself saluted with a volley of opprobrious epithets and abusive language, uttered in the most threatening voice, and accompanied with the most insulting gestures. This extraordinary custom is of the most remote antiquity, and is observed towards all strangers during the harvest and vintage seasons; those who are apprized of it will keep their temper as well as their presence of mind, as the loss of either would only serve as a signal for still louder invectives, and prolong a contest in which success would be as hopeless as undesirable.”

[152] The chief evidence for the rhythmical and metrical changes introduced by Archilochus is to be found in the 28th chapter of Plutarch, De MusicÂ, pp. 1140-1141, in words very difficult to understand completely. See Ulrici, Geschichte der Hellenisch. Poesie, vol. ii, p. 381.

The epigram ascribed to Theokritus (No. 18 in Gaisford’s PoetÆ Minores) shows that the poet had before him hexameter compositions of Archilochus, as well as lyric:—

See the article on Archilochus in Welcker’s Kleine Schriften, pp. 71-82, which has the merit of showing that iambic bitterness is far from being the only marked feature in his character and genius.

[153] See Meleager, Epigram. cxix, 3; Horat. Epist. 19, 23, and Epod. vi, 13 with the Scholiast; Ælian. V. H. x, 13.

[154] Pindar, Pyth. ii, 55; Olymp. ix, 1, with the Scholia; Euripid. Hercul. Furens, 583-683. The eighteenth epigram of Theokritus (above alluded to) conveys a striking tribute of admiration to Archilochus: compare Quintilian, x, 1, and Liebel. ad Archilochi Fragmenta, sects. 5, 6, 7.

[155] AthenÆus, xiv, p. 630.

[156] Plutarch, De MusicÂ, pp. 1134, 1135; Aristotle, De LacedÆmon. RepublicÂ, Fragm. xi, p. 132, ed. Neumann; Plutarch, De Ser Numin. Vindict. c. 13, p. 558.

[157] Thucyd. v, 69-70, with the Scholia,—et? t?? p??e???? ???? ... ?a?eda?????? d? ?ad??? ?a? ?p? a???t?? p????? ??? ???a?est?t??, ?? t?? ?e??? ?????, ???? ??a ?a??? et? ????? a????e?, ?a? ? d?aspas?e?? a?t??? ? t????.

Cicero, Tuscul. Qu. ii, 16. “Spartiatarum quorum procedit Mora ad tibiam, neque adhibetur ulla sine anapÆstis pedibus hortatio.”

The flute was also the instrument appropriated to KÔmus, or the excited movement of half-intoxicated revellers (Hesiod. Scut. Hercul. 280; AthenÆ. xiv, pp. 617-618).

[158] Plato, Legg. vii, p. 803. ????ta ?a? ?d??ta ?a? ?????e???, ?ste t??? ?? ?e??? ????? a?t? pa?as?e???e?? d??at?? e??a?, etc.: compare p. 799; Maximus Tyr. Diss. xxxvii, 4: Aristophan. Ran. 950-975; AthenÆus, xiv, p. 626; Polyb. iv, 30; Lucian, De Saltatione, c. 10, 11, 16, 31.

Compare Aristotle (Problem xix, 15) about the primitive character and subsequent change of the chorus; and the last chapter of the eighth book of his Politica: also, a striking passage in Plutarch (De Cupidine Divitiarum, c. 8, p. 527) about the transformation of the Dionysiac festival at ChÆroneia from simplicity to costliness.

[159] AthenÆus, xiv, p. 628; Suidas, vol. iii, p. 715, ed. Kuster; Plutarch, Instituta Laconica, c. 32,—???d?a? ?a? t?a??d?a? ??? ??????t?, ?p?? ?te ?? sp??d?, ?te ?? pa?d??, ?????s? t?? ??t??e???t?? t??? ?????,—which exactly corresponds with the ethical view implied in the alleged conversation between Solon and Thespis (Plutarch, Solon, c. 29: see above, ch. xi, vol. ii, p. 195), and with Plato, Legg. vii, p. 817.

[160] Xenophon, Agesilaus ii, 17. ???ade ?pe???? e?? t? ?a?????a, ?p?? ?t???? ?p? t?? ????p????, t?? pa???a t? ?e? s??epet??e?.

[161] Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 14, 16, 21: AthenÆus, xiv, pp. 631-632, xv, p. 678; Xenophon, Hellen. vi, 4, 15; De Republic. LacedÆm. ix, 5; Pindar, Hyporchemata, Fragm. 78, ed. Bergk.

Also, Alkman, Fragm. 13, ed. Bergk; Antigon. Caryst. Hist. Mirab. c. 27.

[162] How extensively pantomimic the ancient orchÊsis was, may be seen by the example in Xenophon, Symposion, vii, 5, ix, 3-6, and Plutarch, Symposion, ix, 15, 2: see K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen AlterthÜmer der Griechen, ch. 29.

“Sane ut in religionibus saltaretur, hÆc ratio est: quod nullam majores nostri partem corporis esse voluerunt, quÆ non sentiret religionem: nam cantus ad animum, saltatio ad mobilitatem corporis pertinet.” (Servius ad Virgil. Eclog. v, 73.)

[163] Aristot. Politic. viii, 4, 6. ?? ?????e?—?? a??????te? ??? d??a?ta? ????e?? ?????, ?? fas?, t? ???st? ?a? t? ? t?? ????.

[164] Homer. Hymn. Apoll. 340. ???? te ???t?? pa????e?, etc.: see Boeckh. De Metris Pindari, ii, 7, p. 143; Ephorus ap. Strabo, x, p. 480: Plutarch, De MusicÂ, p. 1142.

Respecting ThalÊtas, and the gradual alterations in the character of music at Sparta. Hoeckh has given much instructive matter (Kreta. vol. iii, pp. 340-377). Respecting NymphÆus of Kydonia, whom Ælian (V. II. xii, 50) puts in juxtaposition with ThalÊtas and Terpander, nothing is known.

After what is called the second fashion of music (?at?stas??) had thus been introduced by ThalÊtas and his contemporaries.—the first fashion being that of Terpander,—no farther innovations were allowed. The ephors employed violent means to prohibit the intended innovations of Phrynis and Timotheus, after the Persian war: see Plutarch Agis, c. 10.

[165] Alkman. Fragm. 13-17. ed. Bergk, ? p?fa??? ?????: compare Fr. 63. Aristides calls him ? t?? pa?????? ?pa???t?? ?a? s?????? (Or. xlv, vol. ii, p. 40. Dindorf).

Of the Partneneia of Alkman (songs, hymns, and dances, composed for a chorus of maidens) there were at least two books (Stephanus Byzant. v. ???s???). He was the earliest poet who acquired renown in this species of composition, afterwards much pursued by Pindar, BacchylidÊs, and SimonidÊs of KeÔs: see Welcker, Alkman. Fragment. p. 10.

[166] Alkman, Frag. 64, ed. Bergk.

[167] Plutarch, De MusicÂ, c. 9, p. 1134. About the dialect of Alkman, see Ahrens, De Dialecto ÆolicÂ, sects. 2, 4; about his different metres, Welcker, Alkman. Fragm. pp. 10-12.

[168] Plutarch, De MusicÂ, c. 32, p. 1142, c. 37, p. 1144; AthenÆus, xiv, p. 632. In KrÊte, also, the popularity of the primitive musical composers was maintained, though along with the innovator Timotheus: see Inscription No. 3053, ap. Boeckh, Corp. Ins.

[169] Herodot. vi, 60. They were probably a ????? with an heroic progenitor, like the heralds, to whom the historian compares them.

[170] Pindar, Fragm. 44, ed. Bergk: Schol. ad Pindar. Olymp. xiii, 25; Proclus, Chrestomathia, c. 12-14. ad calc. HephÆst. Gaisf. p. 382: compare W. M. Schmidt, In Dithyrambum Poetarumque Dithyrambicorum Reliquias, pp. 171-183 (Berlin, 1845).

[171] Archiloch. Fragm. 72, ed. Bergk.

The old oracle quoted in Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, about the Dionysia at Athens, enjoins—?????s? d??te?? ?e?? te?e??, ?a? ??at??a ?e??sa?, ?a? ?????? ?st??a?.

[172] Herodot. i, 23; Suidas, v. ?????; Pindar, Olymp. xiii, 25.

[173] Aristot. Poetic. c. 6, ??????sa? t?? p???s?? ?? t?? a?t?s?ed?as?t??; again, to the same effect, ibid. c. 9.

[174] Alkman slightly departed from this rule: in one of his compositions of fourteen strophÊs, the last seven were in a different metre from the first seven (HephÆstion, c. xv, p. 134, Gaisf.; Hermann, Elementa Doctrin. MetricÆ, c. xvii, sect. 595). ???a???? ?a???t??a ?a? St?s????e??? (Plutarch, De MusicÂ, p. 1135).

[175] Pausanias, vi, 14, 4; x, 7, 3. Sakadas, as well as Stesichorus, composed an ????? p??s?? (AthenÆus, xiii, p. 609).

“Stesichorum (observes Quintilian, x, 1) quam sit ingenio validus, materiÆ quoque ostendunt, maxima bella et clarissimos canentem duces, et epici carminis onera lyr sustinentem. Reddit enim personis in agendo simul loquendoque debitam dignitatem: ac si tenuisset modum, videtur Æmulari proximus Homerum potuisse: sed redundat, atque effunditur: quod, ut est reprehendendum, ita copiÆ vitium est.”

SimonidÊs of KeÔs (Frag. 19. ed. Bergk) puts Homer and Stesichorus together: see the epigram of Antipater in the Anthologia, t. i, p. 328, ed. Jacobs, and Dio Chrysostom. Or. 55, vol. ii, p. 284, Reisk. Compare Kleine, Stesichori Fragment. pp. 30-34 (Berlin 1828), and O. MÜller, History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, ch. xiv, sect. 5.

The musical composers of Argos are affirmed by Herodotus to have been the most renowned in Greece, half a century after Sakadas (Her. iii, 131).

[176] Horat. Epistol. i, 19, 23.

[177] Sappho, Fragm. 93, ed. Bergk. See also Plehn, Lesbiaca, pp. 145-165. Respecting the poetesses, two or three of whom were noted, contemporary with Sappho, see Ulrici, Gesch. der Hellen. Poesie, vol. ii, p. 370.

[178] Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. v, 82; Horat. Od. i, 32, ii, 13; Cicero, De Nat. Deor. i, 28; the striking passage in Plutarch, Symposion iii, 1, 3, ap. Bergk. Fragm. 42. In the view of Dionysius, the Æolic dialect of AlkÆus and Sappho diminished the value of their compositions: the Æolic accent, analogous to the Latin, and acknowledging scarcely any oxyton words, must have rendered them much less agreeable in recitation or song.

[179] See Plutarch, De Music. p. 1136; Dionys. Hal. de Comp. Verb. c. 23, p. 173, Reisk, and some striking passages of Himerius, in respect to Sappho (i, 4, 16, 19; Maximus Tyrius, Dissert. xxiv, 7-9), and the encomium of the critical Dionysius (De Compos. Verborum, c. 23, p. 173).

The author of the Parian marble adopts, as one of his chronological epochs (Epoch 37), the flight of Sappho, or exile, from MitylÊnÊ to Sicily somewhere between 604-596 B.C. There probably was something remarkable which induced him to single out this event; but we do not know what, nor can we trust the hints suggested by Ovid (Heroid. xv, 51).

Nine books of Sappho’s songs were collected by the later literary Greeks, arranged chiefly according to the metres (C. F. Neue, Sapphonis Fragm. p. 11, Berlin 1827). There were ten books of the songs of AlkÆus (AthenÆus, xi, p. 481), and both AristophanÊs (Grammaticus) and Aristarchus published editions of them. (HephÆstion, c. xv, p. 134, Gaisf.) DikÆarchus wrote a commentary upon his songs (AthenÆus, xi, p. 461).

[180] Welcker, Simonidis Amorgini Iambi qui supersunt, p. 9.

[181] Aristophan. Nubes, 536.

[182] See Pratinas ap. AthenÆum, xiv, p. 617, also p. 636, and the striking fragment of the lost comic poet PherekratÊs, in Plutarch, De MusicÂ, p. 1141, containing the bitter remonstrance of Music (???s???) against the wrong which she had suffered from the dithyrambist MelanippidÊs: compare also AristophanÊs, Nubes, 951-972; AthenÆus, xiv, p. 617; Horat. Art. Poetic. 205; and W. M. Schmidt, DiatribÊ in Dithyrambum, ch. viii, pp. 250-265.

?? s?a??? ?a? pe??tt??—the character of the newer music (Plutarch, Agis, c. 10)—as contrasted with t? se??? ?a? ?pe??e???? of the old music (Plutarch, De MusicÂ, ut sup.): ostentation and affected display, against seriousness and simplicity. It is by no means certain that these reproaches against the more recent music of the Greeks were well founded; we may well be rendered mistrustful of their accuracy when we hear similar remarks and contrasts advanced with regard to the music of our last three centuries. The character of Greek poetry certainly tended to degenerate after EuripidÊs.

[183] Bias of PriÊnÊ composed a poem of two thousand verses, on the condition of Ionia (Diogen. LaËrt. i, 85), from which, perhaps, Herodotus may have derived, either directly or indirectly, the judicious advice which he ascribes to that philosopher on the occasion of the first Persian conquest of Ionia (Herod. i, 170).

Not merely XenophanÊs the philosopher (Diogen. LaËrt. viii, 36, ix, 20), but long after him ParmenidÊs and EmpedoklÊs, composed in verse.

[184] See the account given by Herodotus (vi, 128-129) of the way in which KleisthenÊs of Sikyon tested the comparative education (pa?de?s??) of the various suitors who came to woo his daughter,—?? d? ??st??e? ???? e???? ?f? te ??s??? ?a? t? ?e????? ?? t? ?s??.

[185] Plato, Protagoras, c. 28, p. 343.

[186] HippÔnax, Fragm. 77, 34, ed. Bergk—?a? d???ssas?a? ??a?t?? t?? ???????? ??e?tt??.

SimonidÊs. Fr. 6, ed. Bergk—???? f?t?? ?de ????. Diogen. LaËrt. i, 6, 2.

SimonidÊs treats Pittakus with more respect, though questioning an opinion delivered by him (Fragm. 8, ed. Bergk; Plato, Protagoras, c. 26, p. 339).

[187] DikÆarchus ap. Diogen. LaËrt. i. 40. s??et??? ?a? ????et????? de???t?ta p???t???? ?a? d?ast????? s??es??. Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 2.

About the story of the tripod, which is said to have gone the round of these Seven Wise Men, see Menage ad Diogen. LaËrt. i, 28, p. 17.

[188] Cicero, De Republ. i, 7; Plutarch, in Delph. p. 385; Bernhardy, Grundriss der Griechischen Litteratur, vol. i, sect. 66, not. 3.

[189] Pliny, H. N. vii, 57. Suidas v. ??ata???.

[190] H. Ritter (Geschichte der Philosophie, ch. vi, p. 243) has some good remarks on the difficulty and obscurity of the early Greek prose-writers, in reference to the darkness of expression and meaning universally charged upon the philosopher Herakleitus.

[191] See O. MÜller, ArchÄologie der Kunst, sect. 61; Sillig. Catalogus Artificium,—under TheodÔrus and TeleklÊs.

Thiersch (Epochen der Bildenden Kunst, pp. 182-190, 2nd edit.) places Rhoekus near the beginning of the recorded Olympiads; and supposes two artists named TheodÔrus, one the grandson of the other; but this seems to me not sustained by any adequate authority (for the loose chronology of Pliny about the Samian school of artists is not more trustworthy than about the Chian school,—compare xxxv, 12, and xxxvi, 3), and, moreover, intrinsically improbable. Herodotus (i, 51) speaks of “the Samian TheodÔrus,” and seems to have known only one person so called: DiodÔrus (i, 98) and Pausanias (x, 38, 3) give different accounts of TheodÔrus, but the positive evidence does not enable us to verify the genealogies either of Thiersch or O. MÜller. Herodotus (iv, 152) mentions the ??a??? at Samos in connection with events near Olymp. 37; but this does not prove that the great temple which he himself saw, a century and a half later, had been begun before Olymp. 37, as Thiersch would infer. The statement of O. MÜller, that this temple was begun in Olymp. 35, is not authenticated (Arch. der Kunst. sect. 53).

[192] Pausanias tells us distinctly that this chest was dedicated at Olympia by the Kypselids, descendants of Kypselus; and this seems credible enough. But he also tells us that this was the identical chest in which the infant Kypselus had been concealed, believing the story as told in Herodotus (v, 92). In this latter belief I cannot go along with him, nor do I think that there is any evidence for believing the chest to have been of more ancient date than the persons who dedicated it,—in spite of the opinions of O. MÜller and Thiersch to the contrary (O. MÜller, ArchÄol. der Kunst, sect. 57; Thiersch, Epochen der Griechischen Kunst, p. 169, 2nd edit.: Pausan. v, 17, 2).

[193] Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fast. Hellen. vol. ii, Appendix, c. 2, p. 201) has stated and discussed the different opinions on the chronology of Peisistratus and his sons.

[194]

I need hardly mention that the Pnyx was the place in which the Athenian public assemblies were held.

[195] Plutarch (De Herodot. Malign. c. 15, p. 858) is angry with Herodotus for imparting so petty and personal a character to the dissensions between the AlkmÆÔnids and Peisistratus; his severe remarks in that treatise, however, tend almost always to strengthen rather than to weaken the credibility of the historian.

[196] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 27, ?pe????at? f???a? ?ses?a? t??? ????a???? ?a? ??a??a?, ??d??s? ?? t??? pe?? ???s????? ?a? ?pe?e?d??, p???te??????? d? t?? p?t???? ?p? t??at?? p???te?a?, de?a????? d? f?????? e?? t?? ???????a?, ?t? d? ???ata t?? p????? ?a? ???a? p??se?t?sas??. Compare Diodor. xviii, 18.

Twelve thousand of the poorer citizens were disfranchised by this change (Plutarch, Phokion, c. 28).

[197] See the preceding volume, ch. xi, p. 155.

[198] Solon. Fragm. 10, ed. Bergk.—

[199] Herodot. i, 60, ?a? ?? t? ?ste? pe???e??? t?? ???a??a e??a? a?t?? t?? ?e??, p??se????t? te t?? ?????p?? ?a? ?d????t? t?? ?e?s?st?at??. A later statement (AthenÆus, xiii, p. 609) represents PhyÊ to have become afterwards the wife of Hipparchus.

Of this remarkable story, not the least remarkable part is the criticism with which Herodotus himself accompanies it. He treats it as a proceeding infinitely silly (p???a e????stat??, ?? ??? e???s??, a???); he cannot conceive, how Greeks, so much superior to barbarians,—and even Athenians, the cleverest of all the Greeks,—could have fallen into such a trap. To him the story was told as a deception from the beginning, and he did not perhaps take pains to put himself into the state of feeling of those original spectators who saw the chariot approach, without any warning or preconceived suspicion. But even allowing for this, his criticism brings to our view the alteration and enlargement which had taken place in the Greek mind during the century between Peisistratus and PeriklÊs. Doubtless, neither the latter nor any of his contemporaries could have succeeded in a similar trick.

The fact, and the criticism upon it, now before us are remarkably illustrated by an analogous case recounted in a previous chapter, (vol. ii, p. 421, chap. viii.) Nearly at the same period as this stratagem of Peisistratus, the LacedÆmonians and the Argeians agreed to decide, by a combat of three hundred select champions, the dispute between them as to the territory of Kynuria. The combat actually took place, and the heroism of Othryades, sole Spartan survivor, has been already recounted. In the eleventh year of the Peloponnesian war, shortly after or near upon the period when we may conceive the history of Herodotus to have been finished, the Argeians concluded a treaty with LacedÆmon, and introduced as a clause into it the liberty of reviving their pretensions to Kynuria, and of again deciding the dispute by a combat of select champions. To the LacedÆmonians of that time this appeared extreme folly,—the very proceeding which had been actually resorted to a century before. Here is another case, in which the change in the point of view, and the increased positive tendencies in the Greek mind, are brought to our notice not less forcibly than by the criticism of Herodotus upon PhyÊ-AthÊnÊ.

Istrus (one of the Atthido-graphers of the third century B.C.) and AntiklÊs published books respecting the personal manifestations or epiphanies of the gods,—?p??????? ?p?fa?e?a?: see Istri Fragment. 33-37, ed. Didot. If Peisistratus and MegaklÊs had never quarrelled, their joint stratagem might have continued to pass for a genuine epiphany, and might have been included as such in the work of Istrus. I will add, that the real presence of the gods, at the festivals celebrated in their honor, was an idea continually brought before the minds of the Greeks.

The Athenians fully believed the epiphany of the god Pan to PheidippidÊs the courier, on his march to Sparta, a little before the battle of MarathÔn (Herodot. vi, 105, ?a? ta?ta ????a??? p?ste?sa?te? e??a? ?????a), and even Herodotus himself does not controvert it, though he relaxes the positive character of history so far as to add—“as PheidippidÊs himself said and recounted publicly to the Athenians.” His informants in this case were doubtless sincere believers; whereas, in the case of PhyÊ, the story was told to him at first as a fabrication.

At Gela in Sicily, seemingly not long before this restoration of Peisistratus, TÊlinÊs (ancestor of the despot Gelon) had brought back some exiles to Gela, “without any armed force, but merely through the sacred ceremonies and appurtenances of the subterranean goddesses,”—???? ??de??? ??d??? d??a??, ???? ??? t??t??? t?? ?e??—t??t??s? d? ?? p?s???? ???, ?at??a?e (Herodot. vii, 153). Herodotus does not tell us the details which he had heard of the manner in which this restoration at Gela was brought about; but his general language intimates, that they were remarkable details, and they might have illustrated the story of PhyÊ AthÊnÊ.

[200] Herodot. i, 61. Peisistratus—????? ?? ?? ?at? ????.

[201] About Lygdamis, see AthenÆus, viii, p. 348, and his citation from the lost work of Aristotle on the Grecian ????te?a?; also, Aristot. Politic. v, 5, 1.

[202] Herodot. i, 63.

[203] Herodot. i, 64. ?p???????s? te p?????s?, ?a? ????t?? s???d??s?, t?? ?? a?t??e?, t?? d? ?p? St?????? p?t??? p??s???t??.

[204] IsokratÊs, Or. xvi, De Bigis, c. 351.

[205] For the statement of Boeckh, Dr. Arnold, and Dr. Thirlwall, that Peisistratus had levied a tythe or tax of ten per cent., and that his sons reduced it to the half, I find no sufficient warrant: certainly, the spurious letter of Peisistratus to Solon in Diogenes LaËrtius (i, 53) ought not to be considered as proving anything. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, B. iii, c. 6 (i, 351 German); Dr. Arnold ad Thucyd. vi, 34; Dr. Thirlwall Hist. of Gr. ch. xi, pp. 72-74. Idomeneus (ap. AthenÆ. xii, p. 533) considers the sons of Peisistratus to have indulged in pleasures to an extent more costly and oppressive to the people than their father. Nor do I think that there is sufficient authority to sustain the statement of Dr. Thirlwall (p. 68), “He (Peisistratus) possessed lands on the Strymon in Thrace, which yielded a large revenue.” Herodotus (i, 64) tells us that Peisistratus brought mercenary soldiers from the Strymon, but that he levied the money to pay them in Attica—??????se t?? t??a???da ?p???????s? te p?????s?, ?a? ????t?? s???d??s?, t?? ?? a?t??e?, t?? d? ?p? St?????? p?ta?? s?????t??. It is, indeed, possible to construe this passage so as to refer both t?? ?? and t?? d? to ????t??, which would signify that Peisistratus obtained his funds partly from the river Strymon, and thus serve as basis to the statement of Dr. Thirlwall. But it seems to me that the better way of construing the words is to refer t?? ?? to ????t?? s???d??s?, and t?? d? to ?p???????s?,—treating both of them as genitives absolute. It is highly improbable that he should derive money from the Strymon: it is highly probable that his mercenaries came from thence.

[206] Hermippus (ap. Marcellin. Vit. Thucyd. p. ix,) and the Scholiast on Thucyd. i, 20, affirm that ThucydidÊs was connected by relationship with the PeisistratidÆ. His manner of speaking of them certainly lends countenance to the assertion; not merely as he twice notices their history, once briefly (i, 20) and again at considerable length (vi, 54-59), though it does not lie within the direct compass of his period,—but also as he so emphatically announces his own personal knowledge of their family relations,—?t? d? p?es?tat?? ?? ?pp?a? ???e?, e?d?? ?? ?a? ???? ?????ste??? ????? ?s??????a? (vi, 55).

Aristotle (Politic. v, 9, 21) mentions it as a report (fas?) that Peisistratus obeyed the summons to appear before the Areopagus; Plutarch adds that the person who had summoned him did not appear to bring the cause to trial (Vit. Solon, 31), which is not at all surprising: compare Thucyd. vi, 56, 57.

[207] Aristot. Politic, v, 9, 4; DikÆarchus, Vita GrÆciÆ, pp. 140-166, ed. Fuhr; Pausan. i, 18, 8.

[208] Aul. Gell. N. A. vi, 17.

[209] Herodot. vii, 6; Pseudo-Plato, Hipparchus, p. 229.

[210] Herodot. v, 93, VI, 6. ???????t??, ???s?????? ?a? d?a??t?? t?? ???s?? t?? ???sa???. See Pausan. i, 22, 7. Compare, about the literary tendencies of the Peisistratids, Nitzsch, De Histori Homeri, ch. 30, p. 168.

[211] Philochor. Frag. 69, ed. Didot; Plato, Hipparch. p. 230.

[212] Herodot. vi, 38-103; Theopomp. ap. AthenÆ. xii, p. 533.

[213] Thucyd. vi, 53; Pseudo-Plato, Hipparch. p. 230; Pausan. i, 23, 1.

[214] Thucyd. i, 20, about the general belief of the Athenian public in his time—????a??? ???? t? p????? ????ta? ?f? ???d??? ?a? ???st??e?t???? ?ppa???? t??a???? ??ta ?p??a?e??, ?a? ??? ?sas?? ?t? ?pp?a? ?? p?es?tat?? ?? ???e t?? ?e?s?st??t?? pa?d??, etc.

The Pseudo-Plato in the dialogue called Hipparchus adopts this belief, and the real Plato in his Symposion (c. 9, p. 182) seems to countenance it.

[215] Herodot. v, 55-58. Harmodius is affirmed by Plutarch to have been of the deme AphidnÆ (Plutarch, Symposiacon, i, 10, p. 628).

It is to be recollected that he died before the introduction of the Ten Tribes, and before the recognition of the demes as political elements in the commonwealth.

[216] For the terrible effects produced by this fear of ???? e?? t?? ?????a?, see Plutarch, Kimon, 1; Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 17.

[217] Thucyd. vi, 56. ??? d? ??? ???d??? ?pa??????ta t?? pe??as??, ?spe? d?e??e?t?, p???p?????se?? ?de?f?? ??? a?t??, ?????, ?pa??e??a?te? ??e?? ?a???? ??s??sa? ?? p?p? t???, ?p??asa?, ?????te? ??d? ?pa??e??a? ?????, d?? t? ? ???a? e??a?.

Dr. Arnold, in his note, supposes that this exclusion of the sister of Harmodius by the Peisistratids may have been founded on the circumstance that she belonged to the gens GephyrÆi (Herodot. v, 57); her foreign blood, and her being in certain respects ?t???, disqualified her (he thinks) from ministering to the worship of the gods of Athens.

There is no positive reason to support the conjecture of Dr. Arnold, which seems, moreover, virtually discountenanced by the narrative of ThucydidÊs, who plainly describes the treatment of this young woman as a deliberate, preconcerted insult. Had there existed any assignable ground of exclusion, such as that which Dr. Arnold supposes, leading to the inference that the Peisistratids could not admit her without violating religious custom, ThucydidÊs would hardly have neglected to allude to it, for it would have lightened the insult; and indeed, on that supposition, the sending of the original summons might have been made to appear as an accidental mistake. I will add, that ThucydidÊs, though no way forfeiting his obligations to historical truth, is evidently not disposed to omit anything which can be truly said in favor of the Peisistratids.

[218] Thucyd. vi, 58, ?? ??d??? d?et???: compare PolyÆn. i, 22; Diodorus, Fragm. lib. x, p. 62, vol. iv, ed. Wess.; Justin, ii, 9. See, also, a good note of Dr. Thirlwall on the passage, Hist. of Gr. vol. ii, ch. xi, p. 77, 2nd ed. I agree with him, that we may fairly construe the indistinct phrase of ThucydidÊs by the more precise statements of later authors, who mention the torture.

[219] Thucyd. i, 20, vi, 54-59; Herodot. v, 55, 56, vi, 123; Aristot. Polit. v, 8, 9.

[220] See the words of the song:—

ap. AthenÆum, xv, p. 691.

The epigram of the Keian SimonidÊs, (Fragm. 132, ed. Bergk—ap. HephÆstion. c. 14, p. 26, ed. Gaisf.) implies a similar belief: also, the passages in Plato, Symposion, p. 182, in Aristot. Polit. v, 8, 21, and Arrian, Exped. Alex. iv, 10, 3.

[222] One of these stories may be seen in Justin, ii, 9,—who gives the name of DioklÊs to Hipparchus,—“Diocles, alter ex filiis, per vim stuprat virgine, a fratre puellÆ interficitur.”

[223] ? ??? de???a f?????tat?? ?st?? ?? ta?? t??a???s??—observes Plutarch, (ArtaxerxÊs, c. 25).

[224] Pausan. i, 23, 2: Plutarch, De Garrulitate, p. 897; PolyÆn. viii, 45; AthenÆus, xiii. p. 596.

[225] We can hardly be mistaken in putting this interpretation on the words of ThucydidÊs—????a??? ??, ?a?a???? ?d??e (vi, 59).

Some financial tricks and frauds are ascribed to Hippias by the author of the Pseudo-Aristotelian second book of the Œconomica (ii, 4). I place little reliance on the statements in this treatise respecting persons of early date, such as Kypselus or Hippias; in respect to facts of the subsequent period of Greece, between 450-300 B.C., the author’s means of information will doubtless render him a better witness.

[226] Herodot. vi, 36-37.

[227] Thus the Scythians broke into the Chersonese even during the government of MiltiadÊs son of KimÔn, nephew of MiltiadÊs the oekist, about forty years after the wall had been erected (Herodot. vi, 40). Again, PeriklÊs reËstablished the cross-wall, on sending to the Chersonese a fresh band of one thousand Athenian settlers (Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 19): lastly, Derkyllidas the LacedÆmonian built it anew, in consequence of loud complaints raised by the inhabitants of their defenceless condition,—about 397 B.C. (Xenophon. Hellen. iii, 2, 8-10). So imperfect, however, did the protection prove, that about half a century afterwards, during the first years of the conquests of Philip of Macedon, an idea was entertained of digging through the isthmus, and converting the peninsula into an island (DemosthenÊs, Philippic ii, 6, p. 92, and De Haloneso, c. 10, p. 86); an idea, however, never carried into effect.

