[58] Only one hundred and twenty ships of war are mentioned by Herodotus (vii, 185) as having joined afterwards from the seaports in Thrace. But four hundred were destroyed, if not more, in the terrible storm on the coast of Magnesia (vii, 190); and the squadron of two hundred sail, detached by the Persians round Euboea, were also all lost (viii, 7); besides forty-five taken or destroyed in the various sea-fights near Artemisium (vii, 194; viii, 11). Other losses are also indicated (viii, 14-16).

As the statement of Æschylus for the number of the Persian triremes at Salamis appears well-entitled to credit, we must suppose either that the number of Doriskus was greater than Herodotus has mentioned, or that a number greater than that which he has stated joined afterwards.

See a good note of Amersfoordt, ad Demosthen. Orat. de Symmoriis, p. 88 (Leyden, 1821).

[59] See on this point Volney, Travels in Egypt and Syria, ch. xxiv, vol. ii, pp. 70, 71; ch. xxxii, p. 367; and ch. xxxix, p. 435, (Engl. transl.).

Kinneir, Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire, pp. 22-23. Bernier, who followed the march of Aurungzebe from Delhi, in 1665, says that some estimated the number of persons in the camp at three hundred thousand, others at different totals, but that no one knew, nor had they ever been counted. He says: “You are, no doubt, at a loss to conceive how so vast a number both of men and animals can be maintained in the field. The best solution of the difficulty will be found in the temperance and simple diet of the Indians.” (Bernier, Travels in the Mogul Empire, translated by Brock, vol. ii, App. p. 118).

So also Petit de la Croix says, about the enormous host of Genghis-Khan: “Les hommes sont si sobres, qu’ils s’accommodent de toutes sortes d’alimens.”

That author seems to estimate the largest army of Genghis at seven hundred thousand men (Histoire de Genghis, liv. ii, ch. vi, p. 193).

[60] Thucydid. v, 68. Xenophon calls the host of Xerxes innumerable,—??a????t?? st?at??? (Anabas. iii, 2, 13).

It seems not to be considered necessary for a Turkish minister to know the numbers of an assembled Turkish army. In the war between the Russians and Turks in 1770, when the Turkish army was encamped at Babadag near the Balkan, Baron de Tott tells us: “Le Visir me demanda un jour fort sÉrieusement si l’armÉe Ottomane Étoit nombreuse. C’est À vous que je m’adresserois, lui dis-je, si j’Étais curieux de le savoir. Je l’ignore, me repondit-il. Si vous l’ignorez, comment pourrois-je en Être instruit? En lisant la Gazette de Vienna, me rÉpliqua-t-il. Je restai confondu.”

The Duke of Ragusa (in his voyage en Hongrie, Turquie, etc.), after mentioning the prodigiously exaggerated statements current about the numbers slain in the suppressed insurrection of the Janissaries at Constantinople in 1826, observes: “On a dit et rÉpÉtÉ, que leur nombre s’Étoit ÉlÉvÉ a huit ou dix mille, et cette opinion s’est accrÉditÉe (it was really about five hundred). Mais les Orientaux en gÉnÉral, et les Turcs en particulier, n’ont aucune idÉe des nombres: ils les emploient sans exactitude, et ils sont par caractÈre portÉs À l’exagÉration. D’un autre cotÉ, le gouvernement a dÛ favoriser cette opinion populaire, pour frapper l’imagination et inspirer une plus grande terreur.” (Vol. ii, p. 37.)

[61] Ktesias, Persica, c. 22, 23; Ælian, V. H. xiii, 3; Diodorus, xi, 2-11.

Respecting the various numerical statements in this case, see the note of Bos ad Cornel. Nepot. Themistocl. c. 2, pp. 75, 76.

The Samian poet Choerilus, a few years younger than Herodotus, and contemporary with Thucydides, composed an epic poem on the expedition of Xerxes against Greece. Two or three short fragments of it are all that is preserved: he enumerated all the separate nations who furnished contingents to Xerxes, and we find not only the SakÆ, but also the Solymi (apparently the Jews, and so construed by Josephus) among them. See Fragments, iii and iv, in NÆke’s edition of Choerilus, pp. 121-134. Josephus cont. Apion. p. 454, ed. Havercamp.

[62] Æschylus, Pers. 14-124, 722-737. Heeren (in his learned work on the commerce of the ancient world, Über den Verkehr der alten Welt, part 1, sect. 1, pp. 162, 558, 3d edition) thinks that Herodotus had seen the actual muster-roll, made by Persian authority, of the army at Doriskus. I cannot think this at all probable: it is much more reasonable to believe that all his information was derived from Greeks who had accompanied the expedition. He must have seen and conversed with many such. The Persian royal scribes, or secretaries, accompanied the king, and took note of any particular fact or person who might happen to strike his attention (Herodot. vii, 100; viii, 90), or to exhibit remarkable courage. They seem to have been specially attached to the person of the king as ministers to his curiosity and amusement, rather than keepers of authentic and continuous records.

Heeren is disposed to accept the numerical totals, given by Herodotus as to the army of Xerxes, much too easily, in my judgment: nor is he correct in supposing that the contingents of the Persian army marched with their wives and families (pp. 557-559).

[63] When Herodotus specifies his informants—it is much to be regretted that he does not specify them oftener—they seem to be frequently Greeks, such as DikÆus the Athenian exile, Thersander of Orchomenus in Boeotia, Archias of Sparta, etc. (iii, 55; viii, 65; ix, 16.) He mentions the Spartan king Demaratus often, and usually under circumstances both of dignity and dramatic interest: it is highly probable that he may have conversed with that prince himself, or with his descendants, who remained settled for a long time in Teuthrania, near the Æolic coast of Asia Minor (Xenoph. Hellenica, iii, 1, 6), and he may thus have heard of representations offered by the exiled Spartan king to Xerxes. Nevertheless, the remarks made by Hoffmeister, on the speeches ascribed to Demaratus by Herodotus, are well deserving of attention (Sittlich-religiÖse Lebensansicht des Herodotos, p. 118).

“Herodotus always brings into connection with insolent kings some man or other through whom he gives utterance to his own lessons of wisdom. To Croesus, at the summit of his glory, comes the wise Solon: Croesus himself, reformed by his captivity, performs the same part towards Cyrus and Kambyses: Darius, as a prudent and honest man, does not require any such counsellor; but Xerxes in his pride has the sententious Artabanus and the sagacious Demaratus attached to him; while Amasis king of Egypt is employed to transmit judicious counsel to PolykratÊs, the despot of Samos. Since all these men speak one and the same language, it appears certain that they are introduced by Herodotus merely as spokesmen for his own criticisms on the behavior and character of the various monarchs,—criticisms which are nothing more than general maxims, moral and religious, brought out by Solon, Croesus, or Artabanus, on occasion of particular events. The speeches interwoven by Herodotus have, in the main, not the same purpose as those of Tacitus,—to make the reader more intimately acquainted with the existing posture of affairs, or with the character of the agents,—but a different purpose quite foreign to history: they embody in the narrative his own personal convictions respecting human life and the divine government.”

This last opinion of Hoffmeister is to a great degree true, but is rather too absolutely delivered.

[64] Herodot. vii, 101-104. How inferior is the scene between Darius and Charidemus, in Quintus Curtius! (iii, 2, 9-19, p. 20, ed. Mutzel.)

Herodotus takes up substantially the same vein of sentiment and the same antithesis as that which runs through the PersÆ of Æschylus; but he handles it like a social philosopher, with a strong perception of the real causes of Grecian superiority.

It is not improbable that the skeleton of the conversation between Xerxes and Demaratus was a reality, heard by Herodotus from Demaratus himself or from his sons; for the extreme specialty with which the LacedÆmonian exile confines his praise to the Spartans and Dorians, not including the other Greeks, hardly represents the feeling of Herodotus himself.

The minuteness of the narrative which Herodotus gives respecting the deposition and family circumstances of Demaratus (vi, 63, seq.), and his view of the death of KleomenÊs as an atonement to that prince for injury done, may seem derived from family information (vi, 84).

[65] Herodot. vii, 109, 111, 118.

[66] This sum of four hundred talents was equivalent to the entire annual tribute charged in the Persian king’s rent-roll, upon the satrapy comprising the western and southern coast of Asia Minor, wherein were included all the Ionic and Æolic Greeks, besides Lykians, Pamphylians, etc. (Herodot. iii, 90.)

[67] Herodot. vii, 118-120. He gives (vii, 187) the computation of the quantity of corn which would have been required for daily consumption, assuming the immense numbers as he conjectures them, and reckoning one choenix of wheat for each man’s daily consumption, equal to one eighth of a medimnus. It is unnecessary to examine a computation founded on such inadmissible data.

[68] Herodot. vii, 108, 109.

[69] Herodot. vii, 114. He pronounces this savage practice to be specially Persian. The old and cruel Persian queen Amestris, wife of Xerxes, sought to prolong her own life by burying alive fourteen victims, children of illustrious men, as offerings to the subterranean god.

[70] Herodot. viii, 116.

[71] Herodot. vii, 122-127.

Respecting the name Pieria, and the geography of these regions, see the previous volume, vol. iv, ch. xxv. p. 14.

[72] Herodot. vii, 116.

[73] Herodot. vi, 74, 75.

[74] Herodot. vi, 84.

[75] Herodot. vi, 61. ??e???ea, ???ta ?? t? ??????, ?a? ????? t? ????d? ??a?? p??e??a??e???, etc.

[76] Herodot. vi, 85: compare vi, 49-73, and the preceding volume of this history, c. xxxvi, pp. 437-441.

[77] Herodot. vi, 87, 88.

Instead of ?? ??? d? t??s? ????a???s? pe?t???? ?p? S????? (vi, 87), I follow the reading proposed by SchÖmann and sanctioned by BoËckh—pe?tet????. It is hardly conceivable that the Athenians at that time should have had any ships with five banks of oars (pe?t????): moreover, apart from this objection, the word pe?t???? makes considerable embarrassment in the sentence; see BoËckh, Urkunden Über das Attische Seewesen, chap. vii, pp. 75, 76.

The elder Dionysius of Syracuse is said to have been the first Greek who constructed pe?t??e?? or quinquereme ships (Diodor. xiv, 40, 41).

There were many distinct pentaËterides, or solemnities celebrated every fifth year, included among the religious customs of Athens: see Aristoteles, ????t. Fragm. xxvii, ed. Neumann; Pollux, viii, 107.

[78] See Thucyd. i, 8.

The acropolis at Athens, having been the primitive city inhabited, bore the name of The City even in the time of Thucydides (ii, 15), at a time when Athens and PeirÆus covered so large a region around and near it.

[79] Herodot. vi, 91. ?e??e? d? ?e??a? ?pef????a? ?sa? t??s? ?p?spast??s?. The word ?e??a? for ??e??a?, “those hands,” appears so little suitable in this phrase, that I rather imagine the real reading to have been ?e??a? (the Ionic dialect for ?e?a?), “the hands with nothing attached to them:” compare a phrase not very unlike, Homer, Iliad, iii, 376, ?e??? d? t??f??e?a ?’ ?spet?, etc.

Compare the narrative of the arrest of the Spartan king Pausanias, and of the manner in which he was treated when in sanctuary at the temple of AthÊnÊ Chalkioekos (Thucyd. i, 134).

[80] Herodot. vi, 91. ?p? t??t?? d? ?a? ???? sf? ????et?, t? ????sas?a? ??? ???? te ??????t? ?p???a??e???, ???’ ?f??sa? ??pes??te? p??te??? ?? t?? ??s?? ? sf? ??e?? ?e??s?a? t?? ?e??.

Compare Thucyd. ii, 27 about the final expulsion from Ægina. The LacedÆmonians assigned to these expelled Æginetans a new abode in the territory of Thyrea, on the eastern coast of Peloponnesus, where they were attacked, taken prisoners, and put to death by the Athenians, in the eighth year of the war (Thucyd. iv, 57). Now Herodotus, while he mentions the expulsion, does not allude to their subsequent and still more calamitous fate. Had he known the fact, he could hardly have failed to notice it, as a farther consummation of the divine judgment. We may reasonably presume ignorance in this case, which would tend to support the opinion thrown out in my preceding volume (chap. xxxiii, p. 225, note) respecting the date of composition of his history,—in the earliest years of the Peloponnesian war.

[81] Herodot. ix, 75.

[82] Herodot. vi, 90-93. Thucyd. i, 41. About SÔphanÊs, comp. ix, 75.

How much damage was done by such a privateering war, between countries so near as Ægina and Attica, may be seen by the more detailed description of a later war of the same kind in 388 B.C. (Xenophon, Hellenic. v. 1.)

[83] Plutarch, Themist. c. 19.

[84] See Mr. Galt’s interesting account of the Hydriot sailors, Voyages and Travels in the Mediterranean, pp. 376-378 (London, 1802).

“The city of Hydra originated in a small colony of boatmen belonging to the Morea, who took refuge in the island from the tyranny of the Turks. About forty years ago they had multiplied to a considerable number, their little village began to assume the appearance of a town, and they had cargoes that went as far as Constantinople. In their mercantile transactions, the Hydriots acquired the reputation of greater integrity than the other Greeks, as well as of being the most intrepid navigators in the Archipelago; and they were of course regularly preferred. Their industry and honesty obtained its reward. The islands of Spezzia, Paros, Myconi, and Ipsara, resemble Hydra in their institutions, and possess the same character for commercial activity. In paying their sailors, Hydra and its sister islands have a peculiar custom. The whole amount of the freight is considered as a common stock, from which the charges of victualing the ship are deducted. The remainder is then divided into two equal parts: one is allotted to the crew, and equally shared among them without reference to age or rank; the other part is appropriated to the ship and captain. The capital of the cargo is a trust given to the captain and crew on certain fixed conditions. The character and manners of the Hydriot sailors, from the moral effect of these customs, are much superior in regularity to the ideas that we are apt to entertain of sailors. They are sedate, well-dressed, well-bred, shrewd, informed, and speculative. They seem to form a class, in the orders of mankind, which has no existence among us. By their voyages, they acquire a liberality of notion which we expect only among gentlemen, while in their domestic circumstances their conduct is suitable to their condition. The Greeks are all traditionary historians, and possess much of that kind of knowledge to which the term learning is usually applied. This, mingled with the other information of the Hydriots, gives them that advantageous character of mind which I think they possess.”

[85] Plato, Legg. iv, pp. 705, 706. Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 19. IsokratÊs, Panathenaic, c. 43.

Plutarch, Philopoemen. c. 14. ???? ?pae????da? ?? ????? ?????s?? ??????ta ?e?sa? t?? ?at? ???assa? ?fe?e??? t??? p???ta?, ?p?? a?t? ? ????s?? ??t? ????? ?p??t??, ?at? ???t??a, ?a?ta? ?e??e??? ?a? d?af?a???te?, ?p?a?t?? ?? t?? ?s?a? ?a? t?? ??s?? ?pe??e?? ????s???: compare vii, p. 301.

[86] See the remarkable passage in Xenophon (Memorab. iii, 5, 19), attesting that the Hoplites and the Hippeis, the persons first in rank in the city were also the most disobedient on military service.

[87] Thucyd. i, 93. ?d?? (ThemistoklÊs) t?? as????? st?at??? t?? ?at? ???assa? ?f?d?? e?p???t??a? t?? ?at? ??? ??sa?.

[88] Thucyd. i, 14. Herodot. vii, 144.

[89] Thucyd. i, 93.

[90] Herodot. vii, 144. ??t?? ??? ? p??e?? s?st?? ?s?se t?te t?? ????da, ??a???sa? ?a?ass???? ?e??s?a? ????a????.

Thucyd. i, 18. ?a?t???? ??????t?.

[91] Æschylus, PersÆ, 235.

[92] The mountain region of Laurium has been occasionally visited by modern travellers, but never carefully surveyed until 1836, when Dr. Fiedler examined it mineralogically by order of the present Greek government. See his Reisen durch Griechenland, vol. i, pp. 39, 73. The region is now little better than a desert, but Fiedler especially notices the great natural fertility of the plain near Thorikus, together with the good harbor at that place,—both circumstances of great value at the time when the mines were in work. Many remains are seen of shafts sunk in ancient times,—and sunk in so workmanlike a manner as to satisfy the eye of a miner of the present day.—p. 76.

[93] Herodot. vii, 144. ?te ????a???s? ?e?????? ????t?? e????? ?? t? ?????, t? ?? t?? et????? sf? p??s???e t?? ?p? ?a??e???, ?e???? ???es?a? ????d?? ??ast?? d??a d?a???.

[94] All the information—unfortunately it is very scanty—which we possess respecting the ancient mines of Laurium, is brought together in the valuable Dissertation of M. BoËckh, translated and appended to the English translation of his Public Economy of Athens. He discusses the fact stated in this chapter of Herodotus, in sect. 8 of that Dissertation: but there are many of his remarks in which I cannot concur.

After multiplying ten drachmÆ by the assumed number of twenty thousand Athenian citizens, making a sum total distributed of thirty-three and one-third talents, he goes on: “That the distribution was made annually might have been presumed from the principles of the Athenian administration, without the testimony of Cornelius Nepos. We are not, therefore, to suppose that the savings of several years are meant, nor merely a surplus; but that all the public money arising from the mines, as it was not required for any other object, was divided among the members of the community,” (p. 632).

We are hardly authorized to conclude from the passage of Herodotus that all the sum received from the mines was about to be distributed: the treasury was very rich, and a distribution was about to be made,—but it does not follow that nothing was to be left in the treasury after the distribution. Accordingly, all calculations of the total produce of the mines, based upon this passage of Herodotus, are uncertain. Nor is it clear that there was any regular annual distribution, unless we are to take the passage of Cornelius Nepos as proving it: but he talks rather about the magistrates employing this money for jobbing purposes,—not about a regular distribution: “Nam cum pecunia publica quÆ ex metallis redibat, largitione magistratuum quotannis periret.” Corn. Nep. Themist. c. 2. A story is told by PolyÆnus, from whomsoever he copied it,—of a sum of one hundred talents in the treasury, which ThemistoklÊs persuaded the people to hand over to one hundred rich men, for the purpose of being expended as the latter might direct, with an obligation to reimburse the money in case the people were not satisfied with the expenditure: these rich men employed each the sum awarded to him in building a new ship, much to the satisfaction of the people (PolyÆn. i, 30). This story differs materially from that of Herodotus, and we cannot venture either to blend the two together or to rely upon PolyÆnus separately.

I imagine that the sum of thirty three talents, or fifty talents, necessary for the distribution, formed part of a larger sum lying in the treasury, arising from the mines. ThemistoklÊs persuaded the people to employ the whole sum in ship-building, which of course implied that the distribution was to be renounced. Whether there had been distributions of a similar kind in former years, as M. BoËckh affirms, is a matter on which we have no evidence. M. BoËckh seems to me not to have kept in view the fact, which he himself states just before, that there were two sources of receipt into the treasury,—original purchase-money paid down, and reserved annual rent. It is from the former source that I imagine the large sum lying in the treasury to have been derived: the small reserved rent probably went among the annual items of the state-budget.

[95] Herodot. vii, 239.

[96] Herodot. vii, 8-138.

[97] Herodot. vii, 145. F????sa?te? e? ??? ?? te ?????t? t? ?????????, ?a? e? s?????a?te? t??t? p??ss??e? p??te?, ?? de???? ?p???t?? ????? p?s? ????s?.

[98] Herodot. viii, 92.

[99] Herodot. vii, 145.

[100] Plutarch, Themistokl. c. 10. About Cheileos, Herodot. ix, 9.

[101] Herodot. vii, 203. ?? ??? ?e?? e??a? t?? ?p???ta ?p? t?? ????da, ???’ ?????p??, etc.: compare also vii, 56.

[102] Herodot. vii, 140.

The general sense and scope of the oracle appears to me clear, in this case. It is a sentence of nothing but desolation and sadness; though BÄhr and SchweighÄuser, with other commentators, try to infuse into it some thing of encouragement by construing ????, fortitude. The translation of Valla and Schultz is nearer to the truth. But even when the general sense of an oracle is plain (which it hardly ever is), the particular phrases are always wild and vague.

[103] Herodot. vii, 141.

Compare with this the declaration of Apollo to Croesus of Lydia (i, 91).

[104]

[105] Herodot. vii, 143. ?a?t? Te?st??????? ?p?fa???????, ????a??? ta?t? sf? ????sa? a??et?te?a e??a? ????? ? t? t?? ???s??????, ?? ??? e??? ?a?a???? ??t?es?a?, ???? ????p??ta? ????? t?? ?tt????, ????? t??? ?????e??.

There is every reason to accept the statement of Herodotus as true, respecting these oracles delivered to the Athenians, and the debated interpretation of them. They must have been discussed publicly in the Athenian assembly, and Herodotus may well have conversed with persons who had heard the discussion. Respecting the other oracle which he states to have been delivered to the Spartans,—intimating that either Sparta must be conquered or a king of Sparta must perish,—we may well doubt whether it was in existence before the battle of ThermopylÆ (Herodot. vii, 220).

The later writers, Justin (ii, 12), Cornelius Nepos (c. 2), and PolyÆnus (i, 30), give an account of the proceeding of ThemistoklÊs, inferior to Herodotus in vivacity as well as in accuracy.

[106] Herodot. vii, 139. ??d? sf?a? ???st???a f?e??, ?????ta ?? ?e?f??, ?a? ?? de?a a???ta, ?pe?se ????pe?? t?? ????da, etc.

For the abundance of oracles and prophecies, from many different sources, which would be current at such a moment of anxiety, we may compare the analogy of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war, described by the contemporary historian (Thucyd. ii, 8).

[107] Herodot. vii, 139. ???a?ta ??a??a?? ??????a? ????? ?p?d??as?a?, ?p?f????? ?? p??? t?? p?e???? ?????p??? ??? d?, t? ?? ?? fa??eta? e??a? ??????, ??? ?p?s??s?. ?? ????a???, ?ata???d?sa?te? t?? ?p???ta ???d????, ?????p?? t?? sfet????, etc. ... ??? d?, ????a???? ?? t?? ????? s?t??a? ?e??s?a? t?? ????d??, ??? ?? ?a?t???? t? ??????, etc.

The whole chapter deserves peculiar attention, as it brings before us the feelings of those contemporaries to whom his history is addressed, and the mode of judging with which they looked back on the Persian war. One is apt unconsciously to fancy that an ancient historian writes for men in the abstract, and not for men of given sentiments, prejudices, and belief. The persons whom Herodotus addressed are those who were so full of admiration for Sparta, as to ascribe to her chiefly the honor of having beaten back the Persians; and to maintain that, even without the aid of Athens, the Spartans and Peloponnesians both could have defended, and would have defended, the isthmus of Corinth, fortified as it was by a wall built expressly. The Peloponnesian allies of that day forgot that they were open to attack by sea as well as by land.

[108] Herodot. vii, 139. ???e??? d? t?? ????da pe??e??a? ??e??????, t??t? t? ????????? p?? t? ???p??, ?s?? ? ??d?se, a?t?? ??t?? ?sa? ?? ?pe?e??a?te?, ?a? as???a et? ?e ?e??? ???s?e???.

[109] Herodot. viii, 2, 3: compare vii, 161.

[110] Herodot. vii, 144.

[111] Thucyd. iii, 56. ?? ?a????? ??? sp????? ?? t?? ??????? t??? ??et?? t? ?????? d???e? ??t?t??as?a?.

This view of the case is much more conformable to history than the boasts of later orators respecting wide-spread patriotism in these times. See Demosthen. Philipp. iii, 37, p. 120.

[112] Herodot. vii, 147-150.

[113] The opinion of Herodotus is delivered in a remarkable way, without mentioning the name of the Argeians, and with evident reluctance. After enumerating all the Grecian contingents assembled for the defence of the Isthmus, and the different inhabitants of Peloponnesus, ethnically classified, he proceeds to say: ???t?? ?? t?? ?pt? ?????? a? ???pa? p????, p??e? t?? ?at??e?a, ?? t?? ?s?? ??at?at?? e? d? ??e?????? ??est? e?pe??, ?? t?? ?s?? ?at?e??? ??d???? (viii, 73). This assertion includes the Argeians without naming them.

Where he speaks respecting the Argeians by name, he is by no means so free and categorical; compare vii, 152,—he will give no opinion of his own, differing from the allegation of the Argeians themselves,—he mentions other stories, incompatible with that allegation, but without guaranteeing their accuracy,— he delivers a general admonition that those who think they have great reason to complain of the conduct of others would generally find, on an impartial scrutiny, that others have as much reason to complain of them,—“and thus the conduct of Argos has not been so much worse than that of others,”—??t? d? ??? ???e???s? a?s??sta pep???ta?.

At the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when the history of Herodotus was probably composed, the Argeians were in a peculiarly favorable position. They took part neither with Athens nor LacedÆmon, each of whom was afraid of offending them. An historian who openly countenanced a grave charge of treason against them in the memorable foregone combat against Xerxes, was thus likely to incur odium from both parties in Greece.

The comments of Plutarch on Herodotus in respect to this matter are of little value (De Herodoti Malignit. c. 28, p. 863), and are indeed unfair, since he represents the Argeian version of the facts as being universally believed (?pa?te? ?sas??), which it evidently was not.

[114] Herodot. vii, 169.

[115] Herodot. vii, 168.

[116] Thucyd. i, 32-37. It is perhaps singular that the Corinthian envoys in Thucydides do not make any allusion to the duplicity of the KorkyrÆans in regard to the Persian invasion, in the strong invective which they deliver against Korkyra before the Athenian assembly (Thucydid. i, 37-42). The conduct of Corinth herself, however, on the same occasion, was not altogether without reproach.

[117] Herodot. vii, 158-167. Diodor. xi, 22.

[118] See Schol. ad Aristeid., Anathenaic. p. 138.

[119] Herodot. vii, 172: compare c. 130.

[120] Herodot. vii, 173.

[121] Herodot. vii, 172. t?? ?s???? t?? ???p????. See the description and plan of TempÊ in Dr. Clarke’s Travels, vol. iv, ch. ix, p. 280; and the Dissertation of Kriegk, in which all the facts about this interesting defile are collected and compared (Das Thessalische Tempe. Frankfort, 1834).

The description of TempÊ in Livy (xliii, 18; xliv, 6) seems more accurate than that in Pliny (H. N. iv, 8). We may remark that both the one and the other belong to times subsequent to the formation and organization of the Macedonian empire, when it came to hold Greece in a species of dependence. The Macedonian princes after Alexander the Great, while they added to the natural difficulties of TempÊ by fortifications, at the same time made the road more convenient as a military communication. In the time of Xerxes, these natural difficulties had never been approached by the hand of art, and were doubtless much greater.

The present road through the pass is about thirteen feet broad in its narrowest part, and between fifteen and twenty feet broad elsewhere,—the pass is about five English miles in length (Kriegk, pp. 21-33).

[122] Herodot. vii, 173.

[123] Herodot. viii, 140-143.

[124] Herodot. vii, 173, 174.

[125] Diodor. xi, 3. ?t? pa???s?? t?? ?? t??? ??pes? f??a???, etc.

[126] Herodot. vii, 131, 132, 174.

[127] Herodot. vii, 177

[128] Herodot. vii, 132; Diodor. xi, 3.

[129] Herodot. viii, 15-60. Compare IsokratÊs, Panegyric, Or. iv, p. 59.

I shall have occasion presently to remark the revolution which took place in Athenian feeling on this point between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars.

[130] The word Pass commonly conveys the idea of a path inclosed between mountains. In this instance it is employed to designate a narrow passage, having mountains on one side only, and water (or marsh ground) on the other.

[131] According to one of the numerous hypotheses for refining religious legend into matter of historical and physical fact, HÊraklÊs as supposed to have been an engineer, or water-finder, in very early times,—de???? pe?? ??t?s?? ?d?t?? ?a? s??a?????. See Plutarch, Cum principibus viris philosopho esse disserendum, c. i, p. 776.

[133] Herodot. vii, 177, 205. ?p??e??e??? ??d?a? te t??? ?ateste?ta? t?????s????, ?a? t??s? ?t???a??? pa?de? ???te?.

In selecting men for a dangerous service, the Spartans took by preference those who already had families: if such a man was slain, he left behind him a son to discharge his duties to the state, and to maintain the continuity of the family sacred rites, the extinction of which was considered as a great misfortune. In our ideas, the life of the father of a family in mature age would be considered as of more value, and his death a greater loss, than that of a younger and unmarried man.

[134] Herodot. vii, 205; Thucyd. iii, 62; Diodor. xi, 4; Plutarch, Aristeides, c. 18.

The passage of Thucydides is very important here, as confirming, to a great degree, the statement of Herodotus, and enabling us to appreciate the criticisms of Plutarch, on this particular point very plausible (De Herodoti Malign. pp. 865, 866). The latter seems to have copied from a lost Boeotian author named Aristophanes, who tried to make out a more honorable case for his countrymen in respect to their conduct in the Persian war.

The statement of Diodorus,—T?a??? ?p? t?? ?t??a? ???d?? ?? tet?a??s???,—is illustrated by a proceeding of the KorkyrÆan government (Thucyd. iii, 75), when they enlisted their enemies in order to send them away: also that of the Italian CumÆ (Dionys. Hal. vii, 5).

[135] Diodor. xi, 4.

[136] Herodot. viii, 30.

[137] Herodot. vii, 203. ?????te? d?’ ???????, ?? a?t?? ?? ????e? p??d???? t?? ?????, ?? d? ???p?? t?? s????? p??sd????? p?s?? e?s? ?????? ... ?a? sf? e?? de???? ??d??? ?? ??? ?e?? e??a? t?? ?p???ta ?p? t?? ????da, ???’ ?????p??? e??a? d? ???t?? ??d??a, ??d? ?ses?a?, t? ?a??? ?? ????? ??????? ?? s??e????, t??s? d? e??st??s? a?t???, ???sta? ?fe??e?? ?? ?a? t?? ?pe?a????ta, ?? ???ta ???t??, ?p? t?? d???? pes?e?? ??.

[138] Herodot. vii, 206. It was only the Dorian states (LacedÆmon, Argos, Sikyon, etc.) which were under obligation of abstinence from aggressive military operations during the month of the Karneian festival: other states (even in Peloponnesus), Elis, Mantineia, etc., and of course Athens, were not under similar restraint (Thucyd. v, 54, 75).

[139] Josephus, Bell. Judaic. i, 7, 3; ii, 16, 4; ibid. Antiqq. Judaic. xiv, 4, 2. If their bodies were attacked on the Sabbath, the Jews defended themselves; but they would not break through the religious obligations of the day in order to impede any military operations of the besiegers. See Reimar. ad Dion. Cass. lxvi, 7.

[140] Herodot. vii, 206; viii, 40.

[141] Herodot. vii, 212, 216, 218.

[142] Herodot. vii, 207.

[143] Herodot. viii, 1, 2, 3. Diodorus (xi, 12) makes the Athenian number stronger by twenty triremes.

[144] Herodot. vii, 180. t??a d’ ?? t? ?a? t?? ???at?? ?pa????t?.

Respecting the influence of a name and its etymology, in this case unhappy for the possessor, compare Herodot. ix, 91; and Tacit. Hist. iv, 53.

[145] For the employment of fire-signals, compare Livy, xxviii, 5; and the opening of the Agamemnon of Æschylus, and the same play, v. 270, 300; also Thucydides, iii, 22-80.

[146] Herodot. vii, 181, 182, 183.

[147] Herodot. vii, 184. ???? ?? d? t??t?? t?? ????? ?a? t?? Te??p?????, ?pa??? te ?a??? ??? ? st?at??, ?a? p????? ??? t????a?ta ?t? t?s??, etc.—viii, 13. ?p???et? d? p?? ?p? t?? ?e??, ???? ?? ???s??e?? t? ???????? t? ?e?s????, ?d? p???? p???? e??. Compare viii, 109; and Diodor. xi, 13.

[148] Herodot. vii, 178. ?e?f?? d? de??e??? t? a?t????, p??ta ??, ??????? t??s? ????????s? e??a? ??e??????s? ?????e??a? t? ???s???ta a?t??s?? ?a? sf? de???? ?ata???d???s? t?? ??a??? ??a??e??a?te?, ????? ????at?? ?at??e?t?.

[149] Herodot. vii, 189. The language of the historian in this chapter is remarkable: his incredulous reason rather gets the better of religious acquiescence.

Clemens Alexandrinus, reciting this incident together, with some other miracles of Ækus, AristÆus, EmpedoklÊs, etc., reproves his pagan opponents for their inconsistency, while believing these, in rejecting the miracles of Moses and the prophets (Stromat. vi, pp. 629, 630).

[150] The pass over which Xerxes passed was that by Petra, Pythium, and Oloosson,—“saltum ad Petram,”—“PerrhÆbiÆ saltum,”—(Livy, xlv, 21; xliv, 27.) Petra was near the point where the road passed from Pieria, or lower Macedonia, into upper Macedonia (see Livy, xxxix, 26).

Compare respecting this pass, and the general features of the neighboring country, Colonel Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. iii, ch. xviii, pp. 337-343, and ch. xxx, p. 430; also BouÉ, La Turquie en Europe, vol. i, pp. 198-202.

The Thracian king SitalkÊs, like Xerxes on this occasion, was obliged to cause the forests to be cut, to make a road for his army, in the early part of the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. ii, 98).

[151] Herodot. vii, 130, 131. That Xerxes, struck by the view of Olympus and Ossa, went to see the narrow defile between them, is probable enough; but the remarks put into his mouth are probably the fancy of some ingenious contemporary Greeks, suggested by the juxtaposition of such a landscape and such a monarch. To suppose this narrow defile walled up, was easy for the imagination of any spectator: to suppose that he could order it to be done, was in character with a monarch who disposed of an indefinite amount of manual labor, and who had just finished the cutting of Athos. Such dramatic fitness was quite sufficient to convert that which might have been said into that which was said, and to procure for it a place among the historical anecdotes communicated to Herodotus.

[152] The Persian fleet did not leave Therma until eleven days after Xerxes and his land-force (Herodot. vii, 183); it arrived in one day on the SÊpias AktÊ, or southeastern coast of Magnesia (ibid.), was then assailed and distressed for three days by the hurricane (vii, 191), and proceeded immediately afterwards to AphetÆ (vii, 193). When it arrived at the latter places, Xerxes himself had been three days in the Malian territory (vii, 196).

[153] This point is set forth by Hoffmeister, Sittlich-religiÖse Lebensansicht des Herodotos, Essen, 1832, sect. 19, p. 93.

[154] Herodot. vii, 196, 197, 201.

[155] Diodor. xi, 12.

[156] Diodorus (xi, 12), Plutarch (ThemistoklÊs, 8), and Mannert (Geogr. der Gr. und RÖmer, vol. vii, p. 596), seem to treat SÊpias as a cape, the southeastern corner of Magnesia: this is different from Herodotus, who mentions it as a line of some extent (?pasa ? ??t? ? S?p???, vii, 191), and notices separately t?? ????? t?? ?a???s???, vii, 193.

The geography of Apollonius Rhodius (i, 560-580) seems sadly inaccurate.

[157] Herodot. vii, 189-191.

[158] Herodot. vii, 191. On this occasion, as in regard to the prayers addressed by the Athenians to Boreas, Herodotus suffers a faint indication of skepticism to escape him: ???a? ??? d? ??e?a?e t?e??? t???? d?, ??t?? te p??e??te? ?a? ?atae?d??te? ????s? t? ???? ?? ?????, p??? te t??t??s?, ?a? T?t? ?a? t?s? ?????s? ????te?, ?pa?sa? tet??t? ????? ? ????? ??? a?t?? ?????? ???pase.

[159] Herodot. vii, 194.

[160] Herod. vii, 208, 210. p?pe? ?? a?t??? ??d??? te ?a? ??ss???? ????e??, ??te???e??? sfea? ?????sa?ta? ??e?? ?? ???? t?? ???t??.

[161] Diodor. xi, 4.

[162] Herodot. vii, 174; viii, 29-32.

[163] Diodor. xi, 6.

[164] Herodot. vii, 211; ix, 62, 63; Diodor. xi, 7: compare Æschyl. Pers. 244.

[165] Herodot. vii, 212. ?? ta?t?s? t?s? p??s?d??s? t?? ???? ???eta? as???a, ??e?e???, t??? ??ad?ae?? ?? t?? ??????, de?sa?ta pe?? t? st?at??. See Homer, Iliad, xx, 62; Æschyl. Pers. 472.

[166] Herodot. vii, 213, 214; Diodor. xi, 8.

Ktesias states that it was two powerful men of Trachis, KalliadÊs and TimaphernÊs, who disclosed to Xerxes the mountain-path (Persica, c. 24).

[167] Herodot. vii, 217, 218. ??? te d? d??fa??e—?? ?? d? ???e??, ??f?? d? ?e?????? p?????, etc.

I cannot refrain from transcribing a remark of Colonel Leake: “The stillness of the dawn, which saved the Phocians from being surprised, is very characteristic of the climate of Greece in the season when the occurrence took place, and like many other trifling circumstances occurring in the history of the Persian invasion, is an interesting proof of the accuracy and veracity of the historian.” (Travels in Northern Greece, vol. ii, c. x, p. 55.)

[168] Herodot. vii, 216, 217.

[169] Diodor. xi, 9.

[170] Herodot. vii, 219. ???a?ta ????e???t? ?? ?????e?, ?a? sfe?? ?s?????t? a? ???a?.

[171] Herodot. vii, 104.

[172] Herodot. vii, 220. ?a?t? ?a? ????? t? ???? p?e?st?? e??, ?e???d??, ?pe? te ?s?et? t??? s?????? ???ta? ?p???????, ?a? ??? ??????ta? s??d?a???d??e?e??, ?e?e?sa? sfea? ?pa???sses?a?? a?t? d? ?p???a? ?? ?a??? ??e??? ????t? d? a?t?? ????? ??a ??e?pet?, ?a? ? Sp??t?? e?da????? ??? ????e?fet?.

