214 W2 UC-NRLF $B mt. TbT GREEK HISTO'JRY Its ^7^ohlems and its Meaning WITH APPENDICES ON TEIE AUTHO%iriES and on '^THE COr\srirUTION OE ATHENS'' By E, M. IVJLI^ER, Fellow and Tutor of Queen s College^ Oxfof'd OXFORD: BASIL BLACKWELL LONDON : 4 STATIONERS' HALL COURT, E.C, 4 MDCCCCXXl CONTENTS GREEK fflSTORY. page I. InTRODUCI Lastion. 8 THE MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN AGES. If, then, by " Greek history " is to be understood tlie history of the lands occupied in later times by the Greek race [i.e. the Greek peninsula and the Aegean basin), tHe beginnings of the history must be carried back some 2000 years before Grote's proposed starting- point. If, however, " Greek history " is taken to mean the history of the Greek people, the determina- tion of the starting-point is far from easy. For the question to which archaeology does not as yet supply any certain answer is the question of face. Were the creators of the Minoan and Mycenaean civilization Greeks, or were they not ? In some degree the Minoan evidence has modified the answer suggested by the Mycenaean. Although wide differences of opinion as to the origin of the Mycenaean civilization existed among scholars when the results of Schliemann's labours were first given to the world, a general agree- ment had gradually been arrived at in favour of the view which would identify Mycenaean with Achaean or Homeric. In presence of the Cretan evidence it is no longer possible to maintain this view with the same confidence. The two chief difficulties in the way of attributing either the Minoan or the Mycenaean civilization to an Hellenic people are connected respectively with the script and the religion. The excavations at Cnossus have yielded thousands of tablets written in the linear script. There is evidence that this script was in use among the Mycenaeans as THE MI NO AN AND MYCENAEAN AGES. well. If Greek was the language spoken at Cnossus and Mycenae, how is it that all attempts to decipher the script have hitherto failed ? The Cretan excava- tions, again, have taught us a great deal as to the religion of the Minoan age ; they have, at the same time, thrown a new light upon the evidence supplied by Mycenaean sites. It is no longer possible to ignore the contrast between the cults of the Minoan and Mycenaean ages, and the religious conceptions which the}^ imply, and the cults and religious conceptions prevalent in the historical period. On the other hand, it may safely be asserted that the argument derived from the Mycenaean art, in which we seem i(> trace a freedom of treatment which is akin to the spirit of the later Greek art, and is in complete contrast to the spirit of Oriental art, has received striking confirma- tion from the remains of Minoan art. The decipher- ment of the script would at once solve the problem. We should at least know wliether the dominant race in Crete in the Minoan age spoke an Hellenic (jr a non- Hellenic dialect. And what could be inferred with regard to Crete in the Minoan age could almost certainly be inferred with regard to the mainland in the Mycenaean age. In the meanwhile, possibly until the tablets are read, at any rate until further evidence is fortli-coming, any answer that can be given to the question nmst necessarily be tentative and provisional. 10 THE MI NO AN AND MYCENAEAN AGES. It has already been implied that this period of the history of Greece may be subdivided into a Minoan and a Mycenaean age. Whether these terms are appropriate is a question of comparatively little importance. They at least serve to remind us of the part played by the discoveries at Mycenae and Cnossus in the reconstruction of the history. The term " Mycenaean," it is true, has other associations than those of locality. It may seem to imply that the civilization disclosed in the excavations at Mycenae is Achaean in character, and that it is to be connected with the Pelopid dynast}^ to which Agamemnon be- longed. In its scientific use, the term must be cleared of all such associations. Further, as opposed to " Minoan " it must be understood in a more definite sense than that in which it has often been employed. It has come to be generally recognized that two different periods are to be distinguished in Schlie- mann's discoveries at Mycenae itself. There is an earlier period, to which belong the objects found in the shaft -graves, and there is a later period, to which be- long the beehive tombs and the remains of the palaces. It is the latter period which is " Mycenaean " in the strict sense ; i.e. it is " Mycenaean " as opposed to " Minoan." To this period belong also the palace at Tiryns, the beehive-tombs discovered elsewhere on the mainland of Greece, and one of the cities on the site of Troy (Schhemann's sixth). The pottery of II THE MI NO AN AND MYCENAEAN AGES. this period is as characteristic of it, both in its forms (e.g. the " stirrup " or " false-necked " form of vase) and in its peculiar glaze, as is the architecture of the palaces and the beehive-tombs. Although the chief remains have been found on the mainland of Greece itself, the art of this period is found to have extended as far north as Troy, and as far east as Cyprus. On the other hand, hardly any traces of it have been discovered on the west coast of Asia Minor, south of the Troad. The Mycenaean age, in this sense, may be regarded as extending from 1600 to 1200 B.C. The Minoan age is of far wider extent. Its latest period includes both the earlier and the later periods of the remains found at Mycenae. This is the period called by Sir Arthur Evans " Late Minoan." To this period belong the Great Palace at Cnossus and the linear system of writing. The " Middle Minoan " period, to which the earlier palace belongs, is characterised by the pictographic system of writing and by polychrome pottery of a peculiarly beautiful kind. Sir Arthur Evans proposes to carry back this period as far as 2500 B.C. Even behind it there are traces of a still earlier civilization. Thus the Minoan age, even if limited to the middle and later periods, will cover at least a thousand years. Perhaps the most surprising * result of the excavations in Crete is the discovery that Minoan art is on a higher level than Mycenaean art To the scholars of a generation ago it seemed a thing 12 ORIENTAL INFLUENCE. incredible that the art of the shaft-graves, and the architecture of the beehive tombs and the palaces, could belong to the age before the Dorian invasion. The most recent discoveries seem to indicate that the art of Mycenae is a decadent art ; they certainly prove that an art, hardly inferior in its way to the art of the classical period, and a civilization which implies the command of great material resources, were flourishing in the Aegean perhaps a thousand years before the siege of Troy. Oriental Influence. To the question, " What is the origin of this civili- zation ? Is it of foreign derivation or of native growth ? " it is not possible to give a direct answer. It is clear, on the one hand, that it was developed, by a gradual process of differentiation, from a culture which was common to the whole Aegean basin and extended as far to the west as Sicily. It is equally clear, on the other hand, that foreign influences con- tributed largely to the process of development. Egyptian influences, in particular, can be traced throughout the " Minoan " and " Mycenaean " periods. The developed art, however, both in Crete and on the mainland, displays characteristics which are the very opposite of those Avhich are commonly associated with the term " oriental.'' Egyptian work, even of the best period, is stiff and conventional ; in 13 THE MI NO AN AND MYCENAEAN AGES. the best Cretan work, and, in a less degree, in Mycenaean work, we find an originality and a freedom of treatment which remind one of the spirit of the Greek artists. The civilization is, in many respects, of an advanced type. The Cretan architects could design on a grand scale, and could carry out their designs with no small degree of mechanical skill. At Cnossus we find a system of drainage in use which is far in advance of anj^thing known in the modern world before the 19th century. If the art of the Minoan age falls short of the art of the Periclean age, it is hardly inferior to that of the age of Peisistratus. It is a civilization, too, which has long been familiar with the art of writing. But it is one that belongs entirely to the Bronze Age. Iron is not found until the very end of the Mycenaean period, and then only in small quantities. Nor is this the only point of contrast between the culture of the earliest age and that of the historical period in Greece. The chief seats of the early culture are to be found either in the island of Crete or on the mainland, at Tiryns and Mycenae. In the later history Crete plays no part, and Tiryns and Mycenae are obscure. With the great names of a later age, Argos, Sparta and Athens, no great discoveries are connected. In northern Greece, Orchomenos rather than Thebes is the centre of in- fluence. Further points of contrast readily suggest themselves. The so-called Phoenician alphabet, in 14 ORIENTAL INFLUENCE. use amongst the later Greeks, is unknown in the earliest age. Its systems of writing, both the earlier and the later one, are syllabic in character, and analogous to those in vogue in Asia Minor and Cyprus. In the art of war, the chariot is of more importance than the foot soldier, and the latter, unlike the Greek hoplite, is lightly clad and trusts to a shield large enough to cover the whole body, rather than to the metal helmet, breast-plate, and greaves of later times. The political system appears to have been a despotic monarchy, and the realm of the monarch to have extended to far wider limiits than those of the *' city-states " of historical Greece. It is, perhaps, in the religious practices of the age, and in the ideas implied in them, that the contrast is most apparent. Neither in Crete nor on the mainland is there any trace of the worship of the " Olympian " deities. The cults in vogue remind us rather of Asia than of Greece. The worship of pillars and of trees carries us back to Canaan, while the double-headed axe, so prominent in the ritual of Cnossus, survives in later times as the symbol of the national deity of the Carians. The beehive-tombs, found on many sites on the mainland besides Mycenae, are evidence both of a method of sepulture and of ideas of the future state which are alien to the practice and the thought of the Greeks of history. It is only in one region in the island of Cyprus that the culture of the Mycenaean age is 15 THE MI NO AN AND MYCENAEAN AGES. ' found surviving into the historical period. As late as the beginning of the 5th century B.C. Cyprus is still ruled by kings, the alphabet has not yet displaced a syllabary, the characteristic forms of Mycenaean vases still linger on, and the chief deity of the island is the goddess with attendant doves, whose images are among the common objects of Mycenaean finds. III. THE HOMERIC AGE. Alike in Crete and on the mainland the civilization disclosed by excavation comes abruptly to an end. In Crete we can trace it back from c. 1200 B.C. to the Neo- lithic period. From the Stone Age to the end of the Minoan Age the development is continuous and un- interrupted.^ But between the culture of the Early Age and the culture of the Dorians, who occupied the island in historical times, no connexion whatever can be established. Between the two there is a great gulf fixed. It would be difficult to imagine a greater '^ontrast than that presented by the rude life of the Dorian communities in Crete when it is compared v/ith the political power, the material resources, and the extensive commerce of the earlier period. The same gap between the archaeological age and the historical exists on the mainland also. It is true that the solution of continuity is here less complete. Mycenaean art continues, here and there, in a debased form down to the 9th centur}^ a date to which we can 1 It would be more accurate to say to the year 1500 B.C. At Cnossus the palace is sacked soon after this date, and the art, both in Crete and in the whole Aegean area, becomes lifeless and decadent. 