[228] Herodot. vi, 38, 39.

[229] Herodot. v, 94. I have already said that I conceive this as a different war from that in which the poet AlkÆus was engaged.

[230] Herodot. iii, 39.

[231] Herodot. vi, 104, 139, 140.

[232] Herodot. vi, 39-103. Cornelius Nepos, in his Life of MiltiadÊs, confounds in one biography the adventures of two persons,—MiltiadÊs son of Kypselus, the oekist,—and MiltiadÊs son of KimÔn, the victor of Marathon,—the uncle and the nephew.

[233] There is nothing that I know to mark the date except that it was earlier than the death of Hipparchus in 514 B.C., and also earlier than the expedition of Darius against the Scythians, about 516 B.C., in which expedition MiltiadÊs was engaged: see Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, and J. M. Schultz, Beitrag zu genaueren Zeitbestimmungen der Hellen. Geschichten von der 63^sten bis zur 72^sten Olympiade, p. 165, in the Kieler Philologische Studien 1841.

[234] Herodot. v, 62. The unfortunate struggle at Leipsydrion became afterwards the theme of a popular song (AthenÆus, xv, p. 695): see Hesychius, v. ?e???d????, and Aristotle, Fragm. ????a??? ????te?a, 37, ed. Neumann.

If it be true that AlkibiadÊs, grandfather of the celebrated AlkibiadÊs, took part with KleisthenÊs and the AlkmÆonid exiles in this struggle (see IsokratÊs, De Bigis, Or. xvi, p. 351), he must have been a mere youth.

[235] Pausan. x, 5, 5.

[236] Herodot. i, 50, ii, 180. I have taken the three hundred talents of Herodotus as being ÆginÆan talents, which are to Attic talents in the ratio of 5:3. The Inscriptions prove that the accounts of the temple were kept by the Amphiktyons on the ÆginÆan scale of money: see Corpus Inscrip. Boeckh, No. 1688, and Boeckh, Metrologie, vii, 4.

[237] Herodot. vi, 62. The words of the historian would seem to imply that they only began to think of this scheme of building the temple after the defeat of Leipsydrion, and a year or two before the expulsion of Hippias; a supposition quite inadmissible, since the temple must have taken some years in building.

The loose and prejudiced statement in Philochorus, affirming that the Peisistratids caused the Delphian temple to be burnt, and also that they were at last deposed by the victorious arm of the AlkmÆÔnids (Philochori Fragment. 70, ed. Didot) makes us feel the value of Herodotus and ThucydidÊs as authorities.

[238] Herodot. vi, 128; Cicero, De Legg. ii, 16. The deposit here mentioned by Cicero, which may very probably have been recorded in an inscription in the temple, must have been made before the time of the Persian conquest of Samos,—indeed, before the death of PolykratÊs in 522 B.C., after which period the island fell at once into a precarious situation, and very soon afterwards into the greatest calamities.

[239] Herodot. v, 62, 63.

[240] Herodot. v, 64, 65.

[241] Thucyd. vi, 56, 57.

[242] Thucyd. vi, 55. ?? ? te ??? s?a??e?, ?a? ? st??? pe?? t?? t?? t??????? ?d???a?, ? ?? t? ????a??? ????p??e? sta?e?sa.

Dr. Thirlwall, after mentioning the departure of Hippias, proceeds as follows: “After his departure many severe measures were taken against his adherents, who appear to have been for a long time afterwards a formidable party. They were punished or repressed, some by death, others by exile or by the loss of their political privileges. The family of the tyrants was condemned to perpetual banishment, and appears to have been excepted from the most comprehensive decrees of amnesty passed in later times.” (Hist. of Gr. ch. xi, vol. ii, p. 81.)

I cannot but think that Dr. Thirlwall has here been misled by insufficient authority. He refers to the oration of AndokidÊs de Mysteriis, sects. 106 and 78 (sect. 106 coincides in part with ch. 18, in the ed. of Dobree). An attentive reading of it will show that it is utterly unworthy of credit in regard to matters anterior to the speaker by one generation or more. The orators often permit themselves great license in speaking of past facts, but AndokidÊs in this chapter passes the bounds even of rhetorical license. First, he states something not bearing the least analogy to the narrative of Herodotus as to the circumstances preceding the expulsion of the Peisistratids, and indeed tacitly setting aside that narrative; next, he actually jumbles together the two capital and distinct exploits of Athens,—the battle of Marathon and the repulse of XerxÊs ten years after it. I state this latter charge in the words of Sluiter and Valckenaer, before I consider the former charge: “Verissime ad hÆc verba notat Valckenaerius—Confundere videtur AndocidÊs diversissima; Persica sub Miltiade et Dario et victoriam Marathoniam (v, 14)—quÆque evenere sub Themistocle, Xerxis gesta. Hic urbem incendio delevit, non ille (v, 20). Nihil magis manifestum est, quam diversa ab oratore confundi.” (Sluiter, Lection. AndocideÆ, p. 147.)

The criticism of these commentators is perfectly borne out by the words of the orator, which are too long to find a place here. But immediately prior to those words he expresses himself as follows, and this is the passage which serves as Dr. Thirlwall’s authority: ?? ??? pat??e? ?? ??te???, ?e?????? t? p??e? ?a??? e?????, ?te ?? t??a???? e???? t?? p????, ? d? d??? ?f??e, ????sa?te? a??e??? t??? t???????? ?p? ?a??????, st?at?????t?? ?e?????? t?? p??p?pp?? t?? ???, ?a? ?a???? ?? ??e???? t?? ???at??a e??e? ?? ?? ? ??te??? ?? p?pp??, ?ate????te? e?? t?? pat??da t??? ?? ?p??te??a?, t?? d? f???? ?at????sa?, t??? d? ??e?? ?? t? p??e? ??sa?te? ?t??sa?.

Both Sluiter (Lect. And. p. 8) and Dr. Thirlwall (Hist. p. 80) refer this alleged victory of Leogoras and the Athenian demus to the action described by Herodotus (v, 64) as having been fought by KleomenÊs of Sparta against the Thessalian cavalry. But the two events have not a single circumstance in common, except that each is a victory over the PeisistratidÆ or their allies: nor could they well be the same event, described in different terms, seeing that KleomenÊs, marching from Sparta to Athens, could not have fought the Thessalians at PallÊnÊ, which lay on the road from Marathon to Athens. PallÊnÊ was the place where Peisistratus, advancing from Marathon to Athens, on occasion of his second restoration, gained his complete victory over the opposing party, and marched on afterwards to Athens without farther resistance (Herodot. i, 63).

If, then, we compare the statement given by AndokidÊs of the preceding circumstances, whereby the dynasty of the Peisistratids was put down, with that given by Herodotus, we shall see that the two are radically different; we cannot blend them together, but must make our election between them. Not less different are the representations of the two as to the circumstances which immediately ensued on the fall of Hippias: they would scarcely appear to relate to the same event. That “the adherents of the PeisistratidÆ were punished or repressed, some by death, others by exile, or by the loss of their political privileges,” which is the assertion of AndokidÊs and Dr. Thirlwall, is not only not stated by Herodotus, but is highly improbable, if we accept the facts which he does state; for he tells us that Hippias capitulated and agreed to retire while possessing ample means of resistance,—simply from regard to the safety of his children. It is not to be supposed that he would leave his intimate partisans exposed to danger; such of them as felt themselves obnoxious would naturally retire along with him; and if this be what is meant by “many persons condemned to exile,” here is no reason to call it in question. But there is little probability that any one was put to death, and still less probability that any were punished by the loss of their political privileges. Within a year afterwards came the comprehensive constitution of KleisthenÊs, to be described in the following chapter, and I consider it eminently unlikely that there were a considerable class of residents in Attica left out of this constitution, under the category of partisans of Peisistratus: indeed, the fact cannot be so, if it be true that the very first person banished under the Kleisthenean ostracism was a person named Hipparchus, a kinsman of Peisistratus (Androtion, Fr. 5, ed. Didot; Harpokration, v. ?ppa????); and this latter circumstance depends upon evidence better than that of AndokidÊs. That there were a party in Attica attached to the Peisistratids, I do not doubt; but that they were “a powerful party,” (as Dr. Thirlwall imagines,) I see nothing to show; and the extraordinary vigor and unanimity of the Athenian people under the Kleisthenean constitution will go far to prove that such could not have been the case.

I will add another reason to evince how completely AndokidÊs misconceives the history of Athens between 510-480 B.C. He says that when the Peisistratids were put down, many of their partisans were banished, many others allowed to stay at home with the loss of their political privileges; but that afterwards, when the overwhelming dangers of the Persian invasion supervened, the people passed a vote to restore the exiles and to remove the existing disfranchisements at home. He would thus have us believe that the exiled partisans of the Peisistratids were all restored, and the disfranchised partisans of the Peisistratids all enfranchised, just at the moment of the Persian invasion, and with the view of enabling Athens better to repel that grave danger. This is nothing less than a glaring mistake; for the first Persian invasion was undertaken with the express view of restoring Hippias, and with the presence of Hippias himself at Marathon; while the second Persian invasion was also brought on in part by the instigation of his family. Persons who had remained in exile or in a state of disfranchisement down to that time, in consequence of their attachment to the Peisistratids, could not in common prudence be called into action at the moment of peril, to help in repelling Hippias himself. It is very true that the exiles and the disfranchised were readmitted, shortly before the invasion of XerxÊs, and under the then pressing calamities of the state. But these persons were not philo-Peisistratids; they were a number gradually accumulated from the sentences of exile and (atimy or) disfranchisement every year passed at Athens,—for these were punishments applied by the Athenian law to various crimes and public omissions,—the persons so sentenced were not politically disaffected, and their aid would then be of use in defending the state against a foreign enemy.

In regard to “the exception of the family of Peisistratus from the most comprehensive decrees of amnesty passed in later times,” I will also remark that, in the decree of amnesty, there is no mention of them by name, nor any special exception made against them: among a list of various categories excepted, those are named “who have been condemned to death or exile either as murderers or as despots,” (? sfa?e?s?? ? t????????, Andokid. c. 13.) It is by no means certain that the descendants of Peisistratus would be comprised in this exception, which mentions only the person himself condemned; but even if this were otherwise, the exception is a mere continuance of similar words of exception in the old Solonian law, anterior to Peisistratus; and, therefore, affords no indication of particular feeling against the Peisistratids.

AndokidÊs is a useful authority for the politics of Athens in his own time (between 420-390 B.C.), but in regard to the previous history of Athens between 510-480 B.C., his assertions are so loose, confused, and unscrupulous, that he is a witness of no value. The mere circumstance noted by Valckenaer, that he has confounded together Marathon and Salamis, would be sufficient to show this; but when we add to such genuine ignorance his mention of his two great-grandfathers in prominent and victorious leadership, which it is hardly credible that they could ever have occupied,—when we recollect that the facts which he alleges to have preceded and accompanied the expulsion of the Peisistratids are not only at variance with those stated by Herodotus, but so contrived as to found a factitious analogy for the cause which he is himself pleading,—we shall hardly be able to acquit him of something worse than ignorance in his deposition.

[243] Herodot. v, 66-69 ?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?, etc.

[244] Aristot. Polit. iii, 1, 10; vi, 2, 11. ??e?s?????,—p?????? ?f???te?se ?????? ?a? d?????? et??????.

Several able critics, and Dr. Thirlwall among the number, consider this passage as affording no sense, and assume some conjectural emendation to be indispensable; though there is no particular emendation which suggests itself as preËminently plausible. Under these circumstances, I rather prefer to make the best of the words as they stand; which, though unusual, seem to me not absolutely inadmissible. The expression ????? ?t????? (which is a perfectly good one, as we find in Aristoph. Equit. 347,—e?p?? d???d??? e?pa? e? ?at? ????? et?????) may be considered as the correlative to d?????? et??????,—the last word being construed both with d?????? and with ??????. I apprehend that there always must have been in Attica a certain number of intelligent slaves living apart from their masters (????? ??????te?), in a state between slavery and freedom, working partly on condition of a fixed payment to him, partly for themselves, and perhaps continuing to pass nominally as slaves after they had bought their liberty by instalments. Such men would be d????? ?t?????: indeed, there are cases in which d????? signifies freedmen (Meier, De Gentilitate AtticÂ, p. 6): they must have been industrious and pushing men, valuable partisans to a political revolution. See K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech. Staats Alterth. ch. 111, not. 15.

[245] Herodot. v, 69. ??e?s?????,—?pe??d?? ???a?, ??a ? sf?s? a? a?ta? ??s? f??a? ?a? ??s?.

[246] Such a disposition seems evident in Herodot. i, 143.

[247] In illustration of what is here stated, see the account of the modifications of the constitution of Zurich, in BlÜntschli, Staats und Rechts Geschichte der Stadt Zurich, book iii. ch. 2, p. 322; also, KortÜm, Entstehungs Geschichte der FreistÄdtischen BÜnde im Mittelalter, ch. 5, pp. 74-75.

[248] Respecting these Eponymous Heroes of the Ten Tribes, and the legends connected with them, see chapter viii of the ?p?t?f??? ?????, erroneously ascribed to DemosthenÊs.

[249] Herodot. v, 69. d??a d? ?a? t??? d???? ?at??ee ?? t?? f????.

SchÖmann contends that KleisthenÊs established exactly one hundred demes to the ten tribes (De Comitiis Atheniensium, PrÆf. p. xv and p. 363, and Antiquitat. Jur. Pub. GrÆc. ch. xxii, p. 260), and K. F. Hermann (Lehrbuch der Griech. Staats Alt. ch. 111) thinks that this is what Herodotus meant to affirm, though he does not believe the fact to have really stood so.

I incline, as the least difficulty in the case, to construe d??a with f???? and not with d????, as Wachsmuth (i, 1, p. 271) and Dieterich (De Clisthene, a treatise cited by K. F. Hermann, but which I have not seen) construe it.

[250] The deme MelitÊ belonged to the tribe Kekropis; Kollytus, to the tribe ÆgÊis; KydathenÆon, to the tribe Pandionis; Kerameis or Kerameikus, to the Akamantis; SkambÔnidÆ, to the Leontis.

All these five were demes within the city of Athens, and all belonged to different tribes.

PeirÆus belonged to the HippothoÖntis; PhalÊrum, to the Æantis; XypetÊ, to the Kekropis; ThymÆtadÆ, to the HippothoÖntis. These four demes, adjoining to each other, formed a sort of quadruple local union, for festivals and other purposes, among themselves; though three of them belonged to different tribes.

See the list of the Attic demes, with a careful statement of their localities in so far as ascertained, in Professor Ross, Die Demen von Attika. Halle, 1846. The distribution of the city-demes, and of PeirÆus and PhalÊrum, among different tribes, appears to me a clear proof of the intention of the original distributors. It shows that they wished from the beginning to make the demes constituting each tribe discontinuous, and that they desired to prevent both the growth of separate tribe-interests and ascendency of one tribe over the rest. It contradicts the belief of those who suppose that the tribe was at first composed of continuous demes, and that the breach of continuity arose from subsequent changes.

Of course there were many cases in which adjoining demes belonged to the same tribe; but not one of the ten tribes was made up altogether of adjoining demes.

[251] See Boeckh, Corp. Inscriptt. Nos. 85, 128, 213, etc.: compare Demosthen. cont. Theokrin. c. 4. p. 1326 R.

[252] We may remark that this register was called by a special name, the Lexiarchic register; while the primitive register of phrators and gentiles always retained, even in the time of the orators, its original name of the common register—Harpokration, v. ?????? ??aate??? ?a? ????a??????.

[253] See SchÖmann, Antiq. Jur. P. GrÆc. ch. xxiv. The oration of DemosthenÊs against EubulidÊs is instructive about these proceedings of the assembled demots: compare Harpokration, v. ??a??f?s??, and Meier, De Bonis Damnatorum, ch. xii, p. 78, etc.

[254] Aristot. Fragment. de Republ., ed. Neumann.—????. p???t. Fr. 40, p. 88; Schol. ad Aristophan. Ran. 37; Harpokration, v. ??a????—?a???a????; Photius, v. ?a???a??a.

[255] Herodot. vi, 109-111.

[256] Harpokration, v. ?p?d??ta?.

[257] See the valuable treatise of SchÖmann, De Comitiis, passim; also his Antiq. Jur. Publ. Gr. ch. xxxi; Harpokration, v. ????a ?????s?a; Pollux, viii, 95.

[258] See in particular on this subject the treatise of SchÖmann, De Sortitione Judicum (Gripswald, 1820), and the work of the same author, Antiq. Jur. Publ. GrÆc. ch. 49-55, p. 264, seqq.; also Heffter, Die AthenÄische Gerichtsverfassung, part ii, ch. 2, p. 51, seqq.; Meier and SchÖmann, Der Attische Prozess, pp. 127-135.

The views of SchÖmann respecting the sortition of the Athenian jurors have been bitterly attacked, but in no way refuted, by F. V. Fritzsche (De Sortitione Judicum apud Athenienses Conmentatio, Leipsic, 1835).

Two or three of these dikastic tickets, marking the name and the deme of the citizen, and the letter of the decury to which during that particular year he belonged, have been recently dug up near Athens:—

(Boeckh, Corp. Inscrip. Nos. 207-208.)

Fritzsche (p. 73) considers these to be tickets of senators, not of dikasts, contrary to all probability.

For the Heliastic oath, and its remarkable particulars, see Demosthen. cont. Timokrat. p. 746. See also AristophanÊs, Plutus, 277 (with the valuable Scholia, though from different hands and not all of equal correctness) and 972; EkklesiazusÆ, 678, seqq.

[259] Plutarch, Arist. 7; Herodot. vi, 109-111.

[260] Aristotle puts these two together; election of magistrates by the mass of the citizens, but only out of persons possessing a high pecuniary qualification; this he ranks as the least democratical democracy, if one may use the phrase (Politic. iii, 6-11), or a mean between democracy and oligarchy,—an ???st???at?a, or p???te?a, in his sense of the word (iv, 7, 3). He puts the employment of the lot as a symptom of decisive and extreme democracy, such as would never tolerate a pecuniary qualification of eligibility.

So again Plato (Legg. iii, p. 692), after remarking that the legislator of Sparta first provided the senate, next the ephors, as a bridle upon the kings, says of the ephors that they were “something nearly approaching to an authority emanating from the lot,”—???? ?????? ???a?e? a?t? t?? t?? ?f???? d??a??, ????? t?? ?????t?? ??a??? d???e??.

Upon which passage there are some good remarks in SchÖmann’s edition of Plutarch’s Lives of Agis and KleomenÊs (Comment. ad Ag. c. 8, p. 119). It is to be recollected that the actual mode in which the Spartan ephors were chosen, as I have already stated in my first volume, cannot be clearly made out, and has been much debated by critics:—

“Mihi hÆc verba, quum illud quidem manifestum faciant, quod etiam aliunde constat, sorte captos ephoros non esse, tum hoc alterum, quod Hermannus statuit, creationem sortitioni non absimilem fuisse, nequaquam demonstrare videntur. Nimirum nihil aliud nisi prope accedere ephororum magistratus ad cos dicitur, qui sortito capiantur. Sortitis autem magistratibus hoc maxime proprium est, ut promiscue—non ex genere, censu, dignitate—a quolibet capi possint: quamobrem quum ephori quoque fere promiscue fierent ex omni multitudine civium, poterat haud dubie magistratus eorum ????? t?? ?????t?? d???e?? esse dici, etiamsi a??et?? essent—h. e. suffragiis creati. Et video Lachmannum quoque, p. 165, not. 1, de Platonis loco similiter judicare.”

The employment of the lot, as SchÖmann remarks, implies universal admissibility of all citizens to office: though the converse does not hold good,—the latter does not of necessity imply the former. Now, as we know that universal admissibility did not become the law of Athens until after the battle of PlatÆa, so we may conclude that the employment of the lot had no place before that epoch,—i. e. had no place under the constitution of KleisthenÊs.

[261] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 9-16.

[262] See a passage about such characters in Plato, Republic, v, p. 475 B.

[263] Plutarch, Arist. 22.

[264] So at least the supporters of the constitution of KleisthenÊs were called by the contemporaries of PeriklÊs.

[265] Plutarch, Arist. ut sup. ???fe? ??f?sa, ?????? e??a? t?? p???te?a?, ?a? t??? ?????ta? ?? ????a??? p??t?? a??e?s?a?.

[266] So in the Italian republics of the twelfth and thirteenth century, the nobles long continued to possess the exclusive right of being elected to the consulate and the great offices of state, even after those offices had come to be elected by the people: the habitual misrule and oppression of the nobles gradually put an end to this right, and even created in many towns a resolution positively to exclude them. At Milan, towards the end of the twelfth century, the twelve consuls, with the Podestat, possessed all the powers of government: these consuls were nominated by one hundred electors chosen by and among the people. Sismondi observes: “Cependant le peuple imposa lui-mÊme a ces Électeurs, la rÈgle fondamentale de choisir tous les magistrats dans le corps de la noblesse. Ce n’Étoit point encore la possession des magistratures que l’on contestoit aux gentilshommes: on demandoit seulement qu’ils fussent les mandataires immÉdiats de la nation. Mais plus d’une fois, en dÉpit du droit incontestable des citoyens, les consuls regnant s’attribuÈrent l’Élection de leurs successeurs.” (Sismondi, Histoire des RÉpubliques Italiennes, chap. xii, vol. ii, p. 240.)

[267] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 15. t?? ?p? ??e?s?????? ??e??e?? ???st???at?a? pe???????: compare Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 2, and IsokratÊs, Areopagiticus, Or. vii, p. 143, p. 192, ed. Bek.

[268] Herodotus speaks of Kallimachus the Polemarch, at Marathon, as ? t? ???? ?a??? ????a???? (vi, 110).

I cannot but think that in this case he transfers to the year 490 B.C. the practice of his own time. The polemarch, at the time of the battle of Marathon, was in a certain sense the first stratÊgus; and the stratÊgi were never taken by lot, but always chosen by show of hands, even to the end of the democracy. It seems impossible to believe that the stratÊgi were elected, and that the polemarch, at the time when his functions were the same as theirs, was chosen by lot.

Herodotus seems to have conceived the choice of magistrates by lot as being of the essence of a democracy (Herodot. iii, 80).

Plutarch also (PeriklÊs, c. 9) seems to have conceived the choice of archons by lot as a very ancient institution of Athens: nevertheless, it results from the first chapter of his life of AristeidÊs,—an obscure chapter, in which conflicting authorities are mentioned without being well discriminated,—that AristeidÊs was chosen archon by the people,—not drawn by lot: an additional reason for believing this is, that he was archon in the year following the battle of Marathon, at which, he had been one of the ten generals. Idomeneus distinctly affirmed this to be the fact.—?? ??ae?t??, ???? ??????? ????a??? (Plutarch, Arist. c. 1).

IsokratÊs also (Areopagit. Or. vii, p. 144, p. 195, ed. Bekker) conceived the constitution of KleisthenÊs as including all the three points noticed in the text: 1. A high pecuniary qualification of eligibility for individual offices. 2. Election to these offices by all the citizens, and accountability to the same after office. 3. No employment of the lot.—He even contends that this election is more truly democratical than sortition; since the latter process might admit men attached to oligarchy, which would not happen under the former,—?pe?ta ?a? d??t???t??a? ??????? ta?t?? t?? ?at?stas?? ? t?? d?? t?? ?a????e?? ?????????? ?? ?? ??? t? ?????se? t?? t???? ?ae?se??, ?a? p??????? ???es?a? t?? ????? t??? t?? ????a???a? ?p??????ta?, etc. This would be a good argument if there were no pecuniary qualification for eligibility,—such pecuniary qualification is a provision which he lays down, but which he does not find it convenient to insist upon emphatically.

I do not here advert to the ??af? pa?a????, the ???f??a?e?, and the sworn ????eta?,—all of them institutions belonging to the time of PeriklÊs at the earliest; not to that of KleisthenÊs.

[269] See above, chap. xi. vol. iii. p. 145.

[270] AristeidÊs Rhetor. Orat. xlvi. vol ii. p. 317, ed. Dindorf.

[271] Plutarch (Nikias, c. 11; Alkibiad. c. 13; Aristeid. c. 7): Thucyd. viii, 73. Plato Comicus said, respecting Hyperbolus—

Theophrastus had stated that PhÆax, and not Nikias, was the rival of AlkibiadÊs on this occasion, when Hyperbolus was ostracized; but most authors, says Plutarch, represent Nikias as the person. It is curious that there should be any difference of statement about a fact so notorious, and in the best-known time of Athenian history.

Taylor thinks that the oration which now passes as that of AndokidÊs against AlkibiadÊs, is really by PhÆax, and was read by Plutarch as the oration of PhÆax in an actual contest of ostracism between PhÆax, Nikias, and AlkibiadÊs. He is opposed by Ruhnken and Valckenaer (see Sluiter’s preface to that oration, c. 1, and Ruhnken, Hist. Critic. Oratt. GrÆcor. p. 135). I cannot agree with either: I cannot think with him, that it is a real oration of PhÆax; nor with them, that it is a real oration in any genuine cause of ostracism whatever. It appears to me to have been composed after the ostracism had fallen into desuetude, and when the Athenians had not only become somewhat ashamed of it, but had lost the familiar conception of what it really was. For how otherwise can we explain the fact, that the author of that oration complains that he is about to be ostracized without any secret voting, in which the very essence of the ostracism consisted, and from which its name was borrowed (??te d?a??f?sa???? ???d??, c. 2)? His oration is framed as if the audience whom he was addressing were about to ostracize one out of the three, by show of hands. But the process of ostracizing included no meeting and haranguing,—nothing but simple deposit of the shells in a cask; as may be seen by the description of the special railing-in of the agora, and by the story (true or false) of the unlettered country-citizen coming into the city to give his vote, and asking AristeidÊs, without even knowing his person, to write the name for him on the shell (Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 7). There was, indeed, previous discussion in the senate as well as in the ekklesia, whether a vote of ostracism should be entered upon at all; but the author of the oration to which I allude does not address himself to that question; he assumes that the vote is actually about to be taken, and that one of the three—himself, Nikias, or AlkibiadÊs—must be ostracized (c. 1). Now, doubtless, in practice, the decision commonly lay between two formidable rivals; but it was not publicly or formally put so before the people: every citizen might write upon the shell such name as he chose. Farther, the open denunciation of the injustice of ostracism as a system (c. 2), proves an age later than the banishment of Hyperbolus. Moreover, the author having begun by remarking that he stands in contest with Nikias as well as with AlkibiadÊs, says nothing more about Nikias to the end of the speech.

[272] See the discussion of the ostracism in Aristot. Politic. iii, 8, where he recognizes the problem as one common to all governments.

Compare, also, a good Dissertation—J. A. Paradys, De Ostracismo Atheniensium, Lugduni Batavor. 1793; K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griechischen StaatsalterthÜmer, ch. 130; and SchÖmann, Antiq. Jur. Pub. GrÆc. ch. xxxv, p. 233.

[273] Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 3.

[274] The barathrum was a deep pit, said to have had iron spikes at the bottom, into which criminals condemned to death were sometimes cast. Though probably an ancient Athenian punishment, it seems to have become at the very least extremely rare, if not entirely disused, during the times of Athens historically known to us; but the phrase continued in speech after the practice had become obsolete. The iron spikes depend on the evidence of the Schol. Aristophan. Plutus, 431,—a very doubtful authority, when we read the legend which he blends with his statement.

[275] Thucyd. iii, 70, 81, 82.

[276] AndokidÊs, De Mysteriis, p. 12, c. 13. ??d? ???? ?p? ??d?? ??e??a? ?e??a?, ??? ? t?? a?t?? ?p? p?s?? ????a????? ??? ? ??a??s??????? d???, ???d?? ??f????????. According to the usual looseness in dealing with the name of Solon, this has been called a law of Solon (see Petit. Leg. Att. p. 188), though it certainly cannot be older than KleisthenÊs.

“Privilegia ne irroganto,” said the law of the Twelve Tables at Rome (Cicero, Legg. iii, 4-19).

[277] Aristotle and Philochorus, ap. Photium, App. p. 672 and 675, ed. Porson.

It would rather appear by that passage that the ostracism was never formally abrogated; and that even in the later times, to which the description of Aristotle refers, the form was still preserved of putting the question whether the public safety called for an ostracizing vote, long after it had passed both out of use and out of mind.

[278] Philochorus, ut supra; Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 7; Schol. ad Aristophan. Equit. 851; Pollux, viii, 19.

There is a difference of opinion among the authorities, as well as among the expositors, whether the minimum of six thousand applies to the votes given in all, or to the votes given against any one name. I embrace the latter opinion, which is supported by Philochorus, Pollux, and the Schol. on AristophanÊs, though Plutarch countenances the former. Boeckh, in his Public Economy of Athens, and Wachsmuth, (i, 1, p. 272) are in favor of Plutarch and the former opinion; Paradys (Dissertat. De Ostr. p. 25), Platner, and Hermann (see K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Gr. Staatsalt. ch. 130, not. 6) support the other, which appears to me the right one.

For the purpose, so unequivocally pronounced, of the general law determining the absolute minimum necessary for a privilegium, would by no means be obtained, if the simple majority of votes, among six thousand voters in all, had been allowed to take effect. A person might then be ostracized with a very small number of votes against him, and without creating any reasonable presumption that he was dangerous to the constitution; which was by no means either the purpose of KleisthenÊs, or the well-understood operation of the ostracism, so long as it continued to be a reality.

[280] It is not necessary in this remark to take notice, either of the oligarchy of Four Hundred, or that of Thirty, called the Thirty Tyrants, established during the closing years of the Peloponnesian war, and after the ostracism had been discontinued. Neither of these changes were brought about by the excessive ascendency of any one or few men: both of them grew out of the embarrassments and dangers of Athens in the latter period of her great foreign war.

[281] Aristotle (Polit. iii, 8, 6) seems to recognize the political necessity of the ostracism, as applied even to obvious superiority of wealth, connection, etc. (which he distinguishes pointedly from superiority of merit and character), and upon principles of symmetry only, even apart from dangerous designs on the part of the superior mind. No painter, he observes, will permit a foot, in his picture of a man, to be of disproportionate size with the entire body, though separately taken it may be finely painted; nor will the chorus-master allow any one voice, however beautiful, to predominate beyond a certain proportion over the rest.