Compare a similar act of honorable self-devotion, under less conspicuous circumstances, of the LacedÆmonian commander Anaxibius, when surprised by the Athenians under IphikratÊs in the territory of Abydus (Xenophon. Hellenic. iv, 8, 38). He and twelve LacedÆmonian harmosts, all refused to think of safety by flight. He said to his men, when resistance was hopeless, ??d?e?, ??? ?? ?a??? ???ade ?p??a?e??? ?e?? d?, p??? s???a? t??? p??e????, spe?dete e?? t?? s?t???a?.

[173] Herodot. vii, 221. According to Plutarch, there were also two persons belonging to the Herakleid lineage, whom Leonidas desired to place in safety, and for that reason gave them a despatch to carry home. They indignantly refused, and stayed to perish in the fight (Plutarch. Herodot. Malign. p. 866).

[174] The subsequent distress of the surviving Thespians is painfully illustrated by the fact, that in the battle of PlatÆa in the following year, they had no heavy armor (Herodot. ix, 30). After the final repulse of Xerxes, they were forced to recruit their city by the admission of new citizens (Herodot. viii, 75).

[175] Herodot. vii, 222. T?a??? ?? ?????te? ?e???, ?a? ?? ????e???, ?ate??e ??? sfea? ?e???d??, ?? ????? ???? p??e?e???. How could these Thebans serve as hostages? Against what evil were they intended to guard Leonidas, or what advantages could they confer upon him? Unwilling comrades on such an occasion would be noway desirable. Plutarch (De Herodot. Malign. p. 865) severely criticizes this statement of Herodotus, and on very plausible grounds: among the many unjust criticisms in his treatise, this is one of the few exceptions.

Compare Diodorus, xi, 9; and Pausan. x, 20, 1.

Of course the Thebans, taking part as they afterwards did heartily with Xerxes, would have an interest in representing that their contingent had done as little as possible against him, and may have circulated the story that Leonidas detained them as hostages. The politics of Thebes before the battle of ThermopylÆ were essentially double-faced and equivocal: not daring to take any open part against the Greeks before the arrival of Xerxes.

The eighty MykenÆans, like the other Peloponnesians, had the isthmus of Corinth behind them as a post which presented good chances of defence.

[176] The story of Diodorus (xi, 10) that Leonidas made an attack upon the Persian camp during the night, and very nearly penetrated tn the regal tent, from which Xerxes was obliged to flee, suddenly, in order to save his life, while the Greeks, after having caused immense slaughter in the camp, were at length overpowered and slain,—is irreconcilable with Herodotus and decidedly to be rejected. Justin, however (ii, 11), and Plutarch (De Herodot. Malign. p. 866), follow it. The rhetoric of Diodorus is not calculated to strengthen the evidence in its favor. Plutarch had written, or intended to write, a biography of Leonidas (De Herodot. Mal. ibid.); but it is not preserved.

[177] Herodot. vii, 225.

[178] Herodot. vii, 226.

[179] Herodot. vii, 224. ?p????? d? ?a? ?p??t?? t?? t??a??s???. Pausanias, iii, 14, 1. Annual festivals, with a panegyrical oration and gymnastic matches, were still celebrated even in his time in honor of Leonidas, jointly with Pausanias, whose subsequent treason tarnished his laurels acquired at PlatÆa. It is remarkable, and not altogether creditable to Spartan sentiment, that the two kings should have been made partners in the same public honors.

[180] Herod. vii, 229. ???st?d???—?e?p???????ta ?e?f???a?—????sa?ta ?p???st?sa? ?? Sp??t??. The commentators are hard upon AristodÊmus when they translate these epithets, “animo deficientem, timidum, pusillanimum,” considering that ??e?p?????se is predicated by Thucydides (iv, 12) even respecting the gallant Brasidas. Herodotus scarcely intends to imply anything like pusillanimity, but rather the effect of extreme physical suffering. It seems, however, that there were different stories about the cause which had kept AristodÊmus out of the battle.

The story of another soldier, named PantitÊs, who having been sent on a message by Leonidas into Thessaly, did not return in time for the battle, and was so disgraced when he went back to Sparta that he hanged himself,—given by Herodotus as a report, is very little entitled to credit. It is not likely that Leonidas would send an envoy into Thessaly, then occupied by the Persians: moreover, the disgrace of AristodÊmus is particularly explained by Herodotus by the difference between his conduct and that of his comrade Eurytus: whereas PantitÊs stood alone.

[181] See the story of the single Athenian citizen, who returned home alone, after all his comrades had perished in an unfortunate expedition to the island of Ægina. The widows of the slain warriors crowded round him, each asking him what had become of her husband, and finally put him to death by pricking with their bodkins (Herodot. v, 87).

In the terrible battle of St. Jacob on the Birs, near Basle (August, 1444), where fifteen hundred Swiss crossed the river and attacked forty thousand French and Germans under the Dauphin of France, against strong remonstrances from their commanders,—all of them were slain, after deeds of unrivalled valor and great loss to the enemy, except sixteen men, who receded from their countrymen in crossing the river, thinking the enterprise desperate. These sixteen men, on their return, were treated with intolerable scorn and hardly escaped execution (Vogelin, Geschichte der Schweizer Eidgenossenschaft, vol. i, ch. 5, p. 393).

[182] Herodot. vii, 233; Plutarch, Herodot. Malign. p. 867. The Boeotian history of AristophanÊs, cited by the latter, professed to be founded in part upon memorials arranged according to the sequence of magistrates and generals—?? t?? ?at? ?????ta? ?p????t?? ?st???se.

[183] Herodot. vii, 235.

[184] Herodot. vii, 236.

[185] Herodot. vii, 237. “The citizen (Xerxes is made to observe) does indeed naturally envy another citizen more fortunate than himself, and if asked for counsel, will keep back what he has best in his mind, unless he be a man of very rare virtue. But a foreign friend usually sympathizes heartily with the good fortune of another foreigner, and will give him the best advice in his power whenever he is asked.”

[186] Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 7; Herodot. viii, 5, 6.

[187] The expression of Herodotus is somewhat remarkable: ??t?? te d? p?????te? d????s? (EurybiadÊs, Adeimantus, etc.), ??apepe?s???? ?sa?, ?a? t??s? ????es? ??e????st?? a?t?? te ? Te?st?????? ????d??e, ?????a?e d? t? ???p? ????.

[188] Herodot. viii, 20. ?? ??? ????e? pa?a???s?e??? t?? ????d?? ???s?? ?? ??d?? ?????ta, ??te t? ??e???sa?t? ??d??, ??te p??es??a?t?, ?? pa?es????? sf? p?????? pe??pet?a d? ?p???sa?t? sf?s? a?t??s? t? p???ata. ????d? ??? ?de ??e? pe?? t??t?? ? ???s???

???t??s? d? ??d?? t??s? ?pes? ???sa????s? ?? t??s? t?te pa?e??s? te ?a? p??sd?????s? ?a???s?, pa??? sf? s?f??? ???s?a? p??? t? ???sta.

[189] Herodot. viii, 6. ?a? ?e???? d??e? ??fe??es?a? (?? ?????e?)? ?de? d? ?d? p??f????, t? ??e???? (?e?s??) ????, pe???e??s?a?.

[190] Herodot. viii, 7, 8. Wonderful stories were recounted respecting the prowess of Skyllias as a diver.

[191] Diodorus, xi, 12.

[192] Herodot. viii, 9. de???? ????? ???????? t?? ????? f????a?te?, a?t?? ?pa??p???? ?p? t??? a??????, ?p?pe??a? a?t?? p???sas?a? ????e??? t?? te ???? ?a? t?? d?e?p????.

[193] Compare the description in Thucyd. ii, 84, of the naval battle between the Athenian fleet under Phormio and the LacedÆmonian fleet, where the ships of the latter are marshalled in this same array.

[194] Herodot. viii, 11. p????? pa?? d??a? ?????s?e???—?te?a????? ????????????, etc.

[195] Herodot. viii, 12, 13, 14; Diodor. xi, 12.

[196] Herodot. viii, 17, 18.

[197] Herodot. viii, 18. d??s?? d? ????e??? ?s? ?? t?? ????da.

[198] Herodot. viii, 19, 21, 22; Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 9.

[199] Herodot. viii, 24, 25. ?? ?? ??d’ ?????a?e t??? d?ae???ta? ?????? ta?ta p???a? pe?? t??? ?e????? t??? ???t??? ?a? ??? d? ?a? ?e????? ??, etc.

[200] About the numbers of the Greeks at ThermopylÆ, compare Herodot. vii, 202; Diodorus, xi, 4; Pausanias, x, 20, 1; and Manso’s Sparta, vol. ii, p. 308; Beylage 24th.

IsokratÊs talks about one thousand Spartans, with a few allies, Panegyric, Or. iv, p. 59. He mentions also only sixty Athenian ships of war at Artemisium: in fact, his numerical statements deserve little attention.

[201] Herodot. vii, 228.

[202] Herodot. viii, 40, 71, 73.

[203] Herodot. viii, 66. Diodorus calls the battle of ThermopylÆ a Kadmeian victory for Xerxes,—which is true only in the letter, but not in the spirit: he doubtless lost a greater number of men in the pass than the Greeks, but the advantage which he gained was prodigious (Diodor. xi, 12); and Diodorus himself sets forth the terror of the Greeks after the event (xi, 13-15).

[204] Plutarch, De Herodot. Malignit. p. 864; Herodot. viii, 34.

[205] Herodot. viii, 44, 50.

[206] Herodot. viii, 66.

[207] Thucyd. i, 69. t?? te ??? ??d?? a?t?? ?se? ?p? pe??t?? ??? p??te??? ?p? ?e??p????s?? ?????ta, p??? t? pa?’ ??? ????? p??apa?t?sa?.

[208] Herodot. viii, 71. s??d?a??te? ?? t?? p?????.

[209] Herodot. viii, 74.

[210] Herodot. vii, 139.

[211] Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 9. ?a ?? ???? t?? p??d?s?a? e??e t??? ????a????, ?a d? d?s???a ?a? ?at?fe?a e????????.

Herodot. viii, 40. d?????te? ??? e???se?? ?e??p????s???? pa?d?e? ?? t? ????t?? ?p??at?????? t?? ??a???, t?? ?? e???? ??d?? ???, ?? d? ?p???????t? t?? ?s??? a?t??? te?????ta? ?? t?? ?e??p????s??, pe?? p?e?st?? d? p????????? pe??e??a?, ?a? ta?t?? ????ta? ?? f??a??, t? te ???a ?p???a?.

Thucyd. i, 74. ?te ???? ?e? (we Athenians) ?t? s???, ?? pa?e???es?e (Spartans).

Both Lysias (Oratio Funebr. c. 8) and IsokratÊs take pride in the fact that the Athenians, in spite of being thus betrayed, never thought of making separate terms for themselves with Xerxes (Panegyric, Or. iv. p. 60). But there is no reason to believe that Xerxes would have granted them separate terms: his particular vengeance was directed against them. IsokratÊs has confounded in his mind the conduct of the Athenians when they refused the offers of Mardonius in the year following the battle of Salamis, with their conduct before the battle of Salamis against Xerxes.

[212] Herodot. viii, 40-42.

[213] Plato, Legg. iii, p. 699.

[214] Herodot. viii, 66, 67. There was, therefore, but little time for the breaking up and carrying away of furniture, alluded to by Thucydides, i, 18—d?a??????te? ????pe?? t?? p???? ?a? ??as?e?as?e???, etc.

[215] Herodot. viii, 41; Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. x.

In the years 1821 and 1822, during the struggle which preceded the liberation of Greece, the Athenians were forced to leave their country and seek refuge in Salamis three several times. These incidents are sketched in a manner alike interesting and instructive by Dr. Waddington, in his Visit to Greece (London, 1825), Letters, vi, vii, x. He states, p. 92, “Three times have the Athenians emigrated in a body, and sought refuge from the sabre among the houseless rocks of Salamis. Upon these occasions, I am assured, that many have dwelt in caverns, and many in miserable huts, constructed on the mountain-side by their own feeble hands. Many have perished too, from exposure to an intemperate climate; many, from diseases contracted through the loathsomeness of their habitations; many from hunger and misery. On the retreat of the Turks, the survivors returned to their country. But to what a country did they return? To a land of desolation and famine; and in fact, on the first reoccupation of Athens, after the departure of Omer Brioni, several persons are known to have subsisted for some time on grass, till a supply of corn reached the PirÆus from Syra and Hydra.”

A century and a half ago, also in the war between the Turks and Venetians, the population of Attica was forced to emigrate to Salamis, Ægina, and Corinth. M. Buchon observes, “Les troupes Albanaises, envoyÉes en 1688 par les Turcs (in the war against the Venetians) se jetÈrent sur l’Attique, mettant tout À feu et À sang. En 1688, les chroniques d’AthÈnes racontent que ses malheureux habitants furent obligÉs de se refugier À Salamine, À Egine, et À Corinthe, et que ce ne fut qu’aprÈs trois ans qu’ils purent rentrer en partie dans leur ville et dans leurs champs. Beaucoup des villages de l’Attique sont encore habitÉs par les dÉscendans de ces derniers envahisseurs, et avant la derniÈre rÉvolution, on n’y parloit que la langue albanaise: mais leur physionomie diffÈre autant que leur langue de la physionomie de la race Grecque.” (Buchon, La GrÈce Continentale et la MorÉe. Paris, 1843, ch. ii, p. 82.)

[216] Pausanias seems to consider these poor men somewhat presumptuous for pretending to understand the oracle better than ThemistoklÊs,—????a??? t??? p???? t? ?? t?? ???s?? ? Te?st????? e?d??a? ??????ta? (i, 18, 2).

[217] Herodot. viii, 50.

[218] Thucyd. ii, 16, 17.

[219] Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 10, 11; and Kimon, c. 5.

[221] Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. x.

[222] Herodot. ix, 99.

[223] Herodot. viii, 43-48.

[224] Æschylus, PersÆ, 347; Herodot. viii, 48; vi, 9; Pausanias, i, 14, 4. The total which Herodotus announces is three hundred and seventy-eight; but the items which he gives amount, when summed up, only to three hundred and sixty-six. There seems no way of reconciling this discrepancy except by some violent change, which we are not warranted in making.

Ktesias represents that the numbers of the Persian war-ships at Salamis were above one thousand, those of the Greeks seven hundred (Persica, c. 26).

The Athenian orator in Thucydides (i, 74) calls the total of the Grecian fleet at Salamis “nearly four hundred ships, and the Athenian contingent somewhat less than two parts of this total (?a?? ?? ?e ?? t?? tet?a??s?a? ????? ???ss??? t?? d?? ?????).”

The Scholiast, with Poppo and most of the commentators on this passage, treat t?? d?? ????? as meaning unquestionably two parts out of three: and if this be the sense, I should agree with Dr. Arnold in considering the assertion as a mere exaggeration of the orator, not at all carrying the authority of Thucydides himself. But I cannot think that we are here driven to such a necessity; for the construction of Didot and GÖller, though Dr. Arnold pronounces it “a most undoubted error,” appears to me perfectly admissible. They maintain that a? d?? ???a? does not of necessity mean two parts out of three: in Thucydid. i, 10, we find ?a?t?? ?e??p????s?? t?? p??te t?? d?? ????? ????ta?, where the words mean two parts out of five. Now in the passage before us, we have ?a?? ?? ?e ?? t?? tet?a??s?a? ????? ???ss??? t?? d?? ?????: and Didot and GÖller contend, that in the word tet?a??s?a? is implied a quaternary division of the whole number,—four hundreds or hundredth parts: so that the whole meaning would be—“To the aggregate four hundreds of ships we contributed something less than two.” The word tet?a??s?a?, equivalent to t?ssa?a? ??at??t?da?, naturally includes the general idea of t?ssa?a? ?????: and this would bring the passage into exact analogy with the one cited above,—t?? p??te t?? d?? ?????. With every respect to the judgment of Dr. Arnold on an author whom he had so long studied, I cannot enter into the grounds on which he has pronounced this interpretation of Didot and GÖller to be “an undoubted error.” It has the advantage of bringing the assertion of the orator in Thucydides into harmony with Herodotus, who states the Athenians to have furnished one hundred and eighty ships at Salamis.

Wherever such harmony can be secured by an admissible construction of existing words, it is an unquestionable advantage, and ought to count as a reason in the case, if there be a doubt between two admissible constructions. But on the other hand, I protest against altering numerical statements in one author, simply in order to bring him into accordance with another, and without some substantive ground in the text itself. Thus, for example, in this very passage of Thucydides, Bloomfield and Poppo propose to alter tet?a??s?a? into t??a??s?a?, in order that Thucydides may be in harmony with Æschylus and other authors, though not with Herodotus; while Didot and GÖller would alter t??a??s??? into tet?a??s??? in Demosthenes de Coron (c. 70), in order that Demosthenes may be in harmony with Thucydides. Such emendations appear to me inadmissible in principle: we are not to force different witnesses into harmony by retouching their statements.

[225] Herodot. viii, 26. ?apa?, ?a?d???e, ?????? ?p’ ??d?a? ??a?e? a??s?????? ??a?, ?? ?? pe?? ????t?? t?? ????a p??e??ta?, ???? pe?? ??et??.

[226] Herodot. viii, 30.

[227] Herodot. viii, 28, 29.

[228] Herodot. viii, 32-34.

[229] Herodot. viii, 38, 39; Diodor. xi, 14; Pausan. x, 8, 4.

Compare the account given in Pausanias (x, 23) of the subsequent repulse of Brennus and the Gauls from Delphi: in his account, the repulse is not so exclusively the work of the gods as in that of Herodotus: there is a larger force of human combatants in defence of the temple, though greatly assisted by divine intervention: there is also loss on both sides. A similar descent of crags from the summit is mentioned.

See for the description of the road by which the Persians marched, and the extreme term of their progress, Ulrichs, Reisen und Forschungen in Griechenland, ch. iv, p. 46; ch. x, p. 146.

Many great blocks of stone and cliff are still to be seen near the spot, which have rolled down from the top, and which remind the traveller of these passages.

The attack here described to have been made by order of Xerxes upon the Delphian temple, seems not easy to reconcile with the words of Mardonius, Herodot. ix, 42: still less can it be reconciled with the statement of Plutarch (Numa, c. 9), who says that the Delphian temple was burnt by the Medes.

[230] Herodot. viii, 52.

[231] Pausanias, i, 22, 4; Kruse, Hellas, vol. ii, ch. vi, p. 76. Ernst Curtius (Die Akropolis von Athens, p. 5, Berlin, 1844) says that the plateau of the acropolis is rather less than four hundred feet higher than the town: Fiedler states it to be one hundred and seventy-eight fathoms, or one thousand and sixty-eight feet above the level of the sea. (Reise durch das KÖnigreich Griechenland, i, p. 2); he gives the length and breadth of the plateau in the same figures as Kruse, whose statement I have copied in the text. In Colonel Leake’s valuable Topography of Athens, I do not find any distinct statement about the height of the acropolis. We must understand Kruse’s statement, if he and Curtius are both correct, to refer only to the precipitous impracticable portion of the whole rock.

[232] Athenian legend represented the Amazons as having taken post on the Areopagus, and fortified it as a means of attacking the acropolis,—??tep????sa? (Æschyl. Eumenid. 638).

[233] Herodot. viii, 52, 53. ... ?p??s?e ?? p?? t?? ????p?????, ?p?s?e d? t?? p??e?? ?a? t?? ???d??, t? d? ??te t?? ?f??asse, ??t’ ?? ??p?se ? ??t? t?? ?at? ta?ta ??aa?? ?????p??, ta?t? ????s?? t??e? ?at? t? ???? t?? ?????p?? ???at??? ???a????, ?a?t??pe? ?p??????? ???t?? t?? ?????.

That the Aglaurion was on the north side of the acropolis, appears clearly made out; see Leake, Topography of Athens, ch. v, p. 261; Kruse, Hellas, vol. ii, ch. vi, p. 119; Forchhammer, Topographie Athens, pp. 365, 366; in Kieler Philologischen Studien, 1841. Siebelis (in the Plan of Athens prefixed to his edition of Pausanias, and in his note on Pausanias, i, 18, 2) places the Aglaurion erroneously on the eastern side of the acropolis.

The expressions ?p??s?e p?? t?? ????p????? appear to refer to the position of the Persian army, who would naturally occupy the northern and western fronts of the acropolis: since they reached Athens from the north,—and the western side furnished the only regular access. The hill called Areopagus would thus be nearly in the centre of their position. Forchhammer explains these expressions unsatisfactorily.

[234] Herodot. viii, 52, 53.

[235] Herodot. i, 84.

[236] Herodot. v, 102; viii, 53-99; ix, 65. ?dee ??? ?at? t? ?e?p??p??? p?sa? t?? ?tt???? t?? ?? t? ?pe??? ?e??s?a? ?p? ???s?s?.

[237] Herodot. viii, 55-65.

[238] Herodot. viii, 66. Colonel Leake observes upon this statement (Athens and the Demi of Attica, App. vol. ii, p. 250), “About one thousand ships is the greatest accuracy we can pretend to, in stating the strength of the Persian fleet at Salamis: and from these are to be deducted, in estimating the number of ships engaged in the battle, those which were sent to occupy the Megaric strait of Salamis, two hundred in number.”

The estimate of Colonel Leake appears somewhat lower than the probable reality. Nor do I believe the statement of Diodorus, that ships were detached to occupy the Megaric strait: see a note shortly following.

[239] The picture drawn in the CyropÆdia of Xenophon represents the subjects of Persia as spiritless and untrained to war (??????de? ?a? ?s??ta?t??) and even designedly kept so, forming a contrast to the native Persians (Xenophon, CyropÆd. viii, 1, 45).

[240] Herodot. viii, 68, 69, 70.

[241] Herodot. viii, 70.

[242] Herodot. viii. 49, 50, 56.

[243] Herodot. viii, 57. ??t?? ??a ?? ?pa???s? t?? ??a? ?p? Sa?a????, pe?? ??de??? ?t? pat??d?? ?a?a??se??? ?at? ??? p???? ??ast?? t?????ta?, etc. Compare vii, 139, and Thucyd. i, 73.

[244] Herodot. viii, 58, 59. The account given by Herodotus, of these memorable debates which preceded the battle of Salamis, is in the main distinct, instructive, and consistent. It is more probable than the narrative of Diodorus (xi, 15, 16), who states that ThemistoklÊs succeeded in fully convincing both EurybiadÊs and the Peloponnesian chiefs of the propriety of fighting at Salamis, but that, in spite of all their efforts, the armament would not obey them, and insisted on going to the Isthmus. And it deserves our esteem still more, if we contrast it with the loose and careless accounts of Plutarch and Cornelius Nepos. Plutarch (Themist. c. 11) describes the scene as if EurybiadÊs was the person who desired to restrain the forwardness and oratory of ThemistoklÊs, and with that view, first made to him the observation given in my text out of Herodotus, which ThemistoklÊs followed up by the same answer,—next, lifted up his stick to strike ThemistoklÊs, upon which the latter addressed to him the well-known observation,—“Strike, but hear me,” (??ta??? ??, ????s?? d?.) Larcher expresses his surprise that Herodotus should have suppressed so impressive an anecdote as this latter: but we may see plainly from the tenor of his narrative that he cannot have heard it. In the narrative of Herodotus, ThemistoklÊs gives no offence to EurybiadÊs, nor is the latter at all displeased with him: nay, EurybiadÊs is even brought over by the persuasion of ThemistoklÊs, and disposed to fall in with his views. The persons whom Herodotus represents as angry with ThemistoklÊs, are the Peloponnesian chiefs, especially Adeimantus the Corinthian. They are angry too, let it be added, not without plausible reason: a formal vote has just been taken by the majority, after full discussion; and here is the chief of the minority, who persuades EurybiadÊs to reopen the whole debate: not an unreasonable cause for displeasure. Moreover, it is Adeimantus, not EurybiadÊs, who addresses to ThemistoklÊs the remark, that “persons who rise before the proper signal are scourged:” and he makes the remark because ThemistoklÊs goes on speaking to, and trying to persuade, the various chiefs, before the business of the assembly has been formally opened. ThemistoklÊs draws upon himself the censure by sinning against the forms of business, and talking before the proper time. But Plutarch puts the remark into the mouth of EurybiadÊs, without any previous circumstance to justify it, and without any fitness. His narrative represents EurybiadÊs as the person who was anxious both to transfer the ships to the Isthmus, and to prevent ThemistoklÊs from offering any opposition to it: though such an attempt to check argumentative opposition from the commander of the Athenian squadron is noway credible.

Dr. Blomfield (ad Æschyl. Pers. 728) imagines that the story about EurybiadÊs threatening ThemistoklÊs with his stick, grew out of the story as related in Herodotus, though to Herodotus himself it was unknown. I cannot think that this is correct, since the story will not fit on to the narrative of that historian: it does not consist with his conception of the relations between EurybiadÊs and ThemistoklÊs.

[245] Herodot. viii, 61, 62. S? e? e??e?? a?t??, ?a? ???? ?sea? ???? ??a???? e? d? ?, ??at???e?? t?? ????da.

All the best commentators treat this as an elliptical phrase,—some such words as s?se?? t?? ????da or ?a??? ?? ????, being understood after ??a???. I adopt their construction, not without doubts whether it be the true one.

[246] Herodot. viii, 64. ??t? ?? ?? pe?? Sa?a??a, ?pes? ???????s?e???, ?pe? te ??????d? ?d??e, a?t?? pa?es?e?????t? ?? ?a?a??s??te?.

[247] Herodot. viii, 74. ??? ?? d? a?t?? ???? ??d?? pa??stat?, ???a p??e?e??? t?? ??????de? ???????? t???? d?, ??e????? ?? t? ?s??, s??????? te d? ????et?, ?a? p???? ????et? pe?? t?? a?t??, etc. Compare Plutarch, Themist. c. 12.

[248] Lykurgus (cont. Leokrat. c. 17, p. 185) numbers the Æginetans among those who were anxious to escape from Salamis during the night, and were only prevented from doing so by the stratagem of ThemistoklÊs. This is a great mistake, as indeed these orators are perpetually misconceiving the facts of their past history. The Æginetans had an interest not less strong than the Athenians in keeping the fleet together and fighting at Salamis.

[249] Plutarch (ThemistoklÊs, c. 12) calls Sikinnus a Persian by birth, which cannot be true.

[250] Herodot. viii, 75.

[251] Thucydid. i, 137. It is curious to contrast this with Æschylus, PersÆ, 351, seq. See also Herodot. viii, 109, 110.

IsokratÊs might well remark about the ultimate rewards given by the Persians to ThemistoklÊs,—Te?st????a d’, ?? ?p?? t?? ????d?? a?t??? ?ate?a????se, t?? e??st?? d????? ????sa? (Panegyric, Or. iv, p. 74),—though that orator speaks as if he knew nothing about the stratagem by which ThemistoklÊs compelled the Greeks to fight at Salamis against their will. See the same Oration, c. 27, p. 61.

[252] Æschylus, PersÆ, 370.

Herodotus does not mention this threat to the generals, nor does he even notice the personal interference of Xerxes in any way, so far as regards the night-movement of the Persian fleet. He treats the communication of Sikinnus as having been made to the Persian generals, and the night-movement as undertaken by them. The statement of the contemporary poet seems the more probable of the two: but he omits, as might be expected, all notice of the perilous dissensions in the Greek camp.

[253] Diodorus (xi, 17) states that the Egyptian squadron in the fleet of Xerxes was detached to block up the outlet between Salamis and the Megarid; that is, to sail round the southwestern corner of the island to the northwestern strait. Where the northwestern corner of the island is separated by a narrow strait from Megara, near the spot where the fort of Budorum was afterwards situated, during the Peloponnesian war.

Herodotus mentions nothing of this movement, and his account evidently implies that the Greek fleet was inclosed to the north of the town of Salamis, the Persian right wing having got between that town and Eleusis. The movement announced by Diodorus appears to me unnecessary and improbable. If the Egyptian squadron had been placed there, they would have been far indeed removed from the scene of the action, but we may see that Herodotus believed them to have taken actual part in the battle along with the rest (viii, 100).

[254] Herodot. viii, 76. ???s? d? ?? p?st? ????et? t? ???e????ta, t??t? ??, ?? t?? ??s?da t?? ??tt??e?a?, eta?? Sa?a???? te ?e????? ?a? t?? ?pe????, p?????? t?? ?e?s??? ?pe?asa?? t??t? d?, ?pe?d? ??????t? ?sa? ???te?, ?????? ?? t? ?p’ ?sp???? ???a? ??????e??? p??? t?? Sa?a??a? ?????? d? ?? ?f? t?? ???? te ?a? t?? ????s???a? teta?????, ?ate???? te ???? ????????? p??ta t?? p????? t?s? ???s?.

He had previously stated PhalÊrum as the main station of the Persian fleet; not necessarily meaning that the whole of it was there. The passage which I have just transcribed intimated what the Persians did to accomplish their purpose of surrounding the Greeks in the harbor of Salamis and the first part of it, wherein he speaks of the western (more properly northwestern) wing, presents no extraordinary difficulty, though we do not know how far the western wing extended before the movement was commenced. Probably it extended to the harbor of PeirÆus, and began from thence its night-movement along the Attic coast to get beyond the town of Salamis. But the second part of the passage is not easy to comprehend, where he states that, “those who were stationed about Keos and Kynosura also moved, and beset with their ships the whole strait as far as Munychia.” What places are Keos and Kynosura, and where were they situated? The only known places of those names, are the island of Keos, not far south of cape Sunium in Attica,—and the promontory Kynosura, on the northeastern coast of Attica, immediately north of the bay of Marathon. It seems hardly possible to suppose that Herodotus meant this latter promontory, which would be too distant to render the movement which he describes at all practicable: even the island of Keos is somewhat open to the same objection, though not in so great a degree, of being too distant. Hence BarthÉlemy, Kruse, BÄhr, and Dr. Thirlwall, apply the names Keos and Kynosura to two promontories (the southernmost and the southeasternmost) of the island of Salamis, and Kiepert has realized their idea in his newly published maps. But in the first place, no authority is produced for giving these names to two promontories in the island, and the critics only do it because they say it is necessary to secure a reasonable meaning to this passage of Herodotus. In the next place, if we admit their supposition, we must suppose that, before this night-movement commenced, the Persian fleet was already stationed in part of the island of Salamis: which appears to me highly improbable. Whatever station that fleet occupied before the night-movement, we may be very sure that it was not upon an island then possessed by the enemy: it was somewhere on the coast of Attica: and the names Keos and Kynosura must belong to some unknown points in Attica, not in Salamis. I cannot therefore adopt the supposition of these critics, though on the other hand Larcher is not satisfactory in his attempt to remove the objections which apply to the supposition of Keos and Kynosura as commonly understood. It is difficult in this case to reconcile the statement of Herodotus with geographical considerations, and I rather suspect that on this occasion the historian has been himself misled by too great a desire to find the oracle of Bakis truly fulfilled. It is from Bakis that he copies the name Kynosura (viii, 77).

[255] Herodot. viii, 79, 80.

Herodotus states, doubtless correctly, that AristeidÊs, immediately after he had made the communication to the synod, went away, not pretending to take part in the debate: Plutarch represents him as present, and as taking part in it (AristeidÊs, c. 9). According to Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs desires AristeidÊs to assist him in persuading EurybiadÊs: according to Herodotus, EurybiadÊs was already persuaded: it was the Peloponnesian chiefs who stood out.

The details of Herodotus will be found throughout both more credible and more consistent than those of Plutarch and the later writers.

[256] Æschylus, Pers. 473; Herodot. viii, 90. The throne with silver feet, upon which Xerxes had sat, was long preserved in the acropolis of Athens,—having been left at his retreat. Harpokration, ??????p??? d?f???.

A writer, to whom Plutarch refers,—AkestodÔrus,—affirmed that the seat of Xerxes was erected, not under mount Ægaleos, but much further to the northwest, on the borders of Attica and the Megarid, under the mountains called Kerata (Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, 13). If this writer was acquainted with the topography of Attica, we must suppose him to have ascribed an astonishingly long sight to Xerxes: but we may probably take the assertion as a sample of that carelessness in geography which marks so many ancient writers. Ktesias recognizes the ??a??e??? (Persica, c. 26)

[257] Herodot. viii, 85; Diodor. xi, 16.

[258] Herodot. viii, 83; Plutarch (ThemistoklÊs, c. 13; AristeidÊs, c. 9; Pelopidas, c. 21). Plutarch tells a story out of Phanias respecting an incident in the moment before the action, which it is pleasing to find sufficient ground for rejecting. ThemistoklÊs, with the prophet EuphrantidÊs, was offering sacrifice by the side of the admiral’s galley, when three beautiful youths, nephews of Xerxes, were brought in prisoners. As the fire was just then blazing brilliantly, and sneezing was heard from the right, the prophet enjoined ThemistoklÊs to offer these three prisoners as a propitiatory offering to Dionysus OmÊstÊs: which the clamor of the bystanders compelled him to do against his will. This is what Plutarch states in his life of ThemistoklÊs; in his life of AristeidÊs, he affirms that these youths were brought prisoners from Psyttaleia, when AristeidÊs attacked it at the beginning of the action. Now AristeidÊs did not attack Psyttaleia until the naval combat was nearly over, so that no prisoners can have been brought from thence at the commencement of the action: there could therefore have been no Persian prisoners to sacrifice, and the story may be dismissed as a fiction.

[259] Herodot. viii, 84. fa?e?sa? d? d?a?e?e?sas?a?, ?ste ?a? ?pa? ????sa? t? t?? ??????? st?at?ped??, ??e?d?sasa? p??te??? t?de? ? da??????, ???? ??s?? ?t? p???a? ??a????es?e;

Æschylus (Pers. 396-415) describes finely the war-shout of the Greeks and the response of the Persians: for very good reasons, he does not notice the incipient backwardness of the Greeks, which Herodotus brings before us.

The war-shout, here described by Æschylus, a warrior actually engaged, shows us the difference between a naval combat of that day and the improved tactics of the Athenians fifty years afterwards, at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. Phormio especially enjoins on his men the necessity of silence (Thucyd. ii, 89).

[260] Simonides, Epigram 138, Bergk; Plutarch, De Herodot. Malignitate, c. 36.

According to Plutarch (Themist. 12) and Diodorus (xi, 17), it was the Persian admiral’s ship which was first charged and captured: if the fact had been so, Æschylus would probably have specified it.

[261] Herodot. viii, 85; Diodor. xi, 16. Æschylus, in the PersÆ, though he gives a long list of the names of those who fought against Athens, does not make any allusion to the Ionic or to any other Greeks as having formed part of the catalogue. See Blomfield ad Æschyl. Pers. 42. Such silence easily admits of explanation: yet it affords an additional reason for believing that the persons so admitted did not fight very heartily.

[262] Herodot. viii, 86; Diodor. xi, 17. The testimony of the former, both to the courage manifested by the Persian fleet, and to their entire want of order and system, is decisive, as well as to the effect of the personal overlooking of Xerxes.

[263] Simonides, Epigr. 138, Bergk.

[264] The many names of Persian chiefs whom Æschylus reports as having been slain, are probably for the most part inventions of his own, to please the ears of his audience. See Blomfield, PrÆfat. ad Æschyl. Pers. p. xii.

[265] Herodot. viii, 90.

[266] Compare the indignant language of DemosthenÊs a century and a quarter afterwards, respecting the second Artemisia, queen of Karia, as the enemy of Athens,—?e?? d’ ??te? ????a??? ??a??? ?????p??, ?a? ta?ta ???a??a, f????ses?e (Demosthenes, De Rhodior. Libertat. c. x, p. 197).

[267] Herodot. viii, 87, 88, 93. The story given here by Herodotus respecting the stratagem whereby Artemisia escaped, seems sufficiently probable; and he may have heard it from fellow-citizens of his own who were aboard her vessel. Though Plutarch accuses him of extravagant disposition to compliment this queen, it is evident that he does not himself like the story, nor consider it to be a compliment; for he himself insinuates a doubt: “I do not know whether she ran down the Kalyndian ship intentionally, or came accidentally into collision with it.” Since the shock was so destructive that the Kalyndian ship was completely run down and sunk, so that every man of her crew perished, we may be pretty sure that it was intentional; and the historian merely suggests a possible hypothesis to palliate an act of great treachery. Though the story of the sinking of the Kalyndian ship has the air of truth, however, we cannot say the same about the observation of Xerxes, and the notice which he is reported to have taken of the act: all this reads like nothing but romance.

We have to regret (as Plutarch observes, De Malign. Herodot. p. 873) that Herodotus tells us so much less about others than about Artemisia; but he doubtless heard more about her than about the rest, and perhaps his own relatives may have been among her contingent.

[268] Herodot. viii, 95; Plutarch, Aristid. c. 9; Æschyl. Pers. 454-470; Diodor. xii, 19.

[269] Herodot. viii, 96.

[270] The victories of the Greeks over the Persians were materially aided by the personal timidity of Xerxes, and of Darius Codomannus at Issus and Arbela (Arrian, ii, 11, 6; iii, 14, 3).

[271] See this feeling especially in the language of Mardonius to Xerxes (Herodot. viii, 100), as well as in that put into the mouth of Artemisia by the historian (viii, 68), which indicates the general conception of the historian himself, derived from the various information which reached him.

[272] Herodot. vii, 10.

[273] This important fact is not stated by Herodotus: but it is distinctly given in Diodorus, xi, 19. It seems probable enough.