17 THE HOMERIC AGE. trace back the beginnings of the later Greek art. On one or two Hnes [e.g. architecture) it is even possible to establish some sort of connexion between tlieni. But Greek art as a whole cannot be evolved from Mycenaean art. We cannot bridge over the interval that separates the latter art, even in its decline, from the former. It is sufficient to compare the " dipylon " ware (with which the process of development begins which culminates in the pottery of the Great Age) with the Mycenaean vases, to satisfy oneself that the gulf exists. What then is the relation of the Heroic or Homeric x\ge {i.e. the age whose life is portrayed for us in the poems of Homer) to the Earliest Age ? It too presents many contrasts to the later periods. On the other hand, it presents contrasts to the Minoan Age, which, in their way, are not less striking. Is it then to be identified witli the Mycenaean Age ? Schliemann, the discoverer of the Mycenaean culture, unhesitatingly identified Mycenaean with Homeric. He even identified the sliaft-graves of Mycenae with the tombs of Agamemnon and Clytcmnestra. Later inquirers, while refusing to discover so literal a corre- spondence between things Homeric and things Mycenaean, have not hesitated to accept a general correspondence between the Homeric Age and the Mycenaean. Where it is a case of comparing literary evidence with archaeological, an exact coincidence is not, of course, to be demanded. The most that i8 THE HOMERIC AGE. can be asked is that a general correspondence should be established. It may be conceded that the case for such a correspondence 3ippea.TS prima facie a strong one. There is much in Homer that seems to find confirmation or explanation in Schliemann's finds. Mycenae is Agamemnon's city ; the plan of the Homeric house agrees fairly well with the palaces at Tiryns and Mycenae ; the forms and the technique of Mycenaean art serve to illustrate passages in the poems such are only a few of the arguments that have been urged. It is the great merit of Professor Ridgeway's work {The Early Age of Greece) that it has demonstrated, once and for all, that Mycenaean is not Homeric pure and simple. He insists upon differences as great as the resemblances. Iron is in common use in Homer ; it is practically unknown to the Mycenaeans. In place of the round shield and the metal armour of the Homeric soldier, we find at Mycenae that the warrior is lightly clad in linen, and that he fights behind an oblong shield, which covers the whole body ; nor are the chariots the same in form. The Homeric dead are cremated ; the Mycenaean are buried. The gods of Homer are the deities of Olympus, of whose cult no traces are to be found in the Mycenaean Age. The novelty of Pro- fessor Ridgeway's theory is that for the accepted equation, Homeric Achaean =Mycenaean, he pro- poses to substitute the equations, Homeric =Achaean 19 THE HOMERIC AGE. = post-Mycenaean, and Mycenaean = pre-Achaean = Pelasgian. The Mycenaean civilization he attributes to the Pelasgians, whom he regards as the indigenous population of Greece, the ancestors of the later Greeks, and themselves Greek both in speech and blood. The Homeric heroes are Achaeans, a fair-haired Celtic race, whose home was in the Danube valle}^ where they had learned the use of iron. In Greece they are newcomers, a conquering class comparable to the Norman invaders of England or Ireland, and, like them, they have acquired the language of their subjects in the course of a few generations. The Homeric civilization is thus Achaean, i.e. it is Pelasgian (Mycenaean) civilization, appropriated by a ruder race ; but the Homeric culture is far inferior to the Mycenaean. Here, at any rate, the Norman analogy breaks down. Norman art in England is far in advance of Saxon. Even in Normandy (as in Sicily), where the Norman appropriated rather than intro- duced, he not only assimilated but developed. In Greece the process must have been reversed. The theory thus outlined is probably stronger on its destructive side than on its constructive. To treat the Achaeans as an immigrant race is to run counter to the tradition of the Greeks themselves, by whom the Achaeans were regarded as indigenous (cf. Herod, viii. 73). Nor is the Pelasgian part of the theory easy to reconcile with the Homeric evidence. If the 20 THE HOMERIC AGE. Achaeans were a conquering class ruling over a Pel- asgian population, we should expect to find this difference of race a prominent feature in Homeric society. We should, at least, expect to find a Pelasgian background to the Homeric picture. As a matter of fact, we fmd nothing of the sort. There is no consciousness in the Homeric poems of a distinction of race between the governing and the subject classes. There are, indeed, Pelasgians in Homer, but the references either to the people or the name are extraordinarily few. They appear as a people, pre- sumabh^ in Asia Minor, in alliance with the Trojans ; they appear also, in a single passage, as one of the tribes inhabiting Crete. The name survives in " Pelasgicon Argos," which is probably to be identified with the valley of the Spercheius,^ and as an epithet of Zeus of Dodona. The population, however, of Pelasgicon Argos and of Dodona is no longer Pelasgian. Thus, in the age of Homer, the Pelasgians belong, so far as Greece proper is concerned, to a past that is already remote. It is inadmissible to appeal to Herodotus against Homer. For the conditions of the Homeric age Homer is the sole authoritative witness. If, ho\vever, Professor Ridgeway has failed to prove that " Mycenaean " equals " Pelasgian," he has certainly proved that much that is Homeric is post- 1 See T. W. Allen in the Classical Review, vol. xx. (1906), No. 4 (May). 21 THE HOMERIC AGE. Mycenaean. It is possible that different strata are to be distinguished in the Homeric poems. There are passages which seem to assume the conditions of the Mycenaean age ; there are others which pre- suppose the conditions of a later age. It may be that the latter passages reflect the circumstances of the poet's own times, while the former ones reproduce those of an earlier period. If so, the substitution of iron for bronze must have been effected in the interval between the earlier and the later periods. The Homeric State. It has already been pointed out that the question whether the makers of the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations were Greeks must still be regarded as an open one. No such question can be raised as to the Homeric Age. The Achaeans may or may not have been Greek in blood. What is certain is that the Achaean Age forms an integral part of Greek history. Alike on the linguistic, the religious, and the political sides, Homer is the starting-point of subsequent developments. In the Greek dialects the great dis- tinction is that between the Doric and the rest. Of the non-Doric dialects the two main groups are the Aeolic and Ionic, both of which have been developed, by a gradual process of differentiation, from the language of the Homeric poems. With regard to religion it is sufficient to refer to the judgment of 22 THE HOMERIC STATE. Herodotus, that it was Homer and Hesiod who were the authors of the Greek theogony (ii. 53 : ovroi den ol TroLr)(ravT9 dcoynini]!' "E\\T]ai.) It is a commonplace that Homer was the Bible of the Greeks. On the pohtical side, Greek constitutional development would be un- intelligible without Homer. When Greek history, in the proper sense, begins, oligarchy is almost universal. Everywhere, however, an antecedent stage of mon- archy has to be presupposed. In the Homeric system monarchy is the sole form of government ; but it is monarchy already well on the way to being trans- formed into oligarchy. In the person of the king are united the functions of priest, of judge, and of leader in war. He belongs to a family which claims divine descent and his office is hereditary. He is, however, no despotic monarch. He is compelled by custom to consult the council (boitle) of the elders, or chiefs. He must ask their opinion, and, if he fails to obtain their consent, he has no power to enforce his will. Even when he has obtained the consent of the council, the proposal still awaits the approval of the assembly [agora] of the people. Homeric Society Thus in the Homeric state we find the germs not only of the oligarchy and democracy of later Greece, but also of all the various forms of constitution known to the Western world. And a monarchy such as is 23 THE HOMERIC AGE. depicted in the Homeric poems is clearly ripe for transmutation into oligarchy. The chiefs are addressed as kings (/Soo-iX^es-) , and claim, equally with the monarch, descent from the gods. In Homer, again, we can trace the later organization into tribe {(pvXr)), clan (yepos), and phratry, which is char- acteristic of Greek society in the historical period, and meets us in analogous forms in other Aryan societies. The ydvofi corresponds to the Roman gens, the (pvXij to the Roman tribe, and the phratry to the curia. The importance of the phratry in Homeric society is illustrated by the well-known passage {Iliad ix. 63) in which the outcast is described as " one who belongs to no phratry " { archons ; ' in many ^ If the account of early Athenian constitutional history given in the .Uhniaion Politeia were accepted, it would follow that the archons were inferior in authority to the Eupatnd lioulc, the Areopagus 34 TRADE. states the magistrates were probably subordinate to the council (cf. the relation of the consuls to the senate at Rome). And it is clear that the way in which the oligarchies used their power varied also. The cases in which the power was abused are naturally the ones of which we hear ; for an abuse of power gave rise to discontent and was the ultimate cause of revolution. We hear little or nothing of the cases in which power was exercised wisely. Happy is the constitution which has no annals ! We know, how- ever, that oligarchy held its ground for generations, or even for centuries, in a large proportion of the Greek states ; and a government which, like the oligarchies of Elis, Thebes, or Aegina, could maintain itself for three or four centuries cannot have been merely oppressive. Trade. The period of the transition from monarchy to oligarchy is the period in which commerce begins to develop, and trade-routes to be organized. Greece had been the centre of an active trade in the Minoan and Mycenaean epochs. The products of Crete and of the Peloponnese had found their way to Egypt and Asia Minor. The overthrow of the older civilization put an end to commerce. The seas became insecure, and intercourse with the East was interrupted. Our earliest glimpses of the Aegean after the period of the 35 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. migrations disclose the raids of the pirate and the activity of the Phoenician trader. It is not till the 8th century has dawned that trade begins to revive, . and the Phoenician has to retire before his Greek competitor. For some time to come, however, no clear distinction is drawn between the trader and the pirate. The pioneers of Greek trade in the West are the pirates of Cumae (Thucyd. vi. 4). The expansion of Greek commerce, unlike that of the commerce of the modern world, was not connected with any great scientific discoveries. There is nothing in the history of ancient navigation that is analogous to the invention of the mariner's compass or the steam-engine. In spite of this, the development of Greek commerce in the 7th and 6th centuries was rapid. It must have been assisted by the great discovery of the early part of the former century, the invention of coined money. To the Lydians, rather than the Greeks, belongs the credit of the discovery ; but it was the genius of the latter race that divined the importance of the invention and spread its use. The coinage of the Ionian towns goes back to the reign of Gyges (c. 675 B.C.). And it is in Ionia that commercial development is earliest and greatest. In the most distant regions the Ionian is first in the field. Egypt and the Black Sea are both opened up to Greek trade by Miletus, the Adriatic and the Western Mediterranean by Phocaea and Samos. It is significant that of the twelve states engaged in 36 TRADE, the Egyptian trade in the 6th century all, with the exception of Aegina, are from the eastern side of the Aegean (Herod, ii. 178). On the western side the chief centres of trade during these centuries were the islands of Euboea and Aegina and the town of Corinth. The Aeginetan are the earliest coins of Greece proper (c. 650 B.C.) ; and the two rival scales of weights and measures, in use amongst the Greeks of every age, are the Aeginetan and the Euboic. Commerce naturally gave rise to commercial leagues, and commercial relations tended to bring about political alliances. Foreign policy even at this early epoch seems to have been largely determined by considerations of com- merce. Two leagues, the members of which were connected by political as well as commercial ties, can be recognized. At the head of each stood one of the two rival powers in the island of Euboea, Chalcis and Eretria. Their primary object was doubtless protec- tion from the pirate and the foreigner. Competing routes were organized at an early date under their influence, and their trading connexions can be traced from the heart of Asia Minor to the north of Italy. Miletus, Sybaris, and Etruria were members of the Eretrian league ; Samos, Corinth, Rhegium and Zancle (commanding the Straits of Messina), and Cumae, on the Bay of Naples, of the Chalcidian. The wool of the Phrygian uplands, woven in the looms of Miletus, reached the Etruscan markets by way of 37 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. Sybaris ; through Cumac, Rome and the rest of Latium obtained the elements of Greek cultnre. Greek trade, however, was confined to tlic Mediter- ranean area. Tlie Phoenician and the Carthaginian navigators penetrated to Britain ; tliey discovered the passage round the Cape two thousand years before Vasco da Gama's time. The Greek sailor dared not adventure himself outside the Black Sea, the Adriatic, and the Mediterranean. Greek trade, too, was essen- tially maritime. Ports visited by Greek vessels were often the starting points of trade-routes into the interior ; the traffic along those routes was left in the hands of the natives (see e.g. Herod, iv. 24). One service, the importance of which can hardly be over- estimated, was rendered to civilization by the Greek traders the invention