His final conclusion is, however, that the legislator ought, if possible, so to construct his constitution, as to have no need of such exceptional remedy; but, if this cannot be done, then the second-best step is to apply the ostracism. Compare also v, 2, 5.

The last century of the free Athenian democracy realized the first of these alternatives.

[282] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 11: Harpokration. v. ?ppa????.

[283] Lysias cont. Alkibiad. A. c. 11, p. 143: Harpokration. v. ??????d??; AndokidÊs cont. Alkibiad. c. 11-12, pp. 129, 130: this last oration may afford evidence as to the facts mentioned in it, though I cannot imagine it to be either genuine, or belonging to the time to which it professes to refer, as has been observed in a previous note.

[284] Plutarch, PeriklÊs. c. 4; Plutarch. Aristeid. c. 1.

[285] Ælian, V. H. xiii, 24; HerakleidÊs, pe?? ????te???, c. 1, ed. KÖhler.

[286] Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, 22; Plutarch, AristeidÊs, 7, pa?a???a f????? ?a? ???f?s??. See the same opinions repeated by Wachsmuth, Hellenische Alterthumskunde, ch. 48, vol. i, p. 272, and by Platner, Prozess and Klagen bey den Attikern, vol. i, p. 386.

[287] Thucyd. viii, 73, d?? d???e?? ?a? ????at?? f???.

[288] Kratinus ap. Plutarch, PeriklÊs, 13.

For the attacks of the comic writers upon DamÔn, see Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 4.

[289] Aristot. Polit. iii, 8, 4; v, 2, 5.

[290] Diodor. xi, 55-87. This author describes very imperfectly the Athenian ostracism, transferring to it apparently the circumstances of the Syracusan Petalism.

[291] Herodot. v, 70-72; compare Schol. ad Aristophan. Lysistr. 274.

[292] Herodot. v, 73.

[293] See vol. ii, p. 295, part ii, ch. 3.

[294] Thucyd. iii, 61.

[295] Herodot. vi, 108. ??? T?a???? ????t?? t??? ? ????????? ?? ????t??? te??e??. This is an important circumstance in regard to Grecian political feeling: I shall advert to it hereafter.

[296] Herodot. vi, 108. ThucydidÊs (iii, 58), when recounting the capture of PlatÆa by the LacedÆmonians in the third year of the Peloponnesian war, states that the alliance between PlatÆa and Athens was then in its 93rd year of date; according to which reckoning it would begin in the year 519 B.C., where Mr. Clinton and other chronologers place it.

I venture to think that the immediate circumstances, as recounted in the text from Herodotus (whether ThucydidÊs conceived them in the same way, cannot be determined), which brought about the junction of PlatÆa with Athens, cannot have taken place in 519 B.C., but must have happened after the expulsion of Hippias from Athens in 510 B.C.,—for the following reasons:—

1. No mention is made of Hippias, who yet, if the event had happened in 519 B.C., must have been the person to determine whether the Athenians should assist PlatÆa or not. The PlatÆan envoys present themselves at a public sacrifice in the attitude of suppliants, so as to touch the feelings of the Athenian citizens generally: had Hippias been then despot, he would have been the person to be propitiated and to determine for or against assistance.

2. We know no cause which should have brought KleomenÊs with a LacedÆmonian force near to PlatÆa in the year 519 B.C.: we know from the statement of Herodotus (v, 76) that no LacedÆmonian expedition against Attica took place at that time. But in the year to which I have referred the event, KleomenÊs is on his march near the spot upon a known and assignable object. From the very tenor of the narrative, it is plain that KleomenÊs and his army were not designedly in Boeotia, nor meddling with Boeotian affairs, at the time when the PlatÆans solicited his aid; he declines to interpose in the matter, pleading the great distance between Sparta and PlatÆa as a reason.

3. Again, KleomenÊs, in advising the PlatÆans to solicit Athens, does not give the advice through good-will towards them, but through a desire to harass and perplex the Athenians, by entangling them in a quarrel with the Boeotians. At the point of time to which I have referred the incident, this was a very natural desire: he was angry, and perhaps alarmed, at the recent events which had brought about his expulsion from Athens. But what was there to make him conceive such a feeling against Athens during the reign of Hippias? That despot was on terms of the closest intimacy with Sparta: the Peisistratids were (?e?????—?e?????? ta???sta—Herod. v, 63, 90, 91) “the particular guests” of the Spartans, who were only induced to take part against Hippias from a reluctant obedience to the oracles procured, one after another, by KleisthenÊs. The motive, therefore, assigned by Herodotus, for the advice given by KleomenÊs to the PlatÆans, can have no application to the time when Hippias was still despot.

4. That Herodotus did not conceive the victory gained by the Athenians over Thebes as having taken place before the expulsion of Hippias, is evident from his emphatic contrast between their warlike spirit and success when liberated from the despots, and their timidity or backwardness while under Hippias (????a??? t??a??e??e??? ??, ??da?? t?? sf?a? pe?????e??t?? ?sa? t? p????a ?e?????, ?pa??a????te? d? t???????, a??? p??t?? ??????t?? d???? ?? ta?ta, ?t? ?ate??e??? ??, ??e?????e??, etc. v, 78). The man who wrote thus cannot have believed that, in the year 519 B.C., while Hippias was in full sway, the Athenians gained an important victory over the Thebans, cut off a considerable portion of the Theban territory for the purpose of joining it to that of the PlatÆans, and showed from that time forward their constant superiority over Thebes by protecting her inferior neighbor against her.

These different reasons, taking them altogether, appear to me to show that the first alliance between Athens and PlatÆa, as Herodotus conceives and describes it, cannot have taken place before the expulsion of Hippias, in 510 B.C.; and induce me to believe, either that ThucydidÊs was mistaken in the date of that event, or that Herodotus has not correctly described the facts. Not seeing any reason to suspect the description given by the latter, I have departed, though unwillingly, from the date of ThucydidÊs.

The application of the PlatÆans to KleomenÊs, and his advice grounded thereupon, may be connected more suitably with his first expedition to Athens, after the expulsion of Hippias, than with his second.

[297] Herodot. v, 75.

[298] Compare KortÜm, Zur Geschichte Hellenischer Staats-Verfassungen, p. 35 (Heidelberg, 1821).

I doubt, however, his interpretation of the words in Herodotus (v, 63)—e?te ?d?? st???, e?te d??s?? ???s?e???.

[299] Herodot. v, 77; Ælian, V. H. vi, 1; Pausan. i, 28, 2.

[300] Herodot. v, 80.

[301] In the expression of Herodotus, the Æakid heroes are really sent from Ægina, and really sent back by the Thebans (v, 80-81)—?? d? sf? a?t???s? ?p???????? t??? ??a??da? s?p?pe?? ?fasa?, a?t?? ?? T?a??? p??a?te?, t??? ?? ??a??da? sf? ?ped?d?sa?, t?? d? ??d??? ?d???t?. Compare again v, 75; viii, 64; and Polyb. vii, 9, 2. ?e?? t?? s?st?ate??????.

Justin gives a narrative of an analogous application from the Epizephyrian Lokrians to Sparta (xx, 3): “Territi Locrenses ad Spartanos decurrunt: auxilium supplices deprecantur: illi longinqu militi gravati, auxilium a Castore et Polluce petere eos jubent. Neque legati responsum sociÆ urbis spreverunt; profectique in proximum templum, facto sacrificio, auxilium deorum implorant. Litatis hostiis, obtentoque, ut rebantur, quod petebant—haud secus lÆti quam si deos ipsos secum avecturi essent—pulvinaria iis in navi componunt, faustisque profecti ominibus, solatia suis pro auxiliis deportant.” In comparing the expressions of Herodotus with those of Justin, we see that the former believes the direct literal presence and action of the Æakid heroes (“the Thebans sent back the heroes, and asked for men”), while the latter explains away the divine intervention into a mere fancy and feeling on the part of those to whom it is supposed to be accorded. This was the tone of those later authors whom Justin followed: compare also Pausan. iii, 19, 2.

[302] Herodot. v, 81-82.

[303] Herodot. v, 83-88.

[304] Herodot. v, 81-89. e????? ????a???? ?s?????t?.

[305] Herodot. v, 90.

[306] Herodot. v, 90, 91.

[307] Herodot. v, 92. ... t??a???da? ?? t?? p???? ?at??e?? pa?as?e???es?e, t?? ??te ?d???te??? ?st? ??d?? ?at? ?????p??? ??te ?a?f???te???.

[308] Herodot. v, 93. ? p???e?? ?d?? ?e?te??? pe?? p???? ????da.

[309] Herodot. v, 93-94.

[310] Thucydid. i, 68-71, 120-124.

[311] Herodot. v, 78-91. ????a??? ?? ??? ?????t?? d???? d? ?? ?at? ?? ???? ???? pa?ta??, ? ?s?????? ?? ?st? ???a sp??da???, e? ?a? ????a??? t??a??e??e??? ??, ??da?? t?? sf?a? pe?????e??t?? ?sa? t? p????a ?e?????, ?pa??a????te? d? t???????, a??? p??t?? ??????t?? d???? ?? ta?ta, ?t? ?ate??e??? ??, ??e?????e??, ?? desp?t? ???a??e???, ??e??e?????t?? d?, a?t?? ??ast?? ???t? p?????et? ?ate????es?a?.

(c. 91.) ?? ?a?eda??????—??? ?a??te?, ?? ??e??e??? ?? ??? t? ????? t? ?tt????, ?s????p?? t? ???t?? ?? ?????t?, ?ate??e??? d? ?p? t?? t??a???d?, ?s?e??? ?a? pe??a???es?a? ?t????.

[312] Herodot. iii, 80. ?????? d? ?????, p??ta ??, ????a p??t?? ?????st?? ??e?, ?s??????? de?te?a d?, t??t?? t?? ? ??a????, p???e? ??d??? p??? ?? ????? ???e?, ?pe?????? d? ????? ??e?, ???e?ata d? p??ta ?? t? ?????? ??af??e?.

The democratical speaker at Syracuse, Athenagoras, also puts this name and promise in the first rank of advantages—(Thucyd. vi, 39)—??? d? f??, p??ta ??, d??? ??pa? ???as?a?, ????a???a? d?, ????, etc.

[313] See the preceding chapter xi, of this History, vol. iii, p. 145, respecting the Solonian declaration here adverted to.

[314] See the two speeches of PeriklÊs in Thucyd. ii, 35-46, and ii, 60-64. Compare the reflections of ThucydidÊs upon the two democracies of Athens and Syracuse, vi, 69 and vii, 21-55.

[315] Thucyd. vii, 69. ?at??d?? te t?? ??e??e??t?t?? ?p????s??? ?a? t?? ?? a?t? ??ep?ta?t?? p?s?? ?? t?? d?a?ta? ????s?a?, etc.

[316] Compare the remarkable speech of the Corinthian envoys at Sparta (Thucyd. i, 68-71), with the f???p?a??s??? which DemosthenÊs so emphatically notices in Philip (Olynthiac. i, 6, p. 13): also Philippic. i, 2, and the Philippics and Olynthiacs generally.

[317] Among the lost productions of AntisthenÊs the contemporary of Xenophon and Plato, and emanating like them from the tuition of SokratÊs, was one ?????, ? pe?? ?as??e?a? (Diogenes LaËrt. vi, 15).

[318] That this was the real story—a close parallel of Romulus and Remus—we may see by Herodotus, i, 122. Some rationalizing Greeks or Persians transformed it into a more plausible tale,—that the herdsman’s wife who suckled the boy Cyrus was named ???? (???? is a dog, male or female); contending that this latter was the real basis of fact, and that the intervention of the bitch was an exaggeration built upon the name of the woman, in order that the divine protection shown to Cyrus might be still more manifest,—?? d? t???e? pa?a?a??te? t? ????a t??t (??a ?e??t???? d???? t??s? ???s?s? pe??e??a? sf? ? pa??), ?at?a??? f?t?? ?? ???e?e??? ????? ???? ?????e?e? ???e?te? ?? ? f?t?? a?t? ?e?????ee.

In the first volume of this History, I have noticed various transformations operated by PalÆphatus and others upon the Greek mythes,—the ram which carried Phryxus and HellÊ across the Hellespont is represented to us as having been in reality a man named Krius, who aided their flight,—the winged horse which carried Bellerophon was a ship named Pegasus, etc.

This same operation has here been performed upon the story of the suckling of Cyrus; for we shall run little risk in affirming that the miraculous story is the older of the two. The feelings which welcome a miraculous story are early and primitive; those which break down the miracle into a common-place fact are of subsequent growth.

[319] Herodot. i, 95. ?? ?? ?e?s??? ete??te??? ?????s??, ?? ? ????e??? se???? t? pe?? ?????, ???? t?? ???ta ???e?? ?????, ?at? ta?ta ?????? ?p?st?e??? pe?? ????? ?a? t??fas?a? ???a? ????? ?d??? f??a?. His informants were thus select persons, who differed from the Persians generally.

The long narrative respecting the infancy and growth of Cyrus is contained in Herodot. i, 107-129.

[320] See the Extracts from the lost Persian History of KtÊsias, in Photius Cod. lxxii, also appended to SchweighaÜser’s edition of Herodotus, vol. iv, p. 345. F?s? d? (KtÊsias) a?t?? t?? p?e????? ? ?st??e? a?t?pt?? ?e??e???, ? pa?? a?t?? ?e?s?? (???a t? ???? ? ??e???e?) a?t????? ?atast??ta, ??t?? t?? ?st???a? s??????a?.

To the discrepancies between Xenophon, Herodotus, and KtÊsias, on the subject of Cyrus, is to be added the statement of Æschylus (PersÆ, 747), the oldest authority of them all, and that of the Armenian historians: see BÄhr ad Ktesiam, p. 85: comp. BÄhr’s comments on the discrepancies, p. 87.

[321] Xenophon, Anabas. i, 8, 26.

[322] Herodot. i, 71-153; Arrian, v, 4; Strabo, xv, p. 727; Plato, Legg. iii, p. 695.

[323] Xenophon, Anabas. iii, 3, 6; iii, 4, 7-12. Strabo had read accounts which represented the last battle between AstyagÊs and Cyrus to have been fought near PasargadÆ (xv, p. 730).

It has been rendered probable by Ritter, however, that the ruined city which Xenophon called Mespila was the ancient Assyrian Nineveh, and the other deserted city which Xenophon calls Larissa, situated as it was on the Tigris, must have been originally Assyrian, and not Median. See about Nineveh, above,—the Chapter on the Babylonians, vol. iii, ch. xix, p. 305, note.

The land east of the Tigris, in which Nineveh and ArbÊla were situated, seems to have been called Aturia,—a dialectic variation of Assyria (Strabo, xvi, p. 737; Dio Cass. lxviii, 28).

[324] XenophanÊs, Fragm. p. 39, ap. Schneidewin, Delectus Poett. Elegiac. GrÆc.—

compare Theognis, v, 775, and Herodot. i, 163.

[325] Strabo, xv, p. 724. ?????tt?? pa?? ?????. See Heeren, Ueber den Verkehr der Alten Welt, part i, book i, pp. 320-340, and Ritter, Erdkunde, West-Asien, b. iii, Abtheil. ii, sects. 1 and 2, pp. 17-84.

[326] About the province of Persis, see Strabo, xv, p. 727; Diodor. xix, 21; Quintus Curtius, v, 13, 14, pp. 432-434, with the valuable explanatory notes of MÜtzell (Berlin, 1841). Compare, also, Morier’s Second Journey in Persia, pp. 49-120, and Ritter, Erdkunde, West Asien, pp. 712-738.

[327] KtÊsias, Persica, c. 2.

[328] Herodot. i, 153.

[329] That this point of view should not be noticed in Herodotus, may appear singular, when we read his story (vi, 86) about the Milesian Glaukus, and the judgment that overtook him for having tested the oracle; but it is put forward by Xenophon as constituting part of the guilt of Croesus (CyropÆd. vii, 2, 17).

[330] Herodot. i, 47-50.

[331] Herodot. i, 52-54.

[332] Herodot. i, 55.

[333] Herodot. i, 67-70.

[334] Herodot. i, 77.

[335] Herodot. i, 83.

[336] The story about the successful employment of the camels appears also in Xenophon, CyropÆd. vii, 1, 47.

[337] Herodot. i, 84.

[338] Compare Herodot. i, 84-87, and KtÊsias, Persica, c. 4; which latter seems to have been copied by PolyÆnus, vii, 6, 10.

It is remarkable that among the miracles enumerated by KtÊsias, no mention is made of fire or of the pile of wood kindled: we have the chains of Croesus miraculously struck off, in the midst of thunder and lightning, but no fire mentioned. This is deserving of notice, as illustrating the fact that KtÊsias derived his information from Persian narrators, who would not be likely to impute to Cyrus the use of fire for such a purpose. The Persians worshipped fire as a god, and considered it impious to burn a dead body (Herodot. iii, 16). Now Herodotus seems to have heard the story, about the burning, from Lydian informants (???eta? ?p? ??d??, Herodot. i, 87): whether the Lydians regarded fire in the same point of view as the Persians, we do not know; but even if they did, they would not be indisposed to impute to Cyrus an act of gross impiety, just as the Egyptians imputed another act equally gross to KambysÊs, which Herodotus himself treats as a falsehood (iii, 16).

The long narrative given by Nikolaus DamaskÊnus of the treatment of Croesus by Cyrus, has been supposed by some to have been borrowed from the Lydian historian Xanthus, elder contemporary of Herodotus. But it seems to me a mere compilation, not well put together, from Xenophon’s CyropÆdia, and from the narrative of Herodotus, perhaps including some particular incidents out of Xanthus (see Nikol. Damas. Fragm. ed. Orell. pp. 57-70, and the Fragments of Xanthus in Didot’s Historic. GrÆcor. Fragm. p. 40).

[339] Justin (i, 7) seems to copy KtÊsias, about the treatment of Croesus.

[340] Herodot. i, 91. ?????e????? d? ????e? ???? ?? ?at? t??? pa?da? t??? ????s?? ?????t? t? Sa?d??? p????, ?a? ? ?at? a?t?? ????s??, ??? ???? te ????et? pa?a?a?e?? ????a?? ?s?? d? ???d??a? a?ta?, ???sat?, ?a? ??a??sat? ??? t??a ??? ?tea ?pa?e??et? t?? Sa?d??? ???s??. ?a? t??t? ?p?st?s?? ????s??, ?? ?ste??? t??s? ?tes? t??t??s? ????? t?? pep??????.

[341] Herodot. i, 91. ? d? ????sa? s?????? ???t?? e??a? t?? ?a?t?da, ?a? ?? t?? ?e??.

Xenophon also, in the CyropÆdia (vii, 2, 16-25), brings Croesus to the same result of confession and humiliation, though by steps somewhat different.

[342] Herodot. i, 13.

[343] See above, chap, xi, vol. iii, pp. 149-153.

[344] Herodot. vii, 10. ?? ??? ?? f????e?? ????? ??a ? ?e?? ? ???t??.

[345] In the oracle reported in Herodot. vii, 141, as delivered by the Pythian priestess to Athens on occasion of the approach of XerxÊs, Zeus is represented in the same supreme position as the present oracle assigns to the MoerÆ, or Fates: Pallas in vain attempts to propitiate him in favor of Athens, just as, in this case, Apollo tries to mitigate the MoerÆ in respect to Croesus—

Compare also viii, 109, and ix, 16.

O. MÜller (Dissertation on the Eumenides of Æschylus, p. 222, Eng. Transl.) says: “On no occasion does Zeus Soter exert his influence directly, like Apollo, Minerva, and the Erinnyes; but whereas Apollo is prophet and exegetes by virtue of wisdom derived from him, and Minerva is indebted to him for her sway over states and assemblies,—nay, the very Erinnyes exercise their functions in his name,—this Zeus stands always in the background, and has in reality only to settle a conflict existing within himself. For with Æschylus, as with all men of profound feeling among the Greeks from the earliest times, Jupiter is the only real god, in the higher sense of the word. Although he is, in the spirit of ancient theology, a generated god, arisen out of an imperfect state of things, and not produced till the third stage of a development of nature,—still he is, at the time we are speaking of, the spirit that pervades and governs the universe.”

To the same purpose Klausen expresses himself (Theologumena Æschyli, pp. 6-69).

It is perfectly true that many passages may be produced from Greek authors which ascribe to Zeus the supreme power here noted. But it is equally true that this conception is not uniformly adhered to, and that sometimes the Fates, or MoerÆ are represented as supreme; occasionally represented as the stronger and Zeus as the weaker (PromÊtheus, 515). The whole tenor of that tragedy, in fact, brings out the conception of a Zeus t??a????,—whose power is not supreme, even for the time; and is not destined to continue permanently, even at its existing height. The explanations given by Klausen of this drama appear to me incorrect; nor do I understand how it is to be reconciled with the above passage quoted from O. MÜller.

The two oracles here cited from Herodotus exhibit plainly the fluctuation of Greek opinion on this subject: in the one, the supreme determination, and the inexorability which accompanies it, are ascribed to Zeus,—in the other, to the MoerÆ. This double point of view adapted itself to different occasions, and served as a help for the interpretation of different events. Zeus was supposed to have certain sympathies for human beings; misfortunes happened to various men which he not only did not wish to bring on, but would have been disposed to avert; here the MoerÆ, who had no sympathies, were introduced as an explanatory cause, tacitly implied as overruling Zeus. “Cum Furiis Æschylus Parcas tantum non ubique conjungit,” says Klausen (Theol. Æsch. p. 39); and this entire absence of human sympathies constitutes the common point of both,—that in which the MoerÆ and the Erinnyes differ from all the other gods,—p?f???a t?? ??es?????? ?e??, ?? ?e??? ???a? (Æschyl. Sept. ad Theb. 720): compare Eumenid. 169, 172, and, indeed, the general strain of that fearful tragedy.

In Æschylus, as in Herodotus, Apollo is represented as exercising persuasive powers over the MoerÆ (Eumenid. 724),—????a? ?pe?sa? ?f??t??? ?e??a? ??t???.

[346] The language of Herodotus deserves attention. Apollo tells Croesus: “I applied to the MoerÆ to get the execution of the judgment postponed from your time to that of your children,—but I could not prevail upon them; but as much as they would yield of their own accord, I procured for you.” (?s?? d? ???d??a? a?ta?, ??a??sat? ??—i, 91.)

[347] Thucyd. i, 22.

[348] This important date depends upon the evidence of Solinus (Polyhistor, i, 112) and SosikratÊs (ap. Diog. LaËrt. i, 95): see Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellen. ad ann. 546, and his Appendix, ch. 17, upon the Lydian kings.

Mr. Clinton and most of the chronologists accept the date without hesitation, but Volney (Recherches sur l’Histoire Ancienne, vol. i, pp. 306-308; Chronologie des Rois Lydiens) rejects it altogether; considering the capture of Sardis to have occurred in 557 B.C., and the reign of Croesus to have begun in 571 B.C. He treats very contemptuously the authority of Solinus and SosikratÊs, and has an elaborate argumentation to prove that the date which he adopts is borne out by Herodotus. This latter does not appear to me at all satisfactory: I adopt the date of Solinus and SosikratÊs, though agreeing with Volney that such positive authority is not very considerable, because there is nothing to contradict them, and because the date which they give seems in consonance with the stream of the history.

Volney’s arguments suppose in the mind of Herodotus a degree of chronological precision altogether unreasonable, in reference to events anterior to contemporary records. He, like other chronologists, exhausts his ingenuity to find a proper point of historical time for the supposed conversation between Solon and Croesus (p.320).

[349] Herodot. i, 141.

[350] Herodot. i, 152. The purple garment, so attractive a spectacle amid the plain clothing universal at Sparta, marks the contrast between Asiatic and European Greece.

[351] Herodot. i, 153. ta?ta ?? t??? p??ta? ?????a? ?p?????e ? ????? t? ?pea, etc.

[352] Herodot. i, 155.

[353] Herodot. i, 159.

[354] Herodot. i, 160. The short fragment from CharÔn of Lampsakus, which Plutarch (De Malignitat. Herod. p. 859) cites here, in support of one among his many unjust censures on Herodotus, is noway inconsistent with the statement of the latter, but rather tends to confirm it.

In writing this treatise on the alleged ill-temper of Herodotus, we see that Plutarch had before him the history of CharÔn of Lampsakus, more ancient by one generation than the historian whom he was assailing, and also belonging to Asiatic Greece. Of course, it suited the purpose of his work to produce all the contradictions to Herodotus which he could find in CharÔn: the fact that he has produced none of any moment, tends to strengthen our faith in the historian of Halikarnassus, and to show that in the main his narrative was in accordance with that of CharÔn.

[355] Herodot. i, 161-169.

[356] Herodot. i, 168; Skymnus Chius, Fragm. v, 153; Dionys. Perieg. v, 553.

[357] Herodot. i, 163. ? d? p???e??? pa?? a?t?? t?? ??d?? ?? a????t?, ?d?d?? sf? ???ata te???? pe??a??s?a? t?? p????.

I do not understand why the commentators debate what or who is meant by t?? ??d??: it plainly means the Median or Persian power generally: but the chronological difficulty is a real one, if we are to suppose that there was time between the first alarm conceived of the Median power of the Ionians, and the siege of PhÔkÆa by Harpagus, to inform ArganthÔnius of the circumstances, and to procure from him this large aid as well as to build the fortifications. The Ionic Greeks neither actually did conceive, nor had reason to conceive, any alarm respecting Persian power, until the arrival of Cyrus before Sardis; and within a month from that time Sardis was in his possession. If we are to suppose communication with ArganthÔnius, grounded upon this circumstance, at the distance of TartÊssus, and under the circumstances of ancient navigation, we must necessarily imagine, also, that the attack made by Harpagus upon PhÔkÆa—which city he assailed before any of the rest—was postponed for at least two or three years. Such postponement is not wholly impossible, yet it is not in the spirit of the Herodotean narrative, nor do I think it likely. It is much more probable that the informants of Herodotus made a slip in chronology, and ascribed the donations of ArganthÔnius to a motive which did not really dictate them.

As to the fortifications (which PhÔkÆa and the other Ionic cities are reported to have erected after the conquest of Sardis by the Persians), the case may stand thus. While these cities were all independent, before they were first conquered by Croesus, they must undoubtedly have had fortifications. When Croesus conquered them, he directed the demolition of the fortifications; but demolition does not necessarily mean pulling down the entire walls: when one or a few breaches are made, the city is laid open, and the purpose of Croesus would thus be answered. Such may well have been the state of the Ionian cities at the time when they first thought it necessary to provide defences against the Persians at Sardis: they repaired and perfected the breached fortifications.

The conjecture of Larcher (see the Notes both of Larcher and Wesseling),—t?? ??d?? instead of t?? ??d??,—is not an unreasonable one, if it had any authority: the donation of ArganthÔnius would then be transferred to the period anterior to the Lydian conquest: it would get rid of the chronological difficulty above adverted to, but it would introduce some new awkwardness into the narrative.

[359] Herodot. i, 165. ?pe???sea? t?? ?st?? ??ae p???? te ?a? ???t?? t?? p????? ?a? t?? ????? t?? ?????? ?e?d?????? te ?e??e???, etc. The colloquial term which I have ventured to place in the text expresses exactly, as well as briefly, the meaning of the historian. A public oath, taken by most of the Greek cities with similar ceremony of lumps of iron thrown into the sea, is mentioned in Plutarch, Aristid. c. 25.

[360] Herodot. i, 166.

[361] Aristot. Polit. iii, 5, 11; Polyb. iii, 22.

[362] Herodot. i, 167.

[363] Herodot. i, 170. ???????a? ????? ??a?ta ??d?a ??????a ?p?d??as?a? ??s? ???s??t?t??, t? e? ?pe????t?, pa?e??e ?? sf? e?da????e?? ??????? ???sta.

[364] Herodot. i, 174.

[365] Herodot. i, 176. The whole population of Xanthus perished, except eighty families accidentally absent: the subsequent occupants of the town were recruited from strangers. Nearly five centuries afterwards, their descendants in the same city slew themselves in the like desperate and tragical manner, to avoid surrendering to the Roman army under Marcus Brutus (Plutarch, Brutus, c. 31).

[366] Herodot. i, 177.

[367] Herodot. i, 153.

[368] Herodot. i, 177. t? d? ?? p??es?e p???? te p?e?st??, ?a? ???ap???t?tat? ?st?, t??t?? ?p???s?a?.

[369] See Xenophon, Anabas. i, 7, 15; ii, 4, 12. For the inextricable difficulties in which the Ten Thousand Greeks were involved, after the battle of Kunaxa, and the insurmountable obstacles which impeded their march, assuming any resisting force whatever, see Xenoph. Anab. ii, 1, 11; ii, 2, 3; ii, 3, 10; ii, 4, 12-13. These obstacles, doubtless, served as a protection to them against attack, not less than as an impediment to their advance; and the well-supplied villages enabled them to obtain plenty of provisions: hence the anxiety of the Great King to help them across the Tigris out of Babylonia. But it is not easy to see how, in the face of such difficulties, any invading army could reach Babylon.

Ritter represents the wall of Media as having reached across from the EuphratÊs to the Tigris at the point where they come nearest together, about two hundred stadia or twenty-five miles across. But it is nowhere stated, so far as I can find, that this wall reached to the EuphratÊs,—still less that its length was two hundred stadia, for the passages of Strabo cited by Ritter do not prove either point (ii, 80; xi, 529). And Xenophon (ii, 4, 12) gives the length of the wall as I have stated it in the text, = 20 parasangs = 600 stadia = 75 miles.

The passage of the Anabasis (i, 7, 15) seems to connect the Median wall with the canals, and not with the river EuphratÊs. The narrative of Herodotus, as I have remarked in a former chapter, leads us to suppose that he descended that river to Babylon; and if we suppose that the wall did not reach the EuphratÊs, this would afford some reason why he makes no mention of it. See Ritter, West Asien, b. iii, Abtheilung iii, Abschn. i, sect. 29, pp. 19-22.

[370] ? ?????? ??a? te ?a? ??da?? d?aat?? ?? te ?p? t?? ?????? (Arrian, vii, 7, 7). By which he means, that it is not fordable below the ancient Nineveh, or Mosul; for a little above that spot, Alexander himself forded it with his army, a few days before the battle of ArbÊla—not without very great difficulty (Arrian, iii, 7, 8; Diodor. xvii, 55).

[371] Herodot. i, 190. ?pe? d? ????et? ??a???? ????? t?? p?????, s???a??? te ?? ?a???????, ?a? ?ss????te? t? ???, ?ate?????sa? ?? t? ?st?.

Just as if Babylon was as easy to be approached as Sardis,—??? te ?p?st?e??? ?t? p??te??? t?? ????? ??? ?t?e????ta, ???? ?????te? a?t?? pa?t? ????? ???e? ?p??e?????ta, p??es??a?t? s?t?a ?t??? ???ta p?????.