If the tragedy of Phrynichus, entitled PhoenissÆ, had been preserved, we should have known more about the position and behavior of the Phenician contingent in this invasion. It was represented at Athens only three years after the battle of Salamis, in B.C. 477 or 476, with ThemistoklÊs as choregus, four years earlier than the PersÆ of Æschylus, which was affirmed by Glaukus to have been (pa?apep???s?a?) altered from it. The Chorus in the PhoenissÆ consisted of Phenician women, possibly the widows of those Phenicians whom Xerxes had caused to be beheaded after the battle (Herodot. viii, 90, as Dr. Blomfield supposes, PrÆf. ad Æsch. Pers. p. ix), or only of Phenicians absent on the expedition. The fragments remaining of this tragedy, which gained the prize, are too scanty to sustain any conjectures as to its scheme or details (see Welcker Griechische Tragoed. vol. i, p. 26; and Droysen, Phrynichos, Æschylos, und die Trilogie, pp. 4-6).

[274] Herodot. ix, 32.

[275] Herodot. viii, 97-107. Such was the terror of these retreating seamen, that they are said to have mistaken the projecting cliffs of Cape ZÔstÊr (about half-way between PeirÆus and Sunium) for ships, and redoubled the haste of their flight as if an enemy were after them,—a story which we can treat as nothing better than silly exaggeration in the Athenian informants of Herodotus.

Ktesias, Pers. c. xxvi; Strabo, ix, p. 395; the two latter talk about the intention to carry a mole across from Attica to Salamis, as if it had been conceived before the battle.

[276] Compare Herodot. vii, 10.

[277] Herodot. viii, 101, 102.

[278] Herodot. viii, 109, 110; Thucyd. i, 137. The words ?? ?e?d?? p??sep???sat? may probably be understood in a sense somewhat larger than that which they naturally bear in ThucydidÊs. In point of fact, not only was it false that ThemistoklÊs was the person who dissuaded the Greeks from going to the Hellespont, but it was also false that the Greeks had ever any serious intention of going there. Compare Cornelius Nepos, Themistokl. c. 5.

[279] Herodot. viii, 111. ?pe? ??d????? ?e e??a? ?e?pe??a? ?? t? ???sta ??????ta?, ?a? ?e??? d?? ????st??? ??? ???e?pe?? sf??? t?? ??s??, ???’ ?e? f???????e??—?e???? te ?a? ???a????.

Compare AlkÆus, Fragm. 90, ed. Bergk, and Herodot. vii, 172.

[280] Herodot. viii, 112; Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 21,—who cites a few bitter lines from the contemporary poet Timokreon.

[281] Herodot. viii, 112-121.

[282] Herodot. viii, 114-126.

[283] The account given by Æschylus of this retiring march appears to me exaggerated, and in several points incredible (PersÆ, 482-513). That they suffered greatly during the march from want of provisions, is doubtless true, and that many of them died of hunger. But we must consider in deduction: 1. That this march took place in the months of October and November, therefore not very long after the harvest. 2. That Mardonius maintained a large army in Thessaly all the winter, and brought them out in fighting condition in the spring. 3. That Artabazus also, with another large division, was in military operation in Thrace all the winter, after having escorted Xerxes into safety.

When we consider these facts, it will seem that the statements of Æschylus, even as to the sufferings by famine, must be taken with great allowance. But his statement about the passage of the Strymon appears to me incredible, and I regret to find myself on this point differing from Dr. Thirlwall, who considers it an undoubted fact. (Hist. Greece, ch. xv, p. 351, 2d ed.) “The river had been frozen in the night hard enough to bear those who arrived first. But the ice suddenly gave way under the morning sun, and numbers perished in the waters,”—so Dr. Thirlwall states, after Æschylus,—adding, in a note, “It is a little surprising that Herodotus, when he is describing the miseries of the retreat, does not notice this disaster, which is so prominent in the narrative of the Persian messenger in Æschylus. There can, however, be no doubt as to the fact: and perhaps it may furnish a useful warning, not to lay too much stress on the silence of Herodotus, as a ground for rejecting even important and interesting facts which are only mentioned by later writers,” etc.

That a large river, such as the Strymon, near its mouth (180 yards broad, and in latitude about N. 40° 50'), at a period which could not have been later than the beginning of November, should have been frozen over in one night so hardly and firmly as to admit of a portion of the army marching over it at daybreak, before the sun became warm,—is a statement which surely requires a more responsible witness than Æschylus to avouch it. In fact, he himself describes it as a “frost out of season,” (?e???’ ?????,) brought about by a special interposition of the gods. If he is to be believed, none of the fugitives were saved, except such as were fortunate enough to cross the Strymon on the ice during the interval between break of day and the sun’s heat. One would imagine that there was a pursuing enemy on their track, leaving them only a short time for escape: whereas in fact, they had no enemy to contend with,—nothing but the difficulty of finding subsistence. During the advancing march of Xerxes, a bridge of boats had been thrown over the Strymon: nor can any reason be given why that bridge should not still have been subsisting: Artabazus must have recrossed it after he had accompanied the monarch to the Hellespont. I will add, that the town and fortress of Eion, which commanded the mouth of the Strymon, remained as an important strong-hold of the Persians some years after this event, and was only captured, after a desperate resistance, by the Athenians and their confederates under Kimon.

The Athenian auditors of the PersÆ would not criticize nicely, the historical credibility of that which Æschylus told them about the sufferings of their retreating foe, nor his geographical credibility when he placed Mount PangÆus on the hither side of the Strymon, to persons marching out of Greece (PersÆ, 494). But I must confess that, to my mind, his whole narrative of the retreat bears the stamp of the poet and the religious man, not of the historical witness. And my confidence in Herodotus is increased when I compare him on this matter with Æschylus,—as well in what he says as in what he does not say.

[284] Juvenal, Satir. x, 178.

[285] Herodot. viii, 130.

[287] Herodot. viii, 109. ?e?? d?, e???a ??? e????ae? ??a? a?t??? ?a? t?? ????da, ? d????e? ??d?a? fe????ta?.

[288] Herodot. viii, 93-122; Diodor. xi, 27.

[289] Herodot. viii, 94; Thucyd. i, 42, 103. t? sf?d??? ?s?? from Corinth towards Athens. About Aristeus, Thucyd. ii, 67.

Plutarch (De Herodot. Malignit. p. 870) employs many angry words in refuting this Athenian scandal, which the historian himself does not uphold as truth. The story advanced by Dio Chrysostom (Or. xxxvii, p. 456), that Herodotus asked for a reward from the Corinthians, and on being refused, inserted this story into his history for the purpose of being revenged upon them, deserves no attention without some reasonable evidence: the statement of Diyllus, that he received ten talents from the Athenians as a reward for his history, would be much less improbable, so far as the fact of pecuniary reward, apart from the magnitude of the sum: but this also requires proof. Dio Chrysostom is not satisfied with rejecting this tale of the Athenians, but goes the length of affirming that the Corinthians carried off the palm of bravery, and were the cause of the victory. The epigrams of Simonides, which he cites, prove nothing of the kind (p. 459). Marcellinus (Vit. Thucyd. p. xvi), insinuates a charge against Herodotus, something like that of Plutarch and Dio.

[290] Herodot. viii, 123. Plutarch (Themist. c. 17: compare De Herodot. Malign. p. 871) states that each individual chief gave his second vote to ThemistoklÊs. The more we test Herodotus by comparison with others, the more we shall find him free from the exaggerating spirit.

[291] Herodot. viii 124; Plutarch, Themist. c. 17.

[292] Diodor. xi, 27; compare Herodot. viii, 125, and Thucyd. i, 74.

[293] Herodot. viii, 85.

[294] Herodot. viii, 130; Diodor xi. 27.

[295] Herodot. viii, 131, 132: compare Thucyd. iii, 29-32.

Herodotus says, that the Chian envoys had great difficulty in inducing LeotychidÊs to proceed even as far as Delos,—t? ??? p??s?t??? p?? de???? ?? t??s? ????s?, ??te t?? ????? ???s? ?pe????s?, st?at??? te p??ta p??a ?d??ee e??a?? t?? d? S??? ?p?st?at? d??? ?a? ??a???a? st??a? ?s?? ?p??e??.

This last expression of Herodotus has been erroneously interpreted by some of the commentators, as if it were a measure of the geographical ignorance, either of Herodotus himself, or of those whom he is describing. In my judgment, no inferences of this kind ought to be founded upon it: it marks fear of an enemy’s country which they had not been accustomed to visit, and where they could not calculate the risk beforehand,—rather than any serious comparison between one distance and another. Speaking of our forefathers, such of them as were little used to the sea, we might say,—“A voyage to Bordeaux or Lisbon seemed to them as distant as a voyage to the Indies,”—by which we should merely affirm something as to their state of feeling, not as to their geographical knowledge.

[296] Herodot. ix, 1, 2, 67; viii, 136.

[297] Herodot. viii, 128, 129.

[298] Herodot. viii, 134, 135; Pausanias, ix, 24, 3.

[299] Herodot. viii. 141. ?a?eda?????? d? ... ??a??s???te? t?? ??????, ?? sfea? ??e?? ?st? ?a t??s? ?????s? ????e?s? ??p?pte?? ?? ?e??p????s?? ?p? ??d?? te ?a? ????a???, ???ta te ?de?sa? ? ??????s?s? t? ???s? ????a???, etc.

Such oracles must have been generated by the hopes of the medizing party in Greece at this particular moment: there is no other point of time to which they could be at all adapted,—no other, in which expulsion of all the Dorians from Peloponnesus, by united Persians and Athenians, could be even dreamed of. The LacedÆmonians are indeed said here, “to call to mind the prophecies,”—as if these latter were old, and not now produced for the first time. But we must recollect that a fabricator of prophecies, such as Onomakritus, would in all probability at once circulate them as old; that is, as forming part of some old collection like that of Bakis or MusÆus. And Herodotus doubtless, himself, believed them to be old, so that he would naturally give credit to the LacedÆmonians for the same knowledge, and suppose them to be alarmed by “calling these prophecies to mind.”

[300] Herodot. ix, 7.

[301] Herodot. viii, 142.

[302] Herodot. viii, 142. ??e?e?????s? ??t?? ??? s??a???e?a (say the Spartan envoys to the Athenians), ?a? ?t? ?a?p?? ?ste????te d???? ?d?, ?a? ?t? ????f????s?e ?????? ?d? p?????. Seeing that this is spoken before the invasion of Mardonius, the loss of two crops must include the seed of the preceding autumn; and the advice of ThemistoklÊs to his countrymen,—?a? t?? ?????? te ??ap?as?s??, ?a? sp???? ??a??? ???t? (viii, 109)—must have been found impracticable in most cases to carry into effect.

[303] Lykurgus the Athenian orator, in alluding to this incident a century and a half afterwards, represents the Athenians as having been “on the point of stoning Alexander,”—????? de?? ?at??e?sa? (Lykurg. cont. Leokrat. c. 17. p. 186)—one among many specimens of the careless manner in which these orators deal with past history.

[304] Herodot. viii, 143, 144; Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 10. According to Plutarch, it was AristeidÊs who proposed and prepared the reply to be delivered. But here as elsewhere, the loose, exaggerating style of Plutarch contrasts unfavorably with the simplicity and directness of Herodotus.

[305] Herodot. ix, 7. s????e??? d? ??? t?? ???s?? ??t??ses?a? ?? t?? ????t???, etc.

Diodorus gives the account of this embassy to Athens substantially in the same manner, coupling it however with some erroneous motives (xi, 28).

[306] Herodot. ix, 7. ?p?st?e??? te ?t? ?e?da?e?te??? ?st? ??????e?? t? ???s? ????? ? p??e?e??, etc.

The orators are not always satisfied with giving to Athens the credit which she really deserved: they venture to represent the Athenians as having refused these brilliant offers from Xerxes on his first invasion, instead of from Mardonius in the ensuing summer. Xerxes never made any offers to them. See IsokratÊs, Or. iv, Panegyric, c. 27, p. 61.

[307] Herodot. ix, 10.

[308] Herodot. ix, 7. ?? ??? d? ?a?eda?????? ??ta??? te t??t?? t?? ?????? ?a? sf? ?? ?a?????a? pe?? p?e?st?? d’ ???? t? t?? ?e?? p??s??e??? ?a d? t? te???? sf? t? ?? t? ?s?? ?te??e??, ?a? ?d? ?p???e?? ???a?e.

Nearly a century after this, we are told that it was always the practice for the AmyklÆan hoplites to go home for the celebration of the Hyakinthia, on whatever expedition they might happen to be employed (Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 5, 11).

[309] Diodor. xi, 28; Herodot. ix, 2, 3, 17. ?? ?? ????? p??te? pa?e???? st?at??? ?a? s??es?a??? ?? ????a? ?s?? pe? ??d???? ??????? t?? ta?t? ????????, etc.

[310] Herodot. ix, 4.

[311] Herodot. ix, 5. I dare not reject this story about Lykidas (see Lykurgus cont. Leokrat. c. 30, p. 222), though other authors recount the same incident as having happened to a person named Kyrsilus, during the preceding year, when the Athenians quitted Athens: see Demosthen. de CoronÂ, p. 296, c. 59; and Cicero de Officiis, iii, 11. That two such acts were perpetrated by the Athenians, is noway probable: and if we are to choose between the two, the story of Herodotus is far the more probable. In the migration of the preceding year, we know that a certain number of Athenians actually did stay behind in the acropolis, and Kyrsilus might have been among them, if he had chosen. Moreover, Xerxes held out no offers, and gave occasion to no deliberation; while the offers of Mardonius might really appear to a well-minded citizen deserving of attention.

Isokrates (Or. iv, Panegyric. p. 74, c. 42) states that the Athenians condemned many persons to death for medism (in allusion doubtless to ThemistoklÊs as one), but he adds,—“even now they imprecate curses on any citizen who enters into amicable negotiation with the Persians,”—?? d? t??? s???????? ?t? ?a? ??? ???? p?????ta?, e?t?? ?p??????e?eta? ???sa?? t?? p???t??. It is difficult to believe that in his time any such imprecation can have been included in the solemnities whereby the Athenian meetings were opened.

[312] Herodot. ix, 10, 11; Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 10. Plutarch had read a decree ascribed to AristeidÊs, in which Kimon, Xanthippus, and MyrÔnidÊs, were named envoys to Sparta. But it is impossible that Xanthippus could have taken part in the embassy, seeing that he was now in command of the fleet.

Probably the Helots must have followed: one hardly sees how so great a number could have been all suddenly collected, and marched off in one night, no preparations having been made beforehand.

Dr. Thirlwall (Hist. Gr. ch. xvi, p. 366) suspects the correctness of the narrative of Herodotus, on grounds which do not appear to me convincing. It seems to me that, after all, the literal narrative is more probable than anything which we can substitute in its place. The Spartan foreign policy all depended on the five ephors; there was no public discussion or criticism. Now the conduct of these ephors is consistent and intelligible,—though selfish, narrow-minded, and insensible to any dangers except what are present and obvious. Nor can I think, with Dr. Thirlwall, that the manner of communication ultimately adopted is of the nature of a jest.

[313] Herodot. ix, 12.

[314] There were stories current at Megara, even in the time of Pausanias, respecting some of these Persians, who were said to have been brought to destruction by the intervention of Artemis (Pausan. i, 40, 2).

[315] Herodot. ix, 15. The situation of the Attic deme SphendalÊ, or Sphendaleis, seems not certainly known (Ross, Über die Demen von Attika, p. 138); but Colonel Leake and Mr. Finlay think that it stood “near Aio Merkurio, which now gives name to the pass leading from Dekeleia through the ridges of Parnes into the extremity of the Tanagrian plain, at a place called Malakasa.” (Leake, Athens and the Demi of Attica, vol. ii, sect. iv, p. 123.)

Mr. Finlay (Oropus and the Diakria, p. 38) says that “Malakasa is the only place on this road where a considerable body of cavalry could conveniently halt.”

It appears that the Boeotians from the neighborhood of the AsÔpus were necessary as guides for this road. Perhaps even the territory of OrÔpus was at this time still a part of Boeotia: we do not certainly know at what period it was first conquered by the Athenians.

The combats between Athenians and Boeotians will be found to take place most frequently in this southeastern region of Boeotia,—Tanagra, Œnophyta, Delium, etc.

[316] Herodot. ix, 15.

[317] The strong town of Thebes was of much service to him (Thucyd. i, 90).

[318] Herodot. ix, 40, 45, 67; Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 18.

[319] Herodot. ix, 16. Thersander, though an Orchomenian, passes as a Theban—???s?? te ?a? T?a??? ?? ????? ???st?—a proof of the intimate connection between Thebes and Orchomenus at this time, which is farther illustrated by Pindar, Isthm. i, 51 (compare the Scholia ad loc. and at the beginning of the Ode), respecting the Theban family of Herodotus and AsÔpodÔrus. The ancient mythical feud appears to have gone to sleep, but a deadly hatred will be found to grow up in later times between these two towns.

[320] Herodot. ix, 16, 17. The last observation here quoted is striking and emphatic—????st? d? ?d??? ?st? t?? ?? ?????p??s? a?t?, p???? f??????ta ?de??? ??at?e??. It will have to be more carefully considered at a later period of this history, when we come to touch upon the scientific life of the Greeks, and upon the philosophy of happiness and duty as conceived by Aristotle. If carried fully out, this position is the direct negative of what Aristotle lays down in his Ethics, as to the superior happiness of the ??? ?e???t????, or life of scientific observation and reflection.

[321] Herodot. ix, 66.

[322] Herodot. ix, 17. d?e????e f??, ?? ?ata???t?e? sf?a?. Respecting f??, see a note a little farther on, at the battle of MykalÊ, in this same chapter.

Compare the case of the Delians at Adramyttium, surrounded and slain with missiles by the Persian satrap, though not his enemies—pe??st?sa? t??? ?a?t?? ?at????t?se (Thucyd. viii, 108).

[323] ??? ??? d’ ?t?e???? e?pe??, ??te e? ????? ?? ?p?????te? t??? F???a?, de????t?? t?? Tessa???, etc. (Herodot. ix, 18.)

This confession of uncertainty as to motives and plans, distinguishing between them and the visible facts which he is describing, is not without importance as strengthening our confidence in the historian.

[324] Compare this list of Herodotus with the enumeration which Pausanias read inscribed on the statue of Zeus, erected at Olympia by the Greeks who took part in the battle of PlatÆa (Pausan. v, 23, 1).

Pausanias found inscribed all the names here indicated by Herodotus except the PalÊs of Kephallenia: and he found in addition the Eleians Keans, Kythnians, Tenians, Naxians, and MÊlians. The five last names are islanders in the Ægean: their contingents sent to PlatÆa must, at all events, have been very small, and it is surprising to hear that they sent any,—especially when we recollect that there was a Greek fleet at this moment on service, to which it would be natural that they should join themselves in preference to land-service.

With respect to the name of the Eleians, the suspicion of BrÖndstedt is plausible, that Pausanias may have mistaken the name of the PalÊs of Kephallenia for theirs, and may have fancied that he read F?????? when it was really written ?????S, in an inscription at that time about six hundred years old. The place in the series wherein Pausanias places the name of the Eleians, strengthens the suspicion. Unless it be admitted, we shall be driven, as the most probable alternative, to suppose a fraud committed by the vanity of the Eleians, which may easily have led them to alter a name originally belonging to the PalÊs. The reader will recollect that the Eleians were themselves the superintendents and curators at Olympia.

Plutarch seems to have read the same inscription as Pausanias (De Herodoti Malignit. p. 873).

[325] Herodot. ix, 19, 28, 29.

[326] Herodot. ix, 28. ?? ?p?f??t??t?? te ?a? ?? ????? ?????te? ???????.

[327] About the missile weapons and skill of the Persians, see Herodot. i, 136; Xenophon, Anabas. iii, 4, 17.

Cyrus the younger was eminent in the use both of the bow and the javelin (Xenoph. Anab. i, 8, 26; i, 9, 5: compare CyropÆd. i, 2, 4).

[328] See Quintus Curtius, iii, 11, 15; and the note of MÜtzel.

[329] Herodot. ix, 21, 22, 23; Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 14.

[330] Herodot. ix, 24, 25. ????? te ??e?e??? ?p??t?? ?pasa? ??? t?? ????t??? ?ate??e ???, etc.

The exaggerated demonstrations of grief, ascribed to Xerxes and Atossa. in the PersÆ of Æschylus, have often been blamed by critics: we may see from this passage how much they are in the manners of Orientals of that day.

[331] Herodot. ix, 25-30; Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 11. t? t?? ??d?????t??? ????? ????? ??se? p????? ?a? s?s???? d??d??? pe??e??e???.

The expression of Herodotus respecting this position taken by Pausanias, ??t?? ?? ??? ta????te? ?p? t? ?s?p? ?st?at?pede???t?, as well as the words which follow in the next chapter (31)—?? ??a???, p???e??? e??a? t??? ?????a? ?? ??ata??s?, pa??sa? ?a? a?t?? ?p? t?? ?s?p?? t?? ta?t? ????ta,—show plainly that the Grecian troops were encamped along the AsÔpus on the PlatÆan side, while the Persians in their second position occupied the ground on the opposite, or Theban side of the river. Whichever army commenced the attack had to begin by passing the AsÔpus (c. 36-59).

For the topography of this region, and of the positions occupied by the two armies, compare Squire, in Walpole’s Turkey, p. 338; Kruse, Hellas, vol. ii, ch. vi, p. 9, seq., and ch. viii, p. 592. seq.: and the still more copious and accurate information of Colonel Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, ch. xvi, vol. ii, pp. 324-360. Both of them have given plans of the region; that which I annex is borrowed from Kiepert’s maps. I cannot but think that the fountain Gargaphia is not yet identified, and that both Kruse and Leake place the Grecian position farther from the river AsÔpus than is consistent with the words of Herodotus; which words seem to specify points near the two extremities, indicating that the fountain of Gargaphia was near the river towards the right of the Grecian position, and the chapel of AndrokratÊs also near the river towards the left of that position, where the Athenians were posted. Nor would such a site for a chapel of AndrokratÊs be inconsistent with Thucydides (iii, 24), who merely mentions that chapel as being on the right hand of the first mile of road from PlatÆa to Thebes.

Considering the length of time which has elapsed since the battle, it would not be surprising if the spring of Gargaphia were no longer recognizable. At any rate, neither the fountain pointed out by Colonel Leake (p. 332) nor that of Vergutiani, which had been supposed by Colonel Squire and Dr. Clarke, appear to me suitable for Gargaphia.

The errors of that plan of the battle of PlatÆa which accompanies the Voyage d’Anacharsis, are now well understood.

[332] Herodot. ix, 26-29. Judging from the battles of Corinth (B.C. 396) and Mantineia (B.C. 418), the Tegeans seem afterwards to have dropped this pretension to occupy the left wing, and to have preferred the post in the line next to the LacedÆmonians (Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 2, 19).

[333] Herodot. ix, 31, 32.

[334] Herodot. ix, 36, 38. e?s?????? ??? ??????.

These prophets were men of great individual consequence, as may be seen by the details which Herodotus gives respecting their adventures: compare also the history of Euenius, ix, 93.

[335] Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. xi; Thucyd. ii, 74.

[336] Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 13.

[337] Herodot. ix, 40, 49, 50. t?? te ?????? t?? Ga??af???, ?p’ ?? ?d?e?et? p?? t? st??te?a t? ?????????—?????e??? d? ?p? t?? ?s?p??, ??t? d? ?p? t?? ?????? ?f??te??? ?p? t?? p?ta?? ??? sf? ??? ???? ?d?? f???es?a?, ?p? te t?? ?pp??? ?a? t??e??t??.

Diodorus (xi, 30) affirms that the Greek position was so well defended by the nature of the ground, and so difficult of attack, that Mardonius was prevented from making use of his superior numbers. It is evident from the account of Herodotus that this is quite incorrect. The position seems to have had no protection except what it derived from the river AsÔpus, and the Greeks were ultimately forced to abandon it by the incessant attacks of the Persian cavalry. The whole account, at once diffuse and uninstructive, given by Diodorus of this battle (xi, 30-36), forms a strong contrast with the clear, impressive, and circumstantial narrative of Herodotus.

[338] Herodot. ix, 38, 39.

[339] Herodot. ix, 40, 41.

[340] Herodot. ix, 42.

[341] Herodot. ix, 42.

[342] Herodot. ix, 43. ???t?? d’ ????e t?? ???s?? t?? ?a?d????? e?pe ?? ???sa? ??e??, ?? ????????? te ?a? t?? ???e???? st?at?? ??da pep???????, ???’ ??? ?? ???sa?. ???? t? ?? ????d? ?? ta?t?? t?? ???? ?st? pep?????a, etc.

[343] Herodot. ix, 44-45. The language about the sacrifices is remarkable,—???? d? ?? ?t? ?a?d???? te ?a? t? st?at?? ?? d??ata? t? sf???a ?ata???a ?e??s?a?? p??a? ??? ?? ???es?e, etc.

Mardonius had tried many unavailing efforts to procure better sacrifices: it could not be done.

[344] Herodot. ix, 47; Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 16. Here, as on many other occasions, Plutarch rather spoils than assists the narrative of Herodotus.

[345] Herodot. ix, 71.

[346] Compare the reproaches of Hektor to DiomÊdÊs (Iliad, viii, 161).

[347] Herodot. ix, 49, 50. Pausanias mentions that the PlatÆans restored the fountain of Gargaphia after the victory (t? ?d?? ??es?sa?t?); but he hardly seems to speak as if he had himself seen it (ix, 4, 2).

[348] See a good description of the ground in Colonel Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, ch. xvi, vol. ii, p. 358.

[349] Herodot. ix, 51. ?? t??t?? d? t?? ????? ????e?sa?t? etast??a?, ??a ?a? ?dat? ???s? ???s?a? ?f????, ?a? ?? ?pp?e? sf?a? ? s????at?, ?spe? ?at’ ??? ???t??.

The last words have reference to the position of the two hostile armies, extended front to front along the course of the AsÔpus.

[350] Herodot. ix, 52. ?e???? ?? t?? ????? p?sa?, p??s?e????? t?? ?pp??, e???? p???? ?t??t??.

[351] Herodot. ix, 56. ?a?sa????—s???a? ?p??e d?? t?? ??????? t??? ???p??? p??ta?? e?p??t? d? ?a? ?e?e?ta?. ????a??? d? ta????te? ??sa? t? ?pa??? ? ?a?eda??????. ?? ?? ??? t?? te ????? ??te????t? ?a? t?? ?p??e??? t?? ???a??????. ????a??? d?, ??t? t?af???te? ?? t? ped???.

With which we must combine another passage, c. 59, intimating that the track of the Athenians led them to turn and get behind the hills, which prevented Mardonius from seeing them, though they were marching along the plain: ?a?d?????—?pe??e ?p? ?a?eda??????? ?a? ?e?e?ta? ??????? ????a???? ??? t?ap?????? ?? t? ped??? ?p? t?? ????? ?? ?ate??a.

[352] There is on this point a difference between Thucydides and Herodotus: the former affirms that there never was any Spartan lochus so called (Thucyd. i, 21).

We have no means of reconciling the difference, nor can we be certain that Thucydides is right in his negative comprehending all past time—?? ??d’ ????et? p?p?te.

[353] Herodot. ix, 53, 54.

[354] Herodot. ix, 52, 53.

[355] Herodot. ix, 54, ????a???—e???? ?t??a? sf?a? a?t??? ??a ?t????sa?, ?p?st?e??? t? ?a?eda?????? f????ata, ?? ???a f???e??t?? ?a? ???a ?e???t??.

[356] Herodot. xi. 56, 57.

[357] Herodot. ix, 59. ?d????? ?? p?d?? ??ast?? e????, ??te ??s? ??de?? ??s????te?, ??te t???. ?a? ??t?? ?? ?? te ?a? ???? ?p??sa?, ?? ??a?pas?e??? t??? ?????a?.

Herodotus dwells especially on the reckless and disorderly manner in which the Persians advanced: Plutarch, on the contrary, says of Mardonius,—???? s??teta????? t?? d??a?? ?pef??et? t??? ?a?eda???????, etc. (Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 17.)

Plutarch also says that Pausanias ??e t?? ????? d??a?? p??? t?? ??ata???, etc., which is quite contrary to the real narrative of Herodotus. Pausanias intended to march to the island, not to PlatÆa: he did not reach either the one or the other.

[358] Herodot. ix, 60, 61.

[359] About the Persian bow, see Xenoph. Anabas. iii, 4, 17.

[360] Herod. ix, 72.

[361] Herodot. ix, 62. ?a? t??s? ?a?eda??????s? a?t??a et? t?? e???? t?? ?a?sa??e? ????et? ???????s? t? sf???a ???st?. Plutarch exaggerates the long-suffering of Pausanias (Aristeid. c. 17, ad finem).

The lofty and conspicuous site of the HerÆon, visible to Pausanias at the distance where he was, is plainly marked in Herodotus (ix, 61).

For incidents illustrating the hardships which a Grecian army endured from its reluctance to move without favorable sacrifices, see Xenophon, Anabasis, vi, 4, 10-25; Hellenic. iii, 2, 17.

[362] Herodot. ix, 62, 63. His words about the courage of the Persians are remarkable: ??at? ?? ??? ?a? ??? ??? ?ss??e? ?sa? ?? ???sa?? ???p??? d? ???te?, ?a? p???, ??ep?st???e? ?sa?, ?a? ??? ????? t??s? ??a?t???s? s?f??? ... p?e?st?? ??? sfea? ?d???et? ? ?s??? ????? ???sa ?p???? p??? ??? ?p??ta? ???te? ????te? ????a ?p??e??t?. Compare the striking conversation between Xerxes and Demaratus (Herodot. vii, 104).

The description given by Herodotus of the gallant rush made by these badly-armed Persians, upon the presented line of spears in the LacedÆmonian ranks, may be compared with Livy (xxxii, 17), a description of the Romans attacking the Macedonian phalanx, and with the battle of Sempach (June, 1386), in which fourteen hundred half-armed Swiss overcame a large body of fully-armed Austrians, with an impenetrable front of projecting spears; which for some time they were unable to break in upon, until at length one of their warriors, Arnold von Winkelried, grasped an armful of spears, and precipitated himself upon them, making a way for his countrymen over his dead body. See Vogelin, Geschichte der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, ch. vi, p. 240, or indeed any history of Switzerland, for a description of this memorable incident.

[363] For the arms of the Persians, see Herodot. vii, 61.

Herodotus states in another place that the Persian troops adopted the Egyptian breastplates (?????a?): probably this may have been after the battle of PlatÆa. Even at this battle, the Persian leaders on horseback had strong defensive armor, as we may see by the case of Masistius, above narrated: by the time of the battle of Kunaxa, the habit had become more widely diffused (Xenoph. Anabas. i, 8, 6; Brisson, De Regno Persarum, lib. iii, p. 361), for the cavalry at least.

[364] Herodot. ix, 64, 65.

[365] Herodot. ix, 67, 68.

[366] Herodot. ix, 67, 68. ??? d? ????? ??????? t?? et? as????? ??e???a?e??t?? ... ?a? t?? ????? s????? ? p?? ????? ??te d?aa?es?e??? ??de?? ??te t? ?p?de??e??? ?f??e?.

[367] Herodot. ix, 66.

[368] Herodot. ix, 69.

[369] Herodot. ix, 70; DemosthenÊs cont. Timokrat. p. 741, c. 33. Pausanias (i, 27, 2) doubts whether this was really the cimeter of Mardonius, contending that the LacedÆmonians would never have permitted the Athenians to take it.

[370] Herodot. ix, 70: compare Æschyl. Pers. 805-824. He singles out “the Dorian spear” as the great weapon of destruction to the Persians at PlatÆa,—very justly. Dr. Blomfield is surprised at this compliment; but it is to be recollected that all the earlier part of the tragedy had been employed in setting forth the glory of Athens at Salamis, and he might well afford to give the Peloponnesians the credit which they derived at PlatÆa. Pindar distributes the honor between Sparta and Athens in like manner (Pyth. i, 76).

[372] Diodorus, indeed, states that Pausanias was so apprehensive of the numbers of the Persians, that he forbade his soldiers to give quarter or take any prisoners (xi, 32); but this is hardly to be believed, in spite of his assertion. His statement that the Greeks lost ten thousand men is still less admissible.

[373] Herodot. ix, 89. The allusions of DemosthenÊs to Perdikkas king of Macedonia, who is said to have attacked the Persians on their flight from PlatÆa, and to have rendered their ruin complete, are too loose to deserve attention; more especially as Perdikkas was not then king of Macedonia (DemosthenÊs cont. Aristokrat. pp. 687, c. 51; and pe?? S??t??e??, p. 173, c. 9).

[374] Herodot. ix, 84. Herodotus indeed assigns this second burial-place only to the other Spartans, apart from the Select. He takes no notice of the LacedÆmonians not Spartans, either in the battle or in reference to burial, though he had informed us that five thousand of them were included in the army. Some of them must have been slain, and we may fairly presume that they were buried along with the Spartan citizens generally. As to the word ???a?, or e??e?a?, or ?pp?a? (the two last being both conjectural readings), it seems impossible to arrive at any certainty: we do not know by what name these select warriors were called.

[375] Herodot. ix, 85. ??? d’ ????? ?s?? ?a? fa????ta? ?? ??ata??s? ???te? t?f??, t??t??? d?, ?? ??? p??????a?, ?pa?s????????? t? ?pest?? t?? ????, ???st??? ??ata ??sa? ?e???, t?? ?p????????? e??e?e? ?????p??? ?pe? ?a? ??????t??? ?st? a?t??? ?a?e?e??? t?f??, t?? ??? ????? ?a? d??a ?tes? ?ste??? et? ta?ta, de????t?? t?? ??????t???, ??sa? ??e?d?? t?? ??t?d????, ??d?a ??ata??a, p???e???? ???ta a?t??.

This is a curious statement, derived by Herodotus doubtless from personal inquiries made at PlatÆa.

[376] Herodot. ix, 78, 79. This suggestion, so abhorrent to Grecian feeling, is put by the historian into the mouth of the Æginetan LampÔn. In my preceding note, I have alluded to another statement made by Herodotus, not very creditable to the Æginetans: there is, moreover, a third (ix, 80), in which he represents them as having cheated the Helots in their purchases of the booty. We may presume him to have heard all these anecdotes at PlatÆa: at the time when he probably visited that place, not long before the Peloponnesian war, the inhabitants were united in the most intimate manner with Athens, and doubtless sympathized in the hatred of the Athenians against Ægina. It does not from hence follow that the stories are all untrue. I disbelieve, indeed, the advice said to have been given by LampÔn to crucify the body of Mardonius,—which has more the air of a poetical contrivance for bringing out an honorable sentiment, than of a real incident. But there seems no reason to doubt the truth of the other two stories. Herodotus does but too rarely specify his informants: it is interesting to scent out the track in which his inquiries have been prosecuted.

After the battle of Kunaxa, and the death of Cyrus the younger, his dead body had the head and hands cut off, by order of Artaxerxes, and nailed to a cross (Xenoph. Anab. i, 10, 1; iii, 1, 17).

[377] Herodot. ix, 84; Pausanias, ix, 2, 2.

[378] Herodot. ix, 80, 81: compare vii, 41-83.

[379] Diodorus (xi, 33) states this proportional distribution. Herodotus only says—??a?? ??ast?? t?? ????? ?sa? (ix, 81).

[380] Herodot. ix, 76, 80, 81, 82. The fate of these female companions of the Persian grandees, on the taking of the camp by an enemy, forms a melancholy picture here as well as at Issus, and even at Kunaxa: see Diodor. xvii, 35; Quintus Curtius, iii, xi, 21; Xenoph. Anab. i, 10, 2.

[381] Plutarch animadverts severely (De Malign. Herodot. p. 873; compare Plut. Aristeid. c. 19) upon Herodotus, because he states that none of the Greeks had any share in the battle of PlatÆa except the LacedÆmonians, Tegeans, and Athenians: the orator Lysias repeats the same statement (Oratio Funebr. c. 9).

If this were the fact (Plutarch asks) how comes it that the inscriptions and poems of the time recognize the exploit as performed by the whole Grecian army, Corinthians and others included? But these inscriptions do not really contradict what is affirmed by Herodotus. The actual battle happened to be fought only by a part of the collective Grecian army; but this happened in a great measure by accident; the rest were little more than a mile off, and until within a few hours had been occupying part of the same continuous line of position; moreover, if the battle had lasted a little longer, they would have come up in time to render actual help. They would naturally be considered, therefore, as entitled to partake in the glory of the entire result.

When however in after-times a stranger visited PlatÆa, and saw LacedÆmonian, Tegean, and Athenian tombs, but no Corinthian nor Æginetan, etc., he would naturally inquire how it happened that none of these latter had fallen in the battle, and would then be informed that they were not really present at it. Hence the motive for these cities to erect empty sepulchral monuments on the spot, as Herodotus informs us that they afterwards did or caused to be done by individual PlatÆans.

[382] Herodot. ix, 77.

[383] See, a little above in this chapter, the treatment of the wife and children of the Athenian senator Lykidas (Herodot. ix, 5). Compare also Herodot. iii, 116; ix, 120.

[384] Herodot. ix, 87, 88.

[385] Thucyd. i, 131. ?a? p?ste??? ???as? d?a??se?? t?? d?a????. Compare Thucyd. viii, 45, where he states that the trierarchs and generals of the LacedÆmonian and allied fleet, all except HermokratÊs of Syracuse, received bribes from Tissaphernes to betray the interests both of their seamen and of their country: also c. 49 of the same book about the LacedÆmonian general Astyochus. The bribes received by the Spartan kings LeotychidÊs and Pleistoanax are recorded (Herodot. vi, 72; Thucyd. ii, 21).

[386] Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 20; De Herodot. Malign. p. 873.

[387] Herodot. iv, 71, 72.

[388] Thucyd. ii, 71, 72. So the Roman emperor Vitellius, on visiting the field of Bebriacum, where his troops had recently been victorious, “instaurabat sacrum Diis loci.” (Tacitus, Histor. ii, 70.)

[389] Thucyd. ii, 71; Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 19-21; Strabo, ix, p. 412; Pausanias, ix, 2, 4.