of geography. The science of geography is the invention of the Greeks. The lirst maps were made by them (in the 6th century) ; and it was the disooveries and surveys of their sailors that made map-making possible. Colonization. Closely connected with the historj^ of Greek trade is the histor}' of Greek colonization. The j)eriod of colonization, in its narrower sense, extends from the middle of the 8th to the middle of the Otli century. Greek colonization is, however, merely a continuation of the process which at an earlier ei)och had led to the 3S COLONIZA TION. \ settlement, first of Cyprus, and then of the islands and coasts of the Aegean. From the earlier settlements the colonization of the historical period is distinguished j by three characteristics. The later colony acknow- ledges a definite metropolis (" mother-city ") ; it is | planted by a definite oecist {oiKiaTr,s) ; it has a definite ' date assigned to its foundation. ^ It would be a mistake to regard Greek colonization as commercial in origin, in the sense that the colonies were in all i cases established as trading-posts. This was the case with the Phoenician and Carthaginian settlements, most of which remained mere factories ; and some of the Greek colonies {e.g. many of those planted by Miletus on the shores of the Black Sea) bore this character. The typical Greek colon}^ however, was neither in origin nor in development a mere trading- post. It was, or it became, a polis, a city-state, in which v,-as reproduced the life of the parent state. Nor was Greek colonization, like the emigration from Europe to America and Australia in the 19th century, j simply the result of over-population. The causes ' were as various as those which can be traced in the history of modern colonization. Those which were j established for the purposes of trade may be compared J to the factories of the Portuguese and Dutch in Africa j 1 The dates before the middle of the 7th century are in most cases artificial, e.g., those given by Thucydides (book vi.) for the earlier Sicihan settlements. See J. P. Mahaffy, Journal of Hellenic Studies, ii. 164 ff. 39 ' ' THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. and the Far East. Others were the result of poHtical discontent, in some form or shape ; these may be compared to the Puritan settlements in New England. Others again were due to ambition or the mere love of adventure (see Herod, v. 42 ff., the career of Dorieus). But however various the causes, two conditions must always be pre-supposed an expan- sion of commerce and a growth of population. Within the narrow limits of the city-state there was a constant tendency for population to become redundant, until, as in the later centuries of Greek life, its growth was artificially restricted. Alike from the Roman colonies, and from those founded by the European nations in the course of the last few centuries, the Greek colonies are dis- tinguished by a fundamental contrast. It is signi- ficant that the contrast is a political one. The Roman colony was in a position of entire subordina- tion to the Roman state, of which it formed a part. The modern colony was, in varying degrees, in political subjection to the home government. The Greek colony was completely independent ; and it was independent from the first. The ties that united a colony to its metropolis were those of sentiment and interest ; the political tie did not exist. There were, it is true, exceptions. The colonies established by imperial Athens closely resembled the colonics of imperial Rome. The clerucliy formed part of the 40 COLONIZATION. Athenian state ; the cleruchs kept their status as citizens of Athens and acted as a mihtary garrison. And if the poKtical tie, in the proper sense, was wanting, it was inevitable that poHtical relations should spring out of commercial or sentimental ones. Thus we hnd Corinth interfering twice to save her colony Syracuse from destruction, and Megara bringing about the revolt of Byzantium, her colony, from Athens. Sometimes it is not easy to distinguish political relations from a political tie [e.g. the relations of Corinth, both in the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, to Ambracia and the neighbouring group of colonies.) When we compare the development of the Greek and the modern colonies we shall find that the development of the former was even more rapid than that of the latter. In at least three respects the Greek settler was at an advantage as compared with the colonist of modern times. The differences of race, of colour, and of climate, with which the chief problems of modern colonization are connected, played no part in the history of the Greek settlements. The races amongst whom the Greeks planted themselves were in some cases on a similar level of culture. Where the natives were still backward or barbarous, they came of a stock either closely related to the Greek, or at least separated from it by no great physical differences. We need only contrast the Carian, the 41 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. Siccl, the Thracian, or even the Sc3'thian, with the native AustraHan, the Hottentot, the Red Indian, or the Maori, to apprehend the advantage of the Greek. Amalgamation with the native races was easy, and it involved neither ph^^sical nor intellectual degeneracy as its consequence. Of the races with which the ' Greeks came in contact the Thracian was far from the highest in the scale of culture ; yet three of the greatest names in the Great Age of Athens are those of men who had Thracian blood in their veins, viz.^ Themistocles, Cimon and the historian Thuc\'dides. In the absence of any distinction of colour, no in- superable barrier existed between the Greek and the hellenized native. The de?7ios of the colonial cities was largely recruited from the native population,'^ nor was there an3^thing in the Greek world analogous to the " mean whites " or the " black belt." Of hardly less importance were the climatic conditions. In this repsect the Mediterranean area is unique. There is no other region of tlie world of equal extent in which these conditions arc at once so uniform and so fa\'ourable. . Nowhere had the Cireek settler to encounter a climate which was either unsuited to his labour or suln-ersi\'e of liis \-igour. Tliat in spite of these advantages so little, comparatixely speaking, was effected in the work of Hellenization l)efore the epoch ^ At Syracuse the dcnios makes common cause witli the Sicel serf-population against the nobles (HcrocI vii. 155). 42 THE TYRANTS. of Alexander and the Diadochi was the effect of a single counteracting cause. The Greek colonist, like the Greek trader, clung to the shore. He penetrated no farther inland than the sea-breeze. Hence it was only in islands, such as Sicily or Cyprus, that the process of Hellenization was complete. Elsewhere the Greek settlements formed a mere fringe along the coast. The Tyrants. To the 7th century there belongs another move- ment of high importance in its bearing upon the economic, religious, and literary development of Greece, as well as upon its constitutional history. This movement is the rise of the tyrannis. In the political writers of a later age the word possesses a clear-cut connotation. From other forms of monarchy it is distinguished by a twofold differentiation. The tyrannus is an unconstitutional ruler, and his authority is exercised over unwilling subjects. In the 7th and 6th centuries the line was not drawn so distinctly between the tyrant and the legitimate monarch. Even Herodotus uses the words " tyrai^t " and " king " interchangeably (e.g. the princes of Cyprus are called " kings " in v. no and " tyrants " in v. 109), so that it is sometimes difficult to decide whether a legitimate monarch or a tryant is meant (e.g. Aris- tophilides of Tarentum, iii. 136, or Telys of Sybaris, 43 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. V. 44). But the distinction between the tyrant and the king of the Heroic Age is a vahd one. It is not true that his rule was always exercised over unwilling subjects ; it is true that his position was always unconstitutional. The Homeric king is a legitimate monarch ; his authority is invested with the sanctions of religion and immemorial custom. The tyrant is an illegitimate ruler ; his authority is not recognized, either by customary usage or by express enactment. But the word " tyrant " was originally a neutral term ; it did not necessarily imply a misuse of power. The origin of the tyrannis is obscure. The word tyr annus has been thought, with some reason, to be a Lydian one. Probably both the name and the thing originated in the Greek colonies of Asia Minor, though the earliest tyrants of whom we hear in Asia Minor (at Ephesus and Miletus) are a generation later than the earliest in Greece itself, where, both at Sicyon and at Corinth, tyranny appears to date back to the second quarter of the 7th century. It is not unusual to regard tyranny as a universal stage in the constitutional development of the Greek states, and as a stage that occurs everywhere at one and the same period. In reality, tyranny is confined to certain regions, and it is a phenomenon that is peculiar to no one age or century. In Greece proper, before the 4th century B.C., it is confined to a small group of states round the Corinthian and 44 THE TYRANTS. Saronic Gulfs. The greater part of the Peloponnese was exempt from it, and there is no good evidence for its existence north of the Isthmus, except at Megara and Athens. It plays no part in the history of the Greek cities in Chalcidice and Thrace. It appears to have been rare in the Cyclades. The regions in which it finds a congenial soil are two, Asia Minor and Sicily. Thus it is incorrect to say that most Greek states passed through this stage. It is still wider of the mark to assume that they passed through it at the same time. There is no " Age of the Tyrants." Tyranny began in the Peloponnese a hundred years before it appears in Sicily, and it has disappeared in the Peloponnese almost before it begins in Sicily. In the latter the great age of tyranny comes at the beginning of the 5th century ; in the former it is at the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th. At Athens the history of tyranny begins after it has ended both at Sicyon and Corinth. There is, indeed, a period in which tyranny is non-existent in the Greek states ; roughly speaking, the last sixty years of the 5th century. But with this exception, there is no period in which the tyrant is not to be found. The greatest of all the tyrannies, that of Dionysius at Syracuse, belongs to the 4th century. Nor must it be assumed that tyranny always comes at the same stage in the history of a constitution ; that it is always a stage between oligarchy and democracy. At Corinth 45 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. it is followed, not by democracy, but by oligarchy, and it is an oligarchy that lasts, with a brief interruption, two hundred and fifty years. At Athens it is not immediately preceded by oligarchy. Between the Eupatrid oligarchy and the rule of Peisistratus there comes the timocracy of Solon, 'fhese exceptions do not stand alone. The cause of tyranny is, in one sense, uniform. In the earlier centuries, at any rate, tyranny is always the expression of discontent ; the tyrant is always the champion of a cause. But it would be a mistake to suppose that the discontent is necessarily political, or that the cause which he champions is always a constitutional one. At Sicyon it is racial ; Cleisthenes is the champion of the older population against their Dorian oppressors (see Herod, v. 67, 68). At Athens the discontent is econo- mic rather than political ; Peisistratus is the champion of the Diacrii, the inhabitants of the poorest region of Attica. The party-strifes of which we hear in the early history of Miletus, which doubtless gave the tyrant his opportunity, are concerned with the claims of rival industrial classes. In Sicily the tyrant is the ally of the rich and the foe of the demos, and the cause which he champions, both in the 5th century and the 4th, is a national one, that of the Greek against the Carthaginian. We may suspe^4 that in Greece itself the tyrannies of the yi\\ century are the expres- sion of an anti-Dorian reaction. It can hardly be an 46 THE TYRANTS. accident that the states in which the tyrannis is found at this epoch, Corinth, Megara, Sicyon, Epidaurus, are all of them states in which a Dorian upper class ruled over a subject population. In Asia Minor the tyrannis assumes a peculiar character after the Persian conquest. The tyrant rules as the deputy of the Persian satrap. Thus in the East the tyrant is the enemy of the national cause ; in the West, in Sicily, he is its champion. Tyrann}^ is not a phenomenon peculiar to Greek . . ... '' history. It is possible to find an alogies to it in Roman.; history, in the power of Caesar, or of the Caesars ; in the despotisms of medieval Italy ; or even in the Napoleonic empire. Between the tyrant and the Italian despot there is indeed a real analogy ; but between the Roman principate and the Greek tyrannis there are two essential differences. In the first place, the principate was expressed in constitutional forms, or veiled under constitutional fictions ; the tyrant stood altogether outside the constitution. And,, secondly, at Rome both Julius and Augustus owed their position to the power of the sword. The power of the sword, it is true, plays a large part in the history of the later tyrants (e.g. Dionysius of Syracuse) ; the earlier ones, however, had no mercenary armies at their command. We can hardly compare the body- guard of Peisistratus to the legions of the first or the second Caesar. 