[372] Xenophon, Anabas. i, 7, 14-20; Diodor. xiv, 22; Plutarch, ArtaxerxÊs, c. 7. I follow Xenophon without hesitation, where he differs from these two latter.

[373] Xenophon, CyropÆd. iii, 3, 26, about the p????e???a of the barbaric kings.

[374] Herodot. i, 189-202. ???a?t? ?? t?? t?? ???? ?pp?? t?? ?e???? ?p? ????? ?s?? ?? t?? p?ta??, d?aa??e?? ?pe???t?.... ???ta te d? ??a??pa??e t? p?ta? ? ????? t??t? ???sa?t?, etc.

[375] Herodot. i, 191. This latter portion of the story, if we may judge from the expression of Herodotus, seems to excite more doubt in his mind than all the rest, for he thinks it necessary to add, “as the residents at Babylon say,” ?? ???eta? ?p? t?? ta?t? ????????. Yet if we assume the size of the place to be what he has affirmed, there seems nothing remarkable in the fact that the people in the centre did not at once hear of the capture; for the first business of the assailants would be to possess themselves of the walls and gates. It is a lively illustration of prodigious magnitude, and as such it is given by Aristotle (Polit. iii, 1, 12); who, however, exaggerates it by giving as a report that the inhabitants in the centre did not hear of the capture until the third day. No such exaggeration as this appears in Herodotus.

Xenophon, in the CyropÆdia (vii, 5, 7-18), following the story that Cyrus drained off the EuphratÊs, represents it as effected in a manner differing from Herodotus. According to him, Cyrus dug two vast and deep ditches, one on each side round the town, from the river above the town to the river below it: watching the opportunity of a festival day in Babylon, he let the water into both of these side ditches, which fell into the main stream again below the town: hence the main stream in its passage through the town became nearly dry. The narrative of Xenophon, however, betrays itself, as not having been written from information received on the spot, like that of Herodotus; for he talks of a? ???a? of Babylon, just as he speaks of the ???a? of the hill-towns of Karia (compare CyropÆdia, vii, 4, 1, 7, with vii, 5, 34). There were no ???a? on the dead flat of Babylon.

[376] Arrian, vi, 24, 4.

[377] Herodot. i, 205-214; Arrian, v, 4, 14; Justin, i, 8; Strabo, xi, p. 512.

According to KtÊsias, Cyrus was slain in an expedition against the Derbikes, a people in the Caucasian regions,—though his army afterwards prove victorious and conquer the country (KtesiÆ Persica, c. 8-9),—see the comment of BÄhr on the passage, in his edition of KtÊsias.

[378] Strabo, xv, pp. 730, 731; Arrian, vi, 29.

[379] The town Kyra, or Kyropolis, on the river Sihon, or JaxartÊs, was said to have been founded by Cyrus,—it was destroyed by Alexander (Strabo, xi, pp. 517, 518; Arrian, iv, 2, 2; Curtius, vii, 6, 16).

[380] Herodot. iii, 19.

[381] Herodot. i, 188; Plutarch, ArtaxerxÊs, c. 3; Diodor. xvii, 71.

[382] Xenophon, Anabas. i, 1, 8.

[383] Xenophon, Anabas. i, 7, 6; CyropÆd. viii, 6, 19.

[384] Herodot. ix, 122.

[385] The modern Persians at this day exhibit almost matchless skill in shooting with the firelock, as well as with the bow, on horseback. See Sir John Malcolm, Sketches of Persia, ch. xvii, p. 201; see also Kinneir, Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire, p. 32.

[386] About the attributes of the Persian character, see Herodot. i, 131-140: compare i, 153.

He expresses himself very strongly as to the facility with which the Persians imbibed foreign customs, and especially foreign luxuries (i, 135),—?e????? d? ??a?a ???sa? p??s?e?ta? ??d??? ???sta,—?a? e?pa?e?a? te pa?t?dap?? p???a??e??? ?p?t?de???s?.

That rigid tenacity of customs and exclusiveness of tastes, which mark the modern Orientals, appear to be of the growth of Mohammedanism, and to distinguish them greatly from the old Zoroastrian Persians.

[387] Herodot. ix, 76; Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 26.

[388] Herodot. i, 210; iii, 159.

[389] Herodot. iii, 1-4.

[390] Herodot. iii, 1, 19, 44.

[391] The narrative of KtÊsias is, in respect both to the Egyptian expedition and to the other incidents of Persian history, quite different in its details from that of Herodotus, agreeing only in the main events (KtÊsias, Persica, c. 7). To blend the two together is impossible.

Tacitus (Histor. i, 11) notes the difficulty of approach for an invading army to Egypt: “Egyptum, provinciam aditu difficilem, annonÆ fecundam, superstitione ac lascivi discordem et mobilem,” etc.

[392] Herodot. iii, 10-16. About the Arabians, between JudÆa and Egypt, see iii, c. 5, 88-91.

[393] Herodot. iii, 19.

[394] Herodot. iii, 29.

[395] KtÊsias calls the brother TanyoxarkÊs, and says that Cyrus had left him satrap, without tribute, of Baktria and the neighboring regions (Persica, c. 8). Xenophon, in the CyropÆdia, also calls him TanyoxarkÊs, but gives him a different satrapy (CyropÆd. viii, 7, 11).

[396] Herodot. iii, 30-62.

[397] Herodot. iii, 61-63.

[398] Herodot. iii, 68-69.—“Auribus decisis vivere jubet,” says Tacitus, about a case under the Parthian government (Annal. xii, 14),—nor have the Turkish authorities given up the infliction of it at the present moment, or at least down to a very recent period.

[399] Herodot. iii, 64-66.

[400] Herodot. iii, 67.

[401] Herodot. iii, 68-69.

[402] Herodot. iii, 69-73. ????e?a ?? ???te? ???sa?, ?p? ??d?? ??d??? ????, ?a? t??t?? ?ta ??? ????t??.

Compare the description of the insupportable repugnance of the Greeks of KyrÊnÊ to be governed by the lame Battus (Herodot. iv, 161).

[403] Compare Aristophan. Aves, 487, with the Scholia, and Herodot. vii, 61; Arrian, iv, 6, 29. The cap of the Persians generally was loose, low, clinging about the head in folds; that of the king was high and erect above the head. See the notes of Wesseling and SchweighaÜser, upon p???? ?pa??e? in Herodot. l.c.

[404] Herodot. i, 101-120.

[405] In the speech which Herodotus puts into the mouth of KambysÊs on his deathbed, addressed to the Persians around him in a strain of prophetic adjuration (iii, 65), he says: ?a? d? ??? t?de ?p?s??pt?, ?e??? t??? as??????? ?p??a????, ?a? p?s?? ??? ?a? ???sta ??a?e??d??? t??s? pa?e??s?, ? pe???de?? t?? ??e????? a?t?? ?? ??d??? pe??e????sa?? ???? e?te d??? ????s? a?t?? ?t?s?e??? (the personification of the deceased son of Cyrus), d??? ?pa??e???a? ?p? ????? e?te ?a? s???e? te? ?ate??as?e???, s???e? ?at? t? ???te??? ??as?sas?a? (the forcible opposition of the Medes to Darius, which he put down by superior force on the Persian side): compare the speech of Gobryas, one of the seven Persian conspirators (iii, 73), and that of PrexaspÊs (iii, 75); also Plato, Legg. iii, 12, p. 695.

Heeren has taken a correct view of the reign of Smerdis the Magian, and its political character (Ideen Über den Verkehr, etc., der Alten Welt, part i, abth. i, p. 431).

[406] Herodot. iii, 79. Spas?e??? d? t? ???e???d?a, ??te???? ???? t??? ???? e???s???? e? d? ? ??? ?pe????sa ?s?e, ???p?? ?? ??d??a ????. ?a?t?? t?? ????? ?e?ape???s? ???sa? ????? ???sta t?? ?e????? ?a? ?? a?t? ??t?? e????? ??????s?, ? ?????ta? ?p? ?e?s??? ?a??f???a.

The periodical celebration of the Magophonia is attested by KtÊsias,—one of the few points of complete agreement with Herodotus. He farther agrees in saying that a Magian usurped the throne, through likeness of person to the deceased son of Cyrus, whom KambysÊs had slain,—but all his other statements differ from Herodotus (KtÊsias, 10-14).

[407] Even at the battle of Arbela,—“SummÆ Orsines prÆerat, a septem Persis oriundus, ad Cyrum quoque, nobilissimum regem, originem sui referens.” (Quintus Curtius, iv, 12, 7, or iv, 45, 7, Zumpt.): compare Strabo, xi, p. 531; Florus, iii, 5, 1.

[408] Herodot. iii, 127. ?a?e???—?te ??de??t?? ?? ?t? t?? p????t??, etc.,—mention of the ta?a?? (iii, 126, 150).

[409] Herodot. iii, 126. ?et? ??? t?? ?a?se? ???at??, ?a? t?? ????? t?? as??????, ???? ?? t?s? S??d?s? ????t??, ?f??e? ?? ??d?? ???sa?, ?p? ??d?? ?pa?a???????? t?? ?????? ? d? ?? ta?t? t? ta?a?? ?at? ?? ??te??e ??t???tea ... ???a te ?????se pa?t??a, etc.

[410] Herodot. iv, 166. ? d? ?????d?? ?? ??t?? t?? ????pt?? ?pa???? ?p? ?a?se? ?ateste??? ?? ?st??? ????? pa??se?e??? ?a?e?? d?ef????.

[411] Herodot. iii, 67-150.

[412] Herodot. i, 130. ?st????? ?? ??? as??e?sa? ?p? ?tea p??te ?a? t??????ta, ??t? t?? ????? ?atepa?s??. ??d?? d? ?p????a? ???s?s? d?? t?? t??t?? p????t?ta.... ?st??? ??t?? ????? ete???s? t? sf? ta?ta p???sas?, ?a? ?p?st?sa? ?p? ?a?e???? ?p?st??te? d?, ?p?s? ?atest??f??sa?, ??? ???????te?? t?te d?, ?p? ?st???e??, ?? ???sa? te ?a? ? ????? ?pa?ast??te? t??s? ??d??s?, ????? t? ?p? t??t?? t?? ?s???.

This passage—asserting that the Medes, some time after the deposition of AstyagÊs and the acquisition of Persian supremacy by Cyrus, repented of having suffered their discontent against AstyagÊs to place this supremacy in the hands of the Persians, revolted from Darius, and were reconquered after a contest—appears to me to have been misunderstood by chronologists. Dodwell, Larcher, and Mr. Fynes Clinton (indeed, most, if not all, of the chronologists) explain it as alluding to a revolt of the Medes against the Persian king Darius Nothus, mentioned in the Hellenica of Xenophon (i, 2, 12), and belonging to the year 408 B.C. See Larcher ad Herodot. i, 130, and his Vie d’HÉrodote, prefixed to his translation (p. lxxxix); also Mr. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, ad ann. 408 and 455, and his Appendix, c, 18, p. 316.

The revolt of the Medes alluded to by Herodotus is, in my judgment, completely distinct from the revolt mentioned by Xenophon: to identify the two, as these eminent chronologists do, is an hypothesis not only having nothing to recommend it, but open to grave objection. The revolt mentioned by Herodotus was against Darius son of HystaspÊs, not against Darius Nothus; and I have set forth with peculiar care the circumstances connected with the conspiracy and accession of the former, for the purpose of showing that they all decidedly imply that conflict between Median and Persian supremacy, which Herodotus directly announces in the passage now before us.

1. When Herodotus speaks of Darius, without any adjective designation, why should we imagine that he means any other than Darius the son of HystaspÊs, on whom he dwells so copiously in his narrative? Once only in the course of his history (ix, 108) another Darius (the young prince, son of XerxÊs the First) is mentioned; but with this exception, Darius son of HystaspÊs is uniformly, throughout the work, spoken of under his simple name: Darius Nothus is never alluded to at all.

2. The deposition of AstyagÊs took place in 559 B.C.; the beginning of the reign of Darius occurred in 520 B.C.; now repentance on the part of the Medes, for what they had done at the former of those two epochs, might naturally prompt them to try to repair it in the latter. But between the deposition of AstyagÊs in 559 B.C., and the revolt mentioned by Xenophon against Darius Nothus in 408 B.C., the interval is more than one hundred and fifty years. To ascribe a revolt which took place in 408 B.C., to repentance for something which had occurred one hundred and fifty years before, is unnatural and far-fetched, if not positively inadmissible.

The preceding arguments go to show that the natural construction of the passage in Herodotus points to Darius son of HystaspÊs, and not to Darius Nothus; but this is not all. There are yet stronger reasons why the reference to Darius Nothus should be discarded.

The supposed mention, in Herodotus, of a fact so late as 408 B.C., perplexes the whole chronology of his life and authorship. According to the usual statement of his biography, which every one admits, and which there is no reason to call in question, he was born in 484 B.C. Here, then, is an event alluded to in his history, which occurred when the historian was seventy-six years old, and the allusion to which he must be presumed to have written when about eighty years old, if not more; for his mention of the fact by no means implies that it was particularly recent. Those who adopt this view, do not imagine that he wrote his whole history at that age; but they maintain that he made later additions, of which they contend that this is one. I do not say that this is impossible: we know that IsokratÊs composed his Panathenaic oration at the age of ninety-four; but it must be admitted to be highly improbable,—a supposition which ought not to be advanced without some cogent proof to support it. But here no proof whatever is produced. Herodotus mentions a revolt of the Medes against Darius,—Xenophon also mentions a revolt of the Medes against Darius; hence, chronologists have taken it as a matter of course, that both authors must allude to the same event; though the supposition is unnatural as regards the text, and still more unnatural as regards the biography, of Herodotus.

In respect to that biography, Mr. Clinton appears to me to have adopted another erroneous opinion; in which, however, both Larcher and Wesseling are against him, though Dahlmann and Heyse agree with him. He maintains that the passage in Herodotus (iii, 15), wherein it is stated that Pausiris succeeded his father AmyrtÆus by consent of the Persians in the government of Egypt, is to be referred to a fact which happened subsequent to the year 414 B.C., or the tenth year of Darius Nothus; since it was in that year that AmyrtÆus acquired the government of Egypt. But this opinion rests altogether upon the assumption that a certain AmyrtÆus, whose name and date occur in Manetho (see Eusebius, Chronicon), is the same person as the AmyrtÆus mentioned in Herodotus; which identity is not only not proved, but is extremely improbable, since Mr. Clinton himself admits (F. H. Appendix, p. 317), while maintaining the identity: “He (AmyrtÆus) had conducted a war against the Persian government more than fifty years before.” This, though not impossible, is surely very improbable; it is at least equally probable that the AmyrtÆus of Manetho was a different person from (perhaps even the grandson of) that AmyrtÆus in Herodotus, who had carried on war against the Persians more than fifty wars before; it appears to me, indeed, that this is the more reasonable hypothesis of the two.

I have permitted myself to prolong this note to an unusual length, because the supposed mention of such recent events in the history of Herodotus, as those in the reign of Darius Nothus, has introduced very gratuitous assumptions as to the time and manner in which that history was composed. It cannot be shown that there is a single event of precise and ascertained date, alluded to in his history, later than the capture of the LacedÆmonian heralds in the year 430 B.C. (Herodot. vii, 137: see Larcher, Vie d’HÉrodote, p. lxxxix); and this renders the composition of his history as an entire work much more smooth and intelligible.

It may be worth while to add, that whoever reads attentively Herodotus, vi, 98,—and reflects at the same time that the destruction of the Athenian armament at Syracuse (the greatest of all Hellenic disasters, hardly inferior, for its time, to the Russian campaign of Napoleon, and especially impressive to one living at Thurii, as may be seen by the life of Lysias, Plutarch, Vit. x, Oratt. p. 835) happened during the reign of Darius Nothus in 413 B.C.,—will not readily admit the hypothesis of additions made to the history during the reign of the latter, or so late as 408 B.C. Herodotus would hardly have dwelt so expressly and emphatically upon mischief done by Greeks to each other in the reigns of Darius son of HystaspÊs, XerxÊs, and ArtaxerxÊs, if he had lived to witness the greater mischiefs so inflicted during the reign of Darius Nothus, and had kept his history before him for the purpose of inserting new events. The destruction of the Athenians before Syracuse would have been a thousand times more striking to his imagination than the revolt of the Medes against Darius Nothus, and would have impelled him with much greater force to alter or enlarge the chapter vi, 98.

The sentiment too which Herodotus places in the mouth of Demaratus respecting the Spartans (vii, 104) appears to have been written before the capture of the Spartans in Sphakteria, in 425 B.C., rather than after it: compare Thucyd. iv, 40.

Dahlmann (Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Geschichte, vol. ii, pp. 41-47) and Heyse (QuÆstiones HerodoteÆ, pp. 74-77, Berlin, 1827) both profess to point out six passages in Herodotus which mark events of later date than 430 B.C. But none of the chronological indications which they adduce appear to me trustworthy.

[413] Herodot. iii, 127, 128.

[414] Herodot. iii, 150.

[415] Herodot. iii, 155. de???? t? p??e?e???, ?ss?????? ???s?s? ?ata?e???. Compare the speech of Mardonius, vii, 9.

The horror of Darius, at the first sight of Zopyrus in this condition, is strongly dramatized by Herodotus.

[416] Herodot. iii, 154-158.

[417] KtÊsias represents the revolt and recapture of Babylon to have taken place, not under Darius, but under his son and successor XerxÊs. He says that the Babylonians, revolting, slew their satrap Zopyrus; that they were besieged by XerxÊs, and that Megabyzus son of Zopyrus caused the city to be taken by practising that very stratagem which Herodotus ascribes to Zopyrus himself (Persica, c. 20-22).

This seems inconsistent with the fact, that Megabyzus was general of the Persian army in Egypt in the war with the Athenians, about 460 B.C. (Diodor. Sic. xi, 75-77): he would hardly have been sent on active service had he been so fearfully mutilated; moreover, the whole story of KtÊsias appears to me far less probable than that of Herodotus; for on this, as on other occasions, to blend the two together is impossible.

[418] Herodot. iii, 159, 160. “From the women thus introduced (says Herodotus) the present Babylonians are sprung.”

To crucify subdued revolters by thousands is, fortunately, so little in harmony with modern European manners, that it may not be amiss to strengthen the confidence of the reader in the accuracy of Herodotus, by producing an analogous narrative of incidents far more recent. Voltaire gives, from the MS. of General Lefort, one of the principal and confidential officers of Peter the Great, the following account of the suppression of the revolted Strelitzes at Moscow, in 1698: these Strelitzes were the old native militia, or Janissaries, of the Russian Czars, opposed to all the reforms of Peter.

“Pour Étouffer ces troubles, le czar part secrÈtement de Vienne, arrive enfin À Moscou, et surprend tout le monde par sa prÉsence: il rÉcompense les troupes qui ont vaincu les StrÉlitz: les prisons Étaient pleines de ces malheureux. Si leur crime Était grand, le chÂtiment le fut aussi. Leurs chefs, plusieurs officiers, et quelques prÊtres, furent condamnÉs À la mort: quelques-uns furent rouÉs, deux femmes enterrÉes vives. On pendit autour des murailles de la ville et on fit pÉrir dans d’autres supplices deux mille StrÉlitz; leurs corps restÈrent deux jours exposÉs sur les grands chemins, et surtout autour du monastÈre oÙ rÉsidaient les princesses Sophie et Eudoxe. On Érigea des colonnes de pierre oÙ le crime et le chÂtiment furent gravÉs. Un trÈs-grand nombre qui avaient leurs femmes et leurs enfans furent dispersÉs avec leurs familles dans la SibÉrie, dans le royaume d’Astrakhan, dans le pays d’Azof: par lÀ du moins leur punition fut utile À l’État: ils servirent À dÉfricher des terres qui manquaient d’habitans et de culture.” (Voltaire, Histoire de Russie, part i, ch. x, tom. 31, of the Œuvres ComplÈtes de Voltaire, p. 148, ed. Paris, 1825.)

[419] Herodot. iii, 92.

[420] Herodot. iii, 89. What the Persian denomination was, which Herodotus or his informants translated ??p????, we do not know; but this latter word was used often by Greeks to signify a cheat, or deceiver generally: see Etymologic. Magn. p. 490, 11, and Suidas, v. ??pe???. ? d? ??s????? t? d???a pÁ?ta ?a?e? ??p??a—“??p??a p??sf???? te???ata.” (Æschylus, Fragment. 328, ed. Dindorf: compare Euripid. Hippolyt. 953.)

[421] Herodot. iii, 128. This division of power, and double appointment by the Great King, appears to have been retained until the close of the Persian empire: see Quintus Curtius, v, l, 17-20 (v, 3, 19-21, Zumpt). The present Turkish government nominates a Defterdar as finance administrator in each province, with authority derived directly from itself, and professedly independent of the Pacha.

[422] Herodot. iii, 15.

[423] Respecting the administration of the modern Persian empire, see Kinneir, Geograph. Memoir of Persia, pp. 29, 43, 47.

[424] Herodot. iii, 95. The text of Herodotus contains an erroneous summing up of items, which critics have no means of correcting with certainty. Nor is it possible to trust the huge sum which he alleges to have been levied from the Indians, though all the other items, included in the nineteen silver-paying divisions, seem within the probable truth; and indeed both Rennell and Robertson think the total too small: the charges on some of the satrapies are decidedly smaller than the reality.

The vast sum of fifty thousand talents is said to have been found by Alexander the Great, laid up by successive kings at Susa alone, besides the treasures at Persepolis, PasargadÆ, and elsewhere (Arrian, iii, 16, 12; Plutarch, Alexand. 37). Presuming these talents to be Babylonian or ÆginÆan talents (in the proportion 5:3 to Attic talents), fifty thousand talents would be equal to nineteen million pounds sterling; if they were Attic talents, it would be equal to eleven million six hundred thousand pounds sterling. The statements of Diodorus give even much larger sums (xvii, 66-71: compare Curtius, v, 2, 8; v, 6, 9; Strabo, xv, p. 730). It is plain that the numerical affirmations were different in different authors, and one cannot pretend to pronounce on the trustworthiness of such large figures without knowing more of the original returns on which they were founded. That there were prodigious sums of gold and silver, is quite unquestionable. Respecting the statement of the Persian revenue given by Herodotus, see Boeckh, Metrologie, ch. v, 1-2.

AmedÉe Jaubert, in 1806, estimated the population of the modern Persian empire at about seven million souls; of which about six million were settled population, the rest nomadic: he also estimated the Schah’s revenue at about two million nine hundred thousand tomans, or one million five hundred thousand pounds sterling. Others calculated the population higher, at nearer twelve million souls. Kinneir gives the revenue at something more than three million pounds sterling: he thinks that the whole territory between the EuphratÊs and the Indus does not contain above eighteen millions of souls (Geogr. Memoir of Persia, pp. 44-47: compare Ritter, West Asien, Abtheil. ii, Abschn. iv, pp. 879-889).

The modern Persian empire contains not so much as the eastern half of the ancient, which covered all Asiatic Turkey and Egypt besides.

[425] Herodot. iii, 102; iv, 44. See the two Excursus of BÄhr on these two chapters, vol. ii, pp. 648-671 of his edit. of Herodotus.

It certainly is singular that neither Nearchus, nor Ptolemy, nor Aristobulus, nor Arrian, take any notice of this remarkable voyage distinctly asserted by Herodotus to have been accomplished. Such silence, however, affords no sufficient reason for calling the narrative in question. The attention of the Persian kings, successors to Darius, came to be far more occupied with the western than with the eastern portions of their empire.

[426] Thucyd. i, 138.

[427] Herodot. iii, 117.

[428] Herodot. i, 192. Compare the description of the dinner and supper of the Great King, in PolyÆnus, iv, 3, 32; also KtÊsias and DeinÔn ap AthenÆum, ii, p. 67.

[429] Plato, Legg. iii, 12, p. 695.

[430] Herodot. iv, 166; Plutarch, Kimon, 10.

The gold Daric, of the weight of two Attic drachmÆ; (Stater Daricus), equivalent to twenty Attic silver drachmÆ (Xenoph. Anab. i, 7, 18), would be about 16s. 3d. English. But it seems doubtful whether that ratio between gold and silver (10:1) can be reckoned upon as the ordinary ratio in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. Mr. Hussey calculates the golden Daric as equal to £1, 1s. 3d. English (Hussey, Essay on the Ancient Weights and Money, Oxford, 1836, ch. iv, s. 8, p. 68; ch. vii, s. 3, p. 103).

I cannot think, with Mr. Hussey, that there is any reason for believing either the name or the coin Daric to be older than Darius son of HystaspÊs. Compare Boeckh, Metrologie, ix, 5, p. 129.

Particular statements respecting the value of gold and silver, as exchanged one against the other, are to be received with some reserve as the basis of any general estimate, since we have not the means of comparing a great many such statements together. For the process of coinage was imperfectly performed, and the different pieces, both of gold and silver, in circulation, differed materially in weight one with the other. Herodotus gives the ratio of gold to silver as 13:1.

[431] Herodot. iii, 96.

[432] Herodot. v, 52-53; viii, 98. “It appears to be a favorite idea with all barbarous princes, that the badness of the roads adds considerably to the natural strength of their dominions. The Turks and Persians are undoubtedly of this opinion: the public highways are, therefore, neglected, and particularly so towards the frontiers.” (Kinneir, Geog. Mem. of Pers. p. 43.)

The description of Herodotus contrasts favorably with the picture here given by Mr. Kinneir.

[433] Herodot. iii, 120.

[435] Herodot. iii, 40-42. ... ?? d? ? ??a???? ?d? t?p? t??t?? a? e?t???a? t?? t??a?ta?s? p??a?s? p??sp?pt?s?, t??p? t? ?? ?e? ?p??e???? ????: compare vii, 203, and i, 32.

[436] Herodot. iii, 44.

[437] Herodot. iii, 44.

[438] Herodot. iii, 46. t? ?????? pe??e???as?a?.

[439] Herodot. iii, 47, 48, 52.

[440] Herodot. iii, 54-56.

[441] Herodot. iii, 57. ??s??t??? ???sta ?p???te??.

[442] Herodot. iii, 58, 59.

[443] Herodot. iii, 139. p????? pas??? p??t?? ??????d?? ?a? a?????.

[444] Herodot. iii, 60.

[445] Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 4. t?? pe?? S??? ???a ???????te?a? p??ta ??? ta?ta d??ata? ta?t??, ?s????a? ?a? pe??a? t?? ????????.

[446] Thucyd. i, 14; iii, 104.

[447] Herodot. iii, 120.

[448] Compare the trick of Hannibal at Gortyn in Krete,—Cornelius Nepos (Hannibal, c. 9).

[449] Herodot. iii, 124, 125.

[450] Herodot. iii, 126. ????tea ???????te?? t?s?e? et?????.

[451] Herodot. iii, 142. t? d??a??t?t? ??d??? ??????? ?e??s?a?, ??? ??e???et?. Compare his remark on Kadmus, who voluntarily resigned the despotism at KÔs (vii, 164).

[452] Herodot. iii, 142. ???? ??d? ????? e? s? ?e ???? ???e??, ?e????? te ?a???, ?a? ??? ??e????? ???? ????? ???? ????? d?se?? t?? ??e?e???sa? ????t??.

[453] Herodot. iii, 143. ?? ??? d?, ?? ???as?, ?????at? e??a? ??e??e???.

[454] Herodot. v, 78, and iii, 142, 143.

[455] Herodot. iii, 139. ? d? S???s??, ????? t?? ?a?e??? e????? ?p??????ta t?? ?????d??, ?e?? t??? ??e?e???, ???e?, etc.

[456] Herodot. iii, 140. ?p?stat? ?? t??t? ?p??????a? d?? e??????.

[457] Herodot. iii, 141-144.

[458] Herodot. iii, 146. t?? ?e?s??? t??? d?f??f??e?????? ?a? ????? p?e?st?? ??????.

[459] Herodot. iii, 145. ?? ??, ? ????ste ??d???, ???ta se??t?? ?de?fe??, ?a? ?d???sa?ta ??d?? ????? des??, d?sa? ???????? ????sa?? ????? d? t??? ???sa? ???????t?? t? se ?a? ??????? p??e??ta?, ?? t???? t?sas?a?, ??t? d? t? ???ta? e?pet?a? ?e??????a?.

The highly dramatic manner of Herodotus cannot be melted down into smooth historical recital.

[460] Herodot. iii, 149. ????? ???sa? ??d???.

[461] Herodot. v, 27.

[462] Herodot. iii, 148.

[463] Herodot. iii, 149.

[464] Herodot. vi, 13.

[465] Strabo, xiv, p. 638. He gives a proverbial phrase about the depopulation of the island—

which is perfectly consistent with the narrative of Herodotus.

[466] Herodot. iii, 88; vii, 2.

[467] Herodot. vii, 3. ? ??? ?t?ssa e??e t? p?? ???t??. Compare the description given of the ascendency of the savage Sultana Parysatis over her son ArtaxerxÊs MnÊmon (Plutarch, ArtaxerxÊs, c. 16, 19, 23).

[468] Herodot. iii, 131. ?s?e??? pe? ???, ?a? ???? ??d?? t?? ?sa pe?? t?? t????? ?st?? ???a???a,—the description refers to surgical rather than to medical practice.

That curious assemblage of the cases of particular patients with remarks, known in the works of HippokratÊs, under the title ?p?d??a? (Notes of visits to different cities), is very illustrative of what Herodotus here mentions about DÊmokÊdÊs. Consult, also, the valuable Prolegomena of M. LittrÉ, in his edition of HippokratÊs now in course of publication, as to the character, means of action, and itinerant habits of the Grecian ?at???: see particularly the preface to vol. v, p. 12, where he enumerates the various places visited and noted by HippokratÊs. The greater number of the Hippokratic observations refer to various parts of Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly; but there are some, also, which refer to patients in the islands of Syros and Delos, at Athens, Salamis, Elis, Corinth, and ŒniadÆ in Akarnania. “On voit par lÀ combien Étoit juste le nom de Periodeutes ou voyageurs donnÉs À ces anciens mÉdecins.”

Again, M. LittrÉ, in the same preface, p. 25, illustrates the proceedings and residence of the ancient ?at???: “On se tromperoit si on se reprÉsentoit la demeure d’un mÉdecin d’alors comme celle d’un mÉdecin d’aujourd’hui. La maison du mÉdecin de l’antiquitÉ, du moins au temps d’Hippocrate et aux Époques voisines, renfermoit un local destinÉ À la pratique d’un grand nombre d’opÉrations, contenant les machines et les instrumens nÉcessaires, et de plus Étant aussi une boutique de pharmacie. Ce local se nommait ?at?e???.” See Plato, Legg. i, p. 646, iv, p. 720. TimÆus accused Aristotle of having begun as a surgeon, practising to great profit in surgery, or ?at?e???, and having quitted this occupation late in life, to devote himself to the study of science,—s?f?st?? ???a?? ?a? ?s?t?? ?p?????ta, ?a? t? p???t??t?? ?at?e??? ??t??? ?p??e??e???ta (Polyb. xii, 9).