The Eleutheria were celebrated on the fourth of the Attic month Boedromion, which was the day on which the battle itself was fought; while the annual decoration of the tombs, and ceremonies in honor of the deceased, took place on the sixteenth of the Attic month MÆmaktÊrion. K. F. Hermann (Gottesdienstliche AlterthÜmer der Griechen, ch. 63, note 9) has treated these two celebrations as if they were one.

[390] Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 21.

[391] Thucyd. i, 90.

[392] It is to this general and solemn meeting, held at PlatÆa after the victory, that we might probably refer another vow noticed by the historians and orators of the subsequent century, if that vow were not of suspicious authenticity. The Greeks, while promising faithful attachment, and continued peaceful dealing among themselves, and engaging at the same time to amerce in a tithe of their property all who had medized,—are said to have vowed that they would not repair or rebuild the temples which the Persian invader had burnt; but would leave them in their half-ruined condition as a monument of his sacrilege. Some of the injured temples near Athens were seen in their half-burnt state even by the traveller Pausanias (x, 35, 2), in his time. PeriklÊs, forty years after the battle, tried to convoke a Pan-Hellenic assembly at Athens, for the purpose of deliberating what should be done with these temples (Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 17). Yet Theopompus pronounced this alleged oath to be a fabrication, though both the orator Lykurgus and Diodorus profess to report it verbatim. We may safely assert that the oath, as they give it, is not genuine; but perhaps the vow of tithing those who had voluntarily joined Xerxes, which Herodotus refers to an earlier period, when success was doubtful, may now have been renewed in the moment of victory: see Diodor. ix, 29; Lykurgus cont. Leokrat. c. 19, p. 193; Polybius, ix, 33; Isokrates, Or. iv; Panegyr. c. 41, p. 74; Theopompus, Fragm. 167, ed. Didot; Suidas, v. ?e?ate?e??, Cicero de RepublicÂ, iii, 9, and the beginning of the chapter last but one preceding, of this history.

[393] Herodot. ix, 91, 92, 95; viii, 132, 133. The prophet of Mardonius at PlatÆa bore the same name, and was probably the more highly esteemed for it (Herodot. ix, 37).

Diodorus states the fleet as comprising two hundred and fifty triremes (xi, 34).

The anecdotes respecting the Apolloniate Euenius, the father of DeÏphonus, will be found curious and interesting (Herodot. ix, 98, 94). Euenius, as a recompense for having been unjustly blinded by his countrymen, had received from the gods the grant of prophecy transmissible to his descendants: a new prophetic breed was thus created, alongside of the Iamids, Telliads, Klytiads, etc.

[394] Herodot. ix, 96. ?pe? d? ??????t? t?? Sa??? p??? ?a????s?, ?? ?? a?t?? ???s?e??? ?at? t? ??a??? t? ta?t?, pa?es?e?????t? ?? ?a?a????.

It is by no means certain that the HerÆum here indicated is the celebrated temple which stood near the city of Samos (iii, 80): the words of Herodotus rather seem to indicate that another temple of HÊrÊ, in some other part of the island, is intended.

[395] Herodotus describes the Persian position by topographical indications known to his readers, but not open to be determined by us,—GÆson, Skolopoeis, the chapel of DÊmÊtÊr, built by Philistus, one of the primitive colonists of Miletus, etc. (ix, 96): from the language of Herodotus, we may suppose that GÆson was the name of a town as well as of a river (Ephonas ap. AthenÆ. vi, p. 311).

The eastern promontory (cape Poseidion) of Samos was separated only by seven stadia from MykalÊ (Strabo, xiv, p. 637), near to the place where GlaukÊ was situated (Thucyd. viii. 79),—modern observers make the distance rather more than a mile (Poppo, Prolegg. ad Thucyd. vol. ii, p. 465).

[396] Herodot. ix, 96, 97.

[397] Herodot. ix, 98, 99, 104.

[398] Herodot. ix, 100, 101. ???s? d? sf? (????s?) f?? te ?s?ptat? ?? t? st?at?ped?? p??, ?a? ????????? ?f??? ?p? t?? ??at???? ?e?e???. ? d? f?? d????? sf? ?de, ?? ?? ?????e? t?? ?a?d????? st?at??? ????e? ?? ????t?? a??e???. ???a d? p?????s? te??????s? ?st? t? ?e?a t?? p????t??? e? ?a? t?te t?? a?t?? ????? s?p?pt??s?? t?? te ?? ??ata??s? ?a? t?? ?? ?????? ?????t?? ?ses?a? t??at??, f?? t??s? ????s? t??s? ta?t? ?sap??et?, ?ste ?a?s?sa? te t?? st?at??? p???? ?????, ?a? ????e?? p?????te??? ???d??e?e?? ... ?e?????a? d? ????? t?? et? ?a?sa??e? ??????? ????? sf? ? f?? s???a??e ?????sa? t? ?? ??? ?? ??ata??s? p??? ?t? t?? ????? ????et?? t? d? ?? ??????, pe?? de???? ... ?? d? ????d?? sf? p??? t?? f??? ?sap???s?a?, ??t? pe?? sf??? a?t?? ??t?, ?? t?? ???????, ? pe?? ?a?d???? pta?s? ? ?????, ?? ??t?? ? ???d?? a?t? sf? ?s?ptat?, ????? t? ?a? ta??te??? t?? p??s?d?? ?p??e??t?: compare Plutarch, Paul. Emilius, c. 24, 25, about the battle of Pydna. The f?? which circulated through the assembled army of Mardonius in Boeotia, respecting his intention to kill the Phocians, turned out incorrect (Herodot. ix, 17).

Two passages in Æschines (cont. Timarchum. c. 27, p. 57, and De Fals. Legat. c. 45, p. 290) are peculiarly valuable as illustrating the ancient idea of F??,—a divine voice, or vocal goddess, generally considered as informing a crowd of persons at once, or moving them all by one and the same unanimous feeling,—the Vox Dei passing into the Vox Populi. There was an altar to F?? at Athens (Pausan. i, 17, 1); compare Hesiod. Opp. Di. 761, and the ?ssa of Homer, which is essentially the same idea as F??: Iliad, ii, 93. et? d? sf?s?? ?ssa ded?e? ?t?????s’ ???a?, ???? ???e???; also Odyssey, i, 282—opposed to the idea of a distinct human speaker or informant—?? t?? t?? e?p?s? ??t??, ? ?ssa? ????s?? ?? ????, ?te ???sta f??e? ????? ?????p??s?; and Odyss. xxiv, 412. ?ssa d’ ??’ ???e??? ??a ?at? pt???? ??et? p??t?, ???st???? st??e??? ???at?? ?a? ???’ ???p??sa. The word ???d?? is used in the same meaning by Sophokles, Philoktet. 255 (see Andokides de Mysteriis, c. 22, p. 64): and Herodotus in the passage now before us considers the two as identical,—compare also Herodot. v, 72: both words are used also to signify an omen conveyed by some undesigned human word or speech, which in that particular case is considered as determined by the special intervention of the gods for the information of some person who hears it: see Homer, Odyss. xx, 100: compare also Aristophan. Aves, 719; SophoklÊs, Œdip. Tyr. 43-472; Xenophon, Symposion, c. 14, s. 48.

The descriptions of Fama by Virgil, Æneid, iv, 17 6, seqq., and Ovid Metamorph. xii, 40, seqq., are more diffuse and overcharged, departing from the simplicity of the Greek conception.

We may notice, as partial illustrations of what is here intended, those sudden, unaccountable impressions of panic terror which occasionally ran through the ancient armies or assembled multitudes, and which were supposed to be produced by Pan or by Nymphs—indeed sudden, violent, and contagious impressions of every kind, not merely of fear. Livy, x, 28. “Victorem equitatum velut lymphaticus pavor dissipat.” ix, 27. “Milites, incertum ob quam causam, lymphatis similes ad arma discurrunt,”—in Greek, ??f???pt??: compare PolyÆn, iv. 3, 26, and an instructive note of Mutzel, ad Quint. Curt. iv, 46, 1 (iv, 12, 14).

But I cannot better illustrate that idea, which the Greeks invested with divinity under the name of F??, than by transcribing a striking passage from M. Michelet’s Histoire de la RÉvolution FranÇoise. The illustration is the more instructive, because the religious point of view, which in Herodotus is predominant,—and which, to the believing mind, furnishes an explanation preËminently satisfactory,—has passed away in the historian of the nineteenth century, and gives place to a graphic description of the real phenomenon, of high importance in human affairs; the common susceptibilities, common inspiration and common spontaneous impulse, of a multitude, effacing for the time each man’s separate individuality.

M. Michelet is about to describe that ever-memorable event, the capture of the Bastile, on the 14th of July, 1789 (ch. vii, vol. i, p. 105).

“Versailles, avec un gouvernement organisÉ, un roi, des ministres, un gÉnÉral, une armÉe, n’Étoit qu’hÉsitation, doute, incertitude, dans la plus complÈte anarchie morale.

“Paris, bouleversÉ, dÉlaissÉ de toute autoritÉ lÉgale, dans un dÉsordre apparent, atteignit, le 14 Juillet, ce qui moralement est l’ordre le plus profond, l’unanimitÉ des esprits.

“Le 13 Juillet, Paris ne songeait qu’À se defendre. Le 14, il attaqua.

“Le 13, au soir, il y avoit encore des doutes, il n’y en eut plus le matin. Le soir Étoit plein de troubles, de fureur dÉsordonnÉe. Le matin fut lumineux et d’une sÉrÉnitÉ terrible.

“Une idÉe se leva sur Paris avec le jour, et tous virent la mÊme lumiÈre. Une lumiÈre dans les esprits, et dans chaque coeur une voix: Va, et tu prendras la Bastille!

“Cela Étoit impossible, insensÉ, Étrange À dire;... Et tous le crurent nÉanmoins. Et cela se fit.

“La Bastille, pour Être une vieille forteresse, n’en Étoit pas moins imprenable, À moins d’y mettre plusieurs jours, et beaucoup d’artillerie. Le peuple n’avoit en cette crise ni le temps ni les moyens de faire un siÉge rÉgulier. L’eÛt il fait, la Bastille n’avoit pas À craindre, ayant assez de vivres pour attendre un secours si proche, et d’immenses munitions de guerre. Ses murs de dix pieds d’Épaisseur au sommet des tours, de trente et quarante À la base, pouvaient rire longtemps des boulets: et ses batteries, À elle, dont le feu plongeoit sur Paris, auroient pu en attendant dÉmolir tout le Marais, tout le Faubourg St. Antoine.

“L’attaque de la Bastille ne fut un acte nullement raisonnable. Ce fut un acte de foi.

“Personne ne proposa. Mais tous crurent et tous agirent. Le long des rues, des quais, des ponts, des boulevards, la foule criait À la foule—À la Bastille—À la Bastille. Et dans le tocsin qui sonnoit, tous entendoient: À la Bastille.

“Personne, je le rÉpÈte, ne donna l’impulsion. Les parleurs du Palais Royal passÈrent le temps À dresser une liste de proscription, À juger À mort la Reine, la Polignac, Artois, le prÉvÔt Flesselles, d’autres encore. Les noms des vainqueurs de la Bastille n’offrent pas un seul des faiseurs de motions. Le Palais Royal ne fut pas le point de dÉpart, et ce n’est pas non plus au Palais Royal que les vainqueurs ramÉnÈrent les depouilles et les prisonniers.

“Encore moins les Électeurs qui siÉgeaient À l’Hotel de Ville eurent ils l’idÉe de l’attaque. Loin de lÀ, pour l’empÊcher, pour prÉvenir le carnage que la Bastille pouvoit faire si aisÉment, ils allÈrent jusqu’À promettre au gouverneur, que s’il retirait ses canons, on ne l’attaqueroit pas. Les Électeurs ne trahissoient pas comme ils en furent accusÉs; mais ils n’avoient pas la foi.

“Qui l’eut? Celui qui eut aussi le dÉvoument, la force, pour accomplir sa foi. Qui? Le peuple, tout le monde.”

[399] Diodor. xi, 35; PolyÆn. i, 33. Justin (ii, 14) is astonished in relating “tantam famÆ velocitatem.”

[400] Herodot. ix, 102, 103. ??t?? d? (???sa?), ?at’ ??????? ????e???, ?????t? t??s? a?e? ?? t? te???? ?sp?pt??s? ???????.

[401] Herodot. ix, 104, 105. Diodorus (xi, 36) seems to follow different authorities from Herodotus: his statement varies in many particulars, but is less probable.

Herodotus does not specify the loss on either side, nor Diodorus that of the Greeks; but the latter says that forty thousand Persians and allies were slain.

[402] Herodot. ix, 105.

[403] Herodot. ix, 107. I do not know whether we may suppose Herodotus to have heard this from his fellow-citizen Xenagoras.

[404] Herodot. ix, 108-113. He gives the story at considerable length: it illustrates forcibly and painfully the interior of the Persian regal palace.

[405] Herodot. viii, 132.

[406] Herodot. ix, 106; Diodor. xi, 37. The latter represents the Ionians and Æolians as having actually consented to remove into European Greece, and indeed the Athenians themselves as having at first consented to it, though the latter afterwards repented and opposed the scheme.

[407] Such wholesale transportations of population from one continent to another have always been more or less in the habits of Oriental despots, the Persians in ancient times and the Turks in more modern times: to a conjunction of free states, like the Greeks, they must have been impracticable.

See Von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, vol. i, book vi, p. 251, for the forced migrations of people from Asia into Europe, directed by the Turkish Sultan Bajazet (A. D. 1390-1400).

[408] Herodot. viii, 115, 117; ix, 106, 114.

[409] See the preceding volume of this history, ch. xxx, p 119; ch. xxxiv, p. 271; ch. xxxv, p. 307.

[410] Xenoph. Hellen. i, 5. 17. t? ?a?t?? te???.

[411] Herodot. vii, 147. Schol. ad Aristophan. Equites, 262.

In illustration of the value set by Athens upon the command of the Hellespont, see DemosthenÊs, De Fals. Legat. c. 59.

[412] Herodot. ix, 114, 115. S?st??—f??????? ?a? f??a??? t?? pa?t?? ????sp??t??—Thucyd. viii, 62: compare Xenophon, Hellenic. ii, 1, 25.

[413] Thucyd. viii, 102.

[414] Herodot. ix, 116: compare i, 4. ??ta??t??, ???? ???s??, de???? d? ?a? ?t?s?a???? ?? ?a? as???a ??a????ta ?p’ ????a? ???p?t?se, t? ???tes??e? t?? ?f????? ???ata ?? ??a????t?? ?fe??e???. Compare Herodot. ii, 64.

[415] Herodot. ix, 118, 119, 120. ?? ??? ??a???s??? t??????te? t? ???tes??e? ?d???t? ?? ?ata???s???a? ?a? a?t?? t?? st?at???? ta?t? ? ???? ?fe?e.

[416] Herodot. ix, 121. It must be either to the joint Grecian armament of this year, or to that of the former year, that Plutarch must intend his celebrated story respecting the proposition of ThemistoklÊs, condemned by AristeidÊs, to apply (Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 20; AristeidÊs, c. 22). He tells us that the Greek fleet was all assembled to pass the winter in the Thessalian harbor of PagasÆ, when ThemistoklÊs formed the project of burning all the other Grecian ships except the Athenian, in order that no city except Athens might have a naval force. ThemistoklÊs, he tells us, intimated to the people, that he had a proposition, very advantageous to the state, to communicate; but that it could not be publicly proclaimed and discussed: upon which they desired him to mention it privately to AristeidÊs. ThemistoklÊs did so: and AristeidÊs told the people, that the project was at once eminently advantageous and not less eminently unjust. Upon which the people renounced it forthwith, without asking what it was.

Considering the great celebrity which this story has obtained, some allusion to it was necessary, though it has long ceased to be received as matter of history. It is quite inconsistent with the narrative of Herodotus, as well as with all the conditions of the time: PagasÆ was Thessalian, and as such hostile to the Greek fleet rather than otherwise: the fleet seems to have never been there: moreover, we may add, that taking matters as they then stood, when the fear from Persia was not at all terminated, the Athenians would have lost more than they gained by burning the ships of the other Greeks, so that ThemistoklÊs was not very likely to conceive the scheme, nor AristeidÊs to describe it in the language put into his mouth.

The story is probably the invention of some Greek of the Platonic age, who wished to contrast justice with expediency, and AristeidÊs with ThemistoklÊs,—as well as to bestow at the same time panegyric upon Athens in the days of her glory.

[417] Everything which has ever been said about Phalaris is noticed and discussed in the learned and acute Dissertation of Bentley on the Letters of Phalaris: compare also Seyffert, Akragas und sein Gebiet, pp. 57-61, who, however, treats the pretended Letters of Phalaris with mere consideration than the readers of Dr. Bentley will generally be disposed to sanction.

The story of the brazen bull of Phalaris seems to rest on sufficient evidence: it is expressly mentioned by Pindar, and the bull itself, after having been carried away to Carthage when the Carthaginians took Agrigentum, was restored to the Agrigentines by Scipio when he took Carthage. See Aristot. Polit. v, 8, 4; Pindar, Pyth. i, 185; Polyb. xii, 25; Diodor. xiii, 90; Cicero in Verr. iv, 33.

It does not appear that TimÆus really called in question the historical reality of the bull of Phalaris, though he has been erroneously supposed to have done so. TimÆus affirmed that the bull which was shown in his own time at Agrigentum was not the identical machine: which was correct, for it must have been then at Carthage, from whence it was not restored to Agrigentum until after 146 B.C. See a note of Boeckh on the Scholia ad Pindar. Pyth. i, 185.

[418] Thucyd. vi, 5; Schol. ad Pindar. Olymp. v, 19; compare Wesseling ad Diodor. xi, 76.

[419] At Gela, Herodot. vii, 153; at Syracuse, Aristot. Politic. v, 3, 1.

[420] Aristot. Politic. v, 8, 4; v, 10, 4. ?a? e?? t??a???da eta???e? ?? ????a???a?, ?spe? ?? S??e??? s?ed?? a? p?e?sta? t?? ???a???? ?? ?e??t????? e?? t?? ?a?a?t??? t??a???da, ?a? ?? G??? e?? t?? ??e??d???, ?a? ?? ???a?? p???a?? p??es?? ?sa?t??.

[421] Diodorus ascribes the foundation of Herakleia to Dorieus; this seems not consistent with the account of Herodotus, unless we are to assume that the town of Herakleia which Dorieus founded was destroyed by the Carthaginians, and that the name Herakleia was afterwards given by Euryleon or his successors to that which had before been called Minoa (Diodor. iv, 23).

A funereal monument in honor of AthenÆus, one of the settlers who perished with Dorieus, was seen by Pausanias at Sparta (Pausanias, iii, 16, 4).

[422] Herodot. v, 43, 46.

[423] Herodot. vii, 158. The extreme brevity of his allusion is perplexing, as we have no collateral knowledge to illustrate it.

[424] PolyÆnus, v, 6.

[425] See about TÊlinÊs and this hereditary priesthood, Herodot. vii, 153. t??t??? ?? ? ??????? ?at??a?e ?? G????, ???? ??de?a? ??d??? d??a??, ???’ ??? t??t?? t?? ?e??? ??e? d? a?t? ??ae, ? a?t?? ??t?sat?, t??t? ??? ??? e?pa?. t??t??s? d? ?? p?s???? ???, ?at??a?e, ?p’ ? te ?? ?p?????? a?t?? ???f??ta? t?? ?e?? ?s??ta?: compare a previous passage of this history, vol. i, chap. i, p. 26.

It appears from Pindar, that Hiero exercised this hereditary priesthood (Olymp. vi, 160 (95), with the Scholia ad loc. and Scholia ad Pindar. Pyth. ii, 27).

About the story of PhyÊ personifying AthÊnÊ at Athens, see above, vol. iv of this history, chap. xxx, p. 105.

The ancient religious worship addressed itself more to the eye than to the ear; the words spoken were of less importance than the things exhibited, the persons performing, and the actions done. The vague sense of the Greek and Latin neuter, ?e??, or sacra, includes the entire ceremony, and is difficult to translate into a modern language: but the verbs connected with it, ??e??, ?e?t?s?a?, ????e??, fa??e?, ?e??—?e??f??t??, etc., relate to exhibition and action. This was particularly the case with the mysteries (or solemnities not thrown open to the general public but accessible only to those who went through certain preliminary forms, and under certain restrictions) in honor of DÊmÊtÊr and PersephonÊ, as well as of other deities in different parts of Greece. The ?e??e?a, or things said on these occasions, were of less importance than the d??e?a and de????e?a, or matters shown and things done (see Pausanias, ii, 37, 3). Herodotus says, about the lake of Sais in Egypt, ?? d? t? ???? ta?t? t? de????a t?? pa???? a?t?? (of Osiris) ???t?? p??e?s?, t? ?a????s? ?st???a ????pt???: he proceeds to state that the Thesmophoria celebrated in honor of DÊmÊtÊr in Greece were of the same nature, and gives his opinion that they were imported into Greece from Egypt. Homer (Hymn. Cerer. 476): compare Pausan. ii, 14, 2.

Compare Euripid. Hippolyt. 25; Pindar, Fragm. xcvi; Sophocl. Frag. lviii, ed. Brunck; Plutarch, De Profect. in Virtute, c. 10, p. 81: De Isid. et Osir. p. 353, c. 3. ?? ??? ?? te???e??? ?at’ ????? ?? ????? ?a? ?? p??? ???????? ????e??? s???as?, d?????? d? ?a? de???????? t?? ?e???, p??s????s?? ?d? et? f??? ?a? s??p??: and IsokratÊs, Panegyric. c. 6, about Eleusis, t? ?e?? ?a? ??? de????e? ?a?’ ??ast?? ???a?t??. These mysteries consisted thus chiefly of exhibition and action addressed to the eyes of the communicants, and Clemens Alexandrinus calls them a mystic drama—??? ?a? ???? d??a ??e??s??? ?st????, ?a? t?? p????? ?a? t?? ??pa??? ?a? t? p????? ? ??e?s?? d?d???e?. The word ????a is originally nothing more than a consecrated expression for ???a—?e?? ???a (see Pausanias, iv, 1, 4, 5), though it comes afterwards to designate the whole ceremony, matters shown as well as matters done—t? ????a ??????—?????? pa?t???? s????t??, etc.: compare Plutarch, Alkibiad. 22-34.

The sacred objects exhibited formed an essential part of the ceremony, together with the chest in which such of them as were movable were brought out—te?et?? ??????a ?st?da ??st?? (Nonnus, ix, 127). Æschines, in assisting the religious lustrations performed by his mother, was bearer of the chest—??st?f???? ?a? ?????f???? (Demosthen. de CoronÂ, c. 79, p. 313). Clemens Alexandrius (Cohort. ad Gent. p. 14) describes the objects which were contained in these mystic chests of the Eleusinian mysteries,—cakes of particular shape, pomegranates, salt, ferules, ivy, etc. The communicant was permitted, as a part of the ceremony, to take these out of the chest and put them into a basket, afterwards putting them back again: “Jejunavi et ebibi cyceonem: ex cist sumpsi et in calathum misi: accepi rursus, in cistulam transtuli,” (Arnobius ad Gent. v, 175, ed. Elmenherst,) while the uninitiated were excluded from seeing it, and forbidden from looking at it “even from the house-top.”

Lobeck, in his learned and excellent treatise, Aglaophamus (i, p. 51), says: “Sacrorum nomine tam GrÆci, quam Romani, prÆcipuÈ signa et imagines Deorum, omnemque sacram supellectilem dignari solent. QuÆ res animum illuc potius inclinat, ut putem Hierophantas ejusmodi ?e?? in conspectum hominum protulisse, sive deorum simulacra, sive vasa sacra et instrumenta aliave priscÆ religionis monumenta; qualia in sacrario Eleusinio asservata fuisse, etsi nullo testimonio affirmare possumus, tamen probabilitatis speciem habet testimonio similem. Namque non solum in templis ferÈ omnibus cimelia venerandÆ antiquitatis condita erant, sed in mysteriis ipsis talium rerum mentio occurrit, quas initiati summ cum veneratione aspicerent, non initiatis ne aspicere quidem liceret.... Ex his testimoniis efficitur (p. 61) sacra quÆ Hierophanta ostendit, illa ipsa fuisse ???a f?sata sive simulacra Deorum, eorumque aspectum qui prÆbeant de??a? t? ?e?? vel pa???e?? vel fa??e?? dici, et ab hoc quasi primario HierophantÆ actu tum Eleusiniorum sacerdotum principem nomen accepisse, tum totum negotium esse nuncupatum.”

Compare also K. F. Hermann, Gottesdienstliche AlterthÜmer der Griechen, part ii, ch. ii, sect. 32.

A passage in Cicero de Haruspicum Responsis (c. 11), which is transcribed almost entirely by Arnobius adv. Gentes, iv, p. 148, demonstrates the minute precision required at Rome in the performance of the festival of the Megalesia: the smallest omission or alteration was supposed to render the festival unsatisfactory to the gods.

The memorable history of the Holy Tunic at Treves, in 1845, shows what immense and wide-spread effect upon the human mind may be produced, even in the nineteenth century, by ?e?? de????e?a.

[426] Herodot. vii, 154.

[427] Herodot. vi, 22, 23. S????? ?? t?? ???a???? t?? ?a???a???, ?? ?p?a???ta t?? p????, ? ?pp????t?? ped?sa?, ?a? t?? ?de?fe?? a?t?? ???????ea, ?? ?????? p???? ?p?pe?e.

The words ?? ?p?a???ta seem to imply the relation preËxisting between HippokratÊs and SkythÊs, as superior and subject; and punishment inflicted by the former upon the latter for having lost an important post.

[428] Herodot. vi, 23, 24. Aristotle (Politic. v, 2, 11) represents the Samians as having been first actually received into ZanklÊ, and afterwards expelling the prior inhabitants: his brief notice is not to be set against the perspicuous narrative of Herodotus.

[429] Thucyd. vi, 4; Schol. ad Pindar. Pyth. ii, 84; Diodor. xi, 48.

[430] Herodot. vii, 155; Thucyd. vi, 5. The ninth Nemean Ode of Pindar (v, 40), addressed to Chromius the friend of Hiero of Syracuse, commemorates, among other exploits, his conduct at the battle of the HelÔrus.

[432] Herodot. vii, 156. ?e?a??a? te t??? ?? S??e???, ?? p??????e?e??? ?? ???????? p??se????sa?, t??? ?? a?t?? pa??a?, ?e??a????? te p??e?? a?t? ?a? p??sd?????ta? ?p???es?a? d?? t??t?, ???? ?? t?? S??a???sa? p????ta? ?p???se? t?? d? d??? t?? ?e?a????, ??? ???ta eta?t??? t?? p????? t??t??, ??d? p??sde??e??? ?a??? ??d?? pe?ses?a?, ??a??? ?a? t??t??? ?? t?? S??a???sa?, ?p?d?t? ?p’ ??a???? ?? S??e????. ???t? d? t??t?? ?a? ????a? t??? ?? S??e??? ?p???se d?a????a?. ?p??ee d? ta?ta t??t??? ?f?t?????, ???sa? d??? e??a? s??????a ??a??t?tat??.

[433] Diodor. xi, 21.

[434] Pausan. v, 27, 1, 2. We find the elder Dionysius, about a century afterwards, transferring the entire free population of conquered towns (Kaulonia and Hipponium in Italy, etc.) to Syracuse (Diodor. xiv, 106, 107).

[435] See the sixth Olympic Ode of Pindar, addressed to the Syracusan AgÊsias. The Scholiast on v. 5, of that ode,—who says that not AgÊsias himself, but some of his progenitors migrated from StymphÂlus to Syracuse,—is contradicted not only by the Scholiast on v. 167, where AgÊsias is rightly termed both ????? and S??a??s???; but also by the better evidence of Pindar’s own expressions,—s??????st?? te t?? ??e???? S??a??ss??,—?????e? ???ade, with reference to StymphÂlus and Syracuse,—d?’ ?????a? (v, 6, 99, 101 = 166-174).

ErgotelÊs, an exile from KnÔssus in Krete, must have migrated somewhere about this time to Himera in Sicily. See the twelfth Olympic Ode of Pindar.

[436] Herodot. viii, 26.

[437] Herodot. vii, 157. s? d? d?????? te ??e?? e?????, ?a? ???? t?? t?? ????d?? ??? ??a??st? ?ta, ?????t? ?e S??e????: and even still stronger, c. 163. ??? S??e???? t??a????.

The word ????? corresponds with ????, such as that of the Athenians, and is less strong than t??a????.

The numerical statement is contained in the speech composed by Herodotus for Gelo (vii, 158).

[438] Herodot. vii, 145. t? d? G?????? p???ata e???a ????et? e??a?? ??da?? ????????? t?? ?? p????? ???.

[439] Herodot. vii, 158. Gelo says to the envoys from Peloponnesus:—??d?e? ?????e?, ????? ????te? p?e????t??, ?t???sate ?? s?a??? ?p? t?? ??a??? pa?a?a????te? ???e??. ??t?? d?, ?e? p??te??? de????t?? a?a????? st?at?? s??ep??as?a?, ?te ?? p??? ?a???d?????? ?e???? s???pt?, ?p?s??pt??t?? te t?? ??????? t?? ??a?a?d??de? p??? ??esta??? f???? ??p???as?a?, ?p?te????t?? te t? ?p???a s??e?e??e????, ?p’ ?? ??? e???a? ?fe??a? te ?a? ?pa???s?e? ?e???as?? ??te ?e? e??e?a ???ete ????s??te?, ??te t?? ??????? f???? ??p????e???? t? d? ?at’ ??a? t?de ?pa?ta ?p? a?????s? ??eta?. ???? e? ??? ??? ?a? ?p? t? ?e???? ?at?st?? ??? d?, ?pe?d? pe??e?????e ? p??e?? ?a? ?p??ta? ?? ??a?, ??t? d? G?????? ??st?? ?????e.

It is much to be regretted that we have no farther information respecting the events which these words glance at. They seem to indicate that the Carthaginians and EgestÆans had made some encroachments, and threatened to make more: that Gelo had repelled them by actual and successful war. I think it strange, however, that he should be made to say: “You (the Peloponnesians) have derived great and signal advantages from these seaports;”—the profit derived from the latter by the Peloponnesians can never have been so great as to be singled out in this pointed manner. I should rather have expected, ?p’ ?? ??? (and not ?p’ ?? ???),—which must have been true in point of fact, and will be found to read quite consistently with the general purport of Gelo’s speech.

[440] Herodot. vii, 161, 162. Polybius (xii, 26) does not seem to have read this embassy as related by Herodotus,—or at least he must have preferred some other account of it;—he gives a different account of the answer which they made to Gelo: an answer (not insolent, but) business-like and evasive,—p?a?at???tat?? ?p????a, etc. See TimÆus, Fragm. 87, ed. Didot.

[441] Ephorus, Fragment. 111, ed. Didot; Diodor. xi, 1, 20. Mitford and Dahlmann (Forschungen, Herodotus, etc., sect. 35, p. 186) call in question this alliance or understanding between Xerxes and the Carthaginians; but on no sufficient grounds, in my judgment.

[442] Herodot. vii, 165; Diodor. xi, 23: compare also xiii, 55, 59. In like manner Rhegium and MessÊnÊ formed the opposing interest to Syracuse, under Dionysius the elder (Diodor. xiv, 44).

[443] Herodotus (vii, 165) and Diodorus (xi, 20) both give the number of the land-force: the latter alone gives that of the fleet.

[444] Herodot. vii, 165. The Ligyes came from the southern junction of Italy and France; the gulfs of Lyons and Genoa. The Helisyki cannot be satisfactorily verified: Niebuhr considers them to have been the Volsci: an ingenious conjecture.

[445] Polyb. i, 67. His description of the mutiny of the Carthaginian mercenaries, after the conclusion of the first Punic war, is highly instructive.

[446] Diodor. xi, 21-24.

[447] Herodotus, vii, 167. s?ata ??a ?ata?????. This passage of Herodotus receives illustration from the learned comment of MÖvers on the Phenician inscription recently discovered at Marseilles. It was the usual custom of the Jews, and it had been in old times the custom with the Phenicians (Porphyr. de Abstin. iv, 15), to burn the victim entire: the Phenicians departed from this practice, but the departure seems to have been considered as not strictly correct, and in times of great misfortune or anxiety the old habit was resumed (MÖvers, Das Opferwesen der Karthager. Breslau, 1847, pp. 71-118).

[448] Herodot. vii, 166, 167. Hamilkar was son of a Syracusan mother: a curious proof of connubium between Carthage and Syracuse. At the moment when the elder Dionysius declared war against Carthage, in 398 B.C., there were many Carthaginian merchants dwelling both in Syracuse and in other Greco-Sicilian cities, together with ships and other property. Dionysius gave license to the Syracusans, at the first instant when he had determined on declaring war, to plunder all this property (Diodor. xiv, 46). This speedy multiplication of Carthaginians with merchandise in the Grecian cities, so soon after a bloody war had been concluded, is a strong proof of the spontaneous tendencies of trade.

[449] Diodor. xiii, 62. According to Herodotus, the battle of Himera took place on the same day as that of Salamis; according to Diodorus, on the same day as that of ThermopylÆ. If we are forced to choose between the two witnesses, there can be no hesitation in preferring the former: but it seems more probable that neither is correct.

As far as we can judge from the brief allusions of Herodotus, he must have conceived the battle of Himera in a manner totally different from Diodorus. Under such circumstances, I cannot venture to trust the details given by the latter.

[450] I presume this treatment of Anaxilaus by Gelo must be alluded to in Diodorus, xi, 66: at least it is difficult to understand what other “great benefit” Gelo had conferred on Anaxilaus.

[451] Diodor. xi, 26.

[452] Schol. ad Pindar. Pyth. ii, 3; Plutarch, De Ser Numinis VindictÂ, p. 552, c. 6.

[453] Diodor. xx, 14.

[454] Pindar, Nem. ix, 67 (= 28 B.) with the Scholia.

[455] SimonidÊs, Epigr. 141, ed. Bergk.

[456] Herodot. vii, 163-165: compare Diodor. xi, 26; Ephorus, Fragm. 111, ed. Didot.

[457] Diodor. xi, 25. a? d? p??e?? e?? p?da? ?at?st?sa? t??? d?a??e???ta? a??a??t???, ?a? t? d??s?a t?? ????? d?? t??t?? ?pes?e?a???.

For analogous instances of captives taken in war being employed in public works by the captors, and laboring in chains, see the cases of Tegea and Samos in Herodot. i, 66; iii, 39.

[458] Diodor. xi, 25. Respecting slaves belonging to the public, and let out for hire to individual employers, compare the large financial project conceived by Xenophon, De Vectigalibus, capp. 3 and 4.

[459] Diodor. xi, 38, 67; Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 29; Aristotle, Ge???? ????te?a; Fragm. p. 106, ed. Neumann.

[460] Diodor. xi, 49.

[461] Diodor. xi, 72, 73.

[462] Diodor. xi, 67; Aristotel. Politic. v, 9, 3. In spite of the compliments directly paid by Pindar to Hiero (p?a?? ?st???, ?? f?????? ??a????, ?e????? d? ?a?ast?? pat??, Pyth. iii, 71 = 125), his indirect admonitions and hints sufficiently attest the real character (see Dissen ad Pindar. Pyth. i, and ii, pp. 161-182).

[463] Diodor. xi, 48; Schol. Pindar, Olymp. ii, 29.

[464] Schol. ad Pindar. Olymp. ii, 173. For the few facts which can be made out respecting the family and genealogy of ThÊro, see GÖller, De Situ et Origine Syracusarum, ch. vii, pp. 19-22. The Scholiasts of Pindar are occasionally useful in explaining his brief historical allusions; but they seem to have had very few trustworthy materials before them for so doing.

[465] Diodor. xi, 48, 49.

[466] The brazen helmet, discovered near the site of Olympia, with the name of Hiero and the victory at CumÆ inscribed on it, yet remains as an interesting relic to commemorate this event: it was among the offerings presented by Hiero to the Olympic Zeus: see Boechk, Corp. Inscriptt. GrÆc. No. 16, part i, p. 34.

[467] Diodor. xi, 51; Pindar, i, 74 (= 140); ii, 17 (= 35) with the Scholia; Epicharmus, Fragment, p. 19, ed. Krusemann; Schol. Pindar. Pyth. i, 98; Strabo, v, p. 247.

[468] ????? ????st?? ??t? t??????? ????e??? e??a?, ?at???? ??e??? ??t??? et???ase t?? p????, ?a?t?? ????st?? p??sa???e?sa? (Schol. ad Pindar. Nem. i, 1).

Compare the subsequent case of the foundation of Thurii, among the citizens of which violent disputes arose, in determining who should be recognized as oekist of the place. On referring to the oracle, Apollo directed them to commemorate himself as oekist (Diodor. xii, 35).

[469] Chromius ?p?t??p?? t?? ??t??? (Schol. Pind. Nem. ix, 1). About the Dorian institutions of Ætna, etc., Pindar, Pyth. i, 60-71.

DeinomenÊs survived his father, and commemorated the Olympic victories of the latter by costly offerings at Olympia (Pausan. vi, 12, 1).

[470] Pindar, Pyth. i, 60 (= 117); iii, 69 (= 121). Pindar. ap. Strabo. vi, p. 269. Compare Nemea, ix, 1-30, addressed to Chromius. Hiero is proclaimed in some odes as a Syracusan; but Syracuse and the newly-founded Ætna are intimately joined together: see Nemea, i, init.

[471] Justin, iv, 2.

[472] So I conceive the words of Diodorus are to be understood,—p?e?st?? t?? pa?ata?a???? ??????? p??? ?????a? ?pes?? (Diodor. xi, 53).

[473] Diodor. xi, 53. ??e? ?a??t?? ?ata???s?e?? ?te?e?t?se?. This is a remarkable specimen of the feeling in a foreign city towards an oppressive t??a????. The Megarians of Greece Proper were much connected with Sicily, through the HyblÆan Megara, as well as Selinus.