47 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES/ The view taken of the tyrannis in Greek hterature is almost uniformly unfavourable. In this respect there is no difference between Plato and Aristotle, or between Herodotus and the later historians.^ His policy is represented as purely selfish, and his rule as oppressive. Herodotus is influenced partly by the traditions current among the oligarchs, who had been the chief sufferers, and partly by the odious associations which had gathered round tyranny in Asia Minor. The philosophers write under their impressions of the later tyrannis, and their account is largely an a priori one. It is seldom that we find any attempt, eitlier in the philosophers or the his- torians, to do justice to the real services rendered by the tyrants." Their first service was a constitutional one. They helped to break down the power of the'' old aristocratic houses, and thus to create the social' and political conditions indispensable to democracy. The tyrannis involved the sacrifice of liberty in the cause of equality. When tyranny falls, it is ne^er succeeded by the aristocracies which it has over- thrown. It is frequently succeeded by an oligarchy, but it is an oligarchy in wliich the claim to exclusive power is based, not upon mere birth, but upon wealth, or the possession of land. It would be unfair to treat ^ An exception should perhaps be made in the case of Thucydidcs. - The Peisistratidae come off better, however. 48 THE TYRANTS. this service as one that was rendered unconsciously and unwiUingly. Where the tyrant asserted the claims of an oppressed class, he consciously aimed at the destruction of privilege and the effacement of class distinctions. Hence it is unjust to treat his power as resting upon mere force. A government which can last eighty or a hundred years, as was the case with the tyrannies at Corinth and Sicyon, must have a moral force behind it. It must rest upon the consent of its subjects. The second service which the tyrants rendered to Greece was a political one. Their policy tended to break down the barriers which isolated each petty state from its neighbours. In their history we can trace a system of widespread alliances, which are often cemented by matrimonial connexions. The Cypselid tyrants of Corinth appear to have been allied with the royal families of Egypt, Lydia, and Phrygia, as well as with the tyrants of Miletus and Epidaurus, and with some of the great Athenian families. In Sicily we find a league of the northern tyrants opposed to a league of the southern ; and in each case there is a corresponding matrimonial alliance. Anaxilaus of Rhegium is the son-in-law and ally of Terillus of Himera ; Gelo of Syracuse stands in the same relation to Theron of Agrigentum. Royal marriages have played a great part in the politics of Europe. In the comparison of Greek and modern history it has been too often forgotten how great a 49 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. difference it makes, and how great a disadvantage it involves, to a republic that it has neither sons nor daughters to give in marriage. In commerce and colonization the t3^rants were only continuing the work of the oligarchies to which they succeeded. Greek trade owed its expansion to the intelligent efforts of the oligarchs who ruled at Miletus and Corinth, in Samos, Aegina, and Euboea ; but in particular cases such as Miletus, Corinth, Sicyon, and Athens, there was a further development, and a still more rapid growth, under the tyrants. In the same way, the foundation of the colonies was in most cases due to the policy of the oligarchical governments. They can claim credit for the colonies of Chalcis and Eretria, of Megara, Phocaea, and Samos, as well as for the great Achaean settlements in southern Italy. The Cypselids at Corinth, and Thrasybulus at Miletus, are instances of tyrants who colonized on a ;L,reat scale. Religion under the Tyrants. In their religious policy the tyrants went far to democratize Greek religion. The functions of mon- archy had been largely religious ; but, while the king was necessarily a priest, he was not the only priest in the community. There were special priesthoods, hereditary in particular families, e\en in the monarchical period ; and upon the fall of the monarchy, while the priestly functions of the kings 50 RELIGION UNDER THE TYRANTS. passed to republican magistrates, the priesthoods which were in the exclusive possession of the great families tended to become the important ones. Thus, before the rise of tyranny, Greek religion is aristocratic. The cults recognized by the state are the sacra of noble clans. The religious prerogatives of the nobles helped to confirm their political ones, and, as long as religion retained its aristocratic character, it was impossible for democracy to take root. The policy of the tyrants aimed at fostering popular cults which had no associa- tions with the old families, and at establishing new festivals. The cult of the wine-god, Dionysus, was thus fostered at Sicyon by Cleisthenes, and at Corinth by the Cypselids ; while at Athens a new festival of this deity, which so completely overshadowed the older festival that it became known as the Great Dionysia, probably owed its institution to Peisistratus. Another festival, the Panathenaea, which had been instituted only a few years before his rise to power, became under his rule, and thanks to his policy, the chief national festival of the Athenian state. Everywhere, again, we find the tyrants the patrons of literature. Pindar and Bacchylides, Aeschylus and Simonides found a welcome at the court of Hiero. Polycrates was the patron of Anacreon, Periander of Arion. To Peisis- tratus has been attributed, possibly not without reason, the first critical edition of the text of Homer, a work as important in the literary history of Greece 51 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. as was the issue of the Authorized Version of the Bible in Enghsh history. If we would judge fairly of tyranny, and of what it contributed to the develop- ment of Greece, we must remember how many states there were in whose history the period of greatest power coincides with the rule of a tyrant. This is un- questionably true of Corinth and Sicyon, as well as of Syracuse in the 5th, and again in the 4th, century ; it is probably true of Samos and Miletus. In the case of Athens it is only the splendour of the Great Age that blinds us to the greatness of the results achieved by the policy of the Peisistratids. The Arts. With the overthrow of this dynasty tyranny dis- appears from Greece proper for more than a century. During the century and a half which had elapsed since its first appearance the whole aspect of Greek life, and of the Greek world, had changed. The development was as yet incomplete, but the lines on which it was to proceed had been clearly marked out. Political power was no longer the monopoly of a class. The struggle between the " few " and the " many " had begun ; in one state at least (Athens) the victory of the " many " was assured. The first chapter in the history of democracy was already written. In the art of war the two innovations which were ultimately to establish the military supremacy of Greece, hoplite 52 THE ARTS. tactics and the trireme, had already been introduced. Greek literature was no longer synonymous with epic poetry. Some of its most distinctive forms had not yet been evolved ; indeed, it is only quite at the end of the period that prose-writing begins ; but both lyric and elegiac poetry had been brought to perfection. In art, statuary was still comparatively stiff and crude ; but in other branches, in architecture,. in vase-painting, and in coin-types, the aesthetic genius of the race had asserted its pre-eminence. Philosophy, the supreme gift of Greece to the modern world, had be- come a living power. Some of her most original thinkers belong to the 6th century. Criticism had been applied to everything in turn : to the gods, to conduct, and to the conception of the universe. Before the Great Age begins, the claims of intellectual as well as of political freedom had been vindicated. It was not, however, in Greece proper that progress had been greatest. In the next century the centre of gravity of Greek civilization shifts to the western side of the Aegean ; in the 6th century it must be looked for at Miletus, rather than at Athens. In order to estimate how far the development of Greece had advanced, or to appreciate the distinctive features of Greek life at this period, we must study Ionia, rather than Attica or the Peloponnese. Almost all that is greatest and most characteristic is to be found on the eastern side of the Aegean. The great names in the 53 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. history of science and philosophy before the beginning of the 5th century Thales, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Herachtus, Parmenides, Anaximander, Hecataeus ; names which are representative of mathematics, astronomy, geography, and metaphysics, are all, without exception, Ionian. In poetry, too, the most famous names, if not so exclusively Ionian, are con- nected either with the Asiatic coast or with the Cyclades. Against Archilochus and Anacreon, Sappho and Alcaeus, Greece has nothing better to set, after the age of Hesiod, than Tyrtaeus and Theognis. Reference has already been made to the greatness of the lonians as navigators, as colonizers, and as traders. In wealth and in population, Miletus, at the epoch of the Persian conquest, must have be.n far ahead of any city of European Greece. Sybaris, in Magna Graecia, can have been its only rival outside Ionia. There were two respects, however, in which the com- parison was in favour of the mother-country. In warfare, the superiority of the Spartan infantry was unquestioned ; in politics, the Greek states showed a greater power of combination than the Ionian. External Relations. Finally, Ionia was the scene of the hrst CDnflicts with the Persian. Here were decided the first stages of a struggle which was to determine the place of Greece in the history of the world. The rise of Persia 54 EXTERNAL RELATIONS. under Cyrus was, as Herodotus saw, the turning-point of Greek history. Hitherto, the Greek had proved himself indispensable to the oriental monarchies with which he had been brought into contact. In Egypt the power of the Saite kings rested upon the support of their Greek mercenaries. Amasis (569-525 B.C.), who is raised to the throne as the leader of a reaction against the influence of the foreign garrison, ends by showing greater favour to the Greek soldiery and the Greek traders than all that were before him. With Lydia the relations were originally hostile ; the con- quest of the Greek fringe is the constant aim of Lydian policy. Greek influences, however, seem to have quickly permeated Lydia, and to have penetrated to the court. Alyattes (610-560 B.C.) marries an Ionian wife, and the succession is disputed between the son of this marriage and Croesus, whose mother was a Carian. Croesus (560-546 B.C.) secures the throne, only to become the lavish patron of Greek sanctuaries and the ally of a Greek state. The history of Hellenism had begun. It was the rise of Cyrus that closed the East to Greek enterprise and Greek influences. In Persia we find the antithesis of all that is characteristic of Greece autocracy as opposed to liberty ; a militaay society organized on an aristo- cratic basis to an industrial society animated by a democratic spirit ; an army whose strength lay in its cavalry to an army in which the foot-soldier 55 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. \ i alone counted ; a morality which assigned the chief place to veracity to a morality which subordinated ' it to other virtues ; a religion which ranks among the \ great religions of the world to a religion which ' appeared to the most spiritual minds among the ^ Greeks themselves both immoral and absurd. Be- j tween two such races there could be neither sympathy \ nor mutual understanding. I; The Persian Wars. i In the Great Age the Greek had learned to despise the Persian, and the Persian to fear the Greek. In the 6th century it was the Persian who despised, and ^ the Greek who feared. The history of the conflicts ; between the Ionian Greeks and the Persian empire i affords a striking example of the combination of . intellectual strength and political weakness in the ' character of a people. The causes of the failure of 1 the lonians to offer a successful resistance to Persia, | both at the time of the conquest by Harp, gus (546- 545 B.C.) and in the Ionic revolt (499-494 B.C.), are | not far to seek. The centrifugal forces always tended to prove the stronger in the Greek system, and nowhere were they stronger than in Ionia. The tie of their tribal union proved weaker, every time it was put to j the test, than the political and commercial interests of i the individual states. A league of jealous commercial