See, also, the Remarques Retrospectives attached by M. LittrÉ to volume iv, of the same work (pp. 654-658), where he dwells upon the intimate union of surgical and medical practice in antiquity. At the same time, it must be remarked that a passage in the remarkable medical oath, published in the collection of Hippokratic treatises, recognizes in the plainest manner the distinction between the physician and the operator,—the former binds himself by this oath not to perform the operation “even of lithotomy, but to leave it to the operators, or workmen:” ?? te?? d? ??d? ?? ??????ta?, ??????s? d? ????st?s?? ??d??s? p?????? t?sde (Œuvres d’Hippocrate, vol. iv, p. 630, ed. LittrÉ). M. LittrÉ (p. 617) contests this explanation, remarking that the various Hippokratic treatises represent the ?at??? as performing all sorts of operations, even such as require violent and mechanical dealing. But the words of the oath are so explicit, that it seems more reasonable to assign to the oath itself a later date than the treatises, when the habits of practitioners may have changed.

[469] About the Persian habit of sending to Egypt for surgeons, compare Herodot. iii, 1.

[470] Herodot iii, 129. t?? d? ?? ??e???? ?? t??s? ????te? ??d?ap?d??s? ???? d? ?p?e??????, pa????? ?? ?s??, p?da? te ?????ta ?a? ???es?? ?s??????.

[471] Herodot. iii, 130. The golden stater was equal to about 1l. 1s. 3d. English money (Hussey, Ancient Weights, vii, 3, p. 103).

The ladies in a Persian harem appear to have been less unapproachable and invisible than those in modern Turkey; in spite of the observation of Plutarch, ArtaxerxÊs, c. 27.

[472] Herodot. iii, 133. de?ses?a? d? ??de??? t?? ?sa a?s????? ?st? f????ta. Another Greek physician at the court of Susa, about seventy years afterwards,—ApollonidÊs of KÔs,—in attendance on a Persian princess, did not impose upon himself the same restraint: his intrigue was divulged, and he was put to death miserably (KtÊsias, Persica, c. 42).

[473] Herodot. iii, 134.

[474] Herodot. iii, 136. p??s?s???te? d? a?t?? t? pa?a?a??ss?a ???sa?t? ?a? ?pe???f??t?.

[475] Herodot. iii, 137, 138.

[476] Herodot. iii, 137. ?at? d? t??t? ?? spe?sa? d???e? t?? ???? t??t?? te??sa? ???ata e???a ?????d??, ??a fa?? p??? ?a?e??? ??? ?a? ?? t? ???t?? d?????.

[477] Herodot. iii, 138.

[478] Xenophon, Memorab. iv, 2, 33. ?????? d? p?s??? ??e? (says SokratÊs) d?? s?f?a? ??a?p?st??? p??? as???a ?e?????a?, ?a? ??e? d???e?e??;

We shall run little risk in conjecturing that, among the intelligent and able men thus carried off, surgeons and physicians would be selected as the first and most essential.

ApollÔnidÊs of KÔs—whose calamitous end has been alluded to in a previous note—was resident as surgeon, or physician, with ArtaxerxÊs Longimanus (KtÊsias, Persica, c. 30), and Polykritus of MendÊ, as well as KtÊsias himself, with ArtaxerxÊs MnÊmon (Plutarch, ArtaxerxÊs, c. 31).

[479] Æschyl. Pers. 435-845, etc.

[480] Herodot. iv, 1, 83. There is nothing to mark the precise year of the Scythian expedition; but as the accession of Darius is fixed to 521 B.C., and as the expedition is connected with the early part of his reign, we may conceive him to have entered upon it as soon as his hands were free; that is, as soon as he had put down the revolted satraps and provinces, OroetÊs, the Medes, Babylonians, etc. Five years seems a reasonable time to allow for these necessities of the empire, which would bring the Scythian expedition to 516-515 B.C. There is reason for supposing it to have been before 514 B.C., for in that year Hipparchus was slain at Athens, and Hippias the surviving brother, looking out for securities and alliances abroad, gave his daughter in marriage to ÆantidÊs son of Hippoklus, despot of Lampsakus, “perceiving that Hippoklus and his son had great influence with Darius,” (Thucyd. vi, 59.) Now Hippoklus could not well have acquired this influence before the Scythian expedition; for Darius came down then for the first time to the western sea; Hippoklus served upon that expedition (Herodot. iv, 138), and it was probably then that his favor was acquired, and farther confirmed during the time that Darius stayed at Sardis after his return from Scythia.

Professor Schultz (BeitrÄge zu genaueren Zeitbestimmungen der Hellen. Geschicht. von der 63ⁿ bis zur 72ⁿ Olympiade, p. 168, in the Kieler Philolog. Studien) places the expedition in 513 B.C.; but I think a year or two earlier is more probable. Larcher, Wesseling, and BÄhr (ad Herodot. iv, 145) place it in 508 B.C., which is later than the truth; indeed, Larcher himself places the reduction of Lemnos and Imbros by OtanÊs in 511 B.C., though that event decidedly came after the Scythian expedition (Herodot. v, 27; Larcher, Table Chronologique, Trad. d’HÉrodot. t. vii, pp. 633-635).

[481] Herodot. iv, 84.

[482] Herodot. vii, 39.

[483] Herodot. iv, 97, 137, 138.

[484] Herodot. iv, 89-93.

[485] Herod. iv, 48-50. ?st???—???st?? p?ta?? p??t?? t?? ?e?? ?de?, etc.

[486] KtÊsias, Persica. c. 17. Justin (ii, 5—compare also xxxviii, 7) seems to follow the narrative of KtÊsias.

Æschylus (PersÆ. 864), who presents the deceased Darius as a glorious contrast with the living XerxÊs, talks of the splendid conquests which he made by means of others,—“without crossing the Halys himself, nor leaving his home.” We are led to suppose, by the language which Æschylus puts into the mouth of the EidÔlon of Darius (v, 720-745), that he had forgotten, or had never heard of, the bridge thrown across the Bosphorus by order of Darius; for the latter is made to condemn severely the impious insolence of XerxÊs in bridging over the Hellespont.

[487] Herodot. iv, 136. ?te d? t?? ?e?s???? p????? ???t?? pe??? st?at??, ?a? t?? ?d??? ??? ?p?sta????, ?ste ?? tet????? t?? ?d??, t?? d? S???????, ?pp?te?, ?a? t? s??t?a t?? ?d?? ?p?sta????, etc. Compare c. 128.

The number and size of the rivers are mentioned by Herodotus as the principal wonder of Scythia, c. 82—T???s?a d? ? ???? a?t? ??? ??e?, ????? ? ?t? p?t???? te p???? e??st??? ?a? ?????? p?e?st???, etc. He ranks the BorysthenÊs as the largest of all rivers except the Nile and the Danube (c. 53). The Hypanis also (Bog) is p?ta?? ?? ??????s? ??a? (c. 52).

But he appears to forget the existence of these rivers when he is describing the Persian march.

[488] Herodot. iv, 101.

[489] Herodot. iv, 118, 119.

[490] Herodot. iv, 120-122.

[491] Herodot. iv, 123. ?s?? ?? d? ?????? ?? ???sa? ??sa? d?? t?? S??????? ?a? t?? Sa????t?d?? ?????, ?? d? e???? ??d?? s??es?a?, ?te t?? ????? ???s?? ???s??? ?pe? d? te ?? t?? t?? ???d???? ????? ?s?a???, etc. See Rennell, Geograph. System of Herodotus, p. 114, about the Oarus.

The erections, whatever they were, which were supposed to mark the extreme point of the march of Darius, may be compared to those evidences of the extreme advance of Dionysus, which the Macedonian army saw on the north of the JaxartÊs—“Liberi patris terminos.” Quintus Curtius, vii, 9, 15, (vii, 37, 16, Zumpt.)

[492] Herodot. iv, 125. HekatÆus ranks the MelanchlÆni as a Scythian ????? (Hekat. Fragment. 154, ed. Klausen): he also mentions several other subdivisions of Scythians, who cannot be farther authenticated (Fragm. 155-160).

[493] Herodot. iv, 126, 127.

[494] Herodot. iv, 128-132. The bird, the mouse, the frog, and the arrows, are explained to mean: Unless you take to the air like a bird, to the earth like a mouse, or to the water like a frog, you will become the victim of the Scythian arrows.

[495] Herodot. iv, 133.

[496] Herodot. iv. 46. ?? d? S?????? ???e? ?? ?? t? ???st?? t?? ?????p???? p????t?? s?f?tata p??t?? ??e???ta?, t?? ?e?? ?de?? t? ??t?? ???a ??? ??aa?. ?? d? ???st?? ??t? sf? ??e???ta?, ?ste ?p?f???e?? te ?d??a ?pe????ta ?p? sf?a?, ? ????????? te ??e??e???a?, ?ata?ae?? ? ???? te e??a?. ???s? ??? ?te ?stea ?te te??ea ? ??t?s??a, ???? fe??????? ???te? p??te?, ??s? ?pp?t???ta?, ???te? ? ?p? ???t??, ???? ?p? ?t?????, ????ata d? sf? ? ?p? ?e?????, ??? ??? ?? e??sa? ??t?? ?a??? te ?a? ?p???? p??s?s?e??;

??e???ta? d? sf? ta?ta, t?? te ??? ???s?? ?p?t?d???, ?a? t?? p?ta?? ???t?? sf? s?????, etc.

Compare this with the oration of the Scythian envoys to Alexander the Great, as it stands in Quintus Curtius, vii, 8, 22 (vii, 35, 22, Zumpt).

[497] The statement of Strabo (vii, p. 305), which restricts the march of Darius to the country between the Danube and the Tyras (Dniester) is justly pronounced by Niebuhr (Kleine Schriften, p. 372) to be a mere supposition suggested by the probabilities of the case, because it could not be understood how his large army should cross even the Dniester: it is not to be treated as an affirmation resting upon any authority. “As Herodotus tells us what is impossible (adds Niebuhr), we know nothing at all historically respecting the expedition.”

So again the conjecture of Palmerius (Exercitationes ad Auctores GrÆcos, p. 21) carries on the march somewhat farther than the Dniester,—to the Hypanis, or perhaps to the BorysthenÊs. Rennell, Klaproth, and Reichard, are not afraid to extend the march on to the Wolga. Dr. Thirlwall stops within the Tanais, admitting, however, that no correct historical account can be given of it. Eichwald supposes a long march up the Dniester into Volhynia and Lithuania.

Compare Ukert, Skythien, p. 26; Dahlmann, Historische Forschungen, ii, pp. 159-164; Schaffarik, Slavische AlterthÜmer, i, 10, 3, i, 13, 4-5; and Mr. Kenrick, Remarks on the Life and Writings of Herodotus, prefixed to his Notes on the Second Book of Herodotus, p. xxi. The latter is among those who cannot swim the Dniester: he says: “Probably the Dniester (Tyras) was the real limit of the expedition, and Bessarabia, Moldavia, and the Bukovina, the scene of it.”

[498] Herodot. iv, 97. ?a?e??? ????e?se t??? ???a? t?? s?ed??? ??sa?ta? ?pes?a? ?at? ?pe???? ???t?, ?a? t?? ?? t?? ???? st?at??.

[499] Herodot. iv, 98. ?? d? ?? t??t? t? ????? ? pa???, ???? d?????s? ??? a? ???a? t?? ??t??, ?p?p??ete ?? t?? ?et???? a?t???? ???? d? t??t??, ?pe? te ??t? et?d??e, f???ssete t?? s?ed???.

[500] Herodot. vi, 84. Compare his account of the marches of the Cimmerians and of the Scythians into Asia Minor and Media respectively (Herodot. i, 103, 104, iv, 12).

[501] Arrian, Exp. Al. iii, 6, 15; Plutarch, Alexand. c. 45; Quint. Curt. vii, 7, 4, vii, 8, 30 (vii, 29, 5, vii, 36, 7, Zumpt).

[502] Herodot. iv, 133, 136, 137.

[503] Herodot. iv, 137-139.

[504] Herodot. iv, 140, 141.

[505] Herodot. iv, 143, 144, v, 1, 2.

[506] Herodot. v, 2.

[507] Herodot. v, 11.

[508] Herodot. v, 23.

[509] Herodot. vi, 40-84. That MiltiadÊs could have remained in the Chersonese undisturbed, during the interval between the Scythian expedition of Darius and the Ionic revolt,—when the Persians were complete masters of those regions, and when OtanÊs was punishing other towns in the neighborhood for evasion of service under Darius, after he had declared so pointedly against the Persians on a matter of life and death to the king and army,—appears to me, as it does to Dr. Thirlwall (History of Gr. vol. ii, App. ii, p. 486, ch. xiv, pp. 226-249), eminently improbable. So forcibly does Dr. Thirlwall feel the difficulty, that he suspects the reported conduct and exhortations of MiltiadÊs at the bridge over the Danube to have been a falsehood, fabricated by MiltiadÊs himself, twenty years afterwards, for the purpose of acquiring popularity at Athens during the time immediately preceding the battle of Marathon.

I cannot think this hypothesis admissible. It directly contradicts Herodotus on a matter of fact very conspicuous, and upon which good means of information seem to have been within his reach. I have already observed that the historian HekatÆus must have possessed personal knowledge of all the relations between the Ionians and Darius, and that he very probably may have been even present at the bridge: all the information given by HekatÆus upon these points would be open to the inquiries of Herodotus. The unbounded gratitude of Darius towards HistiÆus shows that some one or more of the Ionic despots present at the bridge must have powerfully enforced the expediency of breaking it down. That the name of the despot who stood forward as prime mover of this resolution should have been forgotten and not mentioned at the time, is highly improbable; yet such must have been the case if a fabrication by MiltiadÊs twenty years afterwards could successfully fill up the blank with his own name. The two most prominent matters talked of, after the retreat of Darius, in reference to the bridge, would probably be the name of the leader who urged its destruction, and the name of HistiÆus, who preserved it. Indeed, the mere fact of the mischievous influence exercised by the latter afterwards would be pretty sure to keep these points of the case in full view.

There are means of escaping from the difficulty of the case, I think, without contradicting Herodotus on any matter of fact important and conspicuous, or indeed on any matter of fact whatever. We see by vi, 40, that MiltiadÊs did quit the Chersonese between the close of the Scythian expedition of Darius and the Ionic revolt; Herodotus, indeed, tells us that he quitted it in consequence of an incursion of the Scythians: but without denying the fact of such an incursion, we may reasonably suppose the historian to have been mistaken in assigning it as the cause of the flight of MiltiadÊs. The latter was prevented from living in the Chersonese continuously, during the interval between the Persian invasion of Scythia and the Ionic revolt, by fear of Persian enmity. It is not necessary for us to believe that he was never there at all, but his residence there must have been interrupted and insecure. The chronological data in Herodot. vi, 40, are exceedingly obscure and perplexing; but it seems to me that the supposition which I suggest introduces a plausible coherence into the series of historical facts, with the slightest possible contradiction to our capital witness.

The only achievement of MiltiadÊs, between the affair on the Danube and his return to Athens shortly before the battle of Marathon, is the conquest of Lemnos; and that must have taken place evidently while the Persians were occupied by the Ionic revolt, (between 502-494 B.C.) There is nothing in his recorded deeds inconsistent with the belief, therefore, that between 515-502 B.C. he may not have resided in the Chersonese at all, or at least not for very long together: and the statement of Cornelius Nepos, that he quitted it immediately after the return from Scythia, from fear of the Persians, may be substantially true. Dr. Thirlwall observes (p. 487)—“As little would it appear that when the Scythians invaded the Chersonese, MiltiadÊs was conscious of having endeavored to render them an important service. He flies before them, though he had been so secure while the Persian arms were in his neighborhood.” He has here put his finger on what I believe to be the error of Herodotus,—the supposition that MiltiadÊs fled from the Chersonese to avoid the Scythians, whereas he really left it to avoid the Persians.

The story of Strabo (xiii, p. 591), that Darius caused the Greek cities on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont to be burnt down, in order to hinder them from affording means of transport to the Scythians into Asia, seems to me highly improbable. These towns appear in their ordinary condition, Abydus among them, at the time of the Ionic revolt a few years afterwards (Herodot. v, 117).

[510] Herodot. v, 13-16. Nikolaus DamaskÊnus (Fragm. p. 36, ed. Orell.) tells a similar story about the means by which a Mysian woman attracted the notice of the Lydian king AlyattÊs. Such repetition of a striking story, in reference to different people and times, has many parallels in ancient history.

[511] Herodot. v, 20, 21.

[512] Herodot. v, 23, 24.

[513] Herodot. vi, 138. Æschyl. ChoÊphor. 632; Stephan. Byz. v. ?????.

The mystic rites in honor of the Kabeiri at Lemnos and Imbros are particularly noticed by PherekydÊs (ap. Strabo, x, p. 472): compare Photius, v. ??e????, and the remarkable description of the periodical Lemnian solemnity in Philostratus (Heroi. p. 740).

The volcanic mountain Mosychlus, in the north-eastern portion of the island, was still burning in the fourth century B.C. (Antimach. Fragment. xviii, p. 103, DÜntzer Epicc. GrÆc. Fragm.)

Welcker’s Dissertation (Die Æschylische Trilogie, p. 248, seqq.) enlarges much upon the Lemnian and Samothracian worship.

[514] Herodot. v, 26, 27. The twenty-seventh chapter is extremely perplexing. As the text reads at present, we ought to make LykarÊtus the subject of certain predications which yet seem properly referable to OtanÊs. We must consider the words from ?? ?? d? ??????—down to te?e?t?—as parenthetical, which is awkward; but it seems the least difficulty in the case, and the commentators are driven to adopt it.

[515] Zenob. Proverb. iii, 85.

[516] Herodot. vi, 140. Charax ap. Stephan. Byz. v. ?fa?stÍa.

[517] Xenophon, Hellen. v, 1, 31. Compare Plato, Menexenus, c. 17, p. 245, where the words ?et??a? ?p????a? doubtless mean Lemnos, Imbros, and Skyros.

[518] Thucyd. iv, 23, v, 8, vii, 57; Phylarchus ap. AthenÆum, vi, p. 255; DÊmosthen. Philippic. 1, c. 12, p. 17, R.: compare the Inscription, No. 1686, in the collection of Boeckh, with his remarks, p. 297.

About the stratagems resorted to before the Athenian dikastery, to procure delay by pretended absence in Lemnos or Skyros, see IsÆus, Or. vi, p. 58 (p. 80, Bek.); Pollux, viii, 7, 81; Hesych. v. ?????; Suidas, v. ????a d???: compare also Carl Rhode, Res LemnicÆ, p. 50 (Wratislaw 1829).

It seems as if e?? ????? p?e?? had come to be a proverbial expression at Athens for getting out of the way,—evading the performance of duty: this seems to be the sense of DÊmosthenÊs, Philipp. i, c. 9, p. 14. ???? e?? ?? ????? t?? pa?? ??? ?ppa???? de? p?e??, t?? d? ?p?? t?? t?? p??e?? ?t??t?? ??????????? ?e???a?? ?ppa??e??.

From the passage of IsÆus above alluded to, which Rhode seems to me to construe incorrectly, it appears that there was a legal connubium between Athenian citizens and Lemnian women.

[519] Herodot. vi, 136.

[520] Herodot. v, 28. ?et? d? ?? p????? ??????, ??e?? ?a??? ??—or ??es?? ?a???—if the conjecture of some critics be adopted. Mr. Clinton, with Larcher and others (see Fasti Hellen. App. 18, p. 314), construe this passage as if the comma were to be placed after et? d?, so that the historian would be made to affirm that the period of repose lasted only a short time. It appears to me that the comma ought rather to be placed after ??????, and that the “short time” refers to those evils which the historian had been describing before. There must have been an interval of eight years at least, if not of ten years, between the events which the historian had been describing—the evils inflicted by the attacks of OtanÊs—and the breaking out of the Ionic revolt; which latter event no one places earlier than 504 B.C., though some prefer 502 B.C., others even 500 B.C.

If, indeed, we admitted with Wesseling (ad Herodot. vi, 40; and Mr. Clinton seems inclined towards the same opinion, see p. 314, ut sup.) that the Scythian expedition is to be placed in 508-507 B.C., then indeed the interval between the campaign of OtanÊs and the Ionic revolt would be contracted into one or two years. But I have already observed that I cannot think 508 B.C. a correct date for the Scythian expedition: it seems to me to belong to about 515 B.C. Nor do I know what reason there is for determining the date as Wesseling does, except this very phrase ?? p????? ??????, which is on every supposition exceedingly vague, and which he appears to me not to have construed in the best way.

[521] Herodot. v, 96. ? d? ??taf????? ????e?? sfea? e? ?????at? s??? e??a?, ?atad??es?a? ?p?s? t?? ?pp???.

[522] Herodot. v, 31. Plutarch says that Lygdamis, established as despot at Naxos by Peisistratus (Herodot. i, 64), was expelled from this post by the LacedÆmonians (De Herodot. Malignitat. c. 21, p. 859). I confess that I do not place much confidence in the statements of that treatise, as to the many despots expelled by Sparta: we neither know the source from whence Plutarch borrowed them, nor any of the circumstances connected with them.

[523] Herodot. v, 30, 31.

[525] Herodot. v, 35: compare PolyÆn. i, 24, and Aulus Gellius, N. A. xvii, 9.

[526] Herodot. v, 36.

[527] Compare Herodotus, v, 121, and vii, 98. Oliatus was son of IbanÔlis, as was also the Mylasian HerakleidÊs mentioned in v, 121.

[528] Herodot. v, 36, 37; vi, 9.

[529] Herodot. v, 49. ?? d? (??e???e?) ?? ?????? ??e, ?? ?a?eda?????? ?????s?, ???? ????e?? p??a?a, ?? t? ??? ?p?s?? pe???d?? ??et?t?t?, ?a? ???ass? te p?sa ?a? p?ta?? p??te?.

The earliest map of which mention is made was prepared by Anaximander in Ionia, apparently not long before this period: see Strabo, i, p. 7; Agathemerus, 1, c. 1; Diogen. LaËrt. ii, 1.

Grosskurd, in his note on the above passage of Strabo, as well as Larcher and other critics, appear to think, that though this tablet or chart of Anaximander was the earliest which embraced the whole known earth, there were among the Greeks others still earlier, which described particular countries. There is no proof of this, nor can I think it probable: the passage of Apollonius Rhodius (iv, 279) with the Scholia to it, which is cited as evidence, appears to me unworthy of attention.

Among the Roman Agrimensores, it was the ancient practice to engrave their plans, of land surveyed, upon tablets of brass, which were deposited in the public archives, and of which copies were made for private use, though the original was referred to in case of legal dispute (Siculus Flaccus ap. Rei AgrariÆ Scriptores, p. 16, ed. Goes: compare Giraud, Recherches sur le Droit de PropriÉtÉ, p. 116, Aix, 1838).

[530] Herodot. v, 49. de????? d? ta?ta ??e?e ?? t?? t?? ??? pe???d??, t?? ?f??et? ?? t? p??a?? ??tet?????.

[531] Herodot. v, 49. p??e??? d? t?? ?s??? p?s?? ???e?? e?pet???, ???? t? a???ses?e;

[532] Herodot. v, 49, 50, 51. Compare Plutarch, Apophthegm. Laconic. p. 240.

We may remark, both in this instance and throughout all the life and time of KleomenÊs, that the Spartan king has the active management and direction of foreign affairs,—subject, however, to trial and punishment by the ephors in case of misbehavior (Herodot. vi, 82). We shall hereafter find the ephors gradually taking into their own hands, more and more, the actual management.

[533] Herodot. vi, 112. p??t?? te ???s???t? ?s??t? te ??d???? ?????te?, ?a? ??d?a? ta?t?? ?s???????? t??? d? ?? t??s? ????s? ?a? t? ????a t? ??d?? f??? ????sa?.

[534] Aristagoras says to the Spartans (v, 49)—t? ?at????ta ??? ?st? ta?ta? ????? pa?da? d?????? e??a? ??t? ??e??????, ??e?d?? ?a? ????? ???st?? ?? a?t??s? ???, ?t? d? t?? ???p?? ???, ?s? p??est?ate t?? ????d?? (Herodotus, v, 49). In reference to the earlier incident (Herodot. i, 70)—???t??? te ?? e??e?e? ?? ?a?eda?????? t?? s?a???? ?d??a?t?, ?a? ?t? ?? p??t?? sf?a? p??????a? ???????, a???et? f????? (Croesus).

An interval of rather more than forty years separates the two events, during which both the feelings of the Spartans, and the feelings of others towards them, had undergone a material change.

[535] Herodot. v, 97. p?????? ??? ???e e??a? e?pet?ste??? d?a???e?? ? ??a, e? ??e???ea ?? t?? ?a?eda?????? ????? ??? ???? te ????et? d?aa??e??, t?e?? d? ????da? ????a??? ?p???se t??t?.

[536] Herodot. v, 98; Homer, Iliad, v, 62. The criticism of Plutarch (De Malignitat. Herodot. p. 861) on this passage, is rather more pertinent than the criticisms in that ill-tempered composition generally are.

[537] About KorÊssus, see Diodor. xiv, 99, and Xenophon, Hellen. i, 2, 7.

[538] CharÔn of Lampsakus, and Lysanias in his history of Eretria, seem to have mentioned this first siege of MilÊtus, and the fact of its being raised in consequence of the expedition to Sardis; see Plutarch, de Herodot. Malignit. p. 861,—though the citation is given there confusedly, so that we cannot make much out of it.

[539] Herodot. v, 102, 103. It is a curious fact that CharÔn of Lampsakus made no mention of this defeat of the united Athenian and Ionian force: see Plutarch, de Herodot. Malign. ut sup.

[540] About Derkyllidas, see Xenophon, Hellen. iii, 2, 17-19.

[541] Herodot. v, 103, 104, 108. Compare the proceedings in Cyprus against ArtaxerxÊs MnÊmon, under the energetic Evagoras of Salamis (Diodor. xiv, 98, xv, 2), about 386 B.C.: most of the petty princes of the island became for the time his subjects, but in 351 B.C. there were nine of them independent (Diodor. xvi, 42), and seemingly quite as many at the time when Alexander besieged Tyre (Arrian, ii, 20, 8).

[542] Herodot. v, 116. ??p???? ?? d?, ???a?t?? ??e??e??? ?e??e???, a?t?? ?? ???? ?ateded?????t?.

[543] Herodot. vi, 6. ?????e? ?a? ????pt???.

[544] Herodot. v, 109. ??a? d? ?p?pe?e t? ?????? t?? ????? f??????ta? t?? ???assa?, etc.: compare vi, 7.

[545] Herodot. v, 112.

[546] Herodot. v, 112-115. It is not uninteresting to compare, with this reconquest of Cyprus by the Persians, the conquest of the same island by the Turks in 1570, when they expelled from it the Venetians. See the narrative of that conquest (effected in the reign of Selim the Second by the Seraskier Mustapha-Pasha), in Von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmannischen Reichs, book xxxvi, vol. iii, pp. 578-589. Of the two principal towns, Nikosia in the centre of the island, and Famagusta on the north-eastern coast, the first, after a long siege, was taken by storm, and the inhabitants of every sex and age either put to death or carried into slavery; while the second, after a most gallant defence, was allowed to capitulate. But the terms of the capitulation were violated in the most flagitious manner by the Seraskier, who treated the brave Venetian governor, Bragadino, with frightful cruelty, cutting off his nose and ears, exposing him to all sorts of insults, and ultimately causing him to be flayed alive. The skin of this unfortunate general was conveyed to Constantinople as a trophy, but in after-times found its way to Venice.

We read of nothing like this treatment of Bragadino in the Persian reconquest of Cyprus, though it was a subjugation after revolt; indeed, nothing like it in all Persian warfare.

Von Hammer gives a short sketch (not always very accurate as to ancient times) of the condition of Cyprus under its successive masters,—Persians, GrÆco-Egyptians, Romans, Arabians, the dynasty of Lusignan, Venetians, and Turks,—the last seems decidedly the worst of all.

In reference to the above-mentioned piece of cruelty, I may mention that the Persian king KambysÊs caused one of the royal judges (according to Herodotus v, 25), who had taken a bribe to render an iniquitous judgment, to be flayed alive, and his skin to be stretched upon the seat on which his son was placed to succeed him; as a lesson of justice to the latter. A similar story is told respecting the Persian king ArtaxerxÊs MnÊmon; and what is still more remarkable, the same story is also recounted in the Turkish history, as an act of Mohammed the Second (Von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmannisch. Reichs, book xvii, vol. ii, p. 209; Diodorus, xv, 10). Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii, 6) had good reason to treat the reality of the fact as problematical.

[547] Herodot. v, 117.

[548] Herodot. v, 122-124.

[549] Herodot. v, 118. On the topography of this spot, as described in Herodotus, see a good note in Weissenborn, BeytrÄge zur genaueren Erforschung der alt. Griechischen Geschichte, p. 116, Jena, 1844.

He thinks, with much reason, that the river Marsyas here mentioned cannot be that which flows through KelÆnÆ, but another of the same name which flows into the MÆander from the southwest.

[550] About the village of Labranda and the temple of Zeus Stratius, see Strabo, xiv, p. 659. Labranda was a village in the territory of, and seven miles distant from, the inland town of Mylasa; it was Karian at the time of the Ionic revolt, but partially Hellenized before the year 350 B.C. About this latter epoch, three rural tribes of Mylasa—constituting along with the citizens of the town, the Mylasene community—were, ?a????da?a, ?t?????da, ???a?da,—see the Inscription in Boeckh’s Collection, No. 2695, and in Franz, EpigraphicÊ GrÆca, No. 73, p. 191. In the Lydian language, ????? is said to have signified a hatchet (Plutarch, QuÆst. Gr. c. 45, p. 314).

[551] Herodot. v, 118, 119.

[552] Herodot. v, 120, 121; vi, 25.

[553] Herodot. v, 125; Strabo, xiv, p. 635.

[554] Herodot. v, 126.

[555] Herodot. vi, 5. ?? d? ????s???, ?se??? ?pa??a????te? ?a? ???sta???e?, ??da?? ?t???? ?sa? ????? t??a???? d??es?a? ?? t?? ?????, ??? te ??e??e???? ?e?s?e???.

[556] Herodot. v, 105. ? ?e?, ???e??s?a? ?? ????a???? t?sas?a?. Compare the Thracian practice of communicating with the gods by shooting arrows high up into the air (Herodot. iv, 94).