[474] Diodor. xi, 76. ?? ?at? t?? ??????? d??aste?a? ??pept???te? ?? t?? ?d??? p??e??—t??t?? d’ ?sa? Ge???? ?a? ???a?a?t???? ?a? ?e?a???.

[475] Hiero had married the daughter of Anaxilaus, but he seems also to have had two other wives,—the sister or cousin of ThÊro, and the daughter of a Syracusan named NikoklÊs: this last was the mother of his son DeinomenÊs (Schol. Pindar. Pyth. i, 112).

We read of Kleophron, son of Anaxilaus, governing MessÊnÊ during his father’s lifetime: probably this young man must have died, otherwise Mikythus would not have succeeded (Schol. Pindar. Pyth. ii, 34).

[476] Diodor. xi, 66.

[477] Aristotel. Politic. v, 8, 19. Diodorus does not mention the son of Gelo.

Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fasti Hellenici, App. chap. 10, p. 264, seq.) has discussed all the main points connected with Syracusan and Sicilian chronology.

[478] Xenophon, Hiero, iii, 8. ?? t????? ????e?? ?ata??e??, e???se?? ?? t??? ?d??ta? ?p? t??t?? ???sta f?????????, t??? d? t???????? p?????? ?? pa?da? ?a?t?? ?pe?t?????ta?, p?????? d’ ?p? pa?d?? a?t??? ?p?????ta?, p?????? d? ?de?f??? ?? t??a???s?? ??????f????? ?e?e???????, p?????? d? ?a? ?p? ???a???? t?? ?a?t?? t???????? d?ef?a??????, ?a? ?p? ?ta???? ?e t?? ???sta d?????t?? f???? e??a?: compare IsokratÊs, De Pace, Orat. viii, p. 182, § 138.

So also Tacitus (Hist. v, 9) respecting the native kings of JudÆa, after the expulsion of the Syrian dynasty: “Sibi ipsi reges imposuere: qui, mobilitate vulgi expulsi, resumpt per arma dominatione, fugas civium, urbium eversiones,—fratrum, conjugum, parentum, neces,— aliaque solita regibus ausi,” etc.

[479] Diodor. ix, 67, 68.

[480] Aristotel. Politic. v, 8, 23.

[481] Diodor. xi, 68.

[482] Diodor. xi, 76.

[483] Diodor. xi, 73. t?? te ???ad???? ?a? t?? ??s??? ?f?t???? t?? t?p?? t??t?? ????t?? ?d??? te????, ?a??? ?ates?e?as????.

Diodorus goes on to say that the general mass of citizens t? p??? t?? ?p?p???? tet?a???? a?t?? ?pete???sa?.,—if we could venture to construe this last word rigidly, we might suppose that the parts of the city, exterior to Achradina and the island, had before been unfortified.

Aristotle (Politic. v, 2, 11) mentions, as one of his illustrations of the mischief of receiving new citizens, that the Syracusans, after the Gelonian dynasty, admitted the foreign mercenaries to citizenship, and from hence came to sedition and armed conflict. But the incident cannot fairly be quoted in illustration of that principle which he brings it to support. The mercenaries, so long as the dynasty lasted, had been the first citizens in the community: after its overthrow, they became the inferior, and were rendered inadmissible to honors. It is hardly matter of surprise that so great a change of position excited them to rebel; but this is not a case properly adducible to prove the difficulty of adjusting matters with new-coming citizens.

After the expulsion of AgathoklÊs from Syracuse, nearly two centuries after these events, the same quarrel and sedition was renewed, by the exclusion of his mercenaries from magistracy and posts of honor (Diodor. xxi, Fragm. p. 282).

[484] Diodor. xi, 72, 73, 76.

[485] Diodorus, xiv, 7.

[486] Diodorus, xi, 76; Strabo, vi, 268. Compare, as an analogous event, the destruction of the tomb of Agnon, the oekist of Amphipolis, after the revolt of that city from Athens (Thucyd. v, 11).

[487] Diodor. xi, 76. et? d? ta?ta ?aa???a? ?? Ge???? ?at????sa?te? ?? ????? ?ate????????sa?.

See the note of Wesseling upon this passage. There can be little doubt that in Thucydides (vi, 5) the correction of ?at???s?? ?p? Ge???? (in place of ?p? G??????) is correct.

[488] Herodot. vii, 155.

[489] See the fourth and fifth Olympic odes of Pindar, referred to Olympiad 82, or 452 B.C., about nine years after the Geloans had reËstablished Kamarina. ??? ??????? ?d?a? (Olymp. v, 9); ?p’ ?a?a?Ía? ???? ?? f??? t??de d??? ?st?? (Olymp. v, 14).

[490] Diodor. xi. 86. p????? e??? ?a? ?? ?t??e pep???t???af?????.

[491] Herodot. vii, 170; Diodor. xi, 52. The latter asserts that the Iapygian victors divided their forces, part of them pursuing the Rhegian fugitives, the rest pursuing the Tarentines. Those who followed the former were so rapid in their movements, that they entered, he says, along with the fugitives into the town of Rhegium, and even became masters of it.

To say nothing of the fact, that Rhegium continues afterwards, as before, under the rule of Mikythus,—we may remark that Diodorus must have formed to himself a strange idea of the geography of southern Italy, to talk of pursuit and flight from Iapygia to Rhegium.

[492] Aristotel. Polit. v, 2, 8. Aristotle has another passage (vi, 3, 5) in which he comments on the government of Tarentum: and O. MÜller applies this second passage to illustrate the particular constitutional changes which were made after the Iapygian disaster. I think this juxtaposition of the two passages unauthorized: there is nothing at all to connect them together. See History of the Dorians, iii, 9, 14.

[493] Mr. Waddington’s Letters from Greece, describing the Greek revolution of 1821, will convey a good idea of the stupidity of Turkish warfare: compare also the second volume of the Memoirs of Baron de Tott, part iii.

[494] Thucyd. i, 69. ?p?st?e??? ?a? t?? ??a??? a?t?? pe?? a?t? t? p?e?? sfa???ta, etc.: compare Thucyd. vi, 33.

[495] Thucyd. i, 142. p???e? t?? ?a??a? ??as????te?, etc.

[496] See a remarkable passage in the third Philippic of DemosthenÊs, c. 10, p. 123.

[497]

[498] Thucyd. i. 89.

[499] Thucyd. i, 90. t? ?? ?a? a?t?? ?d??? ?? ????te? ?te ??e????? ?t’ ????? ?d??a te???? ????ta, t? d? p????, t?? ?????? ???t?????t?? ?a? f??????? t?? te ?a?t???? a?t?? t? p?????, ? p??? ??? ?p???e, ?a? t?? ?? t?? ??d???? p??e?? t??a? ?e??????.

[500] Thucyd. i. 91, t? ?? Te?st???e? ?pe????t? d?? f???a? a?t??.

[501] Thucyd. i. 91, ?? ??? ???? te e??a? ? ?p? ??t?p???? pa?as?e??? ????? t? ? ?s?? ?? t? ?????? ???e?es?a?. ? p??ta? ??? ?te???st??? ?f? ????a? ??a?e?? ? ?a? t?de ????e?? ????? ??e??.

[502] We are fortunate enough to possess this narrative, respecting the rebuilding of the walls of Athens, as recounted by ThucydidÊs. It is the first incident which he relates, in that general sketch of events between the Persian and Peloponnesian war, which precedes his professed history (i, 89-92). Diodorus (xi, 39, 40), Plutarch (ThemistoklÊs, c. 19), and Cornelius Nepos (Themist. c. 6, 7), seem all to have followed ThucydidÊs, though Plutarch also notices a statement of Theopompus, to the effect that ThemistoklÊs accomplished his object by bribing the ephors. This would not be improbable in itself,—nor is it inconsistent with the narrative of ThucydidÊs; but the latter either had not heard or did not believe it.

[503] Thucyd. i, 69. ?a? t??de ?e?? a?t??? (says the Corinthian envoy addressing the LacedÆmonians), t? te p??t?? ??sa?te? a?t??? (the Athenians) t?? p???? et? t? ??d??? ??at??a?, ?a? ?ste??? t? a??? st?sa? te???, etc.

[504] Thucyd. i, 93. Cornelius Nepos (Themist. c. 7) exaggerates this into a foolish conceit.

[505] For the dimensions and direction of the Themistoklean walls of Athens, see especially the excellent Treatise of Forchhammer—Topographie von Athen—published in the Kieler Philologische Studien. Kiel, 1841.

The plan of Athens, prepared by Kiepert after his own researches and published among his recent maps, adopts for the most part the ideas of Forchhammer, as to the course of the walls.

[506] Thucyd. i. 93. ?pe?se d? ?a? t?? ?e??a???? t? ???p? ? Te?st????? ????d?e?? (?p???t? d’ a?t?? p??te??? ?p? t?? ??e???? ?????, ?? ?at’ ???a?t?? ????a???? ???e).

Upon which words the Scholiast observes (?at’ ???a?t??)—?at? t??a ???a?t?? ??e?? ????et?? p?? d? t?? ??d???? ???e Te?st????? ???a?t?? ??a.

It seems hardly possible, having no fuller evidence to proceed upon, to determine to which of the preceding years ThucydidÊs means to refer this ???? of ThemistoklÊs. Mr. Fynes Clinton, after discussing the opinions of Dodwell and Corsini (see Fasti Hellenici, ad ann. 481 B.C. and Preface, p. xv), inserts ThemistoklÊs as archon eponymus in 481 B.C., the year before the invasion of Xerxes, and supposes the PeirÆus to have been commenced in that year. This is not in itself improbable: but he cites the Scholiast as having asserted the same thing before him (p?? t?? ??d???? ???e Te?st????? ???a?t?? ??a), in which I apprehend that he is not borne out by the analogy of the language: ???a?t?? ??a, in the accusative case, denotes only the duration of the ????, not the position of the year (compare Thucyd. iii, 68).

I do not feel certain that ThucydidÊs meant to designate ThemistoklÊs as having been archon eponymus, or as having been one of the nine archons. He may have meant, “during the year when ThemistoklÊs was stratÊgus (or general),” and the explanation of the Scholiast, who employs the word ??e??, rather implies that he so understood it. The stratÊgi were annual as well as the archons. Now we know that ThemistoklÊs was one of the generals in 480 B.C., and that he commanded in Thessaly, at Artemisium, and at Salamis. The PeirÆus may have been begun in the early part of 480 B.C., when Xerxes was already on his march, or at least at Sardis.

[507] Thucyd. ii, 13.

[508] Thucyd. i, 93.

[509] Thucyd. i, 93. ?? d? ???? ??s? ???sta ?te??s?? ?? d?e??e?t?? ????et? ??? t? e???e? ?a? t? p??e? ?f?st??a? t?? t?? p??e??? ?p??????, ?????p?? d? ?????e? ?????? ?a? t?? ???e??t?t?? ????se?? t?? f??a???, t??? d’ ?????? ?? t?? ?a?? ?s?ses?a?.

[510] Thucyd. i, 93. The expressions are those of Colonel Leake, derived from inspection of the scanty remnant of these famous walls still to be seen—Topography of Athens, ch. ix, p. 411: see edit. p. 293, Germ. transl. Compare Aristophan. Aves, 1127, about the breadth of the wall of Nephelokokkygia.

[511] Thucyd. i, 93 (compare Cornel. Nepos, Themistok. c. 6) ta?? ?a?s? p??? ?pa?ta? ????stas?a?.

[512] Diodor. xi, 43.

[513] See the lively picture of the Acharnian demots in the comedy of AristophanÊs so entitled.

Respecting the advantages derived from the residence of metics and from foreign visitors, compare the observations of IsokratÊs, more than a century after this period, Orat. iv, De Pace, p. 163, and Xenophon, De Vectigalibus, c. iv.

[514] Diodor. xi, 43.

[515] Diodor. xi, 41, 42, 43. I mean, that the fact of such an embassy being sent to Sparta is probable enough,—separating that fact from the preliminary discussions which Diodorus describes as having preceded it in the assembly of Athens, and which seem unmeaning as well as incredible. His story—that ThemistoklÊs told the assembly that he had a conceived scheme of great moment to the state, but that it did not admit of being made public beforehand, upon which the assembly named AristeidÊs and Xanthippus to hear it confidentially and judge of it—seems to indicate that Diodorus had read the well-known tale of the project of ThemistoklÊs to burn the Grecian fleet in the harbor of PagasÆ, and that he jumbled it in his memory with this other project for enlarging and fortifying the PeirÆus.

[516] Thucyd. i, 94; Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 23. Diodorus (xi, 44) says that the Peloponnesian ships were fifty in number: his statement is not to be accepted, in opposition to ThucydidÊs.

[517] Thucyd. i, 94.

[518] See the volume of this history immediately preceding, ch. xxxvi, p. 372.

[519] Herodot. ix, 81.

[520] In the Athenian inscriptions on the votive offerings dedicated after the capture of Eion, as well as after the great victories near the river Eurymedon, the name of Kimon the commander is not even mentioned (Plutarch, Kimon, c. 7; Diodor. xi, 62).

A strong protest, apparently familiar to Grecian feeling, against singling out the general particularly, to receive the honors of victory, appears in Euripid. Andromach. 694: striking verses, which are said to have been indignantly repeated by Kleitus, during the intoxication of the banquet wherein he was slain by Alexander (Quint. Curtius, viii, 4, 29 (viii, 4); Plutarch, Alexand. c. 51).

[522] Diodor. xi, 44.

[523] Arrian. Exp. Alex. iv, 7, 7; vii, 8, 4; Quint. Curt. vi, 6, 10 (vi, 21, 11).

[524] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 6; also Plutarch, De Ser. Numin. Vind. c. 10, p. 555. Pausanias, iii, 17, 8. It is remarkable that the latter heard the story of the death of KleonikÊ from the lips of a Byzantine citizen of his own day, and seems to think that it had never found place in any written work.

[525] Thucyd. i, 95-131: compare Duris and Nymphis apud AthenÆum, xii, p. 535.

[526] Herodot. viii, 2, 3. Compare the language of the Athenian envoy, as it stands in Herodotus (vii, 155) addressed to Gelo.

[527] Thucyd. i, 95. ?????? a?t??? ??e??a? sf?? ?e??s?a? ?at? t? ????e??? ?a? ?a?sa??? ? ?p?t??pe?? ?? p?? ????ta?.

[528] 2 Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 23.

[529] Thucyd. i, 95; Diodorus, xi, 44-47.

[530] Thucyd. i, 95. Following ThucydidÊs in his conception of these events, I have embodied in the narrative as much as seems consistent with it in Diodorus (xi, 50), who evidently did not here copy ThucydidÊs, but probably had Ephorus for his guide. The name of Hetoemaridas, as an influential Spartan statesman on this occasion, is probable enough; but his alleged speech on the mischiefs of maritime empire, which Diodorus seems to have had before him, composed by Ephorus, would probably have represented the views and feelings of the year 350 B.C., and not those of 476 B.C. The subject would have been treated in the same manner as IsokratÊs, the master of Ephorus, treats it, in his Crat. viii, De Pace, pp. 179, 180.

[531] Xenophon, Hellen. vi, 5, 34. It was at the moment when the Spartans were soliciting Athenian aid, after their defeat at Leuktra. ?p????s???te? ??, ?? t?? ??a??? ????? ?pea??sa?t?—??a???s???te? d?, ?? ????a??? te ?p? t?? ??????? ?????sa? ??e??e? t?? ?a?t????, ?a? t?? ?????? ????t?? f??a?e?, t?? ?a?eda?????? ta?ta s?????????? a?t?? te ?at? ??? ??????????? ?f’ ?p??t?? t?? ??????? ??e??e? p??????e??sa?, s????????? a? ta?ta t?? ????a???.

[532] Herodot. vi, 72; Diodor. xi, 48; Pausanias, iii, 7, 8: compare Plutarch, De Herodoti Malign. c. 21, p. 859.

LeotychidÊs died, according to Diodorus, in 476 B.C.: he had commanded at MykalÊ in 479 B.C. The expedition into Thessaly must therefore have been in one of the two intermediate years, if the chronology of Diodorus were, in this case, thoroughly trustworthy. But Mr. Clinton (Fasti Hellenici, Appendix, ch. iii, p. 210) has shown that Diodorus is contradicted by Plutarch, about the date of the accession of Archidamus,—and by others, about the date of the revolt at Sparta. Mr. Clinton places the accession of Archidamus and the banishment of LeotychidÊs (of course, therefore, the expedition into Thessaly) in 469 B.C. I incline to believe that the expedition of LeotychidÊs against the Thessalian AleuadÆ took place in the year or in the second year following the battle of PlatÆa, because they had been the ardent and hearty allies of Mardonius in Boeotia, and because the war would seem not to have been completed without putting them down and making the opposite party in Thessaly predominant.

Considering how imperfectly we know the LacedÆmonian chronology of this date, it is very possible that some confusion may have arisen in the case of LeotychidÊs, from the difference between the date of his banishment and that of his death. King Pleistoanax afterwards, having been banished for the same offence as that committed by LeotychidÊs, and having lived many years in banishment, was afterwards restored: and the years which he had passed in banishment were counted as a part of his reign (Fast. Hellen. l. c. p. 211). The date of Archidamus may, perhaps, have been reckoned in one account from the banishment of LeotychidÊs,—in another, from his death; the rather, as Archidamus must have been very young, since he reigned forty-two years even after 469 B.C. And the date which Diodorus has given as that of the death of LeotychidÊs, may really be only the date of his banishment, in which he lived until 469 B.C.

[533] Thucyd. i, 18.

[534] Thucyd. i, 18. ?a? e????? ???d???? ?p???eas???t?? ?? te ?a?eda?????? t?? ??p??e?s??t?? ??????? ???sa?t? d???e? p??????te?, ?a? ?? ????a???, d?a??????te? ????pe?? t?? p???? ?a? ??as?e?as?e???, ?? t?? ?a?? ???te? ?a?t???? ??????t?. ????? d? ?p?s?e??? t?? ??a???, ?ste??? ?? p???? d?e?????sa? p??? te ????a???? ?a? ?a?eda???????, ?? te ?p?st??te? as????? ?????e? ?a? ?? ??p??e?sa?te?. ????e? ??? ta?ta ???sta d?ef???? ?s???? ??? ?? ?? ?at? ???, ?? d? ?a?s?. ?a? ?????? ?? ?????? s???e??e? ? ?a???a, ?pe?ta d? d?e?e????te? ?? ?a?eda?????? ?a? ?? ????a??? ?p????sa? et? t?? ?????? p??? ????????? ?a? t?? ????? ??????? e?t???? p?? d?asta?e?, p??? t??t??? ?d? ???????. ?ste ?p? t?? ??d???? ?? t??de ?e? t?? p??e??, etc.

This is a clear and concise statement of the great revolution in Grecian affairs, comparing the period before and after the Persian war. ThucydidÊs goes on to trace briefly the consequences of this bisection of the Grecian world into two great leagues,—the growing improvement in military skill, and the increasing stretch of military effort on both sides from the Persian invasion down to the Peloponnesian war;—he remarks also, upon the difference between Sparta and Athens in their way of dealing with their allies respectively. He then states the striking fact, that the military force put forth separately by Athens and her allies on the one side, and by Sparta and her allies on the other, during the Peloponnesian war, were each of them greater than the entire force which had been employed by both together in the most powerful juncture of their confederacy against the Persian invaders,—?a? ????et? a?t??? ?? t??de t?? p??e?? ? ?d?a pa?as?e?? e???? ? ?? t? ???t?st? p?te et? ???a?f???? t?? ??a??a? ????sa? (i, 19).

I notice this last passage especially (construing it as the Scholiast seems to do), not less because it conveys an interesting comparison, than because it has been understood by Dr. Arnold, GÖller, and other commentators, in a sense which seems to me erroneous. They interpret thus: a?t??? to mean the Athenians only, and not the LacedÆmonians,—? ?d?a pa?as?e?? to denote the forces equipped by Athens herself, apart from her allies,—and ???a?f???? ??a??a? to refer “to the Athenian alliance only, at a period a little before the conclusion of the thirty years’ treaty, when the Athenians were masters not only of the islands, and the Asiatic Greek colonies, but had also united to their confederacy Boeotia and Achaia on the continent of Greece itself.” (Dr. Arnold’s note.) Now so far, as the words go, the meaning assigned by Dr. Arnold might be admissible; but if we trace the thread of ideas in ThucydidÊs, we shall see that the comparison, as these commentators conceive it, between Athens alone and Athens aided by her allies—between the Athenian empire as it stood during the Peloponnesian war, and the same empire as it had stood before the thirty years’ truce—is quite foreign to his thoughts. Nor had ThucydidÊs said one word to inform the reader, that the Athenian empire at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war had diminished in magnitude, and thus was no longer ???a?f???: without which previous notification, the comparison supposed by Dr. Arnold could not be clearly understood. I conceive that there are two periods, and two sets of circumstances, which, throughout all this passage, ThucydidÊs means to contrast: first, confederate Greece at the time of the Persian war; next, bisected Greece in a state of war, under the double headship of Sparta and Athens. ??t??? refers as much to Sparta as to Athens—???a?f???? t?? ??a??a? means what had been before expressed by ?a???a—and p?te set against t??de t?? p??e??, is equivalent to the expression which had before been used—?p? t?? ??d???? ?? t??de ?e? t?? p??e??.

[535] Thucyd. v, 18; Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 24. Plutarch states that the allies expressly asked the Athenians to send AristeidÊs for the purpose of assessing the tribute. This is not at all probable: AristeidÊs, as commander of the Athenian contingent under Pausanias, was at Byzantium when the mutiny of the Ionians against Pausanias occurred, and was the person to whom they applied for protection. As such, he was the natural person to undertake such duties as devolved upon Athens, without any necessity of supposing that he was specially asked for to perform it.

Plutarch farther states that a certain contribution had been levied from the Greeks towards the war, even during the headship of Sparta. This statement also is highly improbable. The headship of Sparta covers only one single campaign, in which Pausanias had the command: the Ionic Greeks sent their ships to the fleet, which would be held sufficient, and there was no time for measuring commutations into money.

Pausanias states, but I think quite erroneously, that the name of AristeidÊs was robbed of its due honor because he was the first person who ?ta?e f????? t??? ????s? (Pausan. viii, 52, 2). Neither the assessment nor the name of AristeidÊs was otherwise than popular.

Aristotle employs the name of AristeidÊs as a symbol of unrivalled probity (Rhetoric. ii, 24, 2).

[536] Thucyd. i, 95, 96.

[537] Herodot. vii, 106. ?pa???? ?? t? T????? ?a? t?? ????sp??t?? pa?ta??. ??t?? ?? p??te?, ?? te ?? T?????? ?a? t?? ????sp??t??, p??? t?? ?? ????s??, ?p? ??????? ?ste??? ta?t?? t?? st?at??as??? ???????sa?, etc.

[538] Thucyd. v, 18. ??? d? p??e??, fe???sa? t?? f???? t?? ?p’ ???ste?d??, a?t?????? e??a?.... e?s? d?, ???????, St??e????, ??a????, S?????, ???????, Sp??t????.

[539] Cornelius Nepos states that he was fined (Pausanias, c. 2), which is neither noticed by ThucydidÊs, nor at all probable, looking at the subsequent circumstances connected with him.

[540] Thucyd. i, 130, 131. ?a? ?? t?? ???a?t??? ?? ?p? t?? ????a??? ??p????????e??, etc.: these words seem to imply that he had acquired a strong position in the town.

[541] It is to this time that I refer the mission of Arthmius of Zeleia (an Asiatic town, between Mount Ida and the southern coast of the Propontis) to gain over such Greeks as he could by means of Persian gold. In the course of his visit to Greece, Arthmius went to Athens: his purpose was discovered, and he was compelled to flee: while the Athenians, at the instance of ThemistoklÊs, passed an indignant decree, declaring him and his race enemies of Athens, and of all the allies of Athens,—and proclaiming that whoever should slay him would be guiltless; because he had brought in Persian gold to bribe the Greeks. This decree was engraven on a brazen column, and placed on record in the acropolis, where it stood near the great statue of AthÊnÊ Promachos, even in the time of DemosthenÊs and his contemporary orators. See Demosthen. Philippic. iii, c. 9, p. 122, and De Fals. Legat. c. 76, p. 428; Æschin. cont. Ktesiphont. ad fin. Harpokrat. v. ?t???—Deinarchus cont. Aristogeiton, sects. 25, 26.

Plutarch (ThemistoklÊs, c. 6, and AristeidÊs, tom. ii, p. 218) tells us that ThemistoklÊs proposed this decree against Arthmius and caused it to be passed. But Plutarch refers it to the time when Xerxes was on the point of invading Greece. Now it appears to me that the incident cannot well belong to that point of time. Xerxes did not rely upon bribes, but upon other and different means, for conquering Greece: besides, the very tenor of the decree shows that it must have been passed after the formation of the confederacy of Delos,—for it pronounces Arthmius to be an enemy of Athens and of all the allies of Athens. To a native of Zeleia it might be a serious penalty to be excluded and proscribed from all the cities in alliance with Athens; many of them being on the coast of Asia. I know no point of time to which the mission of Arthmius can be so conveniently referred as this,—when Pausanias and Artabazus were engaged in this very part of Asia, in contriving plots to get up a party in Greece. Pausanias was thus engaged for some years,—before the banishment of ThemistoklÊs.

[542] Thucyd. i, 131. ? d? ????e??? ?? ???sta ?p?pt?? e??a? ?a? p?ste??? ???as? d?a??se?? t?? d?a????, ??e???e? t? de?te??? ?? Sp??t??.

[543] Thucyd. i, 131. ?a? ?? ?? t?? e???t?? ?sp?pte? t? p??t?? ?p? t?? ?f????? ?pe?ta d?ap?a??e??? ?ste??? ?????e, ?a? ?a??st?s?? ?a?t?? ?? ???s?? t??? ????????? pe?? a?t?? ?????e??.

The word d?ap?a??e??? indicates, first, that Pausanias himself originated the efforts to get free,—next, that he came to an underhand arrangement: very probably by a bribe, though the word does not necessarily imply it. The Scholiast says so, distinctly,—???as? ?a? ?????? d?ap?a??e??? d?????t? d?a????s?e??? t?? ?at?????a?. Dr. Arnold translates d?ap?a??e???, “having settled the business.”

[544] Aristotel. Politic. iv, 13, 13; v, 1, 5; v, 6, 2; Herodot. v, 32. Aristotle calls Pausanias king, though he was only regent: the truth is, that he had all the power of a Spartan king, and seemingly more, if we compare his treatment with that of the Prokleid king LeotychidÊs.

[545] Thucyd. i, 132. ? ????? t?? te?e?ta?a? as??e? ?p?st???? p??? ??t?a??? ???e??, ???? ????????, etc.

[546] Diodor. xi, 45; Cornel. Nepos, Pausan. c. 5; PolyÆn. viii, 51.

[547] Thucyd. i, 133, 134: Pausanias, iii, 17, 9.

[548] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 8.

[549] Aristotel. Politic. v, 3, 5. ?a? p???? ? ?a?t???? ?????, ?e??e??? a?t??? t?? pe?? Sa?a??a ?????, ?a? d?? ta?t?? t?? ??e???a? ?a? d?? t?? ?at? ???assa? d??a??, t?? d???at?a? ?s????t??a? ?p???se?.

? ?a?t???? ????? (Thucyd. viii, 72 and passim).

[550] For the constitution of KleisthenÊs, see vol. iv, of this History, ch. xxxi, p. 142, seqq.

[551] Herod. vi, 109.

[552] Aristotel. ????te??? Fragm. xlvii, ed. Neumann; Harpokration, v. ????a????; Pollux, viii, 91: compare Meier und SchÖmann, Der Attische Prozess, ch. ii, p. 50, seqq.

[553] See Aristotel. ????te??? Fragm. ii, v, xxiii, xxxviii, l, ed. Neumann; SchÖmann, Antiqq. Jur. Publ. GrÆc. c. xli, xlii, xliii.

[554] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 16; Scholion 2, ad Aristophan. Equit. 84.

[555] Plutarch (ThemistoklÊs, c. 22; Kimon, c. 5-8; AristeidÊs, c. 25); Diodorus, xi, 54.

[556] Plutarch, Themist. c. 21

[557] This accusation of treason brought against ThemistoklÊs at Athens, prior to his ostracism, and at the instigation of the LacedÆmonians,—is mentioned by Diodorus (xi, 54). ThucydidÊs and Plutarch take notice only of the second accusation, after his ostracism. But Diodorus has made his narrative confused, by supposing the first accusation preferred at Athens to have come after the full detection of Pausanias and exposure of his correspondence; whereas these latter events, coming after the first accusation, supplied new proofs before unknown, and thus brought on the second, after ThemistoklÊs had been ostracized. But Diodorus has preserved to us the important notice of this first accusation at Athens, followed by trial, acquittal, and temporary glorification of ThemistoklÊs,—and preceding his ostracism.

The indictment stated by Plutarch to have been preferred against ThemistoklÊs by LeÔbotas son of AlkmÆon, at the instance of the Spartans, probably relates to the first accusation at which ThemistoklÊs was acquitted. For when ThemistoklÊs was arraigned after the discovery of Pausanias, he did not choose to stay, nor was there any actual trial: it is not, therefore, likely that the name of the accuser would be preserved,—? d? ??a??e??? a?t?? p??d?s?a? ?e??t?? ?? ???a?????, ?a s??epa?t?????? t?? Spa?t?at?? (Plutarch, Themist. c. 23).

Compare the second Scholion on Aristophan. Equit. 84, and AristeidÊs, Orat. xlvi, ?p?? t?? ?ett???? (vol. ii, p. 318, ed. Dindorf, p. 243, Jebb).

[558] Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 25.

[559] Diodor. xi, 54. t?te ?? ?p?f??e t?? t?? p??d?s?a? ???s??? d?? ?a? t? ?? p??t?? et? t?? ?p???s?? ??a? ?? pa?? t??? ????a????? ???p?? ??? a?t?? d?afe???t?? ?? p???ta?? et? d? ta?ta, ?? ??, f?????te? a?t?? t?? ?pe?????, ?? d?, f????sa?te? t? d???, t?? ?? e?e??es??? ?pe?????t?, t?? d? ?s??? ?a? t? f????a tape????? ?spe?d??.

[560] Thucyd. i, 137. ???e ??? a?t? ?ste??? ?? te ?????? pa?? t?? f????, ?a? ?? ?????? ? ?pe???e?t?, etc.

I follow Mr. Fynes Clinton, in considering the year 471 B.C. to be the date of the ostracism of ThemistoklÊs. It may probably be so, nor is there any evidence positively to contradict it: but I think Mr. Clinton states it too confidently, as he admits that Diodorus includes, in the chapters which he devotes to one archon, events which must have happened in several different years (see Fast. Hellen. B.C. 471).

After the expedition under the command of Pausanias in 478 B.C., we have no one date at once certain and accurate, until we come to the death of Xerxes, where Diodorus is confirmed by the Canon of the Persian kings, B.C. 465. This last event determines by close approximation and inference, the flight of ThemistoklÊs, the siege of Naxos, and the death of Pausanias: for the other events of this period, we are reduced to a more vague approximation, and can ascertain little beyond their order of succession.

[561] Thucyd. i, 135; Ephorus ap. Plutarch. de Malign. Herodoti, c. 5, p. 855; Diodor. xi, 54; Plutarch, Themist. c. 23.

[562] Diodor. xi, 55.

[563] Thucyd. i, 137. Cornelius Nepos (Themist. c. 8) for the most part follows ThucydidÊs, and professes to do so; yet he is not very accurate, especially about the relations between ThemistoklÊs and AdmÊtus. Diodorus (xi, 56) seems to follow chiefly other guides: also to a great extent Plutarch (Themist. c. 24-26). There were evidently different accounts of his voyage, which represented him as reaching, not Ephesus, but the Æolic KymÊ. Diodorus does not notice his voyage by sea.

[564] Plutarch, Themist. c. 25; also Kritias ap. Ælian. V. H. x, 17: compare Herodot. viii, 12.

[565] Diodor. xi, 56; Plutarch, Themist. c. 24-30.

[566] “Proditionem ultrÒ imputabant (says Tacitus, Hist. ii, 60, respecting Paullinus and Proculus, the generals of the army of Otho, when they surrendered to Vitellius after the defeat at Bebriacum), spatium longi ante proelium itineris, fatigationem Othonianorum, permixtum vehiculis agmen, ac pleraque fortuita fraudi suÆ assignantes.—Et Vitellius credidit de perfidiÂ, et fraudem absolvit.”

[567] Plutarch, Themist. c. 28.

[568] Thucyd. i, 138; Diodor. xi, 57. Besides the three above-named places, NeanthÊs and Phanias described the grant as being still fuller and more specific: they stated that PerkÔtÊ was granted to ThemistoklÊs for bedding, and PalÆskÊpsis for clothing (Plutarch, Themist. c. 29; AthenÆus, i, p. 29).

This seems to have been a frequent form of grants from the Persian and Egyptian kings, to their queens, relatives, or friends,—a grant nominally to supply some particular want or taste: see Dr. Arnold’s note on the passage of ThucydidÊs. I doubt his statement, however, about the land-tax, or rent; I do not think that it was a tenth or a fifth of the produce of the soil in these districts which was granted to ThemistoklÊs, but the portion of regal revenue, or tribute, levied in them. The Persian kings did not take the trouble to assess and collect the tribute: they probably left that to the inhabitants themselves, provided the sum total were duly paid.

[569] Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 31. p?a??e??? pe?? t?? ?s?a?: this statement seems probable enough, though Plutarch rejects it.

[570] Thucyd. i, 138. ??s?sa? d? te?e?t? t?? ???? ?????s? d? t??e? ?a? ????s??? fa???? ?p??a?e?? a?t??, ?d??at?? ???sa?ta e??a? ?p?te??sa? as??e? ? ?p?s?et?.

This current story, as old as AristophanÊs (Equit. 83, compare the Scholia), alleged that ThemistoklÊs had poisoned himself by drinking bull’s blood (see Diodor. xi, 58), who assigns to this act of taking poison a still more sublime patriotic character by making it part of a design on the part of ThemistoklÊs to restrain the Persian king from warring against Greece.

Plutarch (Themist. c. 31, and Kimon, c. 18) and Diodorus both state, as an unquestionable fact, that ThemistoklÊs died by poisoning himself: omitting even to notice the statement of ThucydidÊs, that he died of disease. Cornelius Nepos (Themist. c. 10) follows ThucydidÊs. Cicero (Brutus, c. 11) refers the story of the suicide by poison to Clitarchus and StratoklÊs, recognizing it as contrary to ThucydidÊs. He puts into the mouth of his fellow dialogist, Atticus, a just rebuke of the facility with which historical truth was sacrificed to rhetorical purpose.

[571] Thucyd. i, 138. t? d? ?st? fas? ???s???a? a?t?? ?? p??s????te? ???ade ?e?e?sa?t?? ??e????, ?a? te???a? ???fa ????a??? ?? t? ?tt???? ?? ??? ???? ??pte??, ?? ?p? p??d?s?? fe????t??.

Cornelius Nepos, who here copies ThucydidÊs, gives this statement by mistake, as if ThucydidÊs had himself affirmed it: “Idem (sc. ThucydidÊs) ossa ejus clam in Attic ab amicis sepulta, quoniam legibus non concederetur, quod proditionis esset damnatus, memoriÆ prodidit.” This shows the haste or inaccuracy with which these secondary authors so often cite: ThucydidÊs is certainly not a witness for the fact: if anything, he may be said to count somewhat against it.

Plutarch (Themist. c. 32) shows that the burial-place of ThemistoklÊs, supposed to be in Attica, was yet never verified before his time: the guides of Pausanias, however, in the succeeding century, had become more confident (Pausanias, i, 1, 3).

[572] Respecting the probity of AristeidÊs, see an interesting fragment of Eupolis, the comic writer (????, Fragm, iv, p. 457, ed. Meineke).

[573] Plutarch, Arist. c. 26, 27; Cornelius Nepos. Arist. c. 3: compare Aristophan. Vesp. 53.

[574] Plutarch, Themist. c. 5-32.

[575] Thucyd. i, 94. ??ep???????sa? (?????t???) ?? t?de t? ??e????, i.e. under the Spartan hegemony, before the Athenians were invited to assume the hegemony: compare ???s?e???, i, 77, and Herodot. viii, 2, 3. Next, we have (i, 95) f??t??t?? te (the Ionians, etc.) p??? t??? ????a???? ?????? a?t??? ??e??a? sf?? ?e??s?a? ?at? t? ????e???. Again, When the Spartans send out Dorkis in place of Pausanias, the allies ????t? ?f?esa? t?? ??e???a?. Then, as to the ensuing proceedings of the Athenians (i, 96)—pa?a?a??te? d? ?? ????a??? t?? ??e???a? t??t? t? t??p? ????t?? t?? ?????? d?? t? ?a?sa???? ?s??, etc.: compare i. 75,—??? d? p??se????t?? t?? ?????? ?a? a?t?? de????t?? ??e??a? ?atast??a?, and vi, 76.

Then the transition from the ??e???a to the ???? (i, 97)—????e??? d? a?t????? t? p??t?? t?? ?????? ?a? ?p? ?????? ????d?? ???e???t??, t?sade ?p????? p???? te ?a? d?a?e???se? p?a??t?? eta?? t??de t?? p????? ?a? t?? ??d????.

ThucydidÊs then goes on to say, that he shall notice these “many strides in advance” which Athens made, starting from her original hegemony, so as to show in what manner the Athenian empire, or ????, was originally formed,—?a d? ?a? t?? ????? ?p?de???? ??e? t?? t?? ????a???, ?? ??? t??p? ?at?st?. The same transition from the ??e???a to the ???? is described in the oration of the Athenian envoy at Sparta, shortly before the Peloponnesian war (i, 75): but as it was rather the interest of the Athenian orator to confound the difference between ??e???a and ????, so, after he has clearly stated what the relation of Athens to her allies had been at first, and how it afterwards became totally changed, ThucydidÊs makes him slur over the distinction, and say,—??t?? ??d’ ?e?? ?a?ast?? ??d?? pep????ae? ... e? ????? te d?d????? ?de??e?a ?a? ta?t?? ? ??e?e?, etc.; and he then proceeds to defend the title of Athens to command on the ground of superior force and worth: which last plea is advanced a few years afterwards, still more nakedly and offensively, by the Athenian speakers. Read also the language of the Athenian EuphÊmus at Kamarina (vi, 82), where a similar confusion appears, as being suitable to the argument.

It is to be recollected that the word hegemony, or headship, is extremely general, denoting any case of following a leader, and of obedience, however temporary, qualified, or indeed little more than honorary. Thus it is used by the Thebans to express their relation towards the Boeotian confederated towns (??e??e?es?a? ?f’ ???, Thuc. iii, 61, where Dr. Arnold draws attention to the distinction between that verb and ???e??, and holds language respecting the Athenian ????, more precise than his language in the note ad Thucyd. i, 94), and by the Corinthians to express their claims as metropolis of Korkyra, which were really little more than honorary,—?p? t? ??e??e? te e??a? ?a? t? e???ta ?a???es?a? (Thucyd. i, 38): compare vii, 55. Indeed, it sometimes means simply a guide (iii, 98; vii, 50).

But the words ????, ???e??, ???es?a?, voc. pass., are much less extensive in meaning, and imply both superior dignity and coercive authority to a greater or less extent: compare Thucyd. v, 69; ii, 8, etc. The p???? ???? ????sa is analogous to ???? t??a???? (vi, 85).

Herodotus is less careful in distinguishing the meanings of these words than ThucydidÊs: see the discussion of the LacedÆmonian and Athenian envoys with Gelo (vii. 155-162). But it is to be observed that he makes Gelo ask for the ??e???a and not for the ????,—putting the claim in the least offensive form: compare also the claim of the Argeians for ??e???a (vii, 148).

[576] Thucyd. i, 97. t??? p?? ??? ?pas?? ????p?? ?? t??t? t? ??????, ?a? ? t? p?? t?? ??d???? ???et??esa? ? a?t? t? ??d???? t??t?? d? ?spe? ?a? ??at? ?? t? ?tt??? ?????af? ?????????, ?a???? te ?a? t??? ??????? ??? ?????? ?pe??s??.

Hellanikus, therefore, had done no more than touch upon the events of this period: and he found so little good information within his reach as to fall into chronological blunders.

[577] Thucyd. i, 93. t?? ??? d? ?a??ss?? p??t?? ?t???se? e?pe?? ?? ???e?t?a ?st?, ?a? t?? ????? e???? ????ates?e?a?e?.

Dr. Arnold says in his note, “e???? signifies probably immediately after the retreat of the Persians.” I think it refers to an earlier period,—that point of time when ThemistoklÊs first counselled the building of the fleet, or at least when he counselled them to abandon their city and repose all their hopes in their fleet. It is only by this supposition that we get a reasonable meaning for the words ?t???se e?pe??, “he was the first who dared to say,”—which implies a counsel of extraordinary boldness. “For he was the first who dared to advise them to grasp at the sea, and from that moment forward he helped to establish their empire.” The word ????ates?e?a?e seems to denote a collateral consequence, not directly contemplated, though perhaps divined, by ThemistoklÊs.

[578] Thucyd. i, 97 ???a?a d? a?t? ?a? t?? ?????? t?? ????? ?p???s??? d?? t?de, etc.

[579] Herodot. vii, 106, 107. ?at?stasa? ??? ?t? p??te??? ta?t?? t?? ???s??? ?pa???? ?? t? T????? ?a? t?? ????sp??t?? pa?ta??. ??t?? ?? p??te?, ?? te ?? T?????? ?a? t?? ????sp??t??, p??? t?? ?? ????s??, ?p? ??????? ?ste??? ta?t?? t?? st?at??as??? ???????sa?? t?? d? ?? ????s?? ?as???? ??da?? ?? ?d???s??sa? ??e?e??, p????? pe???sa????.

The loose chronology of Plutarch is little to be trusted; but he, too, acknowledges the continuance of Persian occupations in Thrace, by aid of the natives, until a period later than the battle of the Eurymedon (Plutarch, Kimon, c. 14).

It is a mistake to suppose, with Dr. Arnold, in his note on Thucyd. viii, 62, “that Sestus was almost the last place held by the Persians in Europe.”

Weissenborn (Hellen oder BeitrÄge zur genaueren Erforschung der altgriechischen Geschichte, Jena, 1844, p. 144, note 31) has taken notice of this important passage of Herodotus, as well as of that in Plutarch; but he does not see how much it embarrasses all attempts to frame a certain chronology for those two or three events which ThucydidÊs gives us between 476-466 B.C.

[580] Kutzen (De Atheniensium Imperio Cimonis atque Periclis tempore constituto. GrimÆ, 1837. Commentatio, i, p. 8) has good reason to call in question the stratagem ascribed to Kimon by Pausanias (viii, 8, 2) for the capture of Eion.

[581] To these “remaining operations against the Persians” the Athenian envoy at LacedÆmon alludes, in his speech prior to the Peloponnesian war—??? ?? (you Spartans) ??? ??e??s??t?? pa?ae??a? p??? t? ?p????pa t?? a?????, ??? d? p??se????t?? t?? ?????? ?a? a?t?? de????t?? ??e??a? ?atast??a?, etc. (Thucyd. i, 75:) and again, iii, 11. t? ?p????pa t?? ?????.

Compare also Plato, Menexen. c. 11. a?t?? d? ??????et? as??e?? d?a??e?s?a? ?? ?p??e???s?? p???? ?p? t??? ?????a?, etc.

[583] Plutarch. AristeidÊs. c. 24.

[584] Such concurrence of the general synod is in fact implied in the speech put by ThucydidÊs into the mouth of the MitylenÆan envoys at Olympia, in the third year of the Peloponnesian war: a speech pronounced by parties altogether hostile to Athens (Thucyd. iii, 11)—?a ?? ??? a?t???? ?????t? (the Athenians) ? ?? t??? ?e ?s???f??? ????ta?, e? ? t? ?d????? ??? ?p?esa?, ??st?ate?e??.

[585] Thucyd. i, 97-99. ??t?a? d? ???a? ?sa? t?? ?p?st?se??, ?a? ???sta?, a? t?? f???? ?a? ?e?? ??de?a? ?a? ??p?st??t???, e? t? ????et?? ?? ??? ????a??? ?????? ?p?ass??, ?a? ??p???? ?sa?, ??? e????s?? ??d? ????????? ta?a?p??e?? p??s????te? t?? ?????a?. ?sa? d? p?? ?a? ????? ?? ????a??? ????t? ????? ?? ?d??? ?????te?, ?a? ??te ???est??te??? ?p? t?? ?s??, ??d??? te p??s??es?a? ?? a?t??? t??? ?f?sta?????? ?? a?t?? a?t??? ??????t? ?? ??a???? d?? ??? t?? ?p????s?? ta?t?? t?? st?ate???, ?? p?e???? a?t??, ??a ? ?p’ ????? ?s?, ???ata ?t??a?t? ??t? t?? ?e?? t? ?????e??? ?????a f??e??, ?a? t??? ?? ????a???? ???et? t? ?a?t???? ?p? t?? dap???? ?? ??e???? ??f????e?, a?t?? d? ?p?te ?p?sta?e?, ?pa??s?e??? ?a? ?pe???? ?? t?? p??e?? ?a??sta?t?.

[586] See the contemptuous remarks of PeriklÊs upon the debates of the LacedÆmonian allies at Sparta (Thucyd. i, 141).

[587] The speech of the Athenian envoy at Sparta, a little before the Peloponnesian war, sets forth the growth of the Athenian empire, in the main, with perfect justice (Thucyd. i, 75, 76). He admits and even exaggerates its unpopularity, but shows that such unpopularity was, to a great extent, and certainly as to its first origin, unavoidable as well as undeserved. He of course, as might be supposed, omits those other proceedings by which Athens had herself aggravated it.

?a? ??? a?t?? t??de (t?? ?????) ????e? ?? ?as?e??? ... ?? a?t?? d? t?? ????? ?at??a???s??e? t? p??t?? p??a?a?e?? a?t?? ?? t?de, ???sta ?? ?p? d????, ?pe?ta d? ?a? t???, ?ste??? ?a? ?fe?e?a?. ?a? ??? ?sfa??? ?t? ?d??e? e??a? t??? p?????? ?p?????????, ?a? t???? ?a? ?d? ?p?st??t?? ?e?e???????, ??? te ??? ????t? ????? f????, ???’ ?p?pt?? ?a? d?af???? ??t??, ????ta? ???d??e?e??? ?a? ??? ?? a? ?p?st?se?? p??? ??? ???????t?? p?s? d? ??ep?f????? t? ??f????ta t?? e??st?? p??? ???d???? e? t??es?a?.

The whole speech well merits attentive study: compare also the speech of PeriklÊs at Athens, in the second year of the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. ii, 63).

[588] Thucyd. i, 141. s?as? d? ?t???te??? ?? a?t?????? t?? ?????p?? ? ???as? p??ee??, etc.

[589] See Herodot. vi, 12, and the preceding volume of this history, chap. xxxv, vol. iv, p. 301.

[590] Thucyd. ii, 13.

[591] Thucyd. i, 108; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 20.

[592] Xenophon, Hellenic, v, 1, 31.

[593] Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fasti Hellenic. ad ann. 476 B.C.) places the conquest of Skyros by Kimon in the year 476 B.C. He says, after citing a passage from Thucyd. i, 98, and from Plutarch, Theseus, c. 36, as well as a proposed correction of Bentley, which he justly rejects: “The island was actually conquered in the year of the archon PhÆdon, B.C. 476. This we know from Thucyd. i, 98, and Diodor. xi, 41-48, combined. Plutarch named the archon PhÆdon, with reference to the conquest of the island: then, by a negligence not unusual with him, connected the oracle with that fact, as a contemporary transaction: although in truth the oracle was not procured till six or seven years afterwards.”

Plutarch has many sins to answer for against chronological exactness; but the charge here made against him is undeserved. He states that the oracle was given in (476 B.C.) the year of the archon PhÆdon; and that the body of Theseus was brought back to Athens in (469 B.C.) the year of the archon Aphepsion. There is nothing to contradict either statement; nor do the passages of ThucydidÊs and Diodorus, which Mr. Clinton adduces, prove that which he asserts. The two passages of Diodorus have, indeed, no bearing upon the event: and in so far as Diodorus is in this case an authority at all, he goes against Mr. Clinton, for he states Skyros to have been conquered in 470 B.C. (Diodor. xi, 60). ThucydidÊs only tells us that the operations against Eion, Skyros, and Karystus, took place in the order here indicated, and at some periods between 476 and 466 B.C.; but he does not enable us to determine positively the date of either. Upon what authority Mr. Clinton states, that “the oracle was not procured till six or seven years afterwards,” (i. e., after the conquest,) I do not know: the account of Plutarch goes rather to show that it was procured six or seven years before the conquest: and this may stand good until some better testimony is produced to contradict it. As our information now stands, we have no testimony as to the year of the conquest except that of Diodorus, who assigns it to 470 B.C., but as he assigns both the conquest of Eion and the expeditions of Kimon against Karia and Pamphylia with the victories of the Eurymedon, all to the same year, we cannot much trust his authority. Nevertheless, I incline to believe him as to the date of the conquest of Skyros: because it seems to me very probable that this conquest took place in the year immediately before that in which the body of Theseus was brought to Athens, which latter event may be referred with great confidence to 469 B. C., in consequence of the interesting anecdote related by Plutarch about the first prize gained by the poet SophoklÊs.

Mr. Clinton has given in his Appendix (Nos. vi-viii, pp. 248-253) two Dissertations respecting the chronology of the period from the Persian war down to the close of the Peloponnesian war. He has rendered much service by correcting the mistake of Dodwell, Wesseling, and Mitford (founded upon an inaccurate construction of a passage in IsokratÊs) in supposing, after the Persian invasion of Greece, a Spartan hegemony, lasting ten years, prior to the commencement of the Athenian hegemony. He has shown that the latter must be reckoned as commencing in 477, or 476 B.C., immediately after the mutiny of the allies against Pausanias,—whose command, however, need not be peremptorily restricted to one year, as Mr. Clinton (p. 252) and Dodwell maintain: for the words of ThucydidÊs, ?? t?de t? ??e????, imply nothing as to annual duration, and designate merely “the hegemony which preceded that of Athens.”

But the refutation of this mistake does not enable us to establish any good positive chronology for the period between 477 and 466 B.C. It will not do to construe ???t?? ?? (Thuc. i, 98) in reference to the Athenian conquest of Eion, as if it must necessarily mean “the year after” 477 B.C. If we could imagine that ThucydidÊs had told us all the military operations between 477-466 B.C., we should be compelled to admit plenty of that “interval of inaction” against which Mr. Clinton so strongly protests (p. 252). Unhappily, ThucydidÊs has told us but a small portion of the events which really happened.

Mr. Clinton compares the various periods of duration assigned by ancient authors to that which is improperly called the Athenian “empire,”—between 477-405 B.C. (pp. 248, 249.) I confess that I rather agree with Dr. Gillies, who admits the discrepancy between these authors broadly and undisguisedly, than with Mr. Clinton, who seeks to bring them into comparative agreement. His explanation is only successful in regard to one of them,—DemosthenÊs; whose two statements (forty-five years in one place and seventy-three years in another) are shown to be consistent with each other as well as chronologically just. But surely it is not reasonable to correct the text of the orator Lykurgus from ???e?????ta to ?d?????ta, and then to say, that “Lykurgus may be added to the number of those who describe the period as seventy years,” (p. 250.) Neither are we to bring AndokidÊs into harmony with others, by supposing that “his calculation ascends to the battle of Marathon, from the date of which (B.C. 490) to the battle of Ægos Potami, are just eighty-five years.” (Ibid.) Nor ought we to justify a computation by DemosthenÊs, of sixty-five years, by saying, “that it terminates at the Athenian defeat in Sicily,” (p. 249).

The truth is, that there is more or less chronological inaccuracy in all these passages, except those of DemosthenÊs,—and historical inaccuracy in all of them, not even excepting those. It is not true that the Athenians ???a? t?? ?a??ss??—???a? t?? ???????—p??st?ta? ?sa? t?? ???????—for seventy-three years. The historical language of DemosthenÊs, Plato, Lysias, IsokratÊs, AndokidÊs, Lykurgus, requires to be carefully examined before we rely upon it.

[594] Plutarch (Kimon, c. 8; Theseus, c. 36). ?st? d? f????? ????ta?? ?a? p?s? t??? tape???t????? ?a? ded??s? ??e?tt??a?, ?? ?a? t?? T?s??? p??stat???? t???? ?a? ????t???? ?e?????? ?a? p??sde?????? f??a????p?? t?? t?? tape???t???? de?se??.

[595] Thucyd. i, 98. It has already been stated in the preceding chapter, that ThemistoklÊs, as a fugitive, passed close to Naxos while it was under siege, and incurred great danger of being taken.

[596] For the battles of the Eurymedon, see Thucyd. i, 100; Diodor. xi, 60-62; Plutarch, Kimon, 12, 13.

The accounts of the two latter appear chiefly borrowed from Ephorus and KallisthenÊs, authors of the following century; and from Phanodemus, an author later still. I borrow sparingly from them, and only so far as consists with the brief statement of ThucydidÊs. The narrative of Diodorus is exceedingly confused, indeed hardly intelligible.

Phanodemus stated the number of the Persian fleet at six hundred ships; Ephorus, at three hundred and fifty. Diodorus, following the latter, gives three hundred and forty. Plutarch mentions the expected reinforcement of eighty Phenician ships; which appears to me a very credible circumstance, explaining the easy nautical victory of Kimon at the Eurymedon. From ThucydidÊs, we know that the vanquished fleet at the Eurymedon consisted of no more than two hundred ships; for so I venture to construe the words of ThucydidÊs, in spite of the authority of Dr. Arnold,—?a? e???? (????a???) t????e?? F??????? ?a? d??f?e??a? t?? p?sa? ?? (t??) d?a??s?a?. Upon which Dr. Arnold observes: “Amounting in all to two hundred: that is, that the whole number of ships taken or destroyed was two hundred,—not that the whole fleet consisted of no more.” Admitting the correctness of this construction (which may be defended by viii, 21), we may remark that the defeated Phenician fleet, according to the universal practice of antiquity, ran ashore to seek protection from its accompanying land-force. When, therefore, this land-force was itself defeated and dispersed, the ships would all naturally fall into the power of the victors; or if any escaped, it would be merely by accident. Moreover, the smaller number is in this case more likely to be the truth, as we must suppose an easy naval victory in order to leave strength for a strenuous land-battle on the same day.

It is remarkable that the inscription on the commemorative offering only specifics “one hundred Phenician ships with their crews” as having been captured (Diodor. xi, 62). The other hundred ships were probably destroyed. Diodorus represents Kimon as having captured three hundred and forty ships, though he himself cites the inscription which mentions only one hundred.

[597] About Thasos, see Herodot. vi, 46-48; vii, 118. The position of Ragusa in the Adriatic, in reference to the despots of Servia and Bosnia in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, was very similar to that of Athens and Thasos in regard to the Thracian princes of the interior. In Engel’s History of Ragusa we find an account of the large gains made in that city by its contracts to work the gold and silver mines belonging to these princes (Engel, Geschichte des Freystaates Ragusa, sect. 36, p. 163. Wien, 1807).

[598] Thucyd. i, 100, 101; Plutarch, Kimon, c. 14; Diodor xi, 70.

[599] Thucyd. i, 101. Philip of Macedon, in his dispute more than a century after this period with the Athenians respecting the possession of Amphipolis, pretended that his ancestor, Alexander, had been the first to acquire possession of the spot after the expulsion of the Persians from Thrace, (see Philippi Epistola ap. Demosthen. p. 164, R.) If this pretence had been true, Ennea Hodoi would have been in possession of the Macedonians at this time, when the first Athenian attempt was made upon it: but the statement of ThucydidÊs shows that it was then an Edonian township.

[600] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 14. GalÊpsus and ŒsymÊ were among the Thasian settlements on the mainland of Thrace (Thucyd. iv, 108).

[601] Thucyd. i, 101. ?? d? ?p?s???t? ?? ???fa t?? ????a??? ?a? ?e????, d?e??????sa? d? ?p? t?? ?e?????? se?s??.

[602] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 14.

[603] Plutarch, Themistokl. c. 20.

[604] See the case of Sikinnus, the person through whom ThemistoklÊs communicated with Xerxes before the battle of Salamis, and for whom he afterwards procured admission among the batch of newly-introduced citizens at ThespiÆ (Herodot. viii. 75).

[605] ?? t?? ????t?? p?t??a—t? ????? t?? p??t?? ????t?? p?t??a (Thucyd. iii, 61-65).

[606] Thucyd. iii, 62.

[607] See, among many other evidences, the remarkable case of the Olynthian confederacy (Xenophon, Hellen. v, 2, 16).

[608] Diodor. xi, 81; Justin, iii, 6.

[609] Diodor. xi. 54; Strabo, viii, p. 337.

[610] Strabo, viii, pp. 337, 348, 356.

[611] Thucyd. i, 101-128; Diodor. xi, 62.

[612] Herodot. ix. 64.

[613] Thucyd. i, 102; iii, 54; iv, 57.

[614] Thucyd. i, 102. t?? ?? ?p???a? ?? d?????te?, e?p??te? d? ?t? ??d?? p??sd???ta? a?t?? ?t?.

Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fast. Hellen. ann. 464-461 B.C.), following Plutarch, recognizes two LacedÆmonian requests to Athens, and two Athenian expeditions to the aid of the Spartans, both under Kimon; the first in 464 B.C., immediately on the happening of the earthquake and consequent revolt,—the second in 461 B.C., after the war had lasted some time.

In my judgment, there is no ground for supposing more than one application made to Athens, and one expedition. The duplication has arisen from Plutarch, who has construed too much as historical reality the comic exaggeration of AristophanÊs (Aristoph. Lysistrat. 1138; Plutarch, Kimon, 16). The heroine of the latter, Lysistrata, wishing to make peace between the LacedÆmonians and Athenians, and reminding each of the services which they had received from the other, might permit herself to say to the LacedÆmonians: “Your envoy, Perikleidas, came to Athens, pale with terror, and put himself a suppliant at the altar to entreat our help as a matter of life and death, while Poseidon was still shaking the earth, and the Messenians were pressing you hard: then Kimon with four thousand hoplites went and achieved your complete salvation.” This is all very telling and forcible, as a portion of the Aristophanic play, but there is no historical truth in it except the fact of an application made and an expedition sent in consequence.

We know that the earthquake took place at the time when the siege of Thasos was yet going on, because it was the reason which prevented the LacedÆmonians from aiding the besieged by an invasion of Attica. But Kimon commanded at the siege of Thasos (Plutarch, Kimon, c. 14); accordingly, he could not have gone as commander to Laconia at the time when this first expedition is alleged to have been undertaken.

Next, ThucydidÊs acknowledges only one expedition: nor, indeed, does Diodorus (xi, 64), though this is of minor consequence. Now mere silence on the part of ThucydidÊs, in reference to the events of a period which he only professes to survey briefly, is not always a very forcible negative argument. But in this case, his account of the expedition of 461 B.C., with its very important consequences, is such as to exclude the supposition that he knew of any prior expedition, two or three years earlier. Had he known of any such, he could not have written the account which now stands in his text. He dwells especially on the prolongation of the war, and on the incapacity of the LacedÆmonians for attacking walls, as the reasons why they invoked the Athenians as well as their other allies: he implies that their presence in Laconia was a new and threatening incident: moreover, when he tells us how much the Athenians were incensed by their abrupt and mistrustful dismissal, he could not have omitted to notice, as an aggravation of this feeling, that, only two or three years before, they had rescued LacedÆmon from the brink of ruin. Let us add, that the supposition of Sparta, the first military power in Greece, and distinguished for her unintermitting discipline, being reduced all at once to a condition of such utter helplessness as to owe her safety to foreign intervention,—is highly improbable in itself: inadmissible, except on very good evidence.

For the reasons here stated. I reject the first expedition into Laconia mentioned in Plutarch.

[615] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 16.

[616] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 16. ? d’ ??? ?p?????e?e? ?a? t?? ?????, ? ???sta t??? ????a???? ?????se, pa?a?a??? ?te t?? ????da ?????, ?te t?? p???? ?te?????a, pe???de?? ?e?e??????.

[617] See Xenophon, Hellenic. vi, 3,—about 372 B.C.—a little before the battle of Leuktra.

[618] Diodor. xi, 65; Strabo, viii, p. 372; Pausan. ii, 16, 17, 25. Diodorus places this incident in 468 B.C.: but as it undoubtedly comes after the earthquake at Sparta, we must suppose it to have happened about 463 B.C. See Mr. Fynes Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, Appendix, 8.

[619] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 17.

[620] Thucyd. i. 103.

[621] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 8.

[622] Thucyd. i, 105; Lysias, Orat. Funebr. c. 10. Diodor. xi. 78.

[623] Thucyd. i, 109.

[624] Lysias, Orat. Funebr. c. 10. ?????? a??e??? ?pasa? t?? d??a?? t?? ??e???? t??? ?d? ?pe?????s? ?a? t??? ??p? d??a?????, etc.

The incident mentioned by ThucydidÊs about the Corinthians, that the old men of their own city were so indignant against them on their return, is highly characteristic of Grecian manners,—?a????e??? ?p? t?? ?? t? p??e? p?es?t????, etc.

[625] Thucyd. i, 106. p???? ??a t??t? ?????????? ????et?. Compare Diodor. xi, 78, 79,—whose chronology, however, is very misleading.

[626] ?a? t??de ?e?? a?t???, t? te p??t?? ??sa?te? a?t??? t?? p???? et? t? ??d??? ??at??a?, ?a? ?ste??? t? a??? st?sa? te???,—is the language addressed by the Corinthians to the Spartans, in reference to Athens, a little before the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. i, 69).

[627] Diodor. xii, 81; Justin, iii, 6. ??? ?? t?? T?a??? p??e?? e????a t?? pe?????? ?ates?e?asa?, t?? d’ ?? ????t?? p??e?? ?????asa? ?p?t?ttes?a? t??? T?a????.

[628] Diodor. l. c. It must probably be to the internal affairs of Boeotia, somewhere about this time, full as they were of internal dissension, that the dictum and simile of PeriklÊs alludes,—which Aristotle notices in his Rhetoric. iii, 4, 2.

[629] Thucyd. i, 107.

[630] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 14; PeriklÊs, c. 10. Plutarch represents the Athenians as having recalled Kimon from fear of the LacedÆmonians who had just beaten them at Tanagra, and for the purpose of procuring peace. He adds that Kimon obtained peace for them forthwith. Both these assertions are incorrect. The extraordinary successes in Boeotia, which followed so quickly after the defeat at Tanagra, show that the Athenians were under no impressions of fear at that juncture, and that the recall of Kimon proceeded from quite different feelings. Moreover, the peace with Sparta was not made till some years afterwards.

[631] Plutarch, ThemistoklÊs, c. 10.

[632] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 17; PeriklÊs, c. 10; Thucyd. viii, 97. Plutarch observes, respecting this reconciliation of parties after the battle of Tanagra, after having mentioned that PeriklÊs himself proposed the restoration of Kimon—

??t? t?te p???t??a? ?? ?sa? a? d?af??a?, ?t???? d? ?? ???? ?a? p??? t? ?????? e?a?????t?? s?fe???, ? d? f???t??a p??t?? ?p???at??sa t?? pa??? t??? t?? pat??d?? ?pe???e? ?a?????.

Which remarks are very analogous to those of ThucydidÊs, in recounting the memorable proceedings of the year 411 B.C., after the deposition of the oligarchy of Four Hundred (Thucyd. viii, 97).

?a? ??? ???sta d? t?? p??t?? ?????? ?p? ?e ??? ????a??? fa????ta? e? p???te?sa?te?? et??a ??? ? te ?? t??? ??????? ?a? t??? p?????? ?????as?? ????et?, ?a? ?? p?????? t?? p?a??t?? ?e?????? t??t? p??t?? ????e??e t?? p????. I may remark that the explanatory note of Dr. Arnold on this passage is less instructive than his notes usually are, and even involves, in my judgment, an erroneous supposition as to the meaning. Dr. Arnold says: “It appears that the constitution as now fixed, was at first, in the opinion of ThucydidÊs, the best that Athens had ever enjoyed within his memory; that is, the best since the complete ascendancy of the democracy effected under PeriklÊs. But how long a period is meant to be included by the words t?? p??t?? ??????, and when, and how, did the implied change take place? ??? p??t?? ?????? can hardly apply to the whole remaining term of the war, as if this improved constitution had been first subverted by the triumph of the oligarchy under the Thirty, and then superseded by the restoration of the old democracy after their overthrow. Yet Xenophon mentions no intermediate change in the government between the beginning of his history and the end of the war,” etc.

Now I do not think that Dr. Arnold rightly interprets t?? p??t?? ??????. The phrase appears to me equivalent to t??t?? t?? ?????? p??t??: the words t?? p??t?? ??????, apply the comparison altogether to the period preceding this event here described, and not to the period following it. “And it was during this period first, in my time at least, that the Athenians most of all behaved like good citizens: for the Many and the Few met each other in a spirit of moderation, and this first brought up the city from its deep existing distress.” No such comparison is intended as Dr. Arnold supposes, between the first moments after this juncture, and the subsequent changes: the comparison is between the political temper of the Athenians at this juncture, and their usual temper as far back as ThucydidÊs could recollect.

Next, the words e? p???te?sa?te? are understood by Dr. Arnold in a sense too special and limited,—as denoting merely the new constitution, or positive organic enactments, which the Athenians now introduced. But it appears to me that the words are of wider import: meaning the general temper of political parties, both reciprocally towards each other and towards the commonwealth: their inclination to relinquish antipathies, to accommodate points of difference, and to coÖperate with each other heartily against the enemy, suspending those ?d?a? f???t??a?, ?d?a? d?a???? pe?? t?? t?? d??? p??stas?a? (ii, 65) noticed as having been so mischievous before. Of course, any constitutional arrangements introduced at such a period would partake of the moderate and harmonious spirit then prevalent, and would therefore form a part of what is commended by ThucydidÊs: but his commendation is not confined to them specially. Compare the phrase ii, 38. ??e?????? d? t? te p??? t? ?????? p???te??e?, etc.

[633] Thucyd. i, 108; Diodor. xi, 81, 82.

[634] Thucyd. i, 108-115; Diodor. xi, 84.

[635] Thucyd. i, 111; Diodor. xi, 85.

[636] Herodot. iii, 160.

[637] Thucyd. i, 104, 109, 110; Diodor. xi, 77; xii, 3. The story of Diodorus, in the first of these two passages,—that most of the Athenian forces were allowed to come back under a favorable capitulation granted by the Persian generals,—is contradicted by the total ruin which he himself states to have befallen them in the latter passages, as well as by ThucydidÊs.

[638] Thucyd. i, 103; Diodor. xi, 84.

[639] Thucyd. i, 112.

[640] Theopompus, Fragm. 92, ed. Didot; Plutarch, Kimon, c. 18; Diodor. xi, 86.

It is to be presumed that this is the peace which Æschines (De Fals. Legat. c. 54, p. 300) and Andokides or the Pseudo-Andokides (De Pace, c. 1), state to have been made by Miltiades, son of Kimon, proxenus of the LacedÆmonians; assuming that Miltiades son of Kimon is put by them, through lapse of memory, for Kimon son of Miltiades. But the passages of these orators involve so much both of historical and chronological inaccuracy, that it is unsafe to cite them, and impossible to amend them except by conjecture. Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fasti Hellen. Appendix, 8, p. 257) has pointed out some of these inaccuracies; and there are others besides, not less grave, especially in the oration ascribed to Andokides. It is remarkable that both of them seem to recognize only two long walls, the northern and the southern wall; whereas, in the time of ThucydidÊs, there were three long walls: the two near and parallel, connecting Athens with PeirÆus, and a third connecting it with PhalÊrum. This last was never renewed, after all of them had been partially destroyed at the disastrous close of the Peloponnesian war: and it appears to have passed out of the recollection of Æschines, who speaks of the two walls as they existed in his time. I concur with the various critics who pronounce the oration ascribed to Andokides to be spurious.

[641] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 10, and Reipublic. Gerend. PrÆcep. p. 812.

An understanding to this effect between the two rivals is so natural, that we need not resort to the supposition of a secret agreement concluded between them through the mediation of ElpinikÊ, sister of Kimon, which Plutarch had read in some authors. The charms as well as the intrigues of ElpinikÊ appear to have figured conspicuously in the memoirs of Athenian biographers: they were employed by one party as a means of calumniating Kimon, by the other for discrediting PeriklÊs.

[642] Thucyd. i, 112; Diodorus, xii, 13. Diodorus mentions the name of the general Anaxikrates. He affirms farther that Kimon lived not only to take Kitium and Mallus, but also to gain these two victories. But the authority of ThucydidÊs, superior on every ground to Diodorus, is more particularly superior as to the death of Kimon, with whom he was connected by relationship.

[643] Herodot. vii, 151; Diodor. xii, 3, 4. DemosthenÊs (De False Legat. c. 77, p. 428, R: compare De Rhodior. Libert. c. 13, p. 199) speaks of this peace as t?? ?p? p??t?? ??????????? e????e?. Compare Lykurgus, cont. Leokrat. c. 17, p. 187; IsokratÊs, Panegyr. c. 33, 34, p. 244; Areopagitic. c. 37, pp. 150, 229; Panathenaic, c. 20, p. 360.

The loose language of these orators makes it impossible to determine what was the precise limit in respect of vicinity to the coast. IsokratÊs is careless enough to talk of the river Halys as the boundary; DemosthenÊs states it as “a day’s course for a horse,”—which is probably larger than the truth.

The two boundaries marked by sea, on the other hand, are both clear and natural, in reference to the Athenian empire,—the Kyanean rocks at one end, PhasÊlis, or the Chelidonian islands—there is no material distance between these two last-mentioned places—on the other.

Dahlmann, at the end of his Dissertation on the reality of this Kimonian peace, collects the various passages of authors wherein it is mentioned: among them are several out of the rhetor AristeidÊs (Forschungen pp. 140-148).

[644] Thucyd. ii, 14.

[645] Thucyd. viii, 5, 6, 56. As this is a point on which very erroneous representations have been made by some learned critics, especially by Dahlmann and Manso (see the treatises cited in the subsequent note 647), I transcribe the passage of ThucydidÊs. He is speaking of the winter of B.C. 412, immediately succeeding the ruin of the Athenian army at Syracuse, and after redoubled exertions had been making—even some months before that ruin actually took place—to excite active hostile proceedings against Athens from every quarter (Thucyd. vii, 25): it being seen that there was a promising opportunity for striking a heavy blow at the Athenian power. The satrap Tissaphernes encouraged the Chians and ErythrÆans to revolt, sending an envoy along with them to Sparta with persuasions and promises of aid,—?p??et? ?a? ? ??ssaf????? t??? ?e??p????s???? ?a? ?p?s??e?t? t??f?? pa???e??. ?p? as????? ??? ?e?st? ?t???a?e pep?a????? t??? ?? t?? ?a?t?? ????? f?????, ??? d?’ ????a???? ?p? t?? ??????d?? p??e?? ?? d???e??? p??sses?a? ?p?fe???se. ???? te ??? f????? ????? ?????e ???e?s?a?, ?a??sa? t??? ????a????, ?a? ?a as??e? ??????? ?a?eda??????? p???se??, etc. In the next chapter, ThucydidÊs tells us that the satrap Pharnabazus wanted to obtain LacedÆmonian aid in the same manner as Tissaphernes, for his satrapy also, in order that he might detach the Greek cities from Athens, and be able to levy the tribute upon them. Two Greeks go to Sparta, sent by Pharnabazus, ?p?? ?a?? ???se?a? ?? t?? ????sp??t??, ?a? a?t??, e? d??a?t? ?pe? ? ??ssaf????? p?????e?t?, t?? te ?? t? ?a?t?? ???? p??e?? ????a??? ?p?st?se?e d?? t??? f?????, ?a? ?f’ ?a?t?? as??e? t?? ??a??a? t?? ?a?eda?????? p???se?e.

These passages, strange to say, are considered by Manso and Dahlmann as showing that the Grecian cities on the Asiatic coast, though subject to the Athenian empire, continued, nevertheless, to pay their tribute regularly to Susa. To me, the passages appear to disprove this very supposition: they show that it was essential for the satrap to detach these cities from the Athenian empire, as a means of procuring tribute from them to Persia: that the Athenian empire, while it lasted, prevented him from getting any tribute from the cities subject to it. Manso and Dahlmann have overlooked the important meaning of the adverb of time ?e?st?—“lately.” By that word, ThucydidÊs expressly intimates that the court of Susa had only recently demanded from Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, tribute from the maritime Greeks within their satrapies: and he implies that until recently no such demand had been made upon them. The court of Susa, apprized, doubtless, by Grecian exiles and agents, of the embarrassments into which Athens had fallen, conceived this a suitable moment for exacting tributes; to which, doubtless, it always considered itself entitled, though the power of Athens had compelled it to forego them. Accordingly, the demand was now for the first time sent down to Tissaphernes, and he “became a debtor for them” to the court (?p?fe???se), until he could collect them: which he could not at first do, even then, embarrassed as Athens was,—and which, À fortiori, he could not have done before, when Athens was in full power.

We learn from these passages two valuable facts. 1. That the maritime Asiatic cities belonging to the Athenian empire paid no tribute to Susa, from the date of the full organization of the Athenian confederacy down to a period after the Athenian defeat in Sicily. 2. That, nevertheless, these cities always continued, throughout this period, to stand rated in the Persian king’s books each for its appropriate tribute,—the court of Susa waiting for a convenient moment to occur, when it should be able to enforce its demands, from misfortune accruing to Athens.

This state of relations, between the Asiatic Greeks and the Persian court under the Athenian empire, authenticated by ThucydidÊs, enables us to explain a passage of Herodotus, on which also both Manso and Dahlmann have dwelt (p. 94) with rather more apparent plausibility, as proving their view of the case. Herodotus, after describing the rearrangement and remeasurement of the territories of the Ionic cities by the satrap Artaphernes (about 493 B.C., after the suppression of the Ionic revolt), proceeds to state that he assessed the tribute of each with reference to this new measurement, and that the assessment remained unchanged until his own (Herodotus’s) time,—?a? t?? ???a? sf??? et??sa? ?at? pa?as???a? ... f????? ?ta?e ???st??s?, ?? ?at? ????? d?ate????s? ????te? ?? t??t?? t?? ?????? a?e? ?t? ?a? ?? ??, ?? ?t????sa? ?? ??taf???e??? ?t????sa? d? s?ed?? ?at? t? a?t? t? ?a? p??te??? e???? (vi, 42). Now Dahlmann and Manso contend that Herodotus here affirms the tribute of the Ionic cities to Persia to have been continuously and regularly paid, down to his own time. But in my judgment this is a mistake: Herodotus speaks, not about the payment, but about the assessment: and these were two very different things, as ThucydidÊs clearly intimates in the passage which I have cited above. The assessment of all the Ionic cities in the Persian king’s books remained unaltered all through the Athenian empire; but the payment was not enforced until immediately before 412 B.C., when the Athenians were supposed to be too weak to hinder it. It is evident by the account of the general Persian revenues, throughout all the satrapies, which we find in the third book of Herodotus, that he had access to official accounts of the Persian finances, or at least to Greek secretaries who knew those accounts. He would be told, that these assessments remained unchanged from the time of Artaphernes downward: whether they were realized or not was another question, which the “books” would probably not answer, and which he might or might not know.