rivals is certain not to stand the strain of a protracted \ 1 56 ' THE PERSIAN WARS. struggle against great odds. Against the advancing power of Lydia a common resistance had not so much as been attempted. Miletus, the greatest of the Ionian towns, had received aid from Chios alone. Against Persia a common resistance was attempted. The Panionium, the centre of a religious amphictyony, became for the moment the centre of a political league. At the time of the Persian conquest Miletus held aloof. She secured favourable terms for herself, and left the rest of Ionia to its fate. In the later conflict, on the contrary, Miletus is the leader in the revolt. The issue was determined, not as Herodotus represents it, by the inherent indolence of the Ionian nature, but by the selfish policy of the leading states. In the sea-fight at Lade (494 B.C.) the decisive battle of the war, the Milesians and Chians fought with desperate courage. The day was lost thanks to the treachery of the Samian and Lesbian contingents. The causes of the successful resistance of the Greeks to the invasions of their country, first by Datis and Artaphernes (490 B.C.), in the reign of Darius, and then by Xerxes in person (480-479 B.C.), are more complex. Their success was partl}'^ due to a moral cause. And this was realized by the Greeks themselves. They felt (see Herod, vii. 104) that the subjects of a despot are no match for the citizens of a free state, who yield obedience to a law which is self-imposed. But the cause was not solely a moral one. Nor was the 57 THE GROWTH OF THE GREEK STATES. result due to the numbers and efficiency of the Athenian fleet, in the degree that the Athenians claimed (see Herod vii. 139). The truth is that the conditions, both political and military, were far more favourable to the Greek defence in Europe than they had been in Asia. At this crisis the centripetal forces proved stronger than the centrifugal. The moral ascendancy of vSparta was the determining factor. In Sparta the Greeks had a leader whom all were ready to obey (Herod, viii. 2.). But for her influence the forces of disintegration would have made them- selves felt as quickly as in Ionia. Sparta was con- fronted with immense difficulties in conducting the defence against Xerxes. The two chief naval powers, Athens and Aegina, had to be reconciled after a long and exasperating warfare. After Thermopylae, the whole of northern Greece, with the exception of Athens and a few minor states, was lost to the Greek cause. The supposed interests of the Peloponnesians, who formed the greater part of the national forces, con- flicted with the su])p()sed interests of the Athenians. A more impartial view than was possible to the generation for which Herodotus wrote suggests that Sparta performed hvv task with intelligence and patriotism. The claims of Athens and Sparta were alx^iit c(iually bahmced. And in .spite ot lu-r great 58 THE PERSIAN WARS. sup riority in numbers, ^ the military conditions were far from favourable to Persia. A land so mountainous as Greece is was unsuited to the operations of cavalry, the most efficient arm of the service in the Persian army, as in most oriental ones. Ignorance of local conditions, combined with the dangerous nature of the Greek coast, exposed their ships to the risk of destruction ; while the composite character of the fleet, and the jealousies of its various contingents, tended to neutralize the advantage of numbers. In courage and discipline, the flower of the Persian infantry was probably little inferior to the Greek ; in equipment, they were no match for the Greek panoply. Lastly, Xerxes laboured under a disad- vantage, which may be illustrated by the experience of the British Army in the South African War distance from his base. ^ The numbers given by Herodotus (upwards of 5,000,000) are enormously exaggerated. We must divide by ten or fifteen to arrive at a probable estimate of the forces that actually crossed the Hellespont. See J. A. R. Munro, Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xxii., pp. 294 and foil. 59 v/ V. THE GREAT AGE (480-338 B.C.) The effects of the repulse of Persia were momentous in their influence upon Greece. The effects upon Ehzabethan England of the defeat of the Spanish Armada would afford quite an inadequate parallel. It gave the Greeks a heightened sense, both of their own national unity and of their superiority to the barbarian, while at the same time it helped to create the material conditions requisite alike for the artistic and political development of the 5th century. Other cities besides Athens were adorned with the pro- ceeds of the spoils won from, Persia, and Greek trade benefited both from the reunion of Ionia with Greece, and from the suppression of piracy in the Aegean and the Hellespont. Do these developments justify us in giving to the period, which begins witli the repulse of Xerxes and ends with the victory of PhiHp, the title of " the Great Age " ? If the title is justified in the case of the 5th century, should the '4th century be excluded from the period ? At first sight, the difference between the 4th century and the 5th may seem greater than that which exists between the 5th and the 6th. On the poHtical side, the 5th century is an age of growth, the 4th an age of 60 THE GREAT AGE. decay ; on the literary side, the former is an age of poetry, the latter an age of prose. In spite of these contrasts, there is a real unity in the period which begins with the repulse of Xerxes and ends with the death of Alexander, as compared with any preceding one. It is an age of maturity in politics, in literature, and in art ; and this is true of no earlier age. Nor can we say that the 5th century is, in all these aspects of Greek life, immature as compared with the 4th, or, on the other hand, that the 4th is decadent as com- pared with the 5th. On the political side, maturity is, in one sense, reached in the earlier century. There is nothing in the later century so great as the Athenian empire. In another sense, maturity is not reached till the 4th century. It is only in the later century that the tendency of the Greek constitutions to con- form to a common type, democrac}", is (at least approximately) realized, and it is only in this century that the principles upon which democracy is based are carried to their logical conclusion. In literature, if we confine our attention to poetry, we must pronounce the 5th century the age of completed development ; but in prose the case is different. The style even of Thucydides is immature, as compared with that of Isocrates and Plato. In Philosophy, however high may be the estimate that is formed of the genius of the earlier thinkers, it cannot be disputed that in Plato and Aristotle we find a more mature 61 THE GREAT AGE. stage of thought. In art, architecture may perhaps be said to reach its zenith in the 5th, sculpture in the 4th century. Systems of Government. In its pohtical aspect, the history of the Great Age resolves itself into the history of two movements, the imperial and the democratic. Hitherto Greece had meant, politicalh', an aggregate of independent states, very numerous, and, as a rule, very small. The principle of autonom^^ was to the Greek the most sacred of all political principles ; the passion for autonomy the most potent of political factors. In the latter half of the r)th century Sparta had succeeded in combining the majority of the Peloponnesian states into a loose federal union ; so loose, however, that it appears to have been dormant in the intervals of peace. In the crisis of the Persian invasion the Peloponnesian League was extended so as to include all the states which had espoused the national cause. It looked on the morrow of Plataea and Mycale (the two victories, won simultaneously, 479 B.C., by Spartan commanders, by which the danger from Persia was finally averted) as if a per- manent basis for union might be found in the hege- mony of Sparta. The sense of a common peril and a common triumph brought with it the need of a common union ; it was Athens, however, instead 62 SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT. of Sparta, by whom the first conscious effort was made to transcend the isolation of the Greek pohtical system and to bring the units into combination. The league thus founded (the Delian League, established in 477 B.C.) was under the presidency of Athens, but it included hardly any other state among those that had conducted the defence of Greece. It was formed, almost entirely, of the states which had been liberated from Persian rule by the great victories of the war. The Delian League, even in the form in which it was first established, as a confederation of autonomous allies, marks an advance in political conceptions upon the Pcloponnesian League. Provision is made for an annual revenue, for periodical meetings of the council, and for a permanent executive. It is a real federation, though an imperfect one. There were defects in its constitution which rendered it inevitable that it should be transformed into an empire. Athens was from the first " the predominant partner." The fleet was mainly Athenian, the commanders entirely so ; the assessment of the tribute was in Athenian hands ; there was no federal court appointed to determine questions at issue between Athens and the other members ; and, worst omission of all, the right of secession was left undecided. By the middle of the century the Delian League has become the Athenian empire. Henceforward the imperial idea, in one form or another, dominates Greek politics. 63 THE GREAT AGE. Athens failed to extend her authority over the whole of Greece. Her empire was overthrown ; but the triumph of autonomy proved the triumph of imperial- ism. The Spartan empire succeeds to the Athenian, and, when it is finally shattered at Leuctra (371 B.C.), the hegemony of Thebes, which is established on its ruins, is an empire in all but name. The decay of Theban power paves the way for the rise of Macedon. Thus throughout this period we can trace two forces contending for mastery in the Greek political system. Two causes divide the allegiance of the Greek world, the cause of empire and the cause of autonomy. The formation of the confederacy of Delos did not involve the dissolution of the alliance between Athens and Sparta. For seventeen years more Athens retained her place in the league, " which had been established against the Mede " under the presidenc}^ of Sparta in 480 B.C. (Thuc. i. 102). The ascendancy of Cimon and the Philolaconian party at Athens was favourable to a good understanding between the two states, and at Sparta in normal times the balance inclined in favour of the party whose policy is best described by the motto " quieta non mover e." The Peloponnesian Wars. In the end, however, the opposition of the two contending forces proved too strong for Spartan neutrality. The fall of Cimon (461 \\x\) was followed 64 THE PELOPONNESIAN WARS. by the so-called " First Peloponnesian War," a con- flict between Athens and her maritime rivals, Corinth and Aegina, into which Sparta was ultimately drawn. Thucydides regards the hostilities of these years (460-454 B.C.), which were resumed for a few months in 446 B.C., on the expiration of the Five Years* Truce, as preliminary to those of the great Pelopon- nesian War (431-404 B.C.). The real question at issue was in both cases the same. The tie that united the opponents of Athens was found in a common hostility to the imperial idea. It is a complete misapprehension to regard the Peloponnesian War as a mere duel between two rival claimants for empire. The ulti- matum presented by Sparta on the eve of the war ; demanded the restoration of autonomy to the subjects j of Athens. There is no reason for doubting her sin- cerity in presenting it in this form. It would, however,, be an equal misapprehension to regard the war as merely a struggle between the cause of empire and the cause of autonomy. Corresponding to this fundamental contrast there are other contrasts, con- stitutional, racial, and military. The military interest of the war is largely due to the fact that Athens was a sea power and Sparta a land one. As the war went on, the constitutional aspect tended to become more marked. At first there were democracies on the side of Sparta, and oligarchies on the side of Athens. In the last stage of the war, when Lysander's influence 65 THE GREAT AGE. was supreme, we see the forces of oligarchy everywhere united and organized for the destruction of democracy. In its origin the war was certainly not due to the rivalry of Dorian and Ionian. This racial, or tribal, contrast counted for more in the politics of Sicily than of Greece ; and, thouglj the two great branches of the Greek race were represented respectively by the leaders of the two sides, the allies on neither side belonged exclusively to the one branch or the other. Still, it remains true that the Dorian states were, as a rule, on the Spartan side, and the Ionian states, as a rule, on the Athenian a division of sentiment which must have helped to widen the breach, and to intensify the animosities. The Athenian Empire. As a political experiment the Athenian empire possesses a unique interest. It represents the first attempt to fuse the principles of imperialism and democracy. It is at once the first empire in history possessed and administered by a sovereign people, and the first which sought to establish a common system of democratic institutions amongst its subjects.