[557] Herodot. v, 107, vi, 2. Compare the advice of Bias of PriÊnÊ to the Ionians, when the Persian conqueror Cyrus was approaching, to found a Pan-Ionic colony in Sardinia (Herodot. i, 170): the idea started by Aristagoras has been alluded to just above (Herodot. v, 124).

Pausanias (iv, 23, 2) puts into the mouth of Mantiklus, son of AristomenÊs, a recommendation to the Messenians, when conquered a second time by the Spartans, to migrate to Sardinia.

[558] Herodot. v, 106, 107.

[559] Herodot. vi, 1. ??t? t??, ?st?a?e, ??e? ?at? ta?ta t? p???ata? t??t? t? ?p?d?a ???a?a? ?? s?, ?ped?sat? d? ???sta?????.

[560] Herodot. vi, 2-5.

[561] Herodot. vi, 5-26.

[562] Herodot. vi, 6-9.

[563] Herodot. vi, 8.

[564] Herodot. vi, 9-10.

[565] Herodot. vi, 11. ?p? ????? ??? ???? ??eta? ??? t? p???ata, ??d?e? ???e?, ? e??a? ??e??????s? ? d?????s?, ?a? t??t??s? ?? d??p?t?s?? ??? ?? ??e?, ?? ?? ????s?e ta?a?p???a? ??d??es?a?, t? pa?a???a ?? p???? ??? ?sta?, ???? te d? ?ses?e, ?pe?a???e??? t??? ??a?t????, e??a? ??e??e???, etc.

[566] Herodot. vi, 12. ?? ???e?, ??a ?pa??e? ???te? p???? t????t??, tet?????? te ta?a?p????s? te ?a? ?e???, ??e?a? p??? ???t??? t?de—???a da????? pa?a??te?, t?de ??ap?p?ae?, ??t??e? pa?af????sa?te?, ?a? ??p??sa?te? ?? t?? ????, ??d?? F??a?e? ??a????, pa?e????? ??a? t?e??, ?p?t???a?te? ??a? a?t??? ???e?, etc.

[567] Herodot. vi, 13.

[568] Herodot. vi, 14, 15.

[569] Herodot. vi, 16.

[570] Thucyd. viii, 14.

[571] Herodot. vi, 17. ???st?? ?atest??ee ??????? ?? ??de???, ?a???d????? d? ?a? ???s????.

[572] Herodot. vi, 22-25.

[573] Herodot. vi, 18, 19, 20, 22.

[574] Herodot. vi, 18, a?????s? ?at? ?????, ?? t? ??t? ?te? ?p? t?? ?p?st?s??? t?? ???sta???e?. This is almost the only distinct chronological statement which we find in Herodotus respecting the Ionic revolt. The other evidences of time in his chapters are more or less equivocal: nor is there sufficient testimony before us to enable us to arrange the events, between the commencement of the Ionic revolt, and the battle of Marathon, into the precise years to which they belong. The battle of Marathon stands fixed for August or September, 490 B.C.: the siege of MilÊtus may probably have been finished in 496-495 B.C., and the Ionic revolt may have begun in 502-501 B.C. Such are the dates which, on the whole, appear to me most probable, though I am far from considering them as certain.

Chronological critics differ considerably in their arrangement of the events here alluded to among particular years. See Appendix, No. 5, p. 244, in Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici; Professor Schultz, BeytrÄge zu genaueren Zeitbestimmungen von der 63ⁿ zur 72ⁿ Olympiade, pp. 177-183, in the Kieler Philologische Studien; and Weissenborn, BeytrÄge zur genaueren Erforschung der alten Griechischen Geschichte, Jena, 1844, p. 87, seqq.: not to mention Reiz and Larcher. Mr. Clinton reckons only ten years from the beginning of the Ionic revolt to the battle of Marathon; which appears to me too short; though, on the other hand, the fourteen years reckoned by Larcher—much more the sixteen years reckoned by Reiz—are too long. Mr. Clinton compresses inconveniently the latter portion of the interval,—that portion which elapsed between the siege of MilÊtus and the battle of Marathon. And the very improbable supposition to which he is obliged to resort,—of a confusion in the language of Herodotus between Attic and Olympic years,—indicates that he is pressing the text of the historian too closely, when he states, “that Herodotus specifies a term of three years between the capture of MilÊtus, and the expedition of Datis:” see F. H. ad ann. 499. He places the capture of MilÊtus in 494 B.C.; which I am inclined to believe a year later—if not two years later—than the reality. Indeed, as Mr. Clinton places the expedition of Aristagoras against Naxos (which was immediately before the breaking out of the revolt, since Aristagoras seized the Ionic despots while that fleet yet remained congregated immediately at the close of the expedition) in 501 B.C., and as Herodotus expressly says that MilÊtus was taken in the sixth year after the revolt, it would follow that this capture ought to belong to 495, and not to 494 B.C. I incline to place it either in 496, or in 495; and the Naxian expedition in 502 or 501, leaning towards the earlier of the two dates: Schultz agrees with Larcher in placing the Naxian expedition in 504 B.C., yet he assigns the capture of MilÊtus to 496 B.C.,—whereas, Herodotus states that the last of these two events was in the sixth year after the revolt, which revolt immediately succeeded on the first of the two, within the same summer. Weissenborn places the capture of MilÊtus in 496 B.C., and the expedition to Naxos in 499,—suspecting that the text in Herodotus—??t? ?te?—is incorrect, and that it ought to be tet??t? ?te?, the fourth year (p. 125: compare the chronological table in his work, p. 222). He attempts to show that the particular incidents composing the Ionic revolt, as Herodotus recounts it, cannot be made to occupy more than four years; but his reasoning is, in my judgment, unsatisfactory, and the conjecture inadmissible. The distinct affirmation of the historian, as to the entire interval between the two events, is of much more evidentiary value than our conjectural summing up of the details.

It is vain, I think, to try to arrange these details according to precise years: this can only be done very loosely.

[575] Herodot. vi, 25.

[576] Herodot. vi, 31-33. It may perhaps be to this burning and sacking of the cities in the Propontis, and on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont, that Strabo (xiii, p. 591) makes allusion; though he ascribes the proceeding to a different cause,—to the fear of Darius that the Scythians would cross into Asia to avenge themselves upon him for attacking them, and that the towns on the coast would furnish them with vessels for the passage.

[577] Herodot. vi, 41.

[578] Herodot. vi, 31, 32, 33.

[579] Herodot. vi, 25.

[580] Herodot. vi, 26-28. ???? ????? ?a? ??????? s??????.

[581] Herodot. vi, 28, 29, 30.

[582] Herodot. vi, 21, ?? ??a??sa?ta ?????a ?a??: compare vii, 152; also, KallisthenÊs ap. Strabo, xiv, p. 635, and Plutarch, PrÆcept. Reipubl. Gerend. p. 814.

[583] See Welcker Griechische TragÖdien, vol. i, p. 25.

[584] Herodot. vi, 42.

[585] Herodot. vi, 20.

[586] Herodot. vi, 43. In recounting this deposition of the despots by Mardonius, Herodotus reasons from it as an analogy for the purpose of vindicating the correctness of another of his statements, which, he acquaints us, many persons disputed; namely, the discussion which he reports to have taken place among the seven conspirators, after the death of the Magian Smerdis, whether they should establish a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy,—???a?ta ???st?? ???a ???? t??s? ? ?p?de??????s? t?? ???????, ?e?s??? t??s? ?pta ?t??ea ????? ?p?d??as?a?, ?? ????? e?? d????at?es?a? ???sa?? t??? ??? t???????? t?? ????? ?atapa?sa? p??ta? ? ?a?d?????, d????at?a? ?at?sta ?? t?? p???a?. Such passages as this let us into the controversies of the time, and prove that Herodotus found many objectors to his story about the discussion on theories of government among the seven Persian conspirators (iii, 80-82).

[587] Herodot. vi, 43, 44, ?p??e???t? d? ?p? te ??et??a? ?a? ????a?.

[588] Herodot. vi, 44-94. Charon of Lampsakus had noticed the storm near Mount Athos, and the destruction of the fleet of Mardonius (Charonis Fragment. 3, ed. Didot; AthenÆ. ix, p. 394).

[589] Herodot. vi, 46-48. See a similar case of disclosure arising from jealousy between Tenedos and Lesbos (Thucyd. iii, 2).

[590] Herodot. vi, 94.

[591] Herodot. vi, 48-49; viii, 46.

[592] Herodot. v, 81-89. See above, chapter xxxi. The legendary story there given as the provocation of Ægina to the war is evidently not to be treated as a real and historical cause of war: a state of quarrel causes all such stories to be raked up, and some probably to be invented. It is like the old alleged quarrel between the Athenians and the Pelasgi of Lemnos (vi, 137-140).

[593] It is to this treatment of the herald that the story in Plutarch’s Life of ThemistoklÊs must allude, if that story indeed be true; for the Persian king was not likely to send a second herald, after such treatment of the first. An interpreter accompanied the herald, speaking Greek as well as his own native language. ThemistoklÊs proposed and carried a vote that he should be put to death, for having employed the Greek language as medium for barbaric dictation (Plutarch, Themist. c. 6). We should be glad to know from whom Plutarch copied this story.

Pausanias states that it was MiltiadÊs who proposed the putting to death of the heralds at Athens (iii, 12, 6); and that the divine judgment fell upon his family in consequence of it. From whom Pausanias copied this statement I do not know: certainly not from Herodotus, who does not mention MiltiadÊs in the case, and expressly says that he does not know in what manner the divine judgment overtook the Athenians for the crime, “except (says he) that their city and country was afterwards laid waste by XerxÊs; but I do not think that this happened on account of the outrage on the heralds.” (Herodot. vii, 133.)

The belief that there must have been a divine judgment of some sort or other, presented a strong stimulus to invent or twist some historical fact to correspond with it. Herodotus has sufficient regard for truth to resist this stimulus and to confess his ignorance; a circumstance which goes, along with others, to strengthen our confidence in his general authority. His silence weakens the credibility, but does not refute the allegation of Pausanias with regard to MiltiadÊs,—which is certainly not intrinsically improbable.

[594] Herodot. vii, 133.

[595] Herodot. vi, 49. ????sas? d? sf? (?????ta??) ta?ta, ????? ????a??? ?pe??at?, d?????te? ?p? sf?s? ????ta? t??? ??????ta? ded????a? (??? ?a? ?d??), ?? ?a t? ???s? ?p? sf?a? st?ate???ta?. ?a? ?se??? p??f?s??? ?pe????t?? f??t???t?? te ?? t?? Sp??t??, ?at????e?? t?? ??????t??? t? pep??????e?, p??d??te? t?? ????da. Compare viii, 144, ix, 7. t?? ????da de???? p????e??? p??d???a?—a new and very important phrase.

vi, 61. ??te d? t?? ??e???ea, ???ta ?? t? ??????, ?a? ????? t? ????d? ??a?? p??e??a??e???, etc.

[596] Thucyd. i, 70-118. ?????? p??? ??? (i. e. the Spartans) e???t?? ?a? ?p?d??ta? p??? ??d??t?t???.

[597] Herodot. vii, 145-148. ?? s????ta? ??????? ?p? t? ???s?.

[598] That which marks the siege of MilÊtus, and the defeat of the Argeians by KleomenÊs, as contemporaneous, or nearly so, is, the common oracular dictum delivered in reference to both: in the same prophecy of the Pythia, one half alludes to the sufferings of MilÊtus, the other half to those of Argos (Herodot. vi, 19-77).

??e?????s? ??? ???e???s? ?? ?e?f??s? pe?? s?t????? t?? p????? t?? sfet????, t? ?? ?? a?t??? t??? ???e???? f????, t?? d? pa?e?????? ????se ?? ????s????.

I consider this evidence of date to be better than the statement of Pausanias. That author places the enterprise against Argos immediately (a?t??a—Paus. iii, 4, 1) after the accession of KleomenÊs, who, as he was king when MÆandrius came from Samos (Herodot. iii, 148), must have come to the throne not later than 518 or 517 B.C. This would be thirty-seven years prior to 480 B.C.; a date much too early for the war between KleomenÊs and the Argeians, as we may see by Herodotus (vii, 149).

[599] Herodot. vi, 92.

[600] Herodot. vi, 78; compare Xenophon, Rep. Laced. xii, 6. Orders for evolutions in the field, in the LacedÆmonian military service, were not proclaimed by the herald, but transmitted through the various gradations of officers (Thucyd. v, 66).

[601] Herodot. vi, 79, 80.

[602] Pausan. ii, 20, 7; PolyÆn. viii, 33; Plutarch, De Virtut. Mulier, p. 245; Suidas, v. ?e??s???a.

Plutarch cites the historian SokratÊs of Argos for this story about Telesilla; an historian, or perhaps composer of a pe?????s?? ??????, of unknown date: compare Diogen. LaËrt. ii, 5, 47, and Plutarch, QuÆstion. Romaic. pp. 270-277. According to his representation, KleomenÊs and Demaratus jointly assaulted the town of Argos, and Demaratus, after having penetrated into the town and become master of the Pamphyliakon, was driven out again by the women. Now Herodotus informs us that KleomenÊs and Demaratus were never employed upon the same expedition, after the disagreement in their march to Attica (v, 75; vi, 64).

[603] Herodot. vi, 77.

If this prophecy can be said to have any distinct meaning, it probably refers to HÊrÊ, as protectress of Argos, repulsing the Spartans.

Pausanias (ii, 20, 7) might well doubt whether Herodotus understood this oracle in the same sense as he did: it is plain that Herodotus could not have so understood it.

[604] Herodot. vi, 80, 81: compare v, 72.

[605] Herodot. vi, 82. e? ?? ??? ?? t?? ?efa??? t?? ????at?? ????a?e, a???e?? ?? ?at? ????? t?? p????? ?? t?? st????? d? ???a?t??, p?? ?? pep???s?a? ?s?? ? ?e?? ??e?e.

For the expression a???e?? ?at? ?????, compare Herodot. vi, 21, and Damm. Lex. Homer. v. ?????. In this expression, as generally used, the last words ?at? ????? have lost their primitive and special sense, and do little more than intensify the simple a???e??,—equivalent to something like “de fond en comble:” for KleomenÊs is accused by his enemies,—f?e??? ?? d???d???sa?ta, ??? ???e?? t? ?????, pa???? e?pet??? ?? ??e??. But in the story recounted by KleomenÊs, the words ?at? ????? come back to their primitive meaning, and serve as the foundation for his religious inference, from type to thing typified: if the light had shone from the head or top of the statue, this would have intimated that the gods meant him to take the city “from top to bottom.”

In regard to this very illustrative story,—which there seems no reason for mistrusting,—the contrast between the point of view of Herodotus and that of the Spartan ephors deserves notice. The former, while he affirms distinctly that it was the real story told by KleomenÊs, suspects its truth, and utters as much of skepticism as his pious fear will permit him; the latter find it in complete harmony, both with their canon of belief and with their religious feeling,—??e????? d? sf? ??e?e, ??te e? ?e?d?e??? ??te e? ?????a ?????, ??? saf????? e?pa?? ??e?e d? ??.... ?a?ta d? ?????, p?st? te ?a? ????ta ?d??ee Spa?t??t?s? ???e??, ?a? ?p?f??e p????? t??? d?????ta?.

[606] Compare Pausanias, ii, 20, 8.

[607] Herodot. vi, 92.

[608] Herodot. vi, 50. ?????—??e?e d? ta?ta ?? ?p?st???? t?? ??a??t??. Compare Pausan. iii, 4, 3.

[609] Herodot. vi, 50-61, 64. ?????t??—f???? ?a? ??? ??e?e???.

[610] Herodot. vi, 61, 62, 63.

[611] Herodot. vi, 65, 66. In an analogous case afterwards, where the succession was disputed between Agesilaus the brother, and LeotychidÊs the reputed son of the deceased king Agis, the LacedÆmonians appear to have taken upon themselves to pronounce LeotychidÊs illegitimate; or rather to assume tacitly such illegitimacy by choosing Agesilaus in preference, without the aid of the oracle (Xenophon, Hellen. iii, 3, 1-4; Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 3). The previous oracle from Delphi, however, f????as?a? t?? ????? as??e?a?, was cited on the occasion, and the question was, in what manner it should be interpreted.

[612] Herodot. vi, 68, 69. The answer made by the mother to this appeal—informing Demaratus that he is the son either of king Aristo, or of the hero Astrabakus—is extremely interesting as an evidence of Grecian manners and feeling.

[613] Plutarch, Agis, c. 11. ?at? d? t??a ???? pa?a???, ?? ??? ?? t?? ??a??e?d?? ?? ???a???? ????dap?? te????s?a?, t?? d? ?pe????ta t?? Sp??t?? ?p? et????s? p??? ?t????? ?p????s?e?? ?e?e?e?.

[615] Herodot. vi, 78.

[616] Herodot. vi, 94. ??t?? te, ???ta ??d?? ?????, etc.

Cornelius Nepos (Life of Pausanias, c. 1) calls Mardonius a Mede; which cannot be true, since he was the son of Gobryas, one of the seven Persian conspirators (Herodot. vi, 43).

[617] Herodot. vi, 94. ??te???e??? d? ?p?pepe, ??a?d?ap?d?sa?ta? ??et??a? ?a? ????a?, ??e?? ???t? ?? ???? t? ??d??p?da.

According to the Menexenus of Plato (c. 17, p. 245), Darius ordered Datis to fulfil this order on peril of his own head; no such harshness appears in Herodotus.

[618] Thucyd. i, 93.

[619] Herodot. vi, 95, 96. ?p? ta?t?? (Naxos) ??? d? p??t?? ?pe???? st?ate?es?a? ?? ???sa?, e?????? t?? p??te???.

[620] The historians of Naxos affirmed that Datis had been repulsed from the island. We find this statement in Plutarch, De Malign. Herodot. c. 36, p. 869, among his violent and unfounded contradictions of Herodotus.

[621] Herodot. vi, 99.

[622] Herodot. vi, 100. ??? d? ??et????? ?? ??a ??d?? ????? ???e?a, ?? etep?p??t? ?? ????a????, ?f???e?? d? d?fas?a? ?d?a?? ?? ?? ??? a?t?? ????e???t? ????pe?? t?? p???? ?? t? ???a t?? ??????, ????? d? a?t?? ?d?a ???dea p??sde??e??? pa?? t?? ???se? ??ses?a? p??d?s??? ?s?e?????t?.

Allusion to this treason among the Eretrians is to be found in a saying of ThemistoklÊs (Plutarch, Themist. c. 11).

The story told by HÊrakleidÊs Ponticus (ap. AthenÆ. xii, p. 536), of an earlier Persian armament which had assailed Eretria and failed, cannot be at all understood; it rather looks like a mythe to explain the origin of the great wealth possessed by the family of Kallias at Athens,—the ?a???p???t??. There is another story, having the same explanatory object, in Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 5.

[623] Herodot. vi, 101, 102.

[624] Plato, Legg. iii, p. 698, and Menexen. c. 10, p. 240; Diogen. LaËrt. iii, 33; Herodot. vi, 31: compare Strabo, x, p. 446, who ascribes to Herodotus the statement of Plato about the sa???e?s?? of Eretria. Plato says nothing about the betrayal of the city.

It is to be remarked that, in the passage of the Treatise de Legibus, Plato mentions this story (about the Persians having swept the territory of Eretria clean of its inhabitants) with some doubt as to its truth, and as if it were a rumor intentionally circulated by Datis with a view to frighten the Athenians. But in the Menexenus, the story is given as if it were an authentic historical fact.

[625] Plutarch, De Garrulitate, c. 15, p. 510. The descendants of Gongylus the Eretrian, who passed over to the Persians on this occasion, are found nearly a century afterwards in possession of a town and district in Mysia, which the Persian king had bestowed upon their ancestor. Herodotus does not mention Gongylus (Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 1, 6).

This surrender to the Persians drew upon the Eretrians bitter remarks at the time of the battle of Salamis (Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 11).

[626] The chapter of Herodotus (vi, 40) relating to the adventures of MiltiadÊs is extremely perplexing, as I have already remarked in a former note: and Wesseling considers that it involves chronological difficulties which our present MSS. do not enable us to clear up. Neither SchweighÄuser, nor the explanation cited in BÄhr’s note, is satisfactory.

[627] Herodot. vi, 43-104.

[628] Herodot. vi, 39-104.

[629] Herodot. vi, 132. ???t??d??, ?a? p??te??? e?d??????—i. e. before the battle of Marathon. How much his reputation had been heightened by the conquest of Lemnos, see Herodot. vi, 136.

[630] Herodot. vi, 35.

[631] Thucyd. i, 138. ?? ??? ? Te?st????? ea??tata d? f?se?? ?s??? d???sa? ?a? d?afe???t?? t? ?? a?t? ????? ?t???? ????? ?a??sa?? ???e?? ??? s???se? ?a? ??te p??a??? ?? a?t?? ??d?? ??t? ?p?a???, t?? te pa?a???a d?? ??a??st?? ????? ???t?st?? ?????, ?a? t?? e????t?? ?p? p?e?st?? t?? ?e??s????? ???st?? e??ast??. ?a? ? ?? et? ?e??a? ????, ?a? ?????sas?a? ???? te? ?? d? ?pe???? e??, ????a? ??a??? ??? ?p???a?t?. ?? te ?e???? ? ?e???? ?? t? ?fa?e? ?t? p??e??a ???sta? ?a? t? ??pa? e?pe??, f?se?? ?? d???e?, e??t?? d? ?a??t?t?, ???t?st?? d? ??t?? a?t?s?ed???e?? t? d???ta ????et?.

[632] See the contrast of the old and new education, as set forth in AristophanÊs, Nubes, 957-1003; also RanÆ, 1067.

About the training of ThemistoklÊs, compared with that of the contemporaries of PeriklÊs, see also Plutarch, Themistokl. c. 2.

[633] Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 3, 4, 5; Cornelius Nepos, Themist. c. 1.

[634] Herodot. viii, 79; Plato, Gorgias, c. 172. ???st?? ??d?a ?? ?????s? ?a? d??a??tat??.

[635] Plutarch (AristeidÊs, c. 1-4; ThemistoklÊs, c. 3; An Seni sit gerenda respublica, c. 12, p. 790; PrÆcepta Reip. Gerend. c. ii, p. 805).

[636] Timokreon ap. Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 21.

[637] Thucyd. ii, 65.

[638] Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 7.

[639] Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 5.

[640] Herodot. vi, 109, 110.

[641] Mr. Kinneir remarks that the Persian Cassids, or foot-messengers, will travel for several days successively at the rate of sixty or seventy miles a day (Geographical Memoir of Persia, p. 44).

[642] Herodot. ix, 7-10.

[643] Herodot. vi, 110.

[644] Herodot. vi, 108-112.

[645] Thucyd. iii, 55.

[646] Justin states ten thousand Athenians, besides one thousand PlatÆans. Cornelius Nepos, Pausanias, and Plutarch give ten thousand as the sum total of both. Justin, ii, 9; Corn. Nep. Miltiad. c. 4; Pausan. iv, 25, 5; x, 20, 2: compare also Suidas, v. ?pp?a?.

Heeren (De Fontibus Trogi Pompeii, Dissertat. ii, 7) affirms that Trogus, or Justin, follows Herodotus in matters concerning the Persian invasions of Greece. He cannot have compared the two very attentively; for Justin not only states several matters which are not to be found in Herodotus, but is at variance with the latter on some particulars not unimportant.

[647] Justin (ii, 9) says that the total of the Persian army was six hundred thousand, and that two hundred thousand perished. Plato (Menexen. p. 240) and Lysias (Orat. Funebr. c. 7) speak of the Persian total as five hundred thousand men. Valerius Maximus (v, 3), Pausanias (iv, 25), and Plutarch (Parallel. GrÆc. ad init.), give three hundred thousand men. Cornelius Nepos (MiltiadÊs, c. 5) gives the more moderate total of one hundred and ten thousand men.

See the observations on the battle of Marathon, made both by Colonel Leake and by Mr. Finlay, who have examined and described the locality; Leake, on the Demi of Attica, in Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. ii, p. 160, seq.; and Finlay, on the Battle of Marathon, in the same Transactions, vol. iii, pp. 360-380, etc.

Both have given remarks on the probable numbers of the armies assembled; but there are really no materials, even for a probable guess, in respect to the Persians. The silence of Herodotus (whom we shall find hereafter very circumstantial as to the numbers of the army under XerxÊs) seems to show that he had no information which he could trust. His account of the battle of Marathon presents him in honorable contrast with the loose and boastful assertors who followed him; for though he does not tell us much, and falls lamentably short of what we should like to know, yet all that he does say is reasonable and probable as to the proceedings of both armies and the little which he states becomes more trustworthy on that very account,—because it is so little,—showing that he keeps strictly within his authorities.

There is nothing in the account of Herodotus to make us believe that he had ever visited the ground of Marathon.

[648] See Mr. Finlay on the Battle of Marathon, Transactions, etc., vol. iii, pp. 364, 368, 383, ut suprÀ: compare Hobhouse, Journey in Albania, i, p. 432.

Colonel Leake thinks that the ancient town of Marathon was not on the exact site of the modern Marathon, but at a place called VranÁ, a little to the south of Marathon (Leake, on the Demi of Attica, in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, 1829, vol. ii, p. 166).

“Below these two points,” he observes, “(the tumuli of VranÁ and the hill of KotrÓni,) the plain of Marathon expands to the shore of the bay, which is near two miles distant from the opening of the valley of VranÁ. It is moderately well cultivated with corn, and is one of the most fertile spots in Attica, though rather inconveniently subject to inundations from the two torrents which cross it, particularly that of MarathÓna. From Lucian (in Icaro-Menippo) it appears that the parts about ŒnoÊ were noted for their fertility, and an Egyptian poet of the fifth century has celebrated the vines and olives of Marathon. It is natural to suppose that the vineyards occupied the rising grounds: and it is probable that the olive-trees were chiefly situated in the two valleys, where some are still growing: for as to the plain itself, the circumstances of the battle incline one to believe that it was anciently as destitute of trees as it is at the present day.” (Leake, on the Demi of Attica, Trans. of Roy. Soc. of Literature, vol. ii, p. 162.)

Colonel Leake farther says, respecting the fitness of the Marathonian ground for cavalry movements: “As I rode across the plain of Marathon with a peasant of VranÁ, he remarked to me that it was a fine place for cavalry to fight in. None of the modern Marathonii were above the rank of laborers: they have heard that a great battle was once fought there, but that is all they know.” (Leake, ut sup. ii, p. 175.)

[649] Herodot. vi, 107.

[650] Plutarch, Symposiac. i, 3, p. 619; Xenophon, Anabas. i, 8, 21; Arrian, ii, 8, 18; iii, 11, 16.

We may compare, with this established battle-array of the Persian armies, that of the Turkish armies, adopted and constantly followed ever since the victorious battle of Ikonium, in 1386, gained by Amurath the First over the Karamanians. The European troops, or those of Rum, occupy the left wing: the Asiatic troops, or those of Anatoli, the right wing: the Janissaries are in the centre. The Sultan, or the Grand Vizir, surrounded by the national cavalry, or Spahis, is in the central point of all (Von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmannischen Reichs, book v, vol. i, p. 199).

About the honor of occupying the right wing in a Grecian army, see in particular the animated dispute between the Athenians and the Tegeates before the battle of PlatÆa (Herodot. ix, 27): it is the post assigned to the heroic kings of legendary warfare (Eurip. Supplices, 657).

[651] Herodot. vi, 112. ???t?? ?? ??? ??????? p??t?? t?? ?e?? ?de?, d??? ?? p??e???? ????sa?t?.

The running pace of the charge was obviously one of the most remarkable events connected with the battle. Colonel Leake and Mr. Finlay seem disposed to reduce the run to a quick march; partly on the ground that the troops must have been disordered and out of breath by running a mile. The probability is, that they really were so, and that such was the great reason of the defeat of the centre. It is very probable that a part of the mile run over consisted of declivity. I accept the account of Herodotus literally, though whether the distance be exactly stated, we cannot certainly say: indeed the fact is, that it required some steadiness of discipline to prevent the step of hoplites, when charging, from becoming accelerated into a run. See the narrative of the battle of Kunaxa in Xenoph. Anabas. i, 8, 18; Diodor. xiv, 23: compare PolyÆn. ii, 2, 3. The passage of Diodorus here referred to contrasts the advantages with the disadvantages of the running charge.

Both Colonel Leake and Mr. Finlay try to point out the exact ground occupied by the two armies: they differ in the spot chosen, and I cannot think that there is sufficient evidence to be had in favor of any spot. Leake thinks that the Persian commanders were encamped in the plain of Tricorythos, separated from that of Marathon by the great marsh, and communicating with it only by means of a causeway (Leake, Transact. ii, p. 170).

[652] Herodot. vi, 113. ?at? t??t? ?? d?, ?????? ?? ??a???, ?a? ???a?te? ?d????? ?? t?? es??a?a?.

Herodotus here tells us the whole truth without disguise: Plutarch (AristeidÊs, c. 3) only says that the Persian centre made a longer resistance, and gave the tribes in the Grecian centre more trouble to overthrow.

[653] Pausan. i, 32, 6.

[654] Herodot. vi, 113-115.

[655] Herodot. vi, 114. This is the statement of Herodotus respecting Kynegeirus. How creditably does his character as an historian contrast with that of the subsequent romancers! Justin tells us that Kynegeirus first seized the vessel with his right hand: that was cut off, and he held the vessel with his left: when he had lost that also, he seized the ship with his teeth, “like a wild beast,” (Justin, ii, 9)—Justin seems to have found this statement in many different authors: “Cynegiri militis virtus, multis scriptorum laudibus celebrata.”

[656] For the exaggerated stories of the numbers of Persians slain, see Xenophon, Anabas. iii, 2, 12; Plutarch, De Malign. Herodot. c. 26, p. 862; Justin, ii, 9; and Suidas, v. ???????.

In the account of KtÊsias, Datis was represented as having been killed in the battle, and it was farther said that the Athenians refused to give up his body for interment; which was one of the grounds whereupon XerxÊs afterwards invaded Greece. It is evident that in the authorities which KtÊsias followed, the alleged death of Datis at Marathon was rather emphatically dwelt upon. See KtÊsias, Persica, c. 18-21, with the note of BÄhr, who is inclined to defend the statement, against Herodotus.

[657] Herodot. vi, 124. ??ed???? ?? ??? ?sp??, ?a? t??t? ??? ?st? ????? e?pe??? ????et? ???? ?? ??t?? ?? ? ??ad??a? ??? ??? p??s?t??? e?pe?? t??t???.

[658] Herodot. vi, 116. ??t?? ?? d? pe???p???? S??????. ????a??? d?, ?? p?d?? e????, t???sta ????e?? ?? t? ?st?? ?a? ?f??s?? te ?p???e???, p??? ? t??? a?????? ??e??, ?a? ?st?at?pede?sa?t? ?p?????? ?? ??a?????? t?? ?? ?a?a???? ?? ???? ??a?????? t? ?? ????s???e?.

Plutarch (Bellone an Pace clariores fuerint Athenienses, c. 8, p. 350) represents MiltiadÊs as returning to Athens on the day after the battle: it must have been on the same afternoon, according to the account of Herodotus.

[659] Herodot. v, 62, 63.

[660] Herodot. vi, 115. ???s? ???s?s? ??ad??a? ?sp?da, ???s? ?d? ?? t?s? ???s?.

[661] Herodot. viii, 109. ?e?? d?, e???a ??? e????ae? ??a? te ?a? t?? ????da, ??f?? t?s??t?? ?????p?? ???s?e???.

[662] Pausanias, i, 14, 4; Thucyd. i, 73. fa?? ??? ?a?a???? te ???? p?????d??e?sa? t? a????, etc.

Herodot. vi, 112. p??t?? te ???s???t? ?s??t? te ??d???? ?????te?, ?a? t??? ??d?a? ta?t?? ?s???????? t??? d? ?? t??s? ????s? ?a? t? ????a t? ??d?? f??? ????sa?.

It is not unworthy of remark, that the memorable oath in the oration of DemosthenÊs, de CoronÂ, wherein he adjures the warriors of Marathon, copies the phrase of ThucydidÊs,—?? ? t??? ?? ?a?a???? p?????d??e?sa?ta? t?? p???????, etc. (Demosthen. de CoronÂ, c. 60.)

[663] So the computation stands in the language of Athenian orators (Herodot. ix, 27.) It would be unfair to examine it critically.

[664] Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 3. According to Cicero (Epist. ad Attic. ix, 10) and Justin (ii, 9) Hippias was killed at Marathon. Suidas (v. ?pp?a?) says that he died afterwards at Lemnos. Neither of these statements seems probable. Hippias would hardly go to Lemnos, which was an Athenian possession; and had he been slain in the battle, Herodotus would have been likely to mention it.

[665] Thucyd. i, 126.

[666] Thucyd. ii, 34.

[667] Pausan. i, 32, 3. Compare the elegy of Kritias ap. AthenÆ. i, p. 28.

[668] The tumulus now existing is about thirty feet high, and two hundred yards in circumference. (Leake, on the Demi of Attica; Transactions of Royal Soc. of Literat. ii, p. 171.)

[669] Herodot. vi, 105; Pausan. i, 28, 4.

[670] Plutarch, Theseus, c. 24; Pausan. i, 32, 4.

[671] Pausan. i, 15, 4; DÊmosthen. cont. NeÆr. c. 25.

[672] Herodot. vi, 120; Plutarch, Camill. c. 19; De Malignit. Herodoti, c. 26, p. 862; and De Glori Atheniensium, c. 7.

BoËdromion was the third month of the Attic year, which year began near about the summer solstice. The first three Attic months, HekatombÆon, Metageitnion, BoËdromion, approach (speaking in a loose manner) nearly to our July, August, September; probably the month HekatombÆon began usually at some day in the latter half of June.

From the fact that the courier PheidippidÊs reached Sparta on the ninth day of the moon, and that the two thousand Spartans arrived in Attica on the third day after the full moon, during which interval the battle took place, we see that the sixth day of BoËdromion could not be the sixth day of the moon. The Attic months, though professedly lunar months, did not at this time therefore accurately correspond with the course of the moon. See Mr. Clinton, Fast. Hellen. ad an. 490 B.C. Plutarch (in the Treatise De Malign. Herodoti, above referred to) appears to have no conception of this discrepancy between the Attic month and the course of the moon. A portion of the censure which he casts on Herodotus is grounded on the assumption that the two must coincide.

M. Boeckh, following FrÉret and Larcher, contests the statement of Plutarch, that the battle was fought on the sixth of the month BoËdromion, but upon reasons which appear to me insufficient. His chief argument rests upon another statement of Plutarch (derived from some lost verses of Æschylus), that the tribe Æantis had the right wing or post of honor at the battle; and that the public vote, pursuant to which the army was led out of Athens, was passed during the prytany of the tribe Æantis. He assumes, that the reason why this tribe was posted on the right wing, must have been, that it had drawn by lot the first prytany in that particular year: if this be granted, then the vote for drawing out the army must have been passed in the first prytany, or within the first thirty-five or thirty-six days of the Attic year, during the space between the first of HekatombÆon and the fifth or sixth of Metageitnion. But it is certain that the interval, which took place between the army leaving the city and the battle, was much less than one month,—we may even say less than one week. The battle, therefore, must have been fought between the sixth and tenth of Metageitnion. (Plutarch, Symposiac. i, 10, 3, and Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, vol. i, p. 291.) Herodotus (vi, 111) says that the tribes were arranged in line ?? ???????t?,—“as they were numbered,”—which is contended to mean necessarily the arrangement between them, determined by lot for the prytanies of that particular year. “In acie instruend (says Boeckh, Comment. ad Corp. Inscript. p. 299) Athenienses non constantem, sed variabilem secundum prytanias, ordinem secatos esse, ita ut tribus ex hoc ordine inde a dextro cornu disponerentur, docui in Commentatione de pugn MarathoniÂ.” Prooemia Lect. Univ. Berolin. Æstiv. a. 1816.

The Prooemia here referred to I have not been able to consult, and they may therefore contain additional reasons to prove the point advanced, viz., that the order of the ten tribes in line of battle, beginning from the right wing, was conformable to their order in prytanizing, as drawn by lot for the year; but I think the passages of Herodotus and Plutarch now before us insufficient to establish this point. From the fact that the tribe Æantis had the right wing at the battle of Marathon, we are by no means warranted in inferring that that tribe had drawn by lot the earliest prytany in the year. Other reasons, in my judgment equally probable, may be assigned in explanation of the circumstance: one reason, I think, decidedly more probable. This reason is, that the battle was fought during the prytany of the tribe Æantis, which may be concluded from the statement of Plutarch, that the vote for marching out the army from Athens was passed during the prytany of that tribe; for the interval, between the march of the army out of the city and the battle, must have been only a very few days. Moreover, the deme Marathon belonged to the tribe Æantis (see Boeckh, ad Inscript. No. 172, p. 309): the battle being fought in their deme, the Marathonians may perhaps have claimed on this express ground the post of honor for their tribe; just as we see that at the first battle of Mantineia against the LacedÆmonians, the Mantineians were allowed to occupy the right wing or post of honor, “because the battle was fought in their territory,” (Thucyd. v, 67.) Lastly, the deme AphidnÆ also belonged to the tribe Æantis (see Boeckh, l.c.): now the polemarch Kallimachus was an AphidnÆan (Herodot. vi, 109), and Herodotus expressly tells us, “the law or custom then stood among the Athenians, that the polemarch should have the right wing,”—? ??? ???? t?te e??e ??t? t??s? ????a???s?, t?? p???a???? ??e?? ???a? t? d????? (vi, 111). Where the polemarch stood, there his tribe would be likely to stand: and the language of Herodotus indeed seems directly to imply that he identifies the tribe of the polemarch with the polemarch himself,—??e????? d? t??t??, ??ed????t? ?? ???????t? a? f??a?, ???e?a? ???????,—meaning that the order of tribes began by that of the polemarch being in the leading position, and was then “taken up” by the rest “in numerical sequence,”—i. e. in the order of their prytanizing sequence for the year.

Here are a concurrence of reasons to explain why the tribe Æantis had the right wing at the battle of Marathon, even though it may not have been first in the order of prytanizing tribes for the year. Boeckh, therefore, is not warranted in inferring the second of these two facts from the first.

The concurrence of these three reasons, all in favor of the same conclusion, and all independent of the reason supposed by Boeckh, appears to me to have great weight; but I regard the first of the three, even singly taken, as more probable than his reason. If my view of the case be correct, the sixth day of BoËdromion, the day of battle as given by Plutarch, is not to be called in question. That day comes in the second prytany of the year, which begins about the sixth of Metageitnion, and ends about the twelfth of BoËdromion, and which must in this year have fallen to the lot of the tribe Æantis. On the first or second day of BoËdromion, the vote for marching out the army may have passed; on the sixth the battle was fought; both during the prytany of this tribe.

I am not prepared to carry these reasons farther than the particular case of the battle of Marathon, and the vindication of the day of that battle as stated by Plutarch; nor would I apply them to later periods, such as the Peloponnesian war. It is certain that the army regulations of Athens were considerably modified between the battle of Marathon and the Peloponnesian war, as well in other matters as in what regards the polemarch; and we have not sufficient information to enable us to determine whether in that later period the Athenians followed any known or perpetual rule in the battle-order of the tribes. Military considerations, connected with the state of the particular army serving, must have prevented the constant observance of any rule: thus we can hardly imagine that Nikias, commanding the army before Syracuse, could have been tied down to any invariable order of battle among the tribes to which his hoplites belonged. Moreover, the expedition against Syracuse lasted more than one Attic year: can it be believed that Nikias, on receiving information from Athens of the sequence in which the prytanies of the tribes had been drawn by lot during the second year of his expedition, would be compelled to marshal his army in a new battle-order conformably to it? As the military operations of the Athenians became more extensive, they would find it necessary to leave such dispositions more and more to the general serving in every particular campaign. It may well be doubted whether during the Peloponnesian war any established rule was observed in marshalling the tribes for battle.

One great motive which induces critics to maintain that the battle was fought in the Athenian month Metageitnion, is, that that month coincides with the Spartan month Karneius, so that the refusal of the Spartans to march before the full moon, is construed to apply only to the peculiar sanctity of this last-mentioned month, instead of being a constant rule for the whole year. I perfectly agree with these critics, that the answer, given by the Spartans to the courier PheidippidÊs, cannot be held to prove a regular, invariable Spartan maxim, applicable throughout the whole year, not to begin a march in the second quarter of the moon: very possibly, as Boeckh remarks, there may have been some festival impending during the particular month in question, upon which the Spartan refusal to march was founded. But no inference can be deduced from hence to disprove the sixth of BoËdromion as the day of the battle of Marathon: for though the months of every Grecian city were professedly lunar, yet they never coincided with each other exactly or long together, because the systems of intercalation adopted in different cities were different: there was great irregularity and confusion (Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 19; Aristoxenus, Harmon. ii, p. 30: compare also K. F. Hermann, Ueber die Griechische Monatskunde, p. 26, 27. GÖttingen, 1844; and Boeckh, ad Corp. Inscript. t. i, p. 734).

Granting, therefore, that the answer given by the Spartans to PheidippidÊs is to be construed, not as a general rule applicable to the whole year, but as referring to the particular month in which it was given,—no inference can be drawn from hence as to the day of the battle of Marathon, because either one of the two following suppositions is possible: 1. The Spartans may have had solemnities on the day of the full moon, or on the day before it, in other months besides Karneius; 2. Or the full moon of the Spartan Karneius may actually have fallen, in the year 490 B.C., on the fifth or sixth of the Attic month BoËdromion.

Dr. Thirlwall appears to adopt the view of Boeckh, but does not add anything material to the reasons in its favor (Hist. of Gr. vol. ii, Append. iii, p. 488).

[673] Herodot. vi, 119. Darius—sf?a? t?? ??ss??? ????? ?at????se ?? sta?? ???t?? t? ????a ?st? ??d?????a—???a?ta t??? ??et???a? ?at????se ?a?e???, ?? ?a? ???? ??? e???? t?? ????? ta?t??, f???s??te? t?? ???a??? ???ssa?. The meaning of the word sta??? is explained by Herodot. v, 52. sta??? ???t?? is the same as sta??? as??????: the particulars which Herodotus recounts about Arderikka, and its remarkable well, or pit of bitumen, salt, and oil, give every reason to believe that he had himself stopped there.

Strabo places the captive Eretrians in GordyÊnÊ, which would be considerably higher up the Tigris; upon whose authority, we do not know (Strabo, xv, p. 747).

The many particulars which are given respecting the descendants of these Eretrians in Kissia, by Philostratus, in his Life of Apollonius of Tyana, as they are alleged to have stood even in the first century of the Christian era, cannot be safely quoted. With all the fiction there contained, some truth may perhaps be mingled; but we cannot discriminate it (Philostratus, Vit. Apollon. i, c. 24-30).

[674] Herodot. vi, 133. ?p?ee ?p? ?????, p??fas?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?p???a? p??te??? st?ate??e??? t????e? ?? ?a?a???a ?a t? ???s?. ???t? ?? d? p??s??a t?? ????? ??? ?t?? t??a ?a? ????t?? e??e t??s? ?a????s? d?? ??sa???ea t?? ??s?e?, ???ta ????? ??????, d?aa???ta ?? p??? ?d???ea t?? ???s??.

[675] Ephorus (Fragm. 107, ed. Didot; ap. Stephan. Byz. v. ?????) gave an account of this expedition in several points different from Herodotus, which latter I here follow. The authority of Herodotus is preferable in every respect; the more so, since Ephorus gives his narrative as a sort of explanation of the peculiar phrase ??apa????e??. Explanatory narratives of that sort are usually little worthy of attention.

[676] Herodot. vi, 136. ????a??? d? ?? ????? ???t??dea ?p???st?sa?ta ?s??? ?? st?as?, ?? te ?????, ?a? ???sta ?????pp?? ? ???f?????? ?? ?a??t?? ?pa?a??? ?p? t?? d??? ???t??dea, ?d???e t?? ????a??? ?p?t?? e??e?e?. ???t??d?? d?, a?t?? ?? pa?e??, ??? ?pe????et?? ?? ??? ?d??at??, ?ste s?p????? t?? ????. ????e????? d? a?t?? ?? ?????, ?pe?ape??????t? ?? f????, t?? ???? te t?? ?? ?a?a???? ?e?????? p???? ?p?e??????, ?a? t?? ????? a??es??? ?? ???? ????? te ?a? t?s?e??? t??? ?e?as????, pa??d??e ????a???s?. ???s?e?????? d? t?? d??? a?t? ?at? t?? ?p???s?? t?? ?a??t??, ????sa?t?? d? ?at? t?? ?d????? pe?t????ta ta???t??s?, ???t??d?? ?? et? ta?ta, sfa?e??sa?t?? te t?? ???? ?a? sap??t??, te?e?t?? t? d? pe?t????ta t??a?ta ???t?se? ? p??? a?t?? ????.

Plato (Gorgias, c. 153, p. 516) says that the Athenians passed a vote to cast MiltiadÊs into the barathrum (?a?e?? ???f?sa?t?), and that he would have been actually thrown in, if it had not been for the prytanis, i. e. the president, by turn for that day, of the prytanizing senators and of the ekklesia. The prytanis may perhaps have been among those who spoke to the dikastery on behalf of MiltiadÊs, deprecating the proposition made by Xanthippus; but that he should have caused a vote once passed to be actually rescinded, is incredible. The Scholiast on AristeidÊs (cited by Valckenaer ad Herodot. vi, 136) reduces the exaggeration of Plato to something more reasonable—?te ??? ?????et? ???t??d?? ?p? t? ????, ????sa? a?t?? ?ata?????sa?? ? d? p??ta??? e?se???? ???t?sat? a?t??.

[677] That this was the habitual course of Attic procedure in respect to public indictments, wherever a positive amount of penalty was not previously determined, appears certain. See Platner, Prozess und Klagen bei den Attikern, Abschn. vi, vol. i, p. 201; Heffter, Die AthenÄische Gerichtsverfassung, p. 334. Meier and SchÖmann (Der Attische Prozess, b. iv, p. 725) maintain that any one of the dikasts might propose a third measure of penalty, distinct from that proposed by the accuser as well as the accused. In respect to public indictments, this opinion appears decidedly incorrect; but where the sentence to be pronounced involved a compensation for private wrong and an estimate of damages, we cannot so clearly determine whether there was not sometimes a greater latitude in originating propositions for the dikasts to vote upon. It is to be recollected that these dikasts were several hundred, sometimes even more, in number,—that there was no discussion or deliberation among them,—and that it was absolutely necessary for some distinct proposition to be laid before them to take a vote upon. In regard to some offences, the law expressly permitted what was called a p??stÍ?a; that is, after the dikasts had pronounced the full penalty demanded by the accuser, any other citizen who thought the penalty so imposed insufficient, might call for a certain limited amount of additional penalty, and require the dikasts to vote upon it,—ay or no. The votes of the dikasts were given, by depositing pebbles in two casks, under certain arrangements of detail.

The ???? t??t??, d??? t??t??, or trial including this separate admeasurement of penalty,—as distinguished from the d??? ?t??t??, or trial where the penalty was predetermined, and where was no t??s??, or vote of admeasurement of penalty,—is an important line of distinction in the subject-matter of Attic procedure; and the practice of calling on the accused party, after having been pronounced guilty, to impose upon himself a counter-penalty or under-penalty (??t?t??s?a? or ?p?t???a?) in contrast with that named by the accuser, was a convenient expedient for bringing the question to a substantive vote of the dikasts. Sometimes accused persons found it convenient to name very large penalties on themselves, in order to escape a capital sentence invoked by the accuser (see DÊmosthen. cont. Timokrat. c. 34, p. 743, R). Nor was there any fear, as Platner imagines, that in the generality of cases the dikasts would be left under the necessity of choosing between an extravagant penalty and something merely nominal; for the interest of the accused party himself would prevent this from happening. Sometimes we see him endeavoring by entreaties to prevail upon the accuser voluntarily to abate something of the penalty which he had at first named; and the accuser might probably do this, if he saw that the dikasts were not likely to go along with that first proposition.

In one particular case, of immortal memory, that which Platner contemplates actually did happen; and the death of SokratÊs was the effect of it. SokratÊs, having been found guilty, only by a small majority of votes among the dikasts, was called upon to name a penalty upon himself, in opposition to that of death, urged by MelÊtus. He was in vain entreated by his friends to name a fine of some tolerable amount, which they would at once have paid in his behalf; but he would hardly be prevailed upon to name any penalty at all, affirming that he had deserved honor rather than punishment: at last, he named a fine so small in amount, as to be really tantamount to an acquittal. Indeed, Xenophon states that he would not name any counter-penalty at all; and in the speech ascribed to him, he contended that he had even merited the signal honor of a public maintenance in the prytaneium (Plato, Apol. Sok. c. 27; Xenoph. Apol. Sok. 23; Diogen. LaËrt. ii, 41). Plato and Xenophon do not agree; but taking the two together, it would seem that he must have named a very small fine. There can be little doubt that this circumstance, together with the tenor of his defence, caused the dikasts to vote for the proposition of MelÊtus.

[679] See Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, b. iii, ch. 13, p. 390, Engl. Transl. (vol. i, p. 420, Germ.); Meier und SchÖmann, Attisch. Prozess, p. 744. Dr. Thirlwall takes a different view of this point, with which I cannot concur (Hist. Gr. vol. iii, Append. ii, p. 488); though his general remarks on the trial of MiltiadÊs are just and appropriate (ch. xiv, p. 273).

Cornelius Nepos (MiltiadÊs, c. 8; Kimon, c. 3) says that the misconduct connected with Paros was only a pretence with the Athenians for punishing MiltiadÊs; their real motive, he affirms, was envy and fear, the same feelings which dictated the ostracism of Kimon. How little there is to justify this fancy, may be seen even from the nature of the punishment inflicted. Fear would have prompted them to send away or put to death MiltiadÊs, not to fine him. The ostracism, which was dictated by fear, was a temporary banishment.

[680] The interval between his trial and his decease is expressed in Herodotus (vi, 136) by the difference between the present participle s?p????? and the past participle sap??t?? t?? ????.

[681] Machiavel, Discorsi sopra Tito Livio, cap. 58. “L’ opinione contro ai popoli nasce, perchÈ dei popoli ciascun dice male senza paura, e liberamente ancora mentre che regnano: dei principi si parla sempre con mille timori e mille rispetti.”

[682] Machiavel will not even admit so much as this, in the clear and forcible statement which he gives of the question here alluded to: he contends that the man who has rendered services ought to be recompensed for them, but that he ought to be punished for subsequent crime just as if the previous services had not been rendered. He lays down this position in discussing the conduct of the Romans towards the victorious survivor of the three Horatii, after the battle with the Curiatii: “Erano stati i meriti di Orazio grandissimi, avendo con la sua virtÙ vinti i Curiazi. Era stato il fallo suo atroce, avendo morto la sorella. Nondimeno dispiacque tanto tale omicidio ai Romani, che lo condussero a disputare della vita, non ostante che gli meriti suoi fussero tanto grandi e si freschi. La qual cosa, a chi superficialmente la considerasse, parrebbe uno esempio d’ ingratitudine popolare. Nondimeno chi lo esaminerÀ meglio, e con migliore considerazione ricercherÀ quali debbono essere gli’ ordini delle republiche, biasimearÀ quel popolo piuttosto per averlo assoluto, che per averlo voluto condannare: e la ragione È questa, che nessuna republica bene ordinata, non mai cancellÒ i demeriti con gli meriti dei suoi cittadini: ma avendo ordinati i premi ad una buona opera, e le pene ad una cattiva, ed avendo premiato uno per aver bene operato, se quel medesimo opera dipoi male, lo gastiga senza avere riguardo alcuno alle sue buone opere. E quando questi ordini sono bene osservati, una cittÀ vive libera molto tempo: altrimenti sempre rovinera presto. PerchÈ se, ad un cittadino che abbia fatto qualche egregia opere per la cittÀ, si aggiunge oltre alla riputazione, che quella cosa gli arreca, una audacia e confidenza di potere senza temer pena, far qualche opera non buona, diventerÀ in breve tempo tanto insolente, che si risolverÀ ogni civiltÀ.”—Machiavel, Discorsi sop. Tit. Livio, ch. 24.

[683] Machiavel, in the twenty-ninth chapter of his Discorsi sopra T. Livio, examines the question, “Which of the two is more open to the charge of being ungrateful,—a popular government, or a king?” He thinks that the latter is more open to it. Compare chapter fifty-nine of the same work, where he again supports a similar opinion.

M. Sismondi also observes, in speaking of the long attachment of the city of Pisa to the cause of the emperors and to the Ghibelin party: “Pise montra dans plus d’une occasion, par sa constance À supporter la cause des empereurs au milieu des revers, combien la reconnoissance lie un peuple libre d’une maniÈre plus puissante et plus durable qu’elle ne sauroit lier le peuple gouvernÉ par un seul homme.” (Histoire des RÉpubl. Italiennes, ch. xiii, tom. ii, p. 302.)

[684] DÊmosthenÊs, Olynth. iii, c. 9, p. 35, R.

[685] This is the general truth, which ancient authors often state, both partially, and in exaggerated terms as to degree: “HÆc est natura multitudinis (says Livy); aut humiliter servit aut superbe dominatur.” Again, Tacitus: “Nihil in vulgo modicum; terrere, ni paveant; ubi pertimuerint, impune contemni.” (Annal. i, 29.) Herodotus, iii, 81. ???e? d? (? d???) ?pes?? t? p???ata ??e? ???, ?e????? p?ta? ??e???.

It is remarkable that Aristotle, in his Politica, takes little or no notice of this attribute belonging to every numerous assembly. He seems rather to reason as if the aggregate intelligence of the multitude was represented by the sum total of each man’s separate intelligence in all the individuals composing it (Polit. iii, 6, 4, 10, 12); just as the property of the multitude, taken collectively, would be greater than that of the few rich. He takes no notice of the difference between a number of individuals judging jointly and judging separately: I do not, indeed, observe that such omission leads him into any positive mistake, but it occurs in some cases calculated to surprise us, and where the difference here adverted to is important to notice: see Politic. iii, 10, 5, 6.

[686] Thucyd. ii, 65. ?p?te ???? a?s???t? t? a?t??? pa?? ?a???? ??e? ?a?s???ta?, ????? ?at?p??sse? p???? ?p? t? f?e?s?a?? ?a? ded??ta? a? ?????? ??t??a??st? p???? ?p? t? ?a?se??.

[687] Such swing of the mind, from one intense feeling to another, is always deprecated by the Greek moralists, from the earliest to the latest: even Demokritus, in the fifth century B.C., admonishes against it,—?? ?? e????? d?ast??t?? ???e?e?a? t?? ????? ??te e?sta??e? e?s??, ??te e?????. (Democriti Fragmenta, lib. iii, p. 168, ed. Mullach ap. StobÆum, Florileg. i, 40.)

[688] The letters of Bentley against Boyle, discussing the pretended Epistles of Phalaris,—full of acuteness and learning, though beyond measure excursive,—are quite sufficient to teach us that little can be safely asserted about Phalaris. His date is very imperfectly ascertained. Compare Bentley, pp. 82, 83, and Seyfert, Akragas und sein Gebiet, p. 60: the latter assigns the reign of Phalaris to the years 570-554 B.C. It is surprising to see Seyfert citing the letters of the pseudo-Phalaris as an authority, after the exposure of Bentley.

[689] Pindar. Pyth. 1 ad fin, with the Scholia, p. 310, ed. Boeckh; Polyb. xii, 25; Diodor. xiii, 99; Cicero cont. Verr. iv, 33. The contradiction of TimÆus is noway sufficient to make us doubt the authenticity of the story. Ebert (S??e????, part ii, pp. 41-84, KÖnigsberg, 1829) collects all the authorities about the bull of Phalaris. He believes the matter of fact substantially. Aristotle (Rhetoric, ii, 20) tells a story of the fable, whereby StÊsichorus the poet dissuaded the inhabitants of Himera from granting a guard to Phalaris: Conon (Narrat. 42 ap. Photium) recounts the same story with the name of Hiero substituted for that of Phalaris. But it is not likely that either the one or the other could ever have been in such relations with the citizens of Himera. Compare Polybius, vii, 7, 2.

[690] PolyÆn. v, 1, 1; Cicero de Officiis, ii, 7.

[691] Plutarch, Philosophand. cum Principibus, c. 3, p. 778.

[692] The less these problems are adapted for rational solution, the more nobly do they present themselves in the language of a great poem; see as a specimen, EuripidÊs, Fragment. 101, ed. Dindorf.

[693] Vol. i, ch. xvi.

[694] Diogen. LaËrt. i, 23; Herodot. i, 75; Apuleius, Florid. iv, p. 144, Bip.

Proclus, in his Commentary on Euclid, specifies several propositions said to have been discovered by ThalÊs (Brandis, Handbuch der Gr. Philos. ch. xxviii, p. 110).

[695] Aristotel. Metaphys. i, 3; Plutarch, Placit. Philos. i, 3, p. 875. ?? ?? ?dat?? f?s? p??ta e??a?, ?a? e?? ?d?? p??ta ??a??es?a?.

[696] Aristotel. ut supra, and De Coelo, ii, 13.

[697] Aristotel. De AnimÂ, i, 2-5; Cicero, De Legg. ii, 11; Diogen. LaËrt. i, 24.

[698] Aristotel. De AnimÂ, i, 2; Alexander Aphrodis. in Aristotel. Metaphys. 1, 3.

[699] Apollodorus, in the second century B.C., had before him some brief expository treatises of Anaximander (Diogen. LaËrt. ii, 2): ?e?? F?se??, G?? ?e???d??, ?e?? t?? ?p?a??? ?a? Sfa??a? ?a? ???a t???. Suidas, v. ??a??a?d???. Themistius. Orat. xxv, p. 317: ??????se p??t?? ?? ?se? ??????? ????? ??e?e??e?? pe?? F?se?? s???e??a????.

[700] IrenÆus, ii, 19, (14) ap. Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte der Griech. RÖm. Philos. ch. xxxv, p. 133: “Anaximander hoc quod immensum est, omnium initium subjecit, seminaliter habens in semetipso omnium genesin, ex quo immensos mundos constare ait.” Aristotel. Physic. Auscult. iii, 4, p. 203, Bek. ??te ??? ?t?? a?t? ???? te e??a? (t? ?pe????), ??te ????? ?p???e?? a?t? d??a??, p??? ?? ?????. Aristotle subjects this ?pe???? to an elaborate discussion, in which he says very little more about Anaximander, who appears to have assumed it without anticipating discussion or objections. Whether Anaximander called his ?pe???? divine, or god, as Tennemann (Gesch. Philos. i, 2, p. 67) and Panzerbieter affirm (ad Diogenis Apolloniat. Fragment. c. 13, p. 16,) I think doubtful: this is rather an inference which Aristotle elicits from his language. Yet in another passage, which is difficult to reconcile, Aristotle ascribes to Anaximander the water-doctrine of ThalÊs, (Aristotel. de Xenophane, p. 975. Bek.)

Anaximander seems to have followed speculations analogous to those of ThalÊs, in explaining the first production of the human race (Plutarch Placit. Philos. v, 19, p. 908), and in other matters (ibid. iii, 16, p. 896).

[701] Aristotel. De Generat. et Destruct. c. 3, p. 317, Bek. ? ???sta f???e??? d?et??esa? ?? p??t?? f???s?f?sa?te?, t? ?? ?de??? ???es?a? p???p?????t??? compare Physic. Auscultat. i, 4, p. 187, Bek.

[702] Simplicius in Aristotel. Physic. fol. 6, 32. p??t?? a?t?? ????? ????sa? t? ?p??e?e???.

[703] Diogen. LaËrt. ii, 81, 2. He agreed with ThalÊs in maintaining that the earth was stationary, (Aristotel. de Coelo, ii, 13, p. 295, ed. Bekk.)

[704] Diogen. LaËrt. ix, 18.

[705] Diogen. LaËrt. ix, 22; StobÆus, Eclog. Phys. i, p. 294.

[706] Sextus Empiricus, adv. Mathem. ix, 193.

[707] Aristot. Metaphys. i, 5, p. 986, Bek. ?e??f???? d? p??t?? t??t?? ???sa?, ????? d?esaf???se?, ??d? t?? f?se?? t??t?? (t?? ?at? t?? ????? ???? ?a? t?? ?at? t?? ????) ??det??a? ????e ???e??, ???? e?? t?? ???? ???a??? ?p????a? t? ?? e??a? f?s? t?? ?e??.

Plutarch. ap. Eusebium PrÆparat. Evangel. i, 8. ?e??f???? d? ? ????f????? ?d?a? ?? t??a ?d?? pep??e????? ?a? pa????a???a? p??ta? t??? p??e????????, ??te ???es?? ??te f????? ?p??e?pe?, ???? e??a? ???e? t? p?? ?e? ?????. Compare Timon ap. Sext. Empiric. Pyrrh. Hypotyp. i, 224, 225. ?d???t??e d? ? ?e??f???? pa?? t?? t?? ????? ?????p?? p?????e??, ?? e??a? t? p??, ?a? t?? ?e?? s?f?? t??? p?s??? e??a? d? sfa???e?d? ?a? ?pa?? ?a? ?et???t?? ?a? ???????, (Airstot. de Xenoph. c. 3, p. 977, Bek.). ?d??at?? f?s?? (? ?e??f????) e??a?, e? t? ?st??, ?e??s?a?, etc.

One may reasonably doubt whether all the arguments ascribed to XenophanÊs, in the short but obscure treatise last quoted, really belong to him.

[708] Clemens Alexand. Stromat. v, p. 601, vii, p. 711.

[709] Aristot. Metaphysic. i, 5, p. 986, Bek. ????? ???????te???.

[710] XenophanÊs, Fr. xiv, ed. Mullach; Sextus Empiric. adv. Mathematicos, vii, 49-110; and Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. i, 224; Plutarch adv. ColÔtÊn, p. 1114; compare Karsten ad Parmenidis Fragmenta, p. 146.

[711] See Brandis, Handbuch der Griech. RÖm. Philosophie, ch. xxii.

[712] Herodot. iv, 95. The place of his nativity is certain from Herodotus, but even this fact was differently stated by other authors, who called him a Tyrrhenian of Lemnos or Imbros (Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. c. 1-10), a Syrian, a Phliasian, etc.

Cicero (De Repub. ii, 15: compare Livy, i, 18) censures the chronological blunder of those who made Pythagoras the preceptor of Numa; which certainly is a remarkable illustration how much confusion prevailed among literary men of antiquity about the dates of events even of the sixth century B.C. Ovid follows this story without hesitation: see Metamorph. xv, 60, with Burmann’s note.

[713] Cicero de Fin. v, 29; Diogen. LaËrt. viii, 3; Strabo, xiv, p. 638; Alexander Polyhistor ap. Cyrill. cont. Julian. iv, p. 128, ed. Spanh. For the vast reach of his supposed travels, see Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. 11; Jamblic 14, seqq.

The same extensive journeys are ascribed to Demokritus, Diogen. LaËrt. ix, 35.

[714] The connection of Pythagoras with PherekydÊs is noticed by Aristoxenus ap. Diogen. LaËrt. i, 118, viii, 2; Cicero de Divinat. i, 13.

[715] XenophanÊs, Fragm. 7, ed. Schneidewin; Diogen. LaËrt. viii, 36: compare Aulus Gellius, iv, 11 (we must remark that this or a like doctrine is not peculiar to Pythagoreans, but believed by the poet Pindar, Olymp. ii, 68, and Fragment, Thren. x, as well as by the philosopher PherekydÊs, Porphyrius de Antro Nympharum, c. 31).

Consult also Sextus Empiricus, viii, 286, as to the ???????a between gods, men and animals, believed both by Pythagoras and EmpedoklÊs. That Herodotus (ii, 123) alludes to Orpheus and Pythagoras, though refraining designedly from mentioning names, there can hardly be any doubt: compare ii, 81; also Aristotle, De AnimÂ, i, 3, 23.

The testimony of HÊrakleitus is contained in Diogenes LaËrtius, viii, 6; ix, 1. ??a??e?t?? ???? ? f?s???? ???????? ????a?e ?a? f?s?? ???a????? ???s????? ?st????? ?s??se? ?????p?? ???sta p??t??, ?a? ???e??e??? ta?ta? t?? s????af??, ?p???sat? ?a?t?? s?f???, p???a?e???, ?a??te?????. Again, ????a??? ???? ?? d?d?s?e?? ?s??d?? ??? ?? ?d?da?e ?a? ???a?????, a???? d? ?e??f??e? te ?a? ??ata???.

Dr. Thirlwall conceives XenophanÊs as having intended in the passage above cited to treat the doctrine of the metempsychosis “with deserved ridicule.” (Hist. of Greece, ch. xii, vol. ii, p. 162.) Religious opinions are so apt to appear ridiculous to those who do not believe them, that such a suspicion is not unnatural; yet I think, if XenophanÊs had been so disposed, he would have found more ridiculous examples among the many which this doctrine might suggest. Indeed, it seems hardly possible to present the metempsychosis in a more touching or respectable point of view than that which the lines of his poem set forth. The particular animal selected is that one between whom and man the sympathy is most marked and reciprocal, while the doctrine is made to enforce a practical lesson against cruelty.

[716] Herodot. i, 29; ii, 49; iv, 95. ??????? ?? t? ?s?e?est?t? s?f?st? ???a????. HippokratÊs distinguishes the s?f?st?? from the ??t???, though both of them had handled the subject of medicine,—the general from the special habits of investigation. (HippokratÊs, ?e?? ???a??? ??t?????, c. 20, vol. i, p. 620, LittrÉ.)

[717] See Lobeck’s learned and valuable treatise, Aglaophamus, Orphica, lib. ii, pp. 247, 698, 900; also Plato, Legg. vi, 782, and Euripid. Hippol. 946.

[718] Plato’s conception of Pythagoras (Republ. x, p. 600) depicts him as something not unlike St. Benedict, or St. Francis, (or St. Elias, as some Carmelites have tried to make out: see Kuster ad Jamblich. c. 3)—???? d?, e? ? d??s??, ?d?? t?s?? ??e?? pa?de?a? a?t?? ??? ???eta? ????? ?e??s?a?, ?? ??e???? ???p?? ?p? s????s?? ?a? t??? ?st????? ?d?? t??a ??? pa??d?sa? ???????? ?spe? ???a???a? a?t?? te d?afe???t?? ?p? t??t? ??ap???, ?a? ?? ?ste??? ?t? ?a? ??? ???a???e??? t??p?? ?p???????te? t?? ??? d?afa?e?? p? d????s?? e??a? ?? t??? ??????.

The description of Melampus, given in Herodot. ii, 49, very much fills up the idea of Pythagoras, as derived from ii, 81-123, and iv, 95. Pythagoras, as well as Melampus, was said to have pretended to divination and prophecy (Cicero, Divinat. i, 3, 46; Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. c. 29: compare Krische, De Societate a Pythagor in urbe Crotoniatarum condit Commentatio, ch. v, p. 72, GÖttingen, 1831).

[719] Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte der Griechisch. Rom. Philosophie, part i, sect. xlvii, p. 191.

[720] Ælian. V. H. ii, 26; Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 31, 140; Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. c. 20; Diodorus, Fragm. lib. x, vol. iv, p. 56, Wess.: Timon ap. Diogen. LaËrt. viii, 36; and Plutarch, Numa, c. 8.

[721] IsokratÊs, Busiris, p. 402, ed. Auger. ???a???a? ? S????, ?f???e??? e?? ????pt??, ?a? a??t?? t?? ?e???? ?e??e???, t?? te ????? f???s?f?a? p??t?? e?? t??? ?????a? ????se, ?a? t? pe?? t?? ??s?a? ?a? t?? ???ste?a? ?? t??? ?e???? ?p?fa??ste??? t?? ????? ?sp??dase.

Compare Aristotel. Magn. Moralia, i, 1, about Pythagoras as an ethical teacher. DÊmokritus, born about 460 B.C., wrote a treatise (now lost) respecting Pythagoras, whom he greatly admired: as far as we can judge, it would seem that he too must have considered Pythagoras as an ethical teacher (Diogen. LaËrt. xi, 38; Mullach, Democriti Fragmenta, lib. ii, p. 113; Cicero de Orator. iii, 15).

[722] Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 64, 115, 151, 199: see also the idea ascribed to Pythagoras, of divine inspirations coming on men (?p?p???a pa?? t?? da??????). Aristoxenus apud StobÆum, Eclog. Physic. p. 206; Diogen. LaËrt. viii, 32.

Meiners establishes it as probable that the stories respecting the miraculous powers and properties of Pythagoras got into circulation either during his lifetime, or at least not long after his death (Geschichte der Wissenschaften, b. iii, vol. i, pp. 504, 505).

[723] Respecting Philolaus, see the valuable collection of his fragments, and commentary on them, by Boeckh (Philolaus des Pythagoreers Leben, Berlin, 1819). That Philolaus was the first who composed a work on Pythagorean science, and thus made it known beyond the limits of the brotherhood—among others to Plato—appears well established (Boeckh, Philolaus, p. 22; Diogen. LaËrt. viii, 15-55; Jamblichus, c. 119). Simmias and KebÊs, fellow-disciples of Plato under SokratÊs, had held intercourse with Philolaus at Thebes (Plato, PhÆdon, p. 61), perhaps about 420 B.C. The Pythagorean brotherhood had then been dispersed in various parts of Greece, though the attachment of its members to each other seems to have continued long afterwards.

[724] Plutarch, De Isid. et Osirid. p. 384, ad fin. Quintilian, Instit. Oratt. ix, 4.

[725] EmpedoklÊs, ap. Aristot. Rhetoric. i, 14, 2; Sextus Empiric. ix, 127; Plutarch, De Esu Carnium, pp. 993, 996, 997; where he puts Pythagoras and EmpedoklÊs together, as having both held the doctrine of the metempsychosis, and both prohibited the eating of animal food. EmpedoklÊs supposed that plants had souls, and that the souls of human beings passed after death into plants as well as into animals. “I have been myself heretofore (said he) a boy, a girl, a shrub, a bird, and a fish of the sea.”

(Diogen. L. viii, 77; Sturz. ad Empedokl. Frag. p. 466.) Pythagoras is said to have affirmed that he had been not only Euphorbus in the Grecian army before Troy, but also a tradesman, a courtezan, etc., and various other human characters, before his actual existence; he did not, however, extend the same intercommunion to plants, in any case.

The abstinence from animal food was an Orphic precept as well as a Pythagorean (Aristophan. Ran. 1032).

[726] Strabo, vi, p. 263; Diogen. L. viii, 40.

[727] Diogen. LaËrt. ix, 18.

[728] Herodot. iii, 131; Strabo, vi, p. 261: Menander de Encomiis, p. 96, ed. Heeren. ????a???? ?p? ??a?at?p???a te ?a? ????af???, ?a? ???t????ta? ?p? ?at????, ??a f????sa?, etc.

The Krotoniate AlkmÆon, a younger contemporary of Pythagoras (Aristotel. Metaph. i, 5), is among the earliest names mentioned as philosophizing upon physical and medical subjects. See Brandis, Handbuch der Geschicht. der Philos. sect. lxxxiii, p. 508, and Aristotel. De Generat. Animal. iii, 2, p. 752, Bekker.

The medical art in Egypt, at the time when Pythagoras visited that country, was sufficiently far advanced to excite the attention of an inquisitive traveller,—the branches of it minutely subdivided and strict rules laid down for practice (Herodot. ii, 84; Aristotel. Politic, iii, 10, 4).

[729] See the analogy of the two strikingly brought out in the treatise of HippokratÊs ?e?? ???a??? ??t?????, c. 3, 4, 7, vol. i, p. 580-584, ed. LittrÉ.

?t? ???? ?a? ??? ?? t?? ???as??? te ?a? ?s??s??? ?p?e??e??? a?e? t? p??se?e???s???s?, ?a? t?? a?t??? ?d?? ??t???te? ?,t? ?d?? ?a? p???? ?p???at?se? te a?t??? ???sta, ?a? ?s????te??? a?t?? ???t?? ?sta? (p. 580); again, p. 584: ?? ??? fa??eta? ?te????? d?a????e?? ? ?a?e?e??? ??t??? ?a? ?????e????? ?e???t?????, ?? ??e??e t?? ?f? t??? ?????ta? d?a?t?? ?a? t??f??, ? ?e???? ? ?p? ????? t??s? p?s?? ?????p??s? t??f??, ? ??? ??e?e?a, ?? ??e???? t?? ?????? te ?a? ?????de?? e???? te ?a? pa?as?e??sa? d?a?t??: compare another passage, not less illustrative, in the treatise of HippokratÊs ?e?? d?a?t?? ?????, c. 3, vol. ii, p. 245, ed. LittrÉ.

Following the same general idea, that the theory and practice of the physician is a farther development and variety of that of the gymnastic trainer, I transcribe some observations from the excellent Remarques RÉtrospectives of M. LittrÉ, at the end of the fourth volume of his edition of HippokratÊs (p. 662).

After having observed (p. 659) that physiology may be considered as divided into two parts,—one relating to the mechanism of the functions; the other, to the effects produced upon the human body by the different influences which act upon it and the media by which it is surrounded; and after having observed that on the first of these two branches the ancients could never make progress from their ignorance of anatomy,—he goes on to state, that respecting the second branch they acquired a large amount of knowledge:—

“Sur la physiologie des influences extÉrieures, la GrÈce du temps d’Hippocrate et aprÈs lui fut le thÉÂtre d’expÉriences en grand, les plus importantes et les plus instructives. Toute la population (la population libre, s’entend) Étoit soumise À un systÈme rÉgulier d’Éducation physique (N. B. this is a little too strongly stated): dans quelques citÉs, À LacÉdÉmone par exemple, les femmes n’en Étoient pas exemptÉes. Ce systÈme se composoit d’exercices et d’une alimentation, que combinÈrent l’empirisme d’abord, puis une thÉorie plus savante: il concernoit (comme dit Hippocrate lui-mÊme, en ne parlant, il est vrai, que de la partie alimentaire), il concernoit et les malades pour leur rÉtablissement, et les gens bien portans pour la conservation de leur santÉ, et les personnes livrÉes aux exercices gymnastiques pour l’accroissement de leurs forces. On savoit au juste ce qu’il falloit pour conserver seulement le corps en bon État ou pour traiter un malade—pour former un militaire ou pour faire un athlÈte—et en particulier, un lutteur, un coureur, un sauteur, un pugiliste. Une classe d’hommes, les maÎtres des gymnases, Étoient exclusivement adonnÉs À la culture de cet art, auquel les mÉdecins participoient dans les limites de leur profession, et Hippocrate, qui dans les Aphorismes, invoque l’exemple des athlÈtes, nous parle dans le TraitÉ des Articulations des personnes maigres, qui n’ayant pas ÉtÉ amaigris par un procÉdÉ rÉgulier de l’art, ont les chairs muqueuses. Les anciens mÉdecins savoient, comme on le voit, procurer l’amaigrissement conformÉment À l’art, et reconnoitre À ses effets un amaigrissement irrÉgulier: toutes choses auxquelles nos mÉdecins sont Étrangers, et dont on ne retrouve l’analogue que parmi les entraineurs Anglois. Au reste cet ensemble de connoissances empiriques et thÉoriques doit Être mis au rang des pertes fÂcheuses qui ont accompagnÉ la longue et turbulente transition du monde ancien an monde moderne. Les admirables institutions destinÉes dans l’antiquitÉ À dÉvelopper et affermir le corps, ont disparu: l’hygiÈne publique est dÉstituÉe À cet Égard de toute direction scientifique et gÉnÉrale, et demeure abandonnÉe complÈtement au hasard.”

See also the remarks of Plato respecting Herodikus, De RepublicÂ, iii, p. 406; Aristotel. Politic. iii, 11, 6; iv, 1, 1; viii, 4, 1.

[730] Valerius Maxim. viii, 15, xv, 1; Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 45; TimÆus, Fragm. 78, ed. Didot.

[731] Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. c. 21-54; Jamblich. 33-35, 166.

[732] The compilations of Porphyry and Jamblichus on the life of Pythagoras, copied from a great variety of authors, will doubtless contain some truth amidst their confused heap of statements, many incredible, and nearly all unauthenticated. But it is very difficult to single out what these portions of truth really are. Even Aristoxenus and DikÆarchus, the best authors from whom these biographers quote, lived near two centuries after the death of Pythagoras, and do not appear to have had any early memorials to consult, nor any better informants than the contemporary Pythagoreans,—the last of an expiring sect, and probably among the least eminent for intellect, since the philosophers of the Sokratic school in its various branches carried off the acute and aspiring young men of that time.

Meiners, in his Geschichte der Wissenschaften (vol. i, b. iii, p. 191, seq.), has given a careful analysis of the various authors from whom the two biographers have borrowed, and a comparative estimate of their trustworthiness. It is an excellent piece of historical criticism, though the author exaggerates both the merits and the influence of the first Pythagoreans: Kiessling, in the notes to his edition of Jamblichus, has given some extracts from it, but by no means enough to dispense with the perusal of the original. I think Meiners allows too much credit, on the whole, to Aristoxenus (see p. 214), and makes too little deduction for the various stories, difficult to be believed, of which Aristoxenus is given as the source: of course the latter could not furnish better matter than he heard from his own witnesses. Where Meiners’s judgment is more severe, it is also better borne out, especially respecting Porphyry himself, and his scholar Jamblichus. These later Pythagorean philosophers seem to have set up as a formal canon of credibility, that which many religious men of antiquity acted upon from a mere unconscious sentiment and fear of giving offence to the gods,—That it was not right to disbelieve any story recounted respecting the gods, and wherein the divine agency was introduced: no one could tell but what it might be true: to deny its truth, was to set bounds to the divine omnipotence. Accordingly, they made no difficulty in believing what was recounted about AristÆus, Abaris, and other eminent subjects of mythes (Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 138-148)—?a? t??t? ?e p??te? ?? ???a???e??? ??? ????s? p?ste?t????, ???? pe?? ???sta??? ?a? ????d?? t? ????????e?a ?a? ?sa ???a t??a?ta ???eta? ... t?? t????t?? d? t?? d?????t?? ?????? ?p?????e???s??, ?? ??d?? ?p?st???te? ?t? ?? e?? t? ?e??? ??a??ta?. Also, not less formally laid down in Jamblichus, Adhortatio ad Philosophiam, as the fourth Symbolum, p. 324, ed. Kiessling. ?e?? ?e?? ?d?? ?a?ast?? ?p?ste?, ?d? pe?? ?e??? d???t??. Reasoning from their principles, this was a consistent corollary to lay down; but it helps us to estimate their value as selectors and discriminators of accounts respecting Pythagoras. The extravagant compliments paid by the emperor Julian in his letters to Jamblichus will not suffice to establish the authority of the latter as a critic and witness: see the EpistolÆ 34, 40, 41, in Heyler’s edit. of Julian’s letters.

[733] Aulus Gell. N. A. iv, 11. Apollonius (ap. Jamblich. c. 262) alludes to t? ?p???ata t?? ???t???at??: what the date of these may be, we do not know, but there is no reason to believe them anterior to Aristoxenus.

[734] Thucyd. viii, 54. t?? ?????s?a?, a?pe? ?t???a??? p??te??? ??sa? ?? t? p??e? ?p? d??a?? ?a? ???a??, ?p?sa? ?pe????, etc.

On this important passage, in which ThucydidÊs notes the political clubs of Athens as sworn societies,—numerous, notorious, and efficient,—I shall speak farther in a future stage of the history. Dr. Arnold has a good note on the passage.

[735] Justin, xx, 4. “Sed trecenti ex juvenibus cum sodalitii juris sacramento quodam nexi, separatam a ceteris civibus vitam exercerent, quasi coetum clandestinÆ conjurationis haberent, civitatem in se converterunt.”

Compare Diogen. LaËrt. viii, 3; Apollonius ap. Jamblich. c. 254; Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. c. 33.

The story of the devoted attachments of the two Pythagoreans Damon and Phintias appears to be very well attested: Aristoxenus heard it from the lips of the younger Dionysius the despot, whose sentence had elicited such manifestation of friendship (Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. c. 59-62, Cicero, De Officiis, iii, 10; and Davis ad Cicero, Tusc. Disp. v, 22).

[736] Plutarch, Philosoph. cum Principib. c. i, p. 777. ?? d? ?????t?? ??d??? ?a? p???t???? ?a? p?a?t???? ?a????ta? (? f???s?f??) ?a? t??t?? ??ap??s? ?a?????a??a?, p?????? d?? ???? ?f???se?, ?? ???a???a? t??? p??te???s? t?? ?ta???t?? s???e??e???.

[738] Niebuhr, RÖmisch. Gesch. i, p. 165, 2nd edit.; O. MÜller, Hist of Dorians, iii, 9, 16: Krische is opposed to this idea, sect. v, p. 84.

[739] Varro ap. Augustin. de Ordine, ii, 30; Krische, p. 77.

[740] Apollonius ap. Jamblichum, V. P. c. 254, 255, 256, 257. ??e??e? d? ??????t? t?? d?af???? ?? ta?? s???e?e?a?? ?a? ta?? ???e??t?s?? ????tata ?a?est???te? t?? ???a???e???. ??t??? d? ??, ?t? t? ?? p???? a?t??? ???pe? t?? p?att?????, etc.: compare also the lines descriptive of Pythagoras, c. 259. ???? ?? ?ta????? ??e? ?s??? a???ess? ?e??s?. ???? d? ?????? ??e?t? ??t? ?? ????, ?? ?????.

That this Apollonius, cited both by Jamblichus and by Porphyry, is Apollonius of Tyana, has been rendered probable by Meiners (Gesch. der Wissensch. v. i, pp. 239-245): compare Welcker, Prolegomena ad Theognid. pp. xlv, xlvi.

When we read the life of Apollonius by Philostratus, we see that the former was himself extremely communicative: he might be the rather disposed therefore to think that the seclusion and reserve of Pythagoras was a defect, and to ascribe to it much of the mischief which afterwards overtook the order.

[741] Schleiermacher observes, that “Philosophy among the Pythagoreans was connected with political objects, and their school with a practical brotherly partnership, such as was never on any other occasion seen in Greece.” (Introduction to his Translation of Plato, p. 12.) See also Theopompus, Fr. 68, ed. Didot, apud AthenÆum, v, p. 213, and EuripidÊs, MÊdÊa, 294.

[742] Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 12; Æschines, cont. Timarch. c. 34. ?e??, ? ????a???, S????t?? ?? t?? s?f?st?? ?pe?te??ate, ?t? ???t?a? ?f??? pepa?de????, ??a t?? t??????ta.

[743] This is stated in Jamblichus, c. 255; yet it is difficult to believe; for if the fact had been so, the destruction of the Pythagoreans would naturally have produced an allotment and permanent occupation of the Sybaritan territory,—which certainly did not take place, for Sybaris remained without resident possessors until the foundation of Thurii.

[744] Jamblichus, c, 255-259; Porphyry, c. 54-57; Diogen. LaËrt. viii, 39; Diodor. x, Fragm. vol. iv, p. 56, Wess.

[745] Polyb. ii, 39; Plutarch, De Genio Socratis, c. 13, p. 583; Aristoxenus, ap. Jamblich. c. 250. That the enemies of the order attacked it by setting fire to the house in which the members were assembled, is the circumstance in which all accounts agree. On all other points there is great discrepancy, especially respecting the names and dates of the Pythagoreans who escaped: Boeckh (Philolaus, p. 9, seq.) and Brandis (Handbuch der Gesch. Philos. ch. lxxiii, p. 432) try to reconcile these discrepancies.

AristophanÊs introduces StrepsiadÊs, at the close of the Nubes, as setting fire to the meeting-house (f???t?st?????) of SokratÊs and his disciples possibly the Pythagorean conflagration may have suggested this.

[746] “Pythagoras Samius suspicione dominatÛs injust vivus in fano concrematus est.” (Arnobius adv. Gentes, lib. i, p. 23, ed. Elmenhorst.)

[747] Cicero, De Finib. v, 2 (who seems to have copied from DikÆarchus: see Fuhr. ad DikÆarchi Fragment. p. 55); Justin, xx, 4; Diogen. LaËrt. viii, 40; Jamblichus, V. P. c. 249.

O. MÜller says (Dorians, iii, 9, 16), that “the influence of the Pythagorean league upon the administration of the Italian states was of the most beneficial kind, which continued for many generations after the dissolution of the league itself.”

The first of these two assertions cannot be made out, and depends only on the statements of later encomiasts, who even supply materials to contradict their own general view. The judgment of Welcker respecting the influence of the Pythagoreans, much less favorable, is at the same time more probable. (PrÆfat. ad Theognid. p. xlv.)

The second of the two assertions appears to me quite incorrect; the influence of the Pythagorean order on the government of Magna GrÆcia ceased altogether, as far as we are able to judge. An individual Pythagorean like Archytas might obtain influence, but this is not the influence of the order. Nor ought O. MÜller to talk about the Italian Greeks giving up the Doric customs and adopting an AchÆan government. There is nothing to prove that Kroton ever had Doric customs.

[748] Aristotel. de Coelo, ii, 13. ?? pe?? t?? ?ta??a?, ?a???e??? d? ???a???e???. “Italici philosophi quondam nominati.” (Cicero, De Senect. c. 21.)

[749] Heyne places the date of the battle of Sagra about 560 B.C.; but this is very uncertain. See his Opuscula, vol. ii, Prolus. ii, pp. 53, and Prolus. x, p. 184. See also Justin, xx, 3, and Strabo, vi, pp. 261-263. It will be seen that the latter conceives the battle of the Sagra as having happened after the destruction of Sybaris by the Krotoniates; for he states twice that the Krotoniates lost so many citizens at the Sagra, that the city did not long survive so terrible a blow: he cannot, therefore, have supposed that the complete triumph of the Krotoniates over the great Sybaris was gained afterwards.

[750] See above, vol. iii, chap. xxii.

[751] Diodor. xii, 9. Herodotus calls TÊlys in one place as???a, in another t??a???? of Sybaris (v, 44): this is not at variance with the story of Diodorus.

The story given by AthenÆus, out of HerakleidÊs Ponticus, respecting the subversion of the dominion of TÊlys, cannot be reconciled either with Herodotus or Diodorus (AthenÆus, xii, p. 522). Dr. Thirlwall supposes the deposition of TÊlys to have occurred between the defeat at the Traeis and the capture of Sybaris; but this is inconsistent with the statement of HerakleidÊs, and not countenanced by any other evidence.

[752] Herodot. v, 47.

[753] Diodor. xii, 9; Strabo, vi, p. 263; Jamblichus, Vit. Pythag. c. 260; Skymn. Chi. v, 340.

[754] Herodot. v, 44.

[755] Diodor. xii, 9, 10; Strabo, vi, p. 263.

[756] Herodot. vi, 21; Strabo, vi, p. 253.

[757] Herodot. v, 45; Diodor. xii, 9, 10; Strabo, vi, p. 263. Strabo mentions expressly the turning of the river for the purpose of overwhelming the city,—????te? ??? t?? p???? ?p??a??? t?? p?ta?? ?a? ?at????sa?. It is to this change in the channel of the river that I refer the expression in Herodotus,—t?e??? te ?a? ???? ???ta pa?? t?? ????? ??????. It was natural that the old deserted bed of the river should be called “the dry Krathis:” whereas, if we suppose that there was only one channel, the expression has no appropriate meaning. For I do not think that any one can be well satisfied with the explanation of BÄhr “Vocatur Crathis hoc loco ????? siccus, ut qui hieme fluit, Æstatis vero tempore exsiccatus est: quod adhuc in multis ItaliÆ inferioris fluviis observant.” I doubt whether this be true, as a matter of fact, respecting the river Krathis (see my preceding volume, ch. xxii), but even if the fact were true, the epithet in BÄhr’s sense has no especial significance for the purpose contemplated by Herodotus, who merely wishes to describe the site of the temple erected by Dorieus. “Near the Krathis,” or “near the dry Krathis,” would be equivalent expressions, if we adopted BÄhr’s construction; whereas to say, “near the deserted channel of the Krathis,” would be a good local designation.

[758] Herodot. vi, 21.

[759] Herodot. v, 45.

[760] Herodot. v, 45. ???t? d?, a?t?? ??????? t?? ???at?? a?t????? ???st?? p??e??ta? (S?a??ta?), ?t? pa?? t? ea?te???a p????? d?ef????. ?? ??? d? ? pa??p???e ?d??, ?p? ? d? ?st??? ?p??ee, e??e ?? t?? ???????? ????? ?a? ???? ??tes?e, ??d? ?? a?t?? te ?a? ? st?at?? d?ef????.

[761] Polyb. ii, 39. Heyne thinks that the agreement here mentioned by Polybius took place Olymp. 80, 3; or, indeed, after the repopulation of the Sybaritan territory by the foundation of Thurii (Opuscula, vol. ii; Prolus. x, p. 189). But there seems great difficulty in imagining that the state of violent commotion—which, according to Polybius, was only appeased by this agreement—can possibly have lasted so long as half a century; the received date of the overthrow of the Pythagoreans being about 504 B.C.

[762] Aristot. Politic. ii, 9, 6; iv, 9, 10. Heyne puts Charondas much earlier than the foundation of Thurii, in which, I think, he is undoubtedly right: but without determining the date more exactly (Opuscul. vol. ii; Prolus. ix, p. 160), Charondas must certainly have been earlier than Anaxilas of RhÊgium and the great Sicilian despots; which will place him higher than 500 B.C.: but I do not know that any more precise mark of time can be found.

[763] Diodorus, xii, 35; StobÆus, Serm. xliv, 20-40; Cicero de Legg. ii, 6. See K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech. StaatsalterthÜmer, ch. 89; Heyne, Opuscul. vol. ii, pp. 72-164. Brandis (Geschichte der RÖm. Philosophie, ch. xxvi, p. 102) seems to conceive these prologues as genuine.

The mistakes and confusion made by ancient writers respecting these lawgivers—even by writers earlier than Aristotle (Politic. ii, 9, 5)—are such as we have no means of clearing up.

Seneca (Epist. 90) calls both Zaleukus and Charondas disciples of Pythagoras. That the former was so, is not to be believed; but it is not wholly impossible that the latter may have been so,—or at least that he may have been a companion of the earliest Pythagoreans.

[764] Aristotel. Politic. ii, 9, 8. ?a???d?? d? ?d??? ?? ??d?? ?st? p??? a? d??a? t?? ?e?d?a?t????? p??t?? ??? ?p???se t?? ?p?s?????? t? d? ????e?? t?? ???? ?st? ??af???te??? ?a? t?? ??? ????et??. To the fulness and precision predicated respecting Charondas in the latter part of this passage, I refer the other passage in Politic. iv, 10, 6, which is not to be construed as if it meant that Charondas had graduated fines on the rich and poor with a distinct view to that political trick (of indirectly eliminating the poor from public duties) which Aristotle had been just adverting to,—but merely means that Charondas had been nice and minute in graduating pecuniary penalties generally, having reference to the wealth or poverty of the person sentenced.

[765] ???t?? ??? ?p???se t?? ?p?s????? (Aristot. Politic. ii, 9, 8). See Harpokration, v. ?pes???at?, and Pollux, viii, 33; DemosthenÊs cont. Stephanum, ii, c. 5; cont. Euerg. et MnÊsibul. c. 1. The word ?p?s????? carries with it the solemnity of meaning adverted to it in the text, and seems to have been used specially with reference to an action or indictment against perjured witnesses: which indictment was permitted to be brought with a less degree of risk or cost to the accuser than most others in the Attic dikasteries, (DÊmosth. cont. Euerg. et Mn. l.c.)