The passages above cited from ThucydidÊs appear to me to afford positive proof that the Greek cities on the Asiatic coast—not those in the interior, as we may see by the case of Magnesia given to ThemistoklÊs—paid no tribute to Persia during the continuance of the Athenian empire. But if there were no such positive proof, I should still maintain the same opinion. For if these Greeks went on paying tribute, what is meant by the phrases, of their having “revolted from Persia,” of their “having been liberated from the king,” (?? ?p?st??te? as????? ?????e?—?? ?p? ????a? ?a? ????sp??t?? ?d? ?fest???te? ?p? as?????—?s?? ?p? as????? ?e?st? ??e??????t?, Thucyd. i, 18, 89, 95)?

So much respecting the payment of tribute. As to the other point,—that between 477 and 412 B.C., no Persian ships were tolerated along the coast of Ionia, which coast, though claimed by the Persian king, was not recognized by the Greeks as belonging to him,—proof will be found in Thucyd. viii, 56: compare Diodor. iv, 26.

[647] I conclude, on the whole, in favor of this treaty as an historical fact,—though sensible that some of the arguments urged against it are not without force. Mr. Mitford and Dr. Thirlwall (ch. xvii, p. 474), as well as Manso and Dahlmann, not to mention others, have impugned the reality of the treaty: and the last-mentioned author, particularly, has examined the case at length and set forth all the grounds of objection; urging, among some which are really serious, others which appear to me weak and untenable (Manso, Sparta, vol. iii, Beylage x, p. 471; Dahlmann, Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Geschichte, vol. i, Ueber den Kimonischen Frieden, pp. 1-148). BoËckh admits the treaty as an historical fact.

If we deny altogether the historical reality of the treaty, we must adopt some such hypothesis as that of Dahlmann (p. 40): “The distinct mention and averment of such a peace as having been formally concluded, appears to have first arisen among the schools of the rhetors at Athens, shortly after the peace of Antalkidas, and as an oratorical antithesis to oppose to that peace.”

To which we must add the supposition, that some persons must have taken the trouble to cause this fabricated peace to be engraved on a pillar, and placed, either in the MetrÔon or somewhere else in Athens, among the records of Athenian glories. For that it was so engraved on a column is certain (Theopompus ap. Harpokration. ?tt????? ???as?). The suspicion started by Theopompus (and founded on the fact that the peace was engraved, not in ancient Attic, but in Ionic letters—the latter sort having been only legalized in Athens after the archonship of Eukleides), that this treaty was a subsequent invention and not an historical reality, does not weigh with me very much. Assuming the peace to be real, it would naturally be drawn up and engraved in the character habitually used among the Ionic cities of Asia Minor, since they were the parties most specially interested in it: or it might even have been reËngraved, seeing that nearly a century must have elapsed between the conclusion of the treaty and the time when Theopompus saw the pillar. I confess that the hypothesis of Dahlmann appears to me more improbable than the historical reality of the treaty. I think it more likely that there was a treaty, and that the orators talked exaggerated and false matters respecting it,—rather than that they fabricated the treaty from the beginning with a deliberate purpose, and with the false name of an envoy conjoined.

Dahlmann exposes justly and forcibly—an easy task, indeed—the loose, inconsistent, and vainglorious statements of the orators respecting this treaty. The chronological error by which it was asserted to have been made shortly after the victories of the Eurymedon—and was thus connected with the name of Kimon—is one of the circumstances which have most tended to discredit the attesting witnesses: but we must not forget that Ephorus (assuming that Diodorus in this case copies Ephorus, which is highly probable—xii, 3, 4) did not fall into this mistake, but placed the treaty in its right chronological place, after the Athenian expedition under Kimon against Cyprus and Egypt in 450-449 B.C. Kimon died before the great results of this expedition were consummated, as we know from ThucydidÊs: on this point Diodorus speaks equivocally, but rather giving it to be understood that Kimon lived to complete the whole, and then died of sickness.

The absurd exaggeration of IsokratÊs, that the treaty bound the Persian kings not to come westward of the river Halys, has also been very properly censured. He makes this statement in two different orations (Areopagatic. p. 150; Panathenaic. p. 462).

But though Dahlmann succeeds in discrediting the orators, he tries in vain to show that the treaty is in itself improbable, or inconsistent with any known historical facts. A large portion of his dissertation is employed in this part of the case, and I think quite unsuccessfully. The fact that the Persian satraps are seen at various periods after the treaty lending aid—underhand, yet without taking much pains to disguise it—to Athenian revolted subjects, does not prove that no treaty had been concluded. These satraps would, doubtless, be very glad to infringe the treaty, whenever they thought they could do so with advantage: if any misfortune had happened to Athens from the hands of the Peloponnesians,—for example, if the Athenians had been unwise enough to march their aggregate land-force out of the city to repel the invading Peloponnesians from Attica, and had been totally defeated,—the Persians would, doubtless, have tried to regain Ionia forthwith. So the LacedÆmonians, at a time when they were actually in alliance with Athens, listened to the persuasions of the revolted Thasians, and promised secretly to invade Attica, in order to aid their revolt (Thucyd. i, 103). Because a treaty is very imperfectly observed,—or rather because the parties, without coming to open war, avail themselves of opportunities to evade it and encroach upon its prescriptions,—we are not entitled to deny that it has ever been made (Dahlmann, p. 116).

It seems to me that the objections which have been taken by Dahlmann and others against the historical reality of this treaty, tell for the most part only against the exaggerated importance assigned to it by subsequent orators.

[648] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 21-28.

[649] Plutarch, AristeidÊs. c. 25.

[650] Thucyd. i, 112; compare Philochor. Fragm. 88, ed. Didot.

[651] Thucyd. i, 19. ?a?eda??????, ??? ?p?te?e?? ????te? f???? t??? ???????, ?at’ ????a???a? d? sf?s?? a?t??? ???? ?p?t?de??? ?p?? p???te?s??s? ?e?ape???te?—the same also i, 76-144.

[652] Aristotel. Politic. v, 2, 6. ?a? ?? T?a?? et? t?? ?? ????f?t??? ????, ?a??? p???te??????, ? d????at?a d?ef????.

[653] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 18; also, his comparison between PeriklÊs and Fabius Maximus, c.3.

Kleinias, father of the celebrated AlkibiadÊs, was slain in this battle: he had served, thirty-three years before, at the sea-fight of Artemisium: he cannot therefore be numbered among the youthful warriors, though a person of the first rank (Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 1).

[654] Thucyd. i, 113; Diodor. xii, 6. PlatÆa appears to have been considered as quite dissevered from Boeotia: it remained in connection with Athens as intimately as before.

[655] Xenophon, Memorabil. iii, 5, 4.

[656] Thucyd. i, 114; v, 16, Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 22.

[657] Thucyd. i, 114; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 23; Diodor. xii, 7.

[658] Thucyd. i, 114, 115; ii, 21; Diodor. xii, 5. I do not at all doubt that the word Achaia here used, means the country in the north part of Peloponnesus, usually known by that name. The suspicions of GÖller and others, that it means, not this territory, but some unknown town, appear to me quite unfounded. ThucydidÊs had never noticed the exact time when the Athenians acquired Achaia as a dependent ally, though he notices the AchÆans (i, 111) in that capacity. This is one argument, among many, to show that we must be cautious in reasoning from the silence of ThucydidÊs against the reality of an event,—in reference to this period between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, where his whole summary is so brief.

In regard to the chronology of these events, Mr. Fynes Clinton remarks: “The disasters in Boeotia produced the revolt of Euboea and Megara about eighteen months after, in AnthestÊrion 445 B.C.: and the Peloponnesian invasion of Attica, on the expiration of the five years’ truce,” (ad ann. 447 B.C.)

Mr. Clinton seems to me to allow a longer interval than is probable: I incline to think that the revolt of Euboea and Megara followed more closely upon the disasters in Boeotia, in spite of the statement of archons given by Diodorus: ?? p???? ?ste???, the expression of ThucydidÊs means probably no more than three or four months; and the whole series of events were evidently the product of one impulse. The truce having been concluded in the beginning of 445 B.C., it seems reasonable to place the revolt of Euboea and Megara, as well as the invasion of Attica by Pleistoanax, in 446 B.C.—and the disasters in Boeotia, either in the beginning of 446 B.C., or the close of 447 B.C.

It is hardly safe to assume, moreover (as Mr. Clinton does, ad ann. 450, as well as Dr. Thirlwall, Hist. Gr. ch. xvii, p. 478), that the five years’ truce must have been actually expired before Pleistoanax and the LacedÆmonians invaded Attica: the thirty years’ truce, afterwards concluded, did not run out its full time.

[659] See K. F. Hermann, Griechische StaatsalterthÜmer, sects. 53-107, and his treatise De Jure et Auctoritate Magistratuum ap. Athen. p. 53 (Heidelb. 1829); also Rein, RÖmisches Privatrecht, pp. 26, 408, Leips. 1836. M. Laboulaye also insists particularly upon the confusion of administrative and judiciary functions among the Romans (Essai sur les Loix Criminelles des Romains, pp. 23, 79, 107, etc.): and compare Mr. G. C. Lewis, Essay on the Government of Dependencies, p. 42, with his citation from Hugo, Geschichte des RÖmischen Rechts, p. 42. Mr. Lewis has given just and valuable remarks upon the goodness of the received classification of powers as a theory, and upon the extent to which the separation of them either has been, or can be, carried in practice: see also Note E, in the same work, p. 347.

The separation of administrative from judicial functions appears unknown in early societies. M. Meyer observes, respecting the judicial institutions of modern Europe: “Anciennement les fonctions administratives et judiciaires n’Étoient pas distinctes. Du temps de la libertÉ des Germains et mÊme long temps aprÈs, les plaids de la nation ou ceux du comtÉ rendoient la justice et administroient les intÉrÊts nationaux ou locaux dans une seule et mÊme assemblÉe: sous le rÉgime fÉodal, le roi ou l’empereur dans son conseil, sa cour, son parlement composÉ des hauts barons ecclÉsiastiques et laÏes, exerÇait tous les droits de souverainetÉ comme de justice: dans la commune, le bailli, mayeur, ou autre fonctionnaire nommÉ par le prince, administraient les intÉrÊts communaux et jugeoient les bourgeois de l’avis de la communautÉ entiÈre, des corporations qui la composoient, ou des autoritÉs et conseils qui la rÉprÉsentoient: on n’avoit pas encore soupÇonnÉ que le jugement d’une cause entre particuliers pÛt Être Étranger À la cause commune.”—Meyer, Esprit des Institutions Judiciaires, book v, chap. 11, vol. iii, p. 239; also chap. 18, p. 383.

[660] A case of such deposition of an archon by vote of the public assembly, even before the year of office was expired, occurs in DemosthenÊs, cont. Theokrin. c. 7: another, the deposition of a stratÊgus, in Demosthen. cont. Timoth. c. 3.

[661] ÆschinÊs (cont. Ktesiphont, c. 9, p. 373) speaks of the senate of Areopagus as ?pe??????, and so it was doubtless understood to be: but it is difficult to see how accountability could be practically enforced against such a body. They could only be responsible in this sense,—that, if any one of their number could be proved to have received a bribe, he would be individually punished. But in this sense the dikasteries themselves would also be responsible: though it is always affirmed of them that they were not responsible.

[662] Respecting the procedure of arbitration at Athens, and the public as well as private arbitrators, see the instructive treatise of Hudtwalcker, Ueber die Öffentlichen und Privat-Schiedsrichter (Diaeteten) zu Athen: Jena, 1812.

Each arbitrator seems to have sat alone to inquire into and decide disputes: he received a small fee of one drachma from both parties: also an additional fee when application was made for delay (p. 16). Parties might by mutual consent fix upon any citizen to act as arbitrator: but there were a certain number of public arbitrators, elected or drawn by lot from the citizens every year: and a plaintiff might bring his cause before any one of these. They were liable to be punished under e????a?, at the end of their year of office, if accused and convicted of corruption or unfair dealing.

The number of these public diÆtetÆ, or arbitrators, was unknown when Hudtwalcker’s book was published. An inscription, since discovered by Professor Ross, and published in his work, Über die Demen von Attika, p. 22, records the names of all the diÆtetÆ for the year of the archon AntiklÊs, B.C. 325, with the name of the tribe to which each belonged.

The total number is one hundred and four: the number in each tribe is unequal; the largest number is in Kekropis, which furnishes sixteen; the smallest in Pandionis, which sends only three. They must have been either elected or drawn by lot from the general body of citizens, without any reference to tribes. The inscription records the names of the diÆtetÆ for this year B.C. 325, in consequence of their being crowned or receiving a vote of thanks from the people. The fragment of a like inscription for the year B.C. 337, also exists.

[663] Public Economy of the Athenians, book ii, chap. xiv, p. 227. Engl. transl.

M. BoËckh must mean that the whole six thousand, or nearly the whole, were employed every day. It appears to me that this supposition greatly overstates both the number of days and the number of men actually employed. For the inference in the text, however, a much smaller number is sufficient.

See the more accurate remark of SchÖmann, Antiquit. Juris Public. GrÆcor., sect. lxxi, p. 310.

[664] Aristotel. Politic. ii, 9, 3. ?a? t?? ?? ?? ??e?? p??? ????? ?f???t?? ??????se ?a? ?e??????? t? d? d??ast???a ?s??f??a ?at?st?se ?e??????? ?a? t??t?? d? t?? t??p?? ??ast?? t?? d?a????? p????a?e?, a???? e?? t?? ??? d????at?a?. Fa??eta? d’ ?? ?at? t?? S?????? ?e??s?a? t??t? p??a??es??, ???? ????? ?p? s?pt?at??. ??? ?a?a???a? ??? ?? t??? ??d????? ? d??? a?t??? ?e??e??? ?f????at?s??, ?a? d?a?????? ??ae fa?????, ??t?p???te?????? t?? ?p?e????? ?pe? S???? ?’ ????e t?? ??a??a??t?t?? ?p?d?d??a? t? d?? d??a??, t? t?? ????? a??e?s?a? ?a? e????e??? ?d? ??? t??t?? ?????? ?? ? d??? d????? ?? e?? ?a? p??????.

The words t? d? d??ast???a ?s??f??a ?at?st?se ?e??????, are commonly translated, “PeriklÊs first gave pay to the dikasteries,” wherein it is assumed that these bodies had before judged gratuitously. But it appears to me that the words ought to be translated, “PeriklÊs first constituted the paid dikasteries:” that is, the dikasteries as well as the pay were of his introduction.

It is evident from this whole passage that Aristotle did not suppose the dikasteries, either gratuitous or paid, to have been constituted by Solon, but to have been foreign to the purpose of that lawgiver, and to have been novelties emanating from PeriklÊs and EphialtÊs, at the same time that the judicial functions of the senate of Areopagus were cut down.

[665] Deinarchus cont. Demosthen. Or. i, p. 91. f???tte? t?? ?p????t??? d?a???a?, ?? a?? t? t?? p??e?? s?t???a ?e?ta?, etc. So also ÆschinÊs calls this senate t?? s?????p?? ?a? t?? e??st?? ????a? ????? (cont. Ktesiphont. c. 9, p. 373: compare also cont. Timarchum, c. 16, p. 41; Demosth. cont. Aristokrat. c. 65, p. 641). Plutarch, Solon, c. 19. t?? ??? ????? ?p?s??p?? p??t?? ?a? f??a?a t?? ????, etc.

?d??a??? ??? ?? ??e?pa??ta? pe?? p??t?? s?ed?? t?? sfa??t?? ?a? pa?a?????, ?? ?pa?t? f?s?? ??d??t??? ?? p??t? ?a? F???????? ?? de?t??? ?a? t??t? t?? ?t??d?? (Philochorus, Fr. 17-58, ed. Didot, p. 19, ed. Siebelis).

See about the Areopagus, SchÖmann, Antiq. Jur. Att. sect. lxvi.; K. F. Hermann, Griech. StaatsalterthÜmer, sect. 109.

[666] Aristotel. Politic. ii, 6, 18.

[667] Aristotle particularly indicates these two conflicting tendencies in Athens, the one immediately following the other, in a remarkable passage of his Politics (v, 3, 5).

?eta?????s? d? ?a? e?? ????a???a? ?a? e?? d??? ?a? e?? p???te?a? ?? t?? e?d????sa? t? ? a??????a? ? ???e??? ? ????? t?? p??e??? ????, ? ?? ??e?? p??? ???? e?d????sasa ?? t??? ??d????? ?d??e s??t???t??a? p???sa? t?? p???te?a?. ?a? p???? ? ?a?t???? ????? ?e??e??? a?t??? t?? pe?? Sa?a??a ????? ?a? d?? ta?t?? t?? ??e???a? d?? t?? ?at? ???atta? d??a??, t?? d????at?a? ?s????t??a? ?p???se?.

The word s??t???t??a? (“stricter, more rigid,”) stands opposed in another passage to ??e???a? (iv, 3, 5).

[668] Plutarch. Reipub. Ger. PrÆcept. p. 805. ??? ????? d?, ?t? ????? t??e? ?pa??? ?a? ????a?????? ?????sa?te?, ?spe? ?f???t?? ?????s? ?a? F????? pa?’ ??e????, d??a?? ?a ?a? d??a? ?s???.

About the oligarchical character of the Areopagites, see Deinarchus cont. Demosthen. pp 46, 98.

[669] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 16; ThemistoklÊs, c. 20.

[670] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 4-7., seq.

[671] Herodot. vi, 131.

[672] Plutarch, Reipub. Gerend. PrÆcept. p. 812; PeriklÊs, c. 5, 6, 7.

[673] Plato, PhÆdrus, c. 54, p. 270; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 8; Xenoph. Memor. i, 2, 46.

[674] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 9, 16; Kimon, c. 10; Reipubl. Gerend. PrÆcept. p. 818.

[675] The personal intercourse between PeriklÊs and Protagoras is attested by the interesting fragment of the latter which we find in Plutarch, Consolat. ad Apollonium, c. 33, p. 119.

[676] Aristophan. Nubes, 972, 1000, seq. and RanÆ, 1071.

[677] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 10; Ælian, V. H. ii, 43; xi, 9.

[678] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 10: compare Valer. Maxim. iii, 8, 4. ?f???t?? ?? ???, f?e??? ??ta t??? ????a??????? ?a? pe?? t?? e????a? ?a? d???e?? t?? t?? d??? ?d?????t?? ?pa?a?t?t??, ?p????e?sa?te? ?? ?????? d?’ ???st?d???? t?? ?a?a?????? ???fa??? ??e????, etc.

[679] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 16.

[680] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 17. ?? d? p??? ????? ?pe????te? ?d? t??? ?a???????s? fa?e??? ??a??pa????, ?a? t?? ????a ????? ?p??a?e??? p??f?se?? ???st????sa? e?? ?t? d??a.

I transcribe this passage as a specimen of the inaccurate manner in which the ostracism is so often described. Plutarch says: “The Athenians took advantage of a slight pretence to ostracize Kimon:” but it was the peculiar characteristic of ostracism that it had no pretence: it was a judgment passed without specific or assigned cause.

[681] Demosthen. cont. Euerg. et Mnesibul. c. 12.

[682] Harpokration—? ??t??e? ????—Pollux, viii, 128.

[683] Arist. Polit. iv, 5, 6. ?t? d’ ?? ta?? ???a?? ???a????te? t?? d??? fas? de?? ????e??? ? d? ?s???? d??eta? t?? p?????s??? ?ste ?ata????ta? p?sa? a? ???a?, etc.; compare vi, 1, 8.

The remark of Aristotle is not justly applicable to the change effected by PeriklÊs, which transferred the power taken from the magistrates, not to the people but to certain specially constituted, though numerous and popular dikasteries, sworn to decide in conformity with known and written laws. Nor is the separation of judicial competence from administrative, to be characterized as “dissolving or extinguishing magisterial authority.” On the contrary, it is conformable to the best modern notions. PeriklÊs cannot be censured for having effected this separation, however persons may think that the judicature which he constituted was objectionable.

Plato seems also to have conceived administrative power as essentially accompanied by judicial (Legg. vi, p. 767)—p??ta ?????ta ??a??a??? ?a? d??ast?? e??a? t????—an opinion, doubtless, perfectly just, up to a certain narrow limit: the separation between the two sorts of powers cannot be rendered absolutely complete.

[684] Demosthen. cont. NeÆr. p. 1372; cont. Aristokrat. p. 642.

Meier (Attischer Prozess, p. 143) thinks that the senate of Areopagus was also deprived of its cognizance of homicide as well as of its other functions, and that this was only restored after the expulsion of the Thirty. He supposes this to be proved by a passage of Lysias which he produces (De CÆde Eratosthenis, pp. 31-33).

M. BoËckh and O. MÜller adopt the same opinion as Meier, and seemingly on the authority of the same passage, (see the Dissertation of O. MÜller on the Eumenides of Æschylus, p. 113, Eng. transl.) But in the first place, this opinion is contradicted by an express statement in the anonymous biographer of ThucydidÊs, who mentions the trial of PyrilampÊs for murder before the Areopagus; and contradicted also, seemingly, by Xenophon (Memorab. iii, 5, 20); in the next place, the passage of Lysias appears to me to bear a different meaning. He says: ? ?a? p?t???? ?st? ?a? ?f’ ??? ?p?d?d?ta? t?? f???? t?? d??a? d????e??: now—even if we admit the conjectural reading ?f’ ??? in place of ?f’ ??? to be correct—still, this restoration of functions to the Areopagus, refers naturally to the restored democracy after the violent interruption occasioned by the oligarchy of Thirty. Considering how many persons the Thirty caused to be violently put to death, and the complete subversion of all the laws which they introduced, it seems impossible to suppose that the Areopagus could have continued to hold its sittings and try accusations for intentional homicide, under their government. On the return of the democracy after the Thirty were expelled, the functions of the senate of Areopagus would return also.

If the supposition of the eminent authors mentioned above were correct,—if it were true that the Areopagus was deprived not only of its supervising function generally, but also of its cognizance of homicide, during the fifty-five years which elapsed between the motion of EphialtÊs and the expulsion of the Thirty,—this senate must have been without any functions at all during that long interval; it must have been for all practical purposes non-existent. But during so long a period of total suspension, the citizens would have lost all their respect for it; it could not have retained so much influence as we know that it actually possessed immediately before the Thirty (Lysias c. Eratosth. c. 11, p. 126); and it would hardly have been revived after the expulsion of the Thirty. Whereas, by preserving during that period its jurisdiction in cases of homicide, apart from those more extended privileges which had formerly rendered it obnoxious, the ancient traditional respect for it was kept alive, and it was revived, after the fall of the Thirty, as a venerable part of the old democracy; even apparently with some extension of privileges.

The inferences which O. MÜller wishes to draw, as to the facts of these times, from the Eumenides of Æschylus, appear to me ill-supported. In order to sustain his view, that, by virtue of the proposition of EphialtÊs “the Areopagus almost entirely ceased to be a high court of judicature,” (sect. 36, p. 109,) he is forced to alter the chronology of the events, and to affirm that the motion of EphialtÊs must have been carried subsequently to the representation of the Eumenides, though Diodorus mentions it in the year next but one before, and there is nothing to contradict him. All that we can safely infer from the very indistinct allusions in Æschylus, is, that he himself was full of reverence for the Areopagus, and that the season was one in which party bitterness ran so high as to render something like civil war (?f????? ???, v. 864) within the scope of reasonable apprehension. Probably, he may have been averse to the diminution of the privileges of the Areopagus by EphialtÊs: yet even thus much is not altogether certain, inasmuch as he puts it forward prominently and specially as a tribunal for homicide, exercising this jurisdiction by inherent prescription, and confirmed in it by the Eumenides themselves. Now when we consider that such jurisdiction was precisely the thing confirmed and left by EphialtÊs to the Areopagus, we might plausibly argue that Æschylus, by enhancing the solemnity and predicting the perpetuity of the remaining privilege, intended to conciliate those who resented the recent innovations, and to soften the hatred between the two opposing parties.

The opinion of BoËckh, O. MÜller, and Meier, respecting the withdrawal from the senate of Areopagus of the judgments on homicide, by the proposition of EphialtÊs, has been discussed, and in my judgment refuted, by Forchhammer, in a valuable Dissertation, De Areopago non privato per Ephialten Homicidii Judiciis. Kiel, 1828.

[685] This is the language of those authors whom Diodorus copied (Diodor. xi, 77)—?? ?? ?????? ?e d??f??e t??????t??? ????as?? ?p?a??e??? (EphialtÊs), ???? t?? ???t?? ??a??e?e??, ?d???? ?s?e t?? t?? ??? te?e?t??. Compare Pausanias, i, 29, 15.

Plutarch (PeriklÊs, c. 10) cites Aristotle as having mentioned the assassination of EphialtÊs. Antipho, however, states that the assassin was never formally known or convicted (De CÆde Hero. c. 68).

The enemies of PeriklÊs circulated a report, mentioned by Idomeneus, that it was he who had procured the assassination of EphialtÊs, from jealousy of the superiority of the latter (Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 10). We may infer from this report how great the eminence of EphialtÊs was.

[686] The intervention of ElpinikÊ, the sister of Kimon, in bringing about this compromise between her brother and PeriklÊs, is probable enough (Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 10, and Kimon, c. 14). Clever and engaging, she seems to have played an active part in the political intrigues of the day: but we are not at all called upon to credit the scandals insinuated by Eupolis and Stesimbrotus.

[687] We hear about these nomophylakes in a distinct statement cited from Philochorus, by Photius, Lexic. p. 674, Porson. ???f??a?e?? ?te??? e?s? t?? ?es??et??, ?? F???????? ?? ?’? ?? ?? ??? ?????te? ???a???? e?? ??e??? p???? ?stefa??e???, ?? d? ???f??a?e? ???s?a st??f?a ????te?? ?a? ta?? ?ea?? ????t??? ?????t?? ??a?????t?? ?a? t?? p?p?? ?pep?? t? ?a???d?? t?? d? ????? ?????a??? t??? ????? ???s?a?? ?a? ?? t? ?????s?? ?a? ?? t? ???? et? t?? p???d??? ??????t?, ??????te? t? ?s?f??a t? p??e? p??tte??? ?pta d? ?sa?? ?a? ?at?st?sa?, ?? F????????, ?te ?f???t?? ??? ?at???pe t? ?? ??e??? p???? ???? t? ?p?? t?? s?at??.

Harpokration, Pollux, and Suidas, give substantially the same account of these magistrates, though none except Photius mentions the exact date of their appointment. There is no adequate ground for the doubt which M. BoËckh expresses about the accuracy of this statement: see SchÖmann, Antiq. Jur. Pub. GrÆc. sect. lxvi; and Cicero, Legg. iii, 20.

[688] See Xenophon, Hellenic. i, 7; AndokidÊs de Mysteriis, p. 40.

[689] Demosthen. cont. Timokrat. c. 20, pp. 725, 726. ??’ ??? t? d??e? s?f??e?? t? p??e? t????t?? ????, ?? d??ast????? ???se?? a?t?? ?????te??? ?sta?, ?a? t?? ?p? t?? ?????t?? ???se?? t??? ????t??? p??st??e? ??e??; ????e?s?e, ?p? t?? d??ast????? ?a? t?? ?ata???se?? ?? d?ep?d?se? (TimokratÊs) ?p? t?? d???, ?????pt?? t?? ?d?????ta! Compare Demosthen. cont. Eubulid. c. 15.

See, about the nomothetÆ, SchÖmann, De Comitiis, ch. vii, p. 248, seqq., and Platner, Prozess und Klagen bey den Attikern, Abschn. ii, 3, 3, p. 33, seqq.

Both of them maintain, in my opinion erroneously, that the nomothetÆ are an institution of Solon. DemosthenÊs, indeed, ascribes it to Solon (SchÖmann, p. 268): but this counts, in my view, for nothing, when I see that all the laws which he cites for governing the proceedings of the nomothetÆ, bear unequivocal evidence of a time much later. SchÖmann admits this to a certain extent, and in reference to the style of these laws,—“Illorum quidem fragmentorum, quÆ in Timokrate extant, recentiorem Solonis Ætate formam atque orationem apertum est.” But it is not merely the style which proves them to be of post-Solonian date: it is the mention of post-Solonian institutions, such as the ten prytanies into which the year was divided, the ten statues of the eponymi,—all derived from the creation of the ten tribes by KleisthenÊs. On the careless employment of the name of Solon by the orators, whenever they desire to make a strong impression on the dikasts, I have already remarked.

[690] The privation of this right of public speech (pa???s?a) followed on the condemnation of any citizen to the punishment called ?t??a, disfranchisement, entire or partial (Demosthen. cont. NeÆr. p. 1352, c. 9; cont. Meidiam, p. 545, c. 27). Compare for the oligarchical sentiment, Xenophon, Republ. Athen. i, 9.

[691] See Meier, Attisch. Prozess, p. 139. AndokidÊs mentions a trial under the indictment of ??af? pa?a????, brought by his father Leogoras against a senator named Speusippus, wherein six thousand dikasts sat,—that is, the entire body of heliasts. However, the loose speech so habitual with AndokidÊs, renders this statement very uncertain (AndokidÊs de Mysteriis, p. 3, § 29).

See MatthiÆ, De Judiciis Atheniensium, in his Miscellanea Philologica, vol. i, p. 252. MatthiÆ questions the reading of that passage in DemosthenÊs (cont. Meideam, p. 585), wherein two hundred dikasts are spoken of as sitting in judgment: he thinks it ought to be pe?ta??s???? instead of d?a??s????,—but this alteration would be rash.

[692] See on this question, BoËckh, Public Econ. of Athens, ch. xv, p. 233; K. F. Hermann, Griech. Staatsalt. § 134.

The proof which M. BoËckh brings to show, first, that the original pay was one obolus,—next, that Kleon was the first to introduce the triobolus,—is in both cases very inconclusive.

Certain passages from the Scholiast, stating that the pay of the dikasts fluctuated (??? ?st??e?—????te ????? ?d?d?t?) do not so naturally indicate a rise from one obolus to three, as a change backwards and forwards according to circumstances. Now it seems that there were some occasions when the treasury was so very poor that it was doubtful whether the dikasts could be paid: see Lysias, cont. Epikrat. c. 1; cont. Nikomach. c. 22; and Aristophan. Equit. 1370. The amount of pay may, therefore, have been sometimes affected by this cause.

[693] There is a remarkable passage on this point in the treatise of Xenophon, De Republic. Athen. iii, 6. He says:—

F??e d?, ???? f?s? t?? ????a? d????e?? ??, ???tt??? d? d????e??. ?????? t?????, ??? ?? p???? (both Weiske and Schneider substitute p???? here in place of ????a, which latter makes no sense) p????ta? d??ast???a, ?????? ?? ???st? ?s??ta? t? d??ast????? ?ste ?a? d?as?e??sas?a? ??d??? ?sta? p??? ??????? d??ast??, ?a? s??de??sa? (so Schneider and MatthiÆ, in place of s??d???sa?) p??? ?tt?? d??a??? d????e??.

That there was a good deal of bribery at Athens, where individuals could be approached and dealt with, is very probable (see Xenoph. de Repub. Ath. iii. 3): and we may well believe that there were also particular occasions on which money was given to the dikasts, some of whom were punished with death for such corrupt receipt (ÆschinÊs cont. Timarch. c. 17-22, pp. 12-15). But the passage above quoted from Xenophon, an unfriendly witness, shows that the precautions taken to prevent corruption of the dikasteries were well-devised and successful, though these precautions might sometimes be eluded.

[694] Xenophon, De Republ. Laced. c. 8, 2. ?e?a???a? d? ta?ta, ?t? ?? ?? ta?? ???a?? p??es?? ?? d??at?te??? ??te ?????ta? d??e?? t?? ????? f?e?s?a?, ???? ??????s? t??t? ??e?e??e??? e??a?? ?? d? t? Sp??t? ?? ???t?st?? ?a? ?p?????ta? ???sta t?? ?????, etc.

Respecting the violent proceedings committed by powerful men at Thebes, whereby it became almost impossible to procure justice against them for fear of being put to death, see DikÆarchus, Vit. GrÆc. Fragm. ed. Fabr. p. 143, and Polybius, xx, 4, 6; xxiii, 2.

[695] Xenophon, Memorab. iii, 5, 18. ??da??, ?f? ? S????t??, ? ?e????e??, ??t?? ???? ?????st? p?????? ??se?? ????a????? ??? ????, ?? e?ta?t?? ?? e?s?? ?? t??? ?a?t?????, e?t??t?? d’ ?? t??? ???????? ???s? pe????ta? t??? ?p?st?ta??, ??d???? d? ?atade?ste??? ?? t??? ?????? ?p??et??s? t??? d?das??????; ???t? ??? t??, ?f?, ?a? ?a?ast?? ?st?? t? t??? ?? t????t??? pe??a??e?? t??? ?fest?s?, t??? d? ?p??ta?, ?a? t??? ?ppe??, ?? d????s? ?a???a?a??? p???e???s?a? t?? p???t??, ?pe??est?t??? e??a? p??t??.

[696] See Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 12-25; Thucyd. vi, 15, and the speech which he gives as spoken by AlkibiadÊs in the assembly, vi, 17; Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 7-8-16, and the Oration of DemosthenÊs against Meidias throughout: also Fragm. v. of the ???a???? of AristophanÊs, Meineke, ii, p. 1128.

[697] Sir Thomas Smith, in his Treatise on the Commonwealth of England, explains the Court of Star-chamber as originally constituted in order “to deal with offenders too stout for the ordinary course of justice.” The abundant compounds of the Greek language furnish a single word exactly describing this same class of offenders,—???st?d??a?—the title of one of the lost comedies of Eupolis: see Meineke, Historia Critica Comicorum GrÆcorum, vol. i, p. 145.

Dean Tucker observes, in his Treatise on Civil Government: “There was hardly a session of parliament, from the time of Henry the Third to Henry the Eighth, but laws were enacted for restraining the feuds, robberies, and oppressions of the barons and their dependents on the one side,—and to moderate and check the excesses and extortions of the royal purveyors on the other; these being the two capital evils then felt. Respecting the tyranny of the ancient baronage, even squires as well as others were not ashamed to wear the liveries of their leaders, and to glory in every badge of distinction, whereby they might be known to be retained as the bullies of such or such great men, and to engage in their quarrels, just or unjust, right or wrong. The histories of those times, together with the statutes of the realm, inform us that they associated (or, as they called it, confederated together) in great bodies, parading on horseback in fairs and markets, and clad in armor, to the great terror of peaceable subjects; nay, that they attended their lords to parliament, equipped in the same military dress, and even dared sometimes to present themselves before the judge of assize, and to enter the courts of justice, in a hostile manner,—while their principals sat with the judges on the bench, intimidating the witnesses, and influencing the juries by looks, nods, signs and signals.” (Treatise concerning Civil Government, p. 337, by Josiah Tucker, D. D. London, 1781.)

The whole chapter (pp. 301-355) contains many statutes and much other matter, illustrating the intimidation exercised by powerful men in those days over the course of justice.

A passage among the Fragmenta of Sallust, gives a striking picture of the conduct of powerful citizens under the Roman Republic. (Fragm. lib. i, p. 158, ed. Delph.)

“At discordia, et avaritia, et ambitio, et cÆtera secundis rebus oriri sueta mala, post Carthaginis excidium maximÈ aucta sunt. Nam injuriÆ validiorum, et ob eas discessio plebis À Patribus, aliÆque dissensiones domi fuere jam inde À principio: neque amplius, quam regibus exactis, dum metus À Tarquinio et bellum grave cum Etruri positum est, Æquo et modesto jure agitatum: dein, servili imperio patres plebem exercere: de vit atque tergo, regio more consulere: agro pellere, et À cÆteris expertibus, soli in imperio agere. Quibus servitiis, et maximÈ foenoris onere, oppressa plebes, cum assiduis bellis tributum simul et militiam toleraret, armata Montem Sacrum et Aventinum insedit. Tumque tribunos plebis, et alia sibi jura paravit. Discordiarum et certaminis utrimque finis fuit secundum bellum Punicum.”

Compare the exposition of the condition of the cities throughout Europe in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, in HÜllmann’s StÄdte-Wesen des Mittelalters, especially vol. iii, pp. 196-199, seqq.

The memorable institution which spread through nearly all the Italian cities during these centuries, of naming as podesta, or supreme magistrate, a person not belonging to the city itself, to hold office for a short time,—was the expedient which they resorted to for escaping the extreme perversion of judicial and administrative power, arising out of powerful family connections. The restrictions which were thought necessary to guard against either favor or antipathies on the part of the podesta, are extremely singular. (HÜllmann, vol. iii, pp. 252-261, seqq.)

“The proceedings of the patrician families in these cities (observes HÜllmann) in respect to the debts which they owed, was among the worst of the many oppressions to which the trading classes were exposed at their hands, one of the greatest abuses which they practised by means of their superior position. How often did they even maltreat their creditors, who came to demand merely what was due to them!” (StÄdte-Wesen, vol. ii, p. 229.)

Machiavel’s History of Florence illustrates, throughout, the inveterate habit of the powerful families to set themselves above the laws and judicial authority. Indeed, he seems to regard this as an incorrigible chronic malady in society, necessitating ever-recurring disputes between powerful men and the body of the people. “The people (he says) desire to live according to the laws; the great men desire to overrule the laws: it is therefore impossible that the two should march in harmony.” “Volendo il popolo vivere secondo le leggi, e i potenti comandare a quelle, non È possibile che capino insieme.” (Machiavelli, Istorie Fiorentine, liv. ii, p. 79, ad ann. 1282.)

The first book of the interesting tale, called the Promessi Sposi, of Manzoni,—itself full of historical matter, and since published with illustrative notes by the historian CantÙ,—exhibits a state of judicial administration, very similar to that above described, in the Milanese, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: demonstrated by repeated edicts, all ineffectual, to bring powerful men under the real control of the laws.

Because men of wealth and power, in the principal governments of modern Europe, are now completely under the control of the laws, the modern reader is apt to suppose that this is the natural state of things. It is therefore not unimportant to produce some references, which might be indefinitely multiplied, reminding him of the very different phenomena which past history exhibits almost everywhere.

[699] Numerous dikasteries taken by lot seem to have been established in later times in Rhodes and other Grecian cities, though Rhodes was not democratically constituted, and to have worked satisfactorily. Sallust says (in his Oratio ii. ad CÆsarem de Republic ordinandÂ, p. 561, ed. Cort.): “Judices À paucis probari regnum est; ex pecuni legi, inhonestum. Quare omnes primÆ classis judicare placet; sed numero plures quam judicant. Neque Rhodios, neque alias civitates unquam suorum judiciorum poenituit; ubi promiscuÈ dives et pauper, ut cuique sors tulit, de maximis rebus juxtÀ ac de minimis disceptat.”

The necessity of a numerous judicature, in a republic where there is no standing army, or official force professionally constituted, as the only means of enforcing public-minded justice against powerful criminals, is insisted upon by Machiavel, Discorsi sopra Tito Livio, lib. i, c. 7.

“Potrebbesi ancora allegare, a fortificazione della soprascritta conclusione, l’accidente seguito pur in Firenze contra Piero Soderini: il quale al tutto seguÌ per non essere in quella republica alcuno modo di accuse contro alla ambizione dei potenti cittadini: perchÈ lo accusare un potente a otto giudici in una republica, non basta: bisogna che i giudici siano assai, perchÈ pochi sempre fanno a modo de’ pochi,” etc.: compare the whole of the same chapter.

[700] Aristophan. Vesp. 570; Xenophon, Rep. Ath. i, 18. We are not to suppose that all the dikasts who tried a cause were very poor: DemosthenÊs would not talk to very poor men, as to “the slave whom each of them might have left at home.” (DemosthenÊs cont. Stephan. A. c. 26, p. 1127.)

It was criminal by law in the dikasts to receive bribes in the exercise of their functions, as well as in every citizen to give money to them (Demosth. cont. Steph. B. c. 13, p. 1137). And it seems perfectly safe to affirm that in practice the dikasts were never tampered with beforehand: had the fact been otherwise, we must have seen copious allusions to it in the many free-spoken pleadings which remain to us, just as there are in the Roman orators: whereas, in point of fact, there are hardly any such allusions. The word de????? (in IsokratÊs de Pac. Or. viii, p. 169, sect. 63) does not allude to obtaining by corrupt means verdicts of dikasts in the dikastery, but to obtaining by such means votes for offices in the public assembly, where the election took place by show of hands. IsokratÊs says that this was often done in his time, and so perhaps it may have been: but in the case of the dikasteries, much better security was taken against it.

The statement of Aristotle (from his ????te?a?, Fragm. xi, p. 69, ed. Neumann: compare Harpokration v. ?e???e??; Plutarch, Coriolan. c. 14; and Pollux, viii, 121) intimates that Anytus was the first person who taught the art t?? de???e?? t? d??ast???a, a short time before the battle of Ægos Potamos. But besides, that the information on this point is to the last degree vague, we may remark that between the defeat of the oligarchy of Four Hundred and the battle of Ægos Potamos, the financial and political condition of Athens was so exceedingly embarrassed, that it may well be doubted whether she could maintain the paid dikasteries on the ordinary footing. Both all the personal service of the citizens, and all the public money, must have been put in requisition at that time for defence against the enemy, without leaving any surplus for other purposes: there was not enough even to afford constant pay to the soldiers and sailors (compare Thucyd. vi, 91; viii, 69, 71, 76, 86). If therefore, in this time of distress, the dikasteries were rarely convoked, and without any certainty of pay, a powerful accused person might find it more easy to tamper with them beforehand, than it had been before, or than it came to be afterwards, when the system was regularly in operation. We can hardly reason with safety, therefore, from the period shortly preceding the battle of Ægos Potamos, either to that which preceded the Sicilian expedition, or to that which followed the subversion of the Thirty.

[701] Mr. Jardine, in his interesting and valuable publication, Criminal Trials, vol. i, p. 115, after giving an account of the trial of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton in 1553, for high treason, and his acquittal, observes: “There is one circumstance in this trial, which ought not to be passed over without an observation. It appears that after the trial was over, the jury were required to give recognizances to answer for their verdict, and were afterwards imprisoned for nearly eight months, and heavily fined, by a sentence of the Star-chamber. Such was the security which the trial by jury afforded to the subject in those times: and such were the perils to which juries were then exposed, who ventured to act upon their conscientious opinions in state prosecutions! But even these proceedings against the jury, monstrous as they appear to our improved notions of the administration of justice, must not be considered as a wanton exercise of unlawful power on this particular occasion. The fact is, that the judges of England had for centuries before exercised a similar authority, though not without some murmuring against it; and it was not until more than a century after it, in the reign of Charles the Second, that a solemn decision was pronounced against its legality.”

... “In the reign of James the First, it was held by the Lord Chancellor Egerton, together with the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron, that when a party indicted is found guilty on the trial, the jury shall not be questioned; but on the other side, when a jury hath acquitted a felon or a traitor against manifest proof, they may be charged in the Star-chamber for their partiality in finding a manifest offender not guilty. After the abolition of the Star-chamber, there were several instances in the reign of Charles the Second, in which it was resolved, that both grand and petit juries might be fined for giving verdicts against plain evidence and the directions of the court.” Compare Mr. Amos’s Notes on Fortescue, De Laudibus Legum AngliÆ, c. 27.

[702] Respecting the French juries, M. Cottu (RÉflexions sur la Justice Criminale, p. 79) remarks:—

“Le dÉsir ardent de bien faire dont les jurÉs sont gÉnÉralement animÉs, et la crainte de s’Égarer, les jette dans une obÉissance passive À l’impulsion qui leur est donnÉe par le prÉsident de la Cour d’Assise, et si ce magistrat sait s’emparer de leur estime, alors leur confiance en lui ne connoit plus de bornes. Ils le considÈrent comme l’Étoile qui doit les guider dans l’obscuritÉ qui les environne, et pleins d’un respect aveugle pour son opinion, ils n’attendent que la manifestation qu’il leur en fait pour la sanctionner par leur dÉclaration. Ainsi au lieu de deux juges que l’accusÉ devoit avoir, il n’en a bien souvent qu’un seul, qui est le prÉsident de la Cour d’Assise.”

Anselm Feuerbach (in the second part of his work, Ueber die Oeffentlichkeit und MÜndlichkeit der Gerechtigkeitspflege, which contains his review of the French judicial system, Ueber die Gerichtsverfassung Frankreichs, Abt. iii, H. v, p. 477) confirms this statement from a large observation of the French courts of justice.

The habit of the French juries, in so many doubtful cases, to pronounce a verdict of guilty, by a majority of seven against five, in which case the law threw the actual condemnation upon the judges present in court, directing their votes to be counted along with those of the jury, is a remarkable proof of this aversion of the jury to the responsibility of decision; see Feuerbach, ibid. p. 481, seqq. Compare also the treatise of the same author, Betrachtungen Über das Geschwornen Gericht. pp. 186-198.

[703] I transcribe from an eminent lawyer of the United States, Mr. Livingston, author of a Penal Code for the State of Louisiana (Preface, pp. 12-16), an eloquent panegyric on trial by jury. It contains little more than the topics commonly insisted on, but it is expressed with peculiar warmth, and with the greater fulness, inasmuch as the people of Louisiana, for whom the author was writing, had no familiarity with the institution and its working. The reader will observe that almost everything here said in recommendation of the jury might have been urged by PeriklÊs with much truer and wider application, in enforcing his transfer of judicial power from individual magistrates to the dikasteries.

“By our constitution (i. e. in Louisiana), the right of a trial by jury is secured to the accused, but it is not exclusively established. This, however, may be done by law, and there are so many strong reasons in its favor, that it has been thought proper to insert in the codes a precise declaration that, in all criminal prosecutions, the trial by jury is a privilege which cannot be renounced. Were it left entirely at the option of the accused, a desire to propitiate the favor of the judge, ignorance of his interest, or the confusion incident to his situation, might induce him to waive the advantage of a trial by his country, and thus by degrees accustom the people to a spectacle which they ought never to behold,—a single man determining the fact, applying the law, and disposing at his will of the life, liberty, and reputation of a citizen.... Those who advocate the present disposition of our law say,—admitting the trial by jury to be an advantage, the law does enough when it gives the accused the option to avail himself of its benefits; he is the best judge whether it will be useful to him; and it would be unjust to direct him in so important a choice. This argument is specious, but not solid. There are reasons, and some have already been stated, to show that this choice cannot be freely exercised. There is, moreover, another interest besides that of the culprit to be considered. If he be guilty, the state has an interest in his conviction: and, whether guilty or innocent, it has a higher interest,—that the fact should be fairly canvassed before judges inaccessible to influence, and unbiased by any false views of official duty. It has an interest in the character of its administration of justice, and a paramount duty to perform in rendering it free from suspicion. It is not true, therefore, to say that the laws do enough when they give the choice between a fair and impartial trial, and one that is liable to the greatest objections. They must do more; they must restrict that choice, so as not to suffer an ill-advised individual to degrade them into instruments of ruin, though it should be voluntarily inflicted; or of death, though that death should be suicide.

“Another advantage of rendering this mode of trial obligatory is, that it diffuses the most valuable information among every rank of citizens; it is a school, of which every jury that is impanelled is a separate class, where the dictates of the laws, and the consequences of disobedience to them, are practically taught. The frequent exercise of these important functions, moreover, gives a sense of dignity and self-respect, not only becoming to the character of a free citizen, but which adds to his private happiness. Neither party-spirit, nor intrigue, nor power, can deprive him of this share in the administration of justice, though they can humble the pride of every other office and vacate every other place. Every time he is called on to act in this capacity, he must feel that though placed in the humblest station, he is yet the guardian of the life, the liberty, and the reputation of his fellow-citizens against injustice and oppression; and that while his plain understanding has been found the best refuge for innocence, his incorruptible integrity is pronounced a sure pledge that guilt will not escape. A state whose most obscure citizens are thus individually elevated to perform these august functions; who are alternately the defenders of the injured, the dread of the guilty, the vigilant guardians of the constitution; without whose consent no punishment can be inflicted, no disgrace incurred; who can by their voice arrest the blow of oppression, and direct the hand of justice where to strike,—such a state can never sink into slavery, or easily submit to oppression. Corrupt rulers may pervert the constitution: ambitious demagogues may violate its precepts: foreign influence may control its operations; but while the people enjoy the trial by jury, taken by lot from among themselves, they cannot cease to be free. The information it spreads, the sense of dignity and independence it inspires, the courage it creates, will always give them an energy of resistance that can grapple with encroachments, and a renovating spirit that will make arbitrary power despair. The enemies of freedom know this: they know how admirable a vehicle it is, to convey the contagion of those liberal principles which attack the vitals of their power, and they therefore guard against its introduction with more care than they would take to avoid pestilential disease. In countries where it already exists, they insidiously endeavor to innovate, because they dare not openly destroy: changes inconsistent with the spirit of the institution are introduced, under the plausible pretext of improvement: the common class of citizens are too ill-informed to perform the functions of jurors,—a selection is necessary. This choice must be confided to an agent of executive power, and must be made among the most eminent for education, wealth, and respectability; so that, after several successful operations of political chemistry, a shining result may be obtained, freed, indeed, from all republican dross, but without any of the intrinsic value that is found in the rugged but inflexible integrity, and incorruptible worth, of the original composition. Men impanelled by this process, bear no resemblance but in name to the sturdy, honest, unlettered jurors who derive no dignity but from the performance of their duties; and the momentary exercise of whose functions gives no time for the work of corruption or the influence of fear. By innovations such as these the institution is so changed as to leave nothing to attach the affections or awaken the interest of the people, and it is neglected as an useless, or abandoned as a mischievous, contrivance.”

Consistently with this earnest admiration of jury-trial, Mr. Livingston, by the provisions of his code, limits very materially the interference of the presiding judge, thus bringing back the jurors more nearly to a similarity with the Athenian dikasts (p. 85): “I restrict the charge of the judge to an opinion of the law, and to the repetition of the evidence, only when required by any one of the jury. The practice of repeating all the testimony from notes, always (from the nature of things) imperfectly, not seldom inaccurately, and sometimes carelessly taken,—has a double disadvantage: it makes the jurors, who rely more on the judge’s notes than on their own memory, inattentive to the evidence: and it gives them an imperfect copy of that which the nature of the trial by jury requires that they should record in their own minds. Forced to rely upon themselves, the necessity will quicken their attention, and it will be only when they disagree in their recollection, that recourse will be had to the notes of the judge.” Mr. Livingston goes on to add, that the judges, from their old habits, acquired as practising advocates, are scarcely ever neutral,—almost always take a side, and generally against the prisoners on trial.

The same considerations as those which Mr. Livingston here sets forth to demonstrate the value of jury-trial, are also insisted upon by M. Charles Comte, in his translation of Sir Richard Phillips’s Treatise on Juries, enlarged with many valuable reflections on the different shape which the jury-system has assumed in England and France. (Des Pouvoirs et des Obligations des Jurys, traduit de l’Anglois, par Charles Comte, 2d ed. Paris, 1828, with preliminary ConsidÉrations sur le Pouvoir Judiciaire, pp. 100, seqq.)

The length of this note forbids my citing anything farther either from the eulogistic observations of Sir Richard Phillips or from those of M. Comte: but they would be found, like those of Mr. Livingston, even more applicable to the dikasteries of Athens than to the juries of England and America.

[704] Mr. Jardine (Criminal Trials, Introduct. p. 8) observes, that the “proceedings against persons accused of state offences, in the earlier periods of our history, do not deserve the name of trials: they were a mere mockery of justice,” etc.

Respecting what English juries have been, it is curious to peruse the following remarks of Mr. Daines Barrington, Observations on the Statutes, p. 409. In remarking on a statute of Henry the Seventh, A. D. 1494, he says:

“The twenty-first chapter recites: That perjury is much and customarily used within the city of London, among such persons as passen and been impannelled in issue, joined between party and party.’

“This offence hath been before this statute complained of in preambles to several laws, being always the perjury of a juror, who finds a verdict contrary to his oath, and not that which we hear too much of at present, in the witnesses produced at a trial.

“In the Dance of Death, written originally in French, by Macharel, and translated by John Lydgate in this reign, with some additions, to adapt it to English characters,—a juryman is mentioned, who had often been bribed for giving a false verdict, which shows the offence to have been very common. The sheriff, who summoned the jury, was likewise greatly accessory to this crime, by summoning those who were most partial and prejudiced. Carew, in his account of Cornwall, informs us that it was a common article in an attorney’s bill, to charge pro amiciti vicecomitis.

“It is likewise remarkable, that partiality and perjury in jurors of the city of London is more particularly complained of than in other parts of England, by the preamble of this and other statutes. Stow informs us that in 1468, many jurors of this city were punished by having papers fixed on their heads, stating their offence of having been tampered with by the parties to the suit. He likewise complains that this crying offence continued in the time of Queen Elizabeth, when he wrote his account of London: and Fuller, in his English Worthies, mentions it as a proverbial saying, that London juries hang half and save half. Grafton also, in his Chronicle, informs us that the Chancellor of the diocese of London was indicted for a murder, and that the bishop wrote a letter to Cardinal Wolsey, in behalf of his officer, to stop the prosecution, ‘because London juries were so prejudiced, that they would find Abel guilty for the murder of Cain.’

“The punishment for a false verdict by the petty jury is by writ of attaint: and the statute directs, that half of the grand-jury, when the trial is per medietatem linguÆ, shall be strangers, not Londoners.

“It appears by 15 Henry the Sixth, c. 5,—which likewise recites the great increase of perjury in jurors, and in the strongest terms,—that in every attaint there were thirteen defendants: the twelve jurors who gave the verdict, and the plaintiff or defendant who had obtained it, who therefore was supposed to have used corrupt means to procure it. For this reason, if the verdict was given in favor of the crown, no attaint could be brought, because the king could not be joined as a defendant with the jury who were prosecuted.”

Compare also the same work, pp. 394-457, and Mr. Amos’s Notes on Fortescue de Laudib. Leg. AngliÆ, c. 27.

[705] In France, jury-trial was only introduced for the first time by the Constituent Assembly in 1790, and then only for criminal procedure: I transcribe the following remarks on the working of it from the instructive article in Merlin’s “RÉpertoire de Jurisprudence,” article JurÉ. Though written in a spirit very favorable to the jury, it proclaims the reflections of an observing lawyer on the temper and competence of the jurymen whom he had seen in action, and on their disposition to pronounce the verdict according to the feeling which the case before them inspired.

“Pourquoi faut il qu’une institution qui rassure les citoyens contre l’endurcissement et la prÉvention si funeste À l’innocence, que peut produire l’habitude de juger les crimes ... qu’une institution qui donne pour juges À un accusÉ, des citoyens indÉpendans de toute espÈce d’influence, ses pairs, ses Égaux ... pourquoi faut il que cette institution, dont les formes sont simples, touchantes, patriarchales, dont la thÉorie flatte et entraine l’esprit par une sÉduction irrÉsistible, ait ÉtÉ si souvent mÉconnue, trompÉe par l’ignorance et la pusillanimitÉ, prostitutÉe peut-Être par une vile et coupable corruption?

“Rendons pourtant justice aux erreurs, mÊme À la prÉvarication, des jurÉs: ils ont trop de fois acquittÉ les coupables, mais il n’a pas encore ÉtÉ prouvÉ qu’ils eussent jamais fait couler une goutte de sang innocent: et si l’on pouvoit supposer qu’ils eussent vu quelquefois le crime lÀ oÙ il n’y en avoit qu’une apparence trompeuse et fausse, ce ne seroit pas leur conscience qu’il faudroit accuser: ce seroit la fatalitÉ malheureuse des circonstances qui auroient accompagnÉ l’accusation, et qui auroit trompÉ de mÊme les juges les plus pÉnÉtrans et les plus exercÉs À rechercher la vÉritÉ et À la dÉmÊler du mensonge.

“Mais les reproches qu’ont souvent mÉritÉs les jurÉs, c’est d’avoir cÉdÉ À une fausse commisÉration, ou À l’intÉrÊt qu’Étoient parvenus À leur inspirer les familles d’accusÉs qui avaient un rang dans la sociÉtÉ: c’est souvent d’Être sortis de leurs attributions, qui se bornent À apprÉcier les faits, et les juger d’une maniÈre diffÉrente de la loi. J’ai vu cent exemples de ces usurpations de pouvoir et de ce despotisme des jurÉs. Trop souvent ils out voulu voir une action innocente, lÀ oÙ la loi avoit dit qu’il y avait un crime, et alors ils n’ont pas craint de se jouer de la vÉritÉ pour tromper et Éluder la loi.” ... “Serat-il possible d’amÉliorer l’institution des jurÉs, et d’en prÉvenir les Écarts souvent trop scandaleux? Gardons nous d’en douter. Que l’on commence par composer le jury de propriÉtaires intÉressÉs À punir le crime pour le rendre plus rare: que surtout on en Éloigne les artisans, les petits cultivateurs, hommes chez qui sans doute la probitÉ est heureusement fort commune, mais dont l’esprit est peu exercÉ, et qui, accoutumÉs aux dÉfÉrences, aux Égards, cÈdent toujours À l’opinion de ceux de leurs collÈgues dont le rang est plus distinguÉ: ou qui, familiarisÉs seulement avec les idÉes relatives À leur profession, n’ont jamais eu, dans tout le reste, que des idÉes d’emprunt ou d’inspiration. On sait qu’aujourdhui ce sont ces hommes qui dans presque toute la France forment toujours la majoritÉ des jurÉs: mettez au milieu d’eux un homme d’un État plus ÉlevÉ, d’un esprit dÉliÉ, d’une Élocution facile, il entrainera ses collÈgues, il dÉcidera la dÉlibÉration: et si cet homme a le jugement faux ou le coeur corrompu, cette dÉlibÉration sera nÉcessairement mauvaise.

“Mais pourra-t-on parvenir À vaincre l’insouciance des propriÉtaires riches et ÉclairÉs, À leur faire abandonner leurs affaires, leurs familles, leurs habitudes, pour les entrainer dans les villes, et leur y faire remplir des fonctions qui tourmentent quelquefois la probitÉ, et donnent des inquiÉtudes d’autant plus vives que la conscience est plus dÉlicate? Pourquoi non? Pourquoi les mÊmes classes de citoyens qui dans les huit ou dix premiers mois de 1792, se portaient avec tant de zÈle À l’exercice de ces fonctions, les fuiroient elles aujourdhui? surtout si, pour les y rappeler, la loi fait mouvoir les deux grands ressorts qui sont dans sa main, si elle s’engage À rÉcompenser l’exactitude, et À punir la nÉgligence?” (Merlin, RÉpertoire de Jurisprudence, art. JurÉs, p. 97.)

In these passages, it deserves notice, that what is particularly remarked about juries, both English and French, is, their reluctance to convict accused persons brought before them. Now the character of the Athenian dikasts, as described by Mr. Mitford and by many other authors, is the precise reverse of this: an extreme severity and cruelty, and a disposition to convict all accused persons brought before them, upon little or no evidence,—especially rich accused persons. I venture to affirm that, to ascribe to them such a temper generally, is not less improbable in itself, than unsupported by any good evidence. In the speeches remaining to us from defendants, we do indeed find complaints made of the severity of the dikasteries: but in those speeches which come from accusers, there are abundance of complaints to the contrary,—of over-indulgence on the part of the dikasteries, and consequent impunity of criminals. Nor does AristophanÊs,—by whom most modern authors are guided, even when they do not quote him,—when fairly studied, bear out the temper ascribed by Mr. Mitford to the dikasts; even if we admitted AristophanÊs to be a faithful and trustworthy witness, which no man who knows his picture of SokratÊs will be disposed to do. AristophanÊs takes hold of every quality which will raise a laugh against the dikasts, and his portrait of them as wasps was well calculated for this purpose,—to describe them as boiling over with acrimony, irritation, impatience, to find some one whom they could convict and punish. But even he, when he comes to describe these dikasts in action, represents them as obeying the appeals to their pity, as well as those to their anger,—as being yielding and impressionable when their feelings are approached on either side, and unable, when they hear the exculpatory appeal of the accused, to maintain the anger which had been raised by the speech of the accuser. (See Aristophan. Vesp. 574, 713, 727, 794.) Moreover, if from the VespÆ we turn to the Nubes, where the poet attacks the sophists and not the dikasts, we are there told that the sophists could arm any man with fallacies and subterfuges which would enable him to procure acquittal from the dikasts, whatever might be the crime committed.

I believe that this open-mindedness, and impressibility of the feelings on all sides, by art, eloquence, prayers, tears, invectives, etc., is the true character of the Athenian dikasts. And I also believe that they were, as a general rule, more open to commiseration than to any other feeling,—like what is above said respecting the French jurymen: e?????t?? p??? ????? (? ????a??? d???), e?et??et?? p??? ??e??,—this expression of Plutarch about the Athenian demos is no less true about the dikasts: compare also the description given by Pliny (H. N. xxxv, 10) of the memorable picture of the Athenian demos by the painter Parrhasius.

[706] That the difference between the dikast and the juryman, in this respect, is only one of degree, I need hardly remark. M. Merlin observes, “Je ne pense pas, comme bien des gens, que pour Être propre aux fonctions de jurÉ, il suffise d’avoir une intelligence ordinaire et de la probitÉ. Si l’accusÉ paroissoit seul aux dÉbats avec les tÉmoins, il ne faudroit sans doute que du bon sens pour reconnoitre la vÉritÉ dans des dÉclarations faites avec simplicitÉ et dÉgagÉes de tout raisonnement: mais il y paroit assistÉ presque toujours d’un ou de plusieurs dÉfenseurs qui par des interpellations captieuses, embarrassent ou Égarent les tÉmoins; et par une discussion subtile, souvent sophistique, quelquefois Éloquente, enveloppent la vÉritÉ des nuages, et rendent l’Évidence mÊme problÉmatique. Certes, il faut plus que de bonnes intentions, il faut plus que du bon sens, pour ne pas se laisser entrainer À ces fausses lueurs, pour se garantir des Écarts de la sensibilitÉ, et pour se maintenir immuablement dans la ligne du vrai, au milieu de ces impulsions donnÉes en mÊme temps À l’esprit et au coeur.” (Merlin, RÉpertoire de Jurisprudence, art. JurÉs, p. 98).

At Athens, there were no professional advocates: the accuser and the accused—or the plaintiff and defendant, if the cause was civil—each appeared in person with their witnesses, or sometimes with depositions which the witnesses had sworn to before the archon: each might come with a speech prepared by Antipho (Thucyd. viii, 68) or some other rhetor: each might have one or more ?????????? to speak on his behalf after himself, but seemingly only out of the space of time allotted to him by the clepsydra. In civil causes, the defendant must have been perfectly acquainted with the plaintiff’s case, since, besides the anakrisis, or preliminary examination before the archon, the cause had been for the most part already before an arbitrator. In a criminal case, the accused party had only the anakrisis to guide him, as to the matter of which he was to be accused: but it appears from the prepared speeches of accused parties which we now possess, that this anakrisis must have been sufficiently copious to give him a good idea of that which he had to rebut. The accuser was condemned to a fine of one thousand drachms, if he did not obtain on the verdict one-fifth of the votes of the dikasts engaged.

Antipho not only composed speeches for pleaders before the dikastery, but also gave them valuable advice generally as to the manner of conducting their case, etc., though he did not himself speak before the dikasts: so also KtesiklÊs the ??????af?? (DemosthenÊs cont. Theokrin. c. 5) acted as general adviser, or attorney.

[707] Aristotle, in the first and second chapters of his Treatise de RhetoricÂ, complains that the teachers and writers on rhetoric who preceded him, treated almost entirely of the different means of working on the feelings of the dikasts, and of matters “extraneous to the real question which the dikasts ought to try.” (pe?? t?? ??? t?? p???at?? t? p?e?sta p?a?ate???ta?? d?a??? ??? ?a? ??e?? ?a? ????, ?? pe?? t?? p???at?? ?st??, ???? p??? t?? d??ast??, etc., i, 1, 1: compare, i, 2, 3, and iii, 1, 2.)

This is sufficient to show how prominent such appeals to the feelings of the dikasts were, in actual fact and practice, even if we did not know it from the perusal of the orations themselves.

Respecting the habit of accused persons to bring their wives and children before the dikasts as suppliants for them, to obtain mercy or acquittal, see Aristophan. Vesp. 567-976; AndokidÊs de Mysteriis (ad finem), and Lysias, Orat. iv, de Vulnere (ad finem).

[708] To a person accustomed to the judicature of modern Europe, conducted throughout all its stages by the instrumentality of professional men,—judges, advocates, attorneys, etc.,—and viewed by the general public as a matter in which no private citizen either could act or ought to act for himself,—nothing is more remarkable in reading the Attic judicial orations, to a certain extent also the Roman, than the entire absence of this professional feeling, and the exhibition of justice both invoked and administered by private citizens exclusively. The nearest analogy to this, which modern justice presents, is to be found in the courts of Requests and other courts for trying causes limited to small sums of property,—too small to be worth the notice of judges and lawyers.

These courts, in spite of their direct and important bearing on the welfare and security of the poorer classes, have received little elucidation. The History of the Birmingham Court of Requests, by Mr. William Hutton,—lately republished by Messrs. Chambers,—forms an exception to this remark, and is full of instruction in respect to the habits, the conduct, and the sufferings of poor persons. It furnishes, besides, the closest approach that I know to the feelings of Athenian dikasts and pleaders, though of course with many important differences. Mr. Hutton was for many years unremitting in his attendance as a commissioner, and took warm interest in the honorable working of the court. His remarks upon the position, the duties, and the difficulties of the commissioners, illustrated by numerous cases given in detail, are extremely interesting, and represent thoughts which must have often suggested themselves to intelligent dikasts at Athens.

“Law and equity (he says, p. 34) often vary. If the commissioners cannot decide against law, they can decide without it. Their oath binds them to proceed according to good conscience (pe?? ?t?? ??? e?s? ????, ???? t? d??a??t?t?, was the oath of the Athenian dikast). A man only needs information to be able to decide.”

A few words from p. 36, about the sources of misjudgment. “Misinformation is another source of evil: both parties equally treat the commissioners with deceit. The only people who can throw light upon the subject will not.

“It is difficult not to be won by the first speaker, if he carries the air of mildness and is master of his tale; or not to be biased in favor of infirmity or infancy. Those who cannot assist themselves, we are much inclined to assist.

“Nothing dissolves like tears. Though they arise from weakness, they are powerful advocates, which instantly disarm, particularly those which the afflicted wish to hide. They come from the heart and will reach it, if the judge has a heart to reach. Distress and pity are inseparable.

“Perhaps there never was a judge, from seventeen to seventy, who could look with indifference upon beauty in distress; if he could, he was unfit to be a judge. He should be a stranger to decision, who is a stranger to compassion. All these matters influence the man, and warp his judgment.”

This is a description, given by a perfectly honest and unprofessional judge, of his own feelings when on the bench. It will be found illustrated by frequent passages in the Attic pleaders, where they address themselves to the feelings here described in the bosom of the dikasts.

[709] DemosthenÊs (cont. Phormio. p. 913, c. 2) emphatically remarks, how much more cautious witnesses were of giving false testimony before the numerous dikastery, than before the arbitrator.

[710] Asconius gives an account of the begging off and supplication to the judices at Rome, when sentence was about to be pronounced upon Scaurus, whom Cicero defended (ad Ciceron. Orat. pro Scauro, p. 28, ed. Orelli): “Laudaverunt Scaurum consulares novem—Horum magna pars per tabellas laudaverunt, qui aberant: inter quos Pompeius quoque. Unus prÆtereÀ adolescens laudavit, frater ejus, Faustus Cornelius, SyllÆ filius. Is in laudatione multa humiliter et cum lacrimis locutus non minus audientes permovit, quam Scaurus ipse permoverat. Ad genua judicum, cum sententiÆ ferrentur, bifariam se diviserunt qui pro eo rogabant: ab uno latere Scaurus ipse et M. Glabrio, sororis filius, et Paulus, et P. Lentulus, et L. Æmilius Buca, et C. Memmius, supplicaverunt: ex alter parte Sylla Faustus, frater Scauri, et T. Annius Milo, et T. PeducÆus, et C. Cato, et M. Octavius LÆnas.”

Compare also Cicero, Brutus, c. 23, about the defence of Sergius Galba; Quintilian, I. O. ii, 15.

[711] Plato, in his Treatise de Legibus (vi, p. 768) adopts all the distinguishing principles of the Athenian dikasteries. He particularly insists, that the citizen, who does not take his share in the exercise of this function, conceives himself to have no concern or interest in the commonwealth,—t? pa??pa? t?? p??e?? ?? ?t???? e??a?.

[712] Aristot. ap. Cicero. Brut. c. 12. “Itaque cum sublatis in Sicili tyrannis res privatÆ longo intervallo judiciis repeterentur, tum primum quod esset acuta ea gens et controversa naturÂ, artem et prÆcepta Siculos Coracem et Tisiam conscripsisse,” etc. Compare Diodor. xi, 87; Pausan. vi, 17, 8.

[713] Especially Gorgias: see Aristotel. Rhetor. iii, 1, 26; TimÆus, Fr.; Dionys. Halicarn. De Lysi Judicium, c. 3; also Foss, Dissertatio de Gorgi Leontino, p. 20 (Halle, 1828); and Westermann, Geschichte der Beredsamkeit in Griechenland und Rom., sects. 30, 31.

[714] Plato (Gorgias, c. 20-75; Protagoras, c. 9). Lysias is sometimes designated as a sophist (Demosthen. cont. NeÆr. c. 7, p. 1351; AthenÆ. xiii. p. 592). There is no sufficient reason for supposing with Taylor (Vit. LysiÆ, p. 56, ed. Dobson) that there were two persons named Lysias, and that the person here named is a different man from the author of the speeches which remain to us: see Mr. Fynes Clinton, Fast. H. p. 360. Appendix, c. 20.

[715] See the first book of Aristotle’s Rhetoric—alluded to in a former note—for his remarks on the technical teachers of rhetoric before his time. He remarks—and Plato remarked before him (i, 1 and 2)—that their teaching was for the most part thoroughly narrow and practical, bearing exclusively on what was required for the practice of the dikastery (pe?? t?? d????es?a? p??te? pe????ta? te??????e??): see also a remarkable passage in his Treatise de Sophisticis Elenchis, c. 32, ad finem. And though he himself lays down a far more profound and comprehensive theory of rhetoric, and all matters appertaining to it,—in a treatise which has rarely been surpassed in power of philosophical analysis,—yet when he is recommending his speculations to notice, he appeals to the great practical value of rhetorical teaching, as enabling a man to “help himself,” and fight his own battles, in case of need—?t?p?? e? t? s?at? ?? a?s???? ? d??as?a? ???e?? ?a?t?, ???? d? ??? a?s???? (i, 1, 3: compare iii, 1, 2; Plato Gorgias, c, 41-55; Protagoras, c. 9; PhÆdrus, c. 43-50; Euthydem. c. 1-31 and Xenophon, Memorab. iii, 12, 2, 3).

See also the character of Proxenus in the Anabasis of Xenophon, ii, 6, 16; Plutarch, Vit. x, Orator. p. 307; Aristoph. Nubes, 1108; Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 48; Plato, AlkibiadÊs, i, c. 31, p. 119; and a striking passage in Plutarch’s Life of Cato the elder, c. 1.

[716] Plutarch, Vit. x, Orator. p. 832; Quintilian, iii, 1, 10. Compare Van Spaan, or Ruhnken, Dissertatio de Antiphonte Oratore Attico, pp. 8, 9, prefixed to Dobson’s edition of Antipho and AndokidÊs. Antipho is said to have been the teacher of the historian ThucydidÊs. The statement of Plutarch, that the father of Antipho was also a sophist, can hardly be true.

[717] Herodot. i, 29; iv, 95.

[718] Plato (Hippias Major, c. 1, 2; Menon, p. 95; and Gorgias, c. 1, with Stallbaum’s note); Diodor. xii, 53; Pausan. vi, 17, 8.

[719] Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 31. To teach or learn the art of speech was the common reproach made by the vulgar against philosophers and lettered men,—t? ????? t??? f???s?f??? ?p? t?? p????? ?p?t??e??? (Xenoph. Memor. i, 2, 31). Compare ÆschinÊs cont. Timar. about DemosthenÊs, c. 25, 27, which illustrates the curious fragment of SophoklÊs, 865. ?? ??? ???a?d??? ?a? ???e?? ?s????te?.

[720] Such is probably the meaning of that remarkable passage in which ThucydidÊs describes the Athenian rhetor, Antipho, (viii, 68): ??t?f??, ???? ????a??? ??et? te ??de??? ?ste???, ?a? ???t?st?? ????????a? ?e??e??? ?a? ? ?? ????? e?pe??? ?a? ?? ?? d??? ?? pa???? ??d’ ?? ????? ????a ????s??? ??d??a, ???’ ?p?pt?? t? p???e? d?? d??a? de???t?t?? d?a?e?e???, t??? ??t?? ???????????? ?a? ?? d??ast???? ?a? ?? d??, p?e?sta e?? ????, ?st?? ?????e?sa?t? t?, d???e??? ?fe?e??. “Inde illa circa occultandam eloquentiam simulatio,” observes Quintilian, Inst. Or. iv, 1, 8.

Compare Plato (Protagoras, c. 8; PhÆdrus, c. 86), IsokratÊs cont. Sophistas, Or. xiii, p. 295, where he complains of the teachers,—??t??e? ?p?s???t?, d????es?a? d?d?s?e??, ???e??e??? t? d?s?e??stat?? t?? ????t??, ? t?? f??????t?? ????? e?? ???e??, ???’ ?? t?? p??est?t?? t?? t??a?t?? pa?de?se??, Demosthen. De Fals. Legat, c. 70, 71, pp. 417-420; and Æschin. cont. Ktesiphon. c. 9, p. 371,—?a??????? s?f?st??, ???e??? ??as? t??? ????? ??a???se??.

[721] ÆschinÊs cont. Timarch. c. 34, p. 74. ?e?? ??, ? ????a???, S????t?? ?? t?? s?f?st?? ?pe?te??ate, ?t? ???t?a? ?f??? pepa?de????, ??a t?? t??????ta t?? t?? d??? ?ata??s??t??.

Among the sophists whom IsokratÊs severely criticizes, he evidently seems to include Plato, as may be seen by the contrast between d??a and ?p?st??, which he particularly notes, and which is so conspicuously set forth in the Platonic writings (IsokratÊs cont. Sophistas, Or. xiii, p. 293; also p. 295). We know also that Lysias called both Plato and ÆschinÊs the disciple of SokratÊs, by the name of sophists (AristeidÊs, Orat. Platonic. xlvi, ?p?? t?? tett????, p. 407, vol. ii, ed. Dindorf). AristeidÊs remarks justly that the name sophist was a general name, including all the philosophers, teachers, and lettered men.

The general name, sophists, in fact, included good, bad, and indifferent; like “the philosophers, the political economists, the metaphysicians,” etc. I shall take a future opportunity of examining the indiscriminate censures against them as a class, which most modern writers have copied implicitly from the polemics of ancient times.

[722] Xenoph. Memor. i, 2, 31. ????? t????? ? d?d?s?e??. Xenophon ascribes the passing of this law to a personal hatred of Kritias against SokratÊs, and connects it with an anecdote exceedingly puerile, when considered as the alleged cause of that hatred, as well as of the consequent law. But it is evident that the law had a far deeper meaning, and was aimed directly at one of the prominent democratical habits.