^ ^ It has been denied by some writers [e.g., by A. H. J. Greenidge) that Athens interfered with the constitutions of the subject-states. For the view put forward in the text the following passages may *be quoted: Aristotle, Politics 1307 b 20 ; Isocrates, Panegyricus, 105, 106 ; Panathc}wicus, 54 and 68 ; Xenophon, Hcllenica, iii. 4. 7 ; Ps.-Xen. de Rep. Ath. i. 14, iii. 10. 66 THE ATHENIAN EMPIRE. It was an experiment that failed, partly owing to the inherent strength of the oligarchic cause, partly owing to the exclusive character of ancient citizenship. The Athenians themselves recognized that their empire depended for its existence upon the solidarity of democratic interests (see Thuc. iii. 47 ; Pseudo- Xenophon, de Rep. Ath. i. 14, iii. 10). An understand- ing existed between the democratic leaders in the subject-states and the democratic party at Athens. Charges were easily trumped up against obnoxious oligarchs, and conviction as easily obtained in the Athenian courts of law. Such a system forced the oligarchs into an attitude of opposition. How much this opposition counted for was realized when the Sicilian disaster (413 B.C.) gave the subjects their chance to revolt. The organization of the oligarchical party throughout the empire, which was effected by Lysander in the last stage of the war, contributed to- the overthrow of Athenian ascendancy hardly less than the subsidies of Persia. Had Athens aimed at establishing a community of interest between herself and her subjects, based upon a common citizenship,, her empire might have endured. It would have been a policy akin to that which secured the permanence of the Roman empire. And it was a policy which found advocates when the day for it was past (see Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 574 ff. ; cf. the grant of citizenship to the Samians after Aegospotami, C.I.A^ 67 THE GREAT AGE. iv. 2, lb). But the policy pursued by Athens in the plentitude of her power was the reverse of the pohcy pursued by Rome in her treatment of the franchise. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the fate of the empire was sealed by the law of Pericles (451 B.C.), by which the franchise was restricted to those who could establish Athenian descent on both sides. It was not merely that the process of amalgamation through intermarriage was abruptly checked ; what was more serious was that a hard and fast line was drawn, once and for all, between the small body of privileged rulers and the great mass of unprivileged subjects. Maine {Early Institutio7is, lecture 13) has classed the Athenian empire with those of the familiar Oriental type, which attempt nothing beyond the raising of taxes and the levying of troops. The Athenian empire cannot, indeed, be classed with the Roman, or with the British rule in India ; it does not therefore deserve to be classed with the empires of Cyrus or Jenghiz Khan. Though the basis of its organization, like that of the Persian empire under Darius, was financial, it attempted, and secured, objects beyond the mere payment of tribute and the supply of ships. If Athens did not introduce a common religion, or a common system of education, or a common citizenship, she did introduce a common type of political institutions, and a connnon juris- 68 THE MATURE DEMOCRACY. diction.^ She went some way, too, in the direction of establishing a common system of coins, and of weights and measures. A common language was there already. In a word, the Athenian empire marks a definite stage of political development. The Mature Democracy. The other great political movement of the age was the progress of democracy. Before the Persian in- vasion democracy was a rare phenomenon in Greek politics. Where it was found it existed in an un- developed form, and its tenure of power was precarious. By the beginning of the Peloponnesian War it had become the prevalent form of government. The great majority of Greek states had adopted democratic constitutions. Both in the Athenian sphere of influence and in the colonial world outside that sphere democracy was all but the only form of constitution. It was only in Greece proper that oligarchy held its own. In the Peloponnese it could count a majority of the states ; in northern Greece at least a half of them. The spread of democratic institutions was arrested by the victory of Sparta in the East, and the rise of Dionysius in the West. There was a moment ^ The evidence seems to indicate that all the more important criminal cases throughout the empire were tried in the Athenian courts. In civil cases Athens secured to the citizens of the subject-states the right of suing Athenian citizens, as well as citizens of other subject-states. 69 . THE GREAT AGE. at the end of the 5th century when it looked as if democracy was a lost cause. Even Athens was for a brief period under the rule of the Thirty (404-403 B.C.). In the regions which had formed the empire of Athens the decarchies set up by Lysander were soon over- thrown, and democracies restored in most cases, but oligarchy continued to be the prevalent form in Greece proper until Leuctra (371 B.C.), and in Sicily tyranny had a still longer tenure of power. By the end of the Great Age oligarchy has almost disappeared from the Greek world, except in the sphere of Persian influence. The Spartan monarchy still survives ; a few Pelopon- nesian states still maintain the rule of the few ; here and there in Greece itself we meet with a revival of the tyrannis ; but, with these exceptions democracy is everywhere the only type of constitution. And democracy has developed as well as, spread. At the end of the 5th century the constitution of Cleisthenes, which was a democrac}^ in the view of his contem- poraries, had come to be regarded as an aristocracy (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 29. 3). We can trace a similar change of sentiment in Sicily. As compared with the extreme form of constitution adopted at Syracuse after the defeat of the Athenian expedition, the democracies established two generations earlier, on the fall of the tyrannis, appeared oligarchical. The changes by which the character of the Greek demo- cracies was revolutionized were four in number : the 70 THE MATURE DEMOCRACY. substitution of sortition for election, the abolition of a property qualification, the payment of officials, and the rise of a class of professional politicians. In the democracy of Cleisthenes no payment was given for service, whether as a magistrate, a juror, or a member of the Boule. The higher magistracies were filled by election, and they were held almost exclusively by the members of the great Athenian families. For the highest office of all, the archonship, none but Penta- cosiomedimni (the first of the four Solonian classes) were eligible. The introduction of pay and the removal of the property qualification formed part of the reforms of Pericles. Sortition had been instituted for election a generation earlier (487 b.c.).^ What is perhaps the most important of all these changes, the rise of the demagogues, belongs to the era of the Peloponnesian War. From the time of Cleisthenes to the outbreak of the war every statesman of note at Athens, with the exception of Themistocles (and, perhaps, of Ephialtes), is of aristocratic birth. Down to the fall of Cimon the course of Athenian politics is to a great extent determined by the alliances and antipathies of the great clans. With the Pelopon- ^ After this date, and partly in consequence of the change, the archonship, to which sortition was apphed, loses its im- portance. The Strategi (generals) become the chief executive officials. As election was never replaced by the lot in their case, the change had less practical meaning than might appear at first sight. 71 THE GREAT AGE. nesian War a new epoch begins. The chief office, the Strategia, is still as a rule, held by men of rank. But leadership in the Ecclesia has passed to men of a different class. The demagogues were not necessarily- poor men. Cleon was a wealthy man ; Eucrates, Lysicles and Hyperbolus were, at any rate, tradesmen rather than artisans. The first " labour member " proper is Cleophon (411-404 B.C.), a lyre-maker. They belonged, however, not to the land-owning, but to the industrial classes ; the}^ were distinguished from the older race of party-leaders by a vulgar accent and by violence of gesture in public speaking, and they found their supporters among the population of the city and its port, the Peiraeus, rather than among the farmers of the country districts. In the 4th century the demagogues, though under another name, that of orators, have acquired entire control of the Ecclesia. It is an age of professionalism, and the professional soldier has his counterpart in the pro- fessional politician. Down to the death of Pericles the party-leader had always held office as Strategus. His rival, Thucydides, son of Melesias, forms a solitary exception to this statement. In the 4th century the divorce between the general and the statesman is complete. The generals are professional soldiers, who aspire to no political influence in the state, and the statesmen devote themselves exclusively to politics, a career for which they have prepared themselves by 72 THE CITY STATE. a professional training in oratory or administrative work. The ruin of agriculture during the war had reduced the old families to insignificance. Birth counts for less than nothing as a political asset in the age of Demosthenes. The City-state. But great as are the contrasts which have been pointed out between the earlier and the later dem.o- cracy, those that distinguish the ancient conception of democracy from the modern are of a still more essential nature. The differences that distinguish the democracies of ancient Greece from those of the modern world have their origin, to a great extent, in the difference between a city-state and a nation-state. Many of the most famous Greek states had an area of a few square miles ; the largest of them was no larger than an English county. Political theory put the limit of the citizen-body at 10,000. Though this \ number was exceeded in a few cases, it is doubtful if any state, except Athens, ever counted more than 20,000 citizens. In the nation-states of modern times democratic government is possible only under the form of a representative system ; in the city-state representative government was unnecessary, and therefore unknown. In the ancient type of democracy a popular chamber has no existence. The Ecclesia is not a chamber in any sense of the term ; it is an 73 THE GREAT AGE. assembly of the whole people, which every citizen is entitled to attend, and in which every one is equally entitled to vote and speak. The question raised in modern political science, as to whether sovereignty resides in the electors or their representatives, has thus neither place nor meaning in ancient theory. In the same way, one of the most familiar results of modern analvsis, the distinction between the executive and the legislative, finds no recognition in the Greek writers. In a direct system of government there can be no executive in the proper sense. Executive functions are discharged by the Ecclesia, to whose decision the details of administration may be referred. The position of the Strategi, the chief officials in the Athenian democrac}^ of the 5th centur}^, was in no sense comparable to that of a modern cabinet. Hence the individual citizen in an ancient democracy was concerned in, and responsible for, the actual work of government to a degree that is inconceivable in a modern state. Thus participation in the administra- tive and judicial business of the state is made by Aristotle the differentia of the citizen {ttoXIttjs ia-riv o /xere'xcoi/ Kpiaecos 'ot^, 235 : I'hilip wasaiVo^/mrtop, 86 THE RISE OF MACE DON. It could not be doubtful with which side victory would rest. Meanwhile, the economic conditions were steadily growing worse. The cause which Aristotle assigns for the decay of the Spartan state a declining population (see Politics, p. 1270 a : aTrcoXfro T] TToXty ratv Aa/ceSat/iort'coi/ bia rrjv oXLyavdpcoTTiav) might be extended to the Greek world generally. The loss of population was partly the result of war and stasis Isocrates speaks of the number of political exiles from the various states as enormous ^ but it was also due to a declining birth-rate, and to the exposure of infants. Aristotle, while condemning exposure, sanctions the procuring of abortion {Politics, 1335 b). It is probable that both ante-natal and post-natal infanticide were rife everywhere, except among the more backward communities. A people which has condemned itself to racial suicide can have little chance when pitted against a nation in which healthier instincts prevail. The materials for forming a trust- worthy estimate of the population of Greece at any given epoch are not available ; there is enough evidence, however, to prove that the military popula- tion of the leading Greek states at the era of the battle of Chaeronea (338 B.C.) fell far short of what it had been at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. ^ See Archidamus, 68 ; Philippus, 96 : wcttc paov eivai av(TTrj(TaL (TTpaTunebov /i.et^oi' Ka\ Kpelrrov en rcor trXava^pivdiv r) e/c rc5i' rroXiTevpcvcov . 87 THE GREAT AGE. The decline in population had been accompanied by a decline in wealth, both public and private ; and while revenues had shrunk, expenditure had grown. It was a century of warfare ; and warfare had become enormously expensive, partly through the increased employment of mercenaries, partly through the enhanced cost of material. The pov/er of the purse had made itself felt even in the 5th century ; Persian gold had helped to decide the issue of the great war. In the politics of the 4th century the power of the purse becomes the determining factor. The public finance of the ancient world was singularly simple in character, and the expedients for raising a revenue were comparatively few. The distinction between direct and indirect taxation was recognized in practice, but states as a rule were reluctant to submit to the former system. The revenue of Athens in the 5th century was mainly derived from the tribute paid by her subjects ; it was only in time of war that a direct tax was levied upon the citizen-body.^ In the age of Demosthenes the revenue derived from the Athenian Confederacy was insignificant. The whole burden of the expenses of a war fell upon the 1200 richest citizens, who were subject to direct taxation in the dual form of the Trierarchy and the Eisphora (property-tax). The revenue thus raised was wholly * The Liturgies {e.g., the trierarchy) had much the same effect as a direct tax levied upon the wealthiest citizens. 88 THE RISE OF MACE DON. insufficient for an effort on a great scale ; yet the revenues of Athens at this period must have exceeded those of any other state. It is to moral causes, however, rather than to political or economic ones, that the failure of Greece in the conflict with Macedon is attributed by the most famous Greek statesmen of that age. Demosthenes is never weary of insisting upon the decay of patriot- ism among the citizens and upon the decay of probity among their leaders. Venality had always been the besetting sin of Greek statesmen. Pericles' boast as to his own incorruptibilit}^ (Thuc. ii. 60) is significant as to the reputation of his contemporaries. In the age of Demosthenes the level of public life in this respect had sunk at least as low as that which prevails in many states of the modern world (see Demosth. On the Crown, 61 : irapa vols "EXXrja-iv, ov Tiaiv aXk' aTTOCTiv onoicos (f>opa Tvpo^orcov koI bcopoboKtov crvvejUr]. Cl. 295, 296). Corruption was certainly not confined to the Macedonian party. The best that can be said in defence of the patriots, as well as of their opponents, is that they honestly believed that the policy which they were bribed to advocate was the best for their country's interests. The evidence for the general decay of patriotism among the mass of the citizens is less conclusive. The battle of Megalopolis (331 B.C.), in which the Spartan soldiery " went down in a blaze of glory," proves that the spirit of the Lacede- 89 THE GREAT AGE. monian state remained unchanged. But at Athens it seemed to contemporary observers to Isocrates equally with Demosthenes that the spirit of the great days was extinct (see Isocr. On the Peace, 47, 48). It j cannot, of course, be denied that public opinion was obstinately opposed to the diversion of the Theoric Fund to the purposes of the war with Philip. It was not till the year before Chaeronea that Demos- thenes succeeded in persuading the assembly to devote the entire surplus to the expenses of the war.^ Nor can it be denied that mercenaries were far more largely employed in the 4th century than in- the 5th. In justice, however, to the Athenians of the Demos- thenic era it should be remembered that the burden of direct taxation was rarely imposed, and was reluctantly endured, in the previous century . It must also be remembered that, even in the 4th century, the Athenian citizen was ready to take the field, pro- vided that it was not a question of a distant expedition or of prolonged service. ^ For distant expeditions, or for prolonged service, a citizen-militia is unsuited. The substitution of a professional force for an un- professional one is to be explained, partly by the ^ His extreme caution in approaching the question at an earlier date is to be noticed. See e.g., Olynthiacs, i. 19, 20. ^ e.g. the two expeditions sent to Euboea, the cavalry force that took part in the battle of ISIantinca, and the army that fought at Chaeronea, The troops in all these cases were citizens. 90 THE RISE OF MACE DON. change in the character of Greek warfare, and partly by the operation of the laws of supply and demand. There had been a time when warfare meant a brief campaign in the summer months against a neigh- bouring state. It had come to mean prolonged operations against a distant enemy. ^ Athens was at war, e.g., with Philip, for eleven years continuously (357-346 B.C.). If winter campaigns in Thrace were unpopular at this epoch, they had been hardly less unpopular in the epoch of the Peloponnesian War. In the days of her greatness, too, Athens had freely employed mercenaries, but it was in the navy rather than the army. In the age of Pericles the supply of mercenary rowers was abundant, the supply of mercenary troops inconsiderable. In the age of Demosthenes incessant warfare and ceaseless revolu- tion had filled Greece with crowds of homeless adventurers. The supply helped to create the demand. The mercenar}^ was as cheap as the citizen- soldier, and much more effective. On the whole^ then, it may be inferred that it is a mistake to regard the prevalence of the mercenary system as the expres- sion of a declining patriotism. It would be nearer the mark to treat the transition from the voluntary to the professional system as cause rather than effect : as one among the causes which contributed to the decay of public spirit in the Greek world. ^ For the altered character of warfare, see Demosthenes,. Philippics, iii. 48, 49. 91 VI. FROM ALEXANDER TO THE ROMAN CONQUEST (336-146 B.C.). Federal Government. In the history of Greece proper during this period the interest is mainly constitutional. It may be called the age of federation. Federation, indeed, was no novelty in Greece. Federal unions had existed in Thessaly, in Boeotia, and elsewhere, and the Boeotian league can be traced back at least to the 6th century. Two newly-founded federations, the Chalcidian and the Arcadian, play no inconsiderable part in the politics of the 4th century. But it is not till the 3rd century that federation attains to its full development in Greece, and becomes the normal type of polity. The two great leagues of this period are the Aetolian and the Achaean. Both had existed in the 4th century, but the latter, which had been dissolved shortly before the beginning of the 3rd century, becomes important only after its restoration in 280 B.C., about which date the former, too, first begins to attract notice. The interest of federalism lies in the fact that it makes an 92 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. advance be3^ond the conception of the city-state. It is an attempt to solve the problem which the Athenian empire failed to solve, the reconciliation of the claims of local autonomy with those of national union. The federal leagues of the 3rd century possess a further interest for the modern world, in that there can be traced in their constitutions a nearer approach to a representative system than is found elsewhere in Greek experience. A genuine representative system, it is true, was never developed in any Greek polity. What we find in the leagues is a sort of compromise between the principle of a primary assembly and the principle of a representative chamber. In both leagues the nominal sovereign was a primary assembly, in which every individual citizen had the right to vote. In both of them, however, the real power lay with a council (^ov\^) com.posed of members representative of each of the component states.^ Alexander's Empire. The real interest of this period, however, is to be looked for elsewhere than in Greece itself. Alex- ander's career is one of the turning-points in histor}'. He is one of the few to whom it has been given to modify the whole future of the human race. He originated two forces which have profoundly aflected ^ It is known that the councillors were appointed by the states in the Aetolian league ; it is only surmised in the case of the Achaean. 9 o ALEXANDER TO THE ROMAN CONQUEST. the development of civilization. He created Hellenism, and he created for the western world the monarchical ideal. Greece had produced personal rulers of ability, or even of genius ; but to the greatest of these, to Peisistratus, to Dionysius, even to Jason of Pherae, there clung the fatal taint of illegitimacy. As yet no ruler had succeeded in making the person of the monarch respectable. Alexander made it sacred. From him is derived, for the West, that " divinity that doth hedge a king." And in creating Hellenism he created, for the first time, a common type of civilization, with a common language, litera- ture, and art, as well as a common form of political organization. In Asia Minor he was content to reinforce the existing Hellenic elements (cf. the case of Side, Arrian, Anabasis, i. 26. 4.) In the rest of the East his instrument of hellenization was the polls. He is said to have founded no less than seventy cities, destined to become centres of Greek influence ; and the great majority of these were in lands in which city- life was almost unknown. In this respect his example was emulated by his successors. The eastern pro- vinces were soon lost, though Greek influences lingered on even in ^actria and across the Indus. It was only the regions lying to the west of the Euphrates that were effectively hcllenized, and the pennanence of this result was largely due to the policy of Rome. But after all deductions have been made, the great 94 ALEXANDER'S EMPIRE. fact remains that for many centuries after Alexander's death Greek was the language of literature and religion, of commerce and administration, throughout the Nearer East. Alexander had created a universal empire as well as a universal culture. His empire perished at his death, but its central idea survived that of the municipal freedom of the Greek polis within the framework of an imperial system. Hellen- istic civilization may appear degenerate when com- pared with Hellenic ; when compared with the civilizations which it superseded in non-Hellenic lands, it marks an unquestionable advance. Greece left her mark upon the civilization of the West as well as upon that of the East, but the process by which her influence was diffused was essentially different. In the East, Hellenism came in the train of the con- queror, and Rome was content to build upon the foundations laid by Alexander. In the West, Greek influences were diffused by the Roman conquest of Greece. It was through the ascendancy which Greek literature, philosophy, and art acquired over the Roman mind that Greek culture penetrated to the nations of western Europe. The civilization of the East re- mained Greek. The civilization of the West became, and remained, Latin, but it was a Latin civilization that was saturated with Greek influences. The ultimate division, both of the empire and the church, into two halves finds its explanation in this original difference of culture. 95 APPENDIX I. THE AUTHORITIES. I. THE EARLIEST PERIODS. For the earliest periods of Greek history, the so- called Minoan and Mycenaean, the evidence is purely archaeological. For the next period, the Heroic or Homeric Age, the evidence is derived from the poems of Homer. In any estimate of the value of these poems as historical evidence, much will depend upon the view taken of the authorship, age, and unity of the poems. It cannot be questioned that the poems are evidence for the existence of a period in the history of the Greek race which differed from later periods in political and social, military and economic, conditions. But here agreement ends. If, as is generally held by German critics, the poems are not eariier than the 9th century, if they contain large interpolations of considerably later date, and if they are Ionian in origin, the authority of the poems becomes comparatively shght. The existence of different strata in the poems will imply the existence 96 THE EARLIEST PERIODS. of inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence ; nor will the evidence be that of a contemporary. It will also follow that the picture of the Heroic Age contained, in the poems is an idealized one. The more extreme critics, e.g. Beloch, deny that the poems are evidence even for the existence of a pre-Dorian epoch. If, on the other hand, the poems are assigned to the nth or 12th century, to a Pelopon- nesian writer, and to a period anterior to the Dorian Invasion and the colonization of Asia Minor (this is the view of the late Dr. D. B. Munro), the evidence becomes that of a contemporary, and the authority of the poems for the distribution of races and tribes in the Heroic Age, as well as for the social and political conditions of the poet's time, would be conclusive. Homer recognizes no Dorians in Greece, except in Crete (see Odyssey, xix. 177), and no Greek colonies in Asia Minor. Only two explanations are possible. Either there is deliberate archaism in the poems, or else they are earlier in date than the Dorian Invasion and the colonization of Asia Minor. 97 II. FROM THE END OF THE HEROIC AGE TO THE END OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR. Herodotus. For the period that extends from the end of the Heroic Age to the end of the Peloponnesian War ^ the two principal authorities are Herodotus and Thucydides. Not only have the other historical works which treated of this period perished (those at least whose date is earlier than the Christian era), but their authority was secondary and their material chiefly derived from these two writers. In one respect then this period of Greek history stands alone. Indeed, it might be said, with hardly an exaggeration, that there is nothing like it elsewhere in history. Almost our sole authorities are two writers of unique genius, and they are writers whose works have come down to us intact. For the period which ends with the repulse of the Persian invasion our authoirty is Herodotus. For the period which extends from 478 to 411 we are ^Strictly speaking, to 411 b.c. For the last seven years of the war our principal authority is Xenophon, Hellenica, \., ii. 98 HERODOTUS. dependent upon Thucydides. In each case, however, a distinction must be drawn. The Persian Wars form the proper subject of Herodotus's work ; thePelopon- nesian War is the subject of Thucydides. The interval between the two wars is merely sketched by Thucy- dides ; while of the period anterior to the conflicts of the Greek with the Persian, Herodotus does not attempt either a complete or a continuous narrative. His references to it are episodical and accidental. Hence our knowledge of the Persian Wars and of the Peloponnesian War is widely different in character from our knowledge of the rest of this period. In the history of these wars the lacunae are few ; in the rest of the history they are alike frequent and serious. In the history, therefore, of the Persian and Pelopon- nesian Wars little is to be learnt from the secondary sources. Elsewhere, especially in the interval between the two wars, they become relatively important. In estimating the authority of Herodotus we must be careful to distinguish between the invasion of Xerxes and all that is earlier. Herodotus's work was published soon after 430 B.C., i.e. about half a century after the invasion. Much of his information was gathered in the course of the preceding twenty years. Although his evidence is not that of an eye-wdtness, he had had opportunities of meeting those who had themselves played a part in the war, on one side or the 99 THE AUTHORITIES. other [e.g. Thersander of Orchomenos, ix. i6). In any case, we are dealing with a tradition which is Httle more than a generation old, and the events to which the tradition relates, the incidents of the struggle against Xerxes, w^ere of a nature to impress themselves indelibl}^ upon the minds of contem- poraries. Where, on the other hand, he is treating of the period anterior to the invasion of Xerxes, he is dependent upon a tradition which is never less than two generations old, and is sometimes centuries old. His informants were, at best, the sons or grandsons of the actors in the wars {e.g. Archias the Spartan, iii. 55). Moreover, the invasion of Xerxes, entailing, as it did, the destruction of cities and sanctuaries, especially of Athens and its temples, marks a dividing line in Greek history. It was not merely that evidence perished and records were destroyed. What in refer- ence to tradition is even more important, a new con- sciousness of power was awakened, new interests were aroused, and new questions and problems came to the front. The former things had passed away ; all things were become new. A generation that is occupied with making history on a great scale is not likely to busy itself with the history of the past. Con- sequently, the earlier traditions became faint and obscured, and the history difficult to reconstruct. As we trace back the conflict between Greece and Persia to its beginnings and antecedents, we are 100 HERODOTUS. conscious that the tradition becomes less trustworthy as we pass back from one stage to another. The tradition of the expedition of Datis and Artaphernes is less credible in its details than that of the expedition of Xerxes, but it is at once fuller and more credible than the tradition of the Ionian revolt. When we get back to the Scythian expedition, we can discover but few grains of historical truth. Much recent criticism of Herodotus has been directed against his veracity as a traveller. With this we are not here concerned. The criticism of him as an historian begins with Thucydides. Among the references of the latter writer to his predecessor are the following passages : i. 21 ; i. 22 ad fin. ; I. 20 ad fin. (cf. Herod, ix. 53, and vi. 57 ad fin.) ; iii. 62 4 (cf. Herod, ix. 87) ; ii. 2 i and 3 (cf. Herod, vii. 233); ii. 8 3 (cf. Herod, vi. 98). Perhaps the two clearest examples of this criticism are to be found in Thucydides's correction of Herodotus's account of the Cylonian conspiracy (Thuc. i. 126, cf. Herod, v. 71) and in his appreciation of the character of Themis- tocles a veiled protest against the slanderous tales accepted by Herodotus (i. 138). In Plutarch's tract, " On the Malignity oj Herodotus," there is much that is suggestive, although his general standpoint, viz. that Herodotus was in duty bound to suppress all that was discreditable to the valour or patriotism of the Greeks, is not that of the modern critic. It must be lOI THE AUTHORITIES. conceded to Plutarch that he makes good his charge of bias in Herodotus's attitude towards certain of the Greek states. The question, however, may fairly be asked, how far this bias is personal to the author, or how far it is due to the character of the sources from which his information was derived. He cannot, indeed, altogether be acquitted of personal bias. His work is, to^'^ome extent, intended as an apologia for the Athenian empire. In answer to the charge that Athens was guilty of roj^bing other Greek states of their freedom, Herodotus seeks to show, firstly, that it was to Athens that the Greek world, as a whole, owed its freedom from Persia, and secondly, that the subjects of Athens, the Ionian Greeks, were unworthy to be free. This Teads him to be unjust both to the services of Sparta and to the qualities of the Ionian race. For his estimate of the debt due to Athens see vii. 139. For bias against the lonians see especially iv. 142 (cf. Thuc. vi. 77) ; cf. also i. 143 and 146, vi. 12-14 (Lade), vi. 112 ad fin. A striking example of his prejudice in favour of Athens is furnished by vi. 91.- At a moment when Greece rang with the crime of Athens in expelling the Aeginetans from their island, he ventures to trace in their expulsion the vengeance of heaven for an act of sacrilege nearly sixty years earlier. As a rule, however, the bias apparent in his narrative is due to the sources from which it is derived. Writing at Athens, in the first 102 HERODOTUS. > years of the Peloponnesian War, he can hardly help seeing the past through an Athenian medium. It was inevitable that much of what he heard should come to him from Athenian informants, and should be coloured by Athenian prejudices. We may thus explain the leniency which he shows towards Argos and Thessaly, the old allies of Athens, in marked contrast to his treatment of Thebes, Corinth, and Aegina, her deadliest foes. For Argos ci. vii. 152 ; Thessaly, vii. 172-174 ; Thebes, vii. 132, vii. 233, ix. Sy ; Corinth (especially the Corinthian general Adeimantus, whose son Aristeus was the most active enemy of Athens at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War), vii. 5, vii. 21, viii. 29 and 61, vii. 94 ; Aegina, ix. 78-80 and 85. In his intimacy with members of the great Alcmaeonid house we probably have the ex- planation of his depreciation of the services of Themis- tocles, as well as of his defence of the family from the charges brought against it in connexion with Cylon and with the incident of the shield shown on Pentelicus at the time of Marathon (v. 71, vi. 121-124). His failure to do justice to the Cypselid tyrants of Corinth (v. 92), and to the Spartan king Cleomenes, is to be accounted for by the nature of his sources- in the former case, the tradition of the Corinthian oligarchy ; in the latter, accounts, partly derived from the family of the exiled king Demaratus and partly representative of the view of the ephorate. Much of the earlier 103 THE AUTHORITIES. history is cast in a religious mould, e.g. the story of the Mermnad kings of Lydia in book i., or of the fortunes of the colony of Cyrene (iv. 145-167). In such cases we cannot fail to recognize the influence of the Delphic priesthood. Grote has pointed out that the moralizing tendency observable in Herodotus is partly to be explained b}- the fact that much of his information was gathered from priests and at temples, and that it was given in explanation of votive offerings, or of the fulfilment of oracles. Hence the determination of the sources of his narrativ^e has become one of the principal tasks of Herodotean criticism. In addition to the current tradition of Athens, the family tradition of the Alcmaeonidae, and the stories to be heard at Delphi and other sanctuaries, there may be indicated the Spartan tradition, in the form in which it existed in the middle of the 5th century ; that of his native Halicarnassus, to which is due the prominence of its queen Artemisia ; the traditions of the Ionian cities, especially of Samos and Miletus (important both for the history of the Mermnadae and lor the Ionian Revolt) ; and those current in Sicily and Magna Graecia, which were learned durini; liis residcMice at Thurii (Sybaris and Croton, \. 44, 45 ; Syracuse and (xela, vii. 153 167). Among his more special sources wecan j^oint to {\\v descendants of Demaratus, who still held, at the beginning of ihv 41 h ecMitury. the principaltiy in the Troad which had been granted to 104 HERODOTUS. their ancestor by Darius (Xen. HelL iii. i. 6), and to the family of the Persian general Artabazus, in which the satrapy of Dascylium (Phrygia) was hereditar}^ in the 5th century.^ His use of written material is more difficult to determine. It is generally agreed that the list of Persian satrapies, with their respective assess- ments of tribute (iii. 89-97), the description of the royal road from Sardis to Susa (v. 52-54), and of the march of Xerxes, together with the list of the con- tingents that took part in the expedition (vii. 26- 131), are all derived from documentary and authori- tative sources. From previous writers (e.g. Dionysius of Miletus, Hecataeus, Charon of Lampsacus, and Xanthus the Lydian) it is probable that he has borrowed little, though the fragments are too scanty to permit of adequate comparison. His references to monuments, dedicatory offerings, inscriptions, and oracles are frequent. The chief defects of Herodotus are his failure to grasp the principles of historical criticism, to under- stand the nature of military operations, and to appreciate the importance of chronology. In place of historical criticism we find a crude rationalism [e.g. ii. 45, vii. 129, viii. 8). Having no conception of the distinction between occasion and cause, he is 1 Possibly some of his information about Persian affairs may have been derived, at first or second hand, from Zopyrus, son of Megabyzus, whose flight to Athens is mentioned in iii. 160. 105 THE AUTHORITIES. content to find the explanation of great historical movements in trivial incidents or personal motives. An example of this is furnished by his account of the Ionian revolt, in which he fails to discover the real causes either of the movement or of its result. Indeed, it is clear that he regarded criticism as no part of his task as an historian. In vii. 152 he states the principles which have guided him eyw Se 6(f)([Xai Xeyeiv ra Xc/ofxeva, neideadai ye /xcf ov Trai'Tdnacri ucfieLXio, Kai fioi TovTO TO enos ex^TO) es Travra Adyoi/. In ODCdienCe to this principle he again and again gives two or more versions of a story. We are thus frequently enabled to arrive at the truth by a com- parison of the discrepant traditions. It would have been fortunate if all ancient writers who lacked the critical genius of Thucydides had been content to adopt the practice of Herodotus. His accounts of battles are always unsatisfactory. ^ The great battles, Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataea, present a series of problems. This result is partly due to the character of the traditions which he follows traditions which were to some extent inconsistent or contra- dictory, and were derived from different sources ; it is, however, in great measure due to his inability to think out a strategical combination or a tactical ^ Anion fT the many attempts on the part of modern writers to reconstruct the battles of the Persian Wars, much the ablest is that of J, A. R. Munro in a series of articles in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, vols. XIX, XXII, XXIV. 106 HERODOTUS. movement. It is not too much to say that the battle of Plataea, as described by Herodotus, is wholly unintelligible. Most serious of all his deficiencies is his careless chronology. Even in the case of the 5th century, the data which he affords are inadequate or ambiguous. The interval between the Scythian expedi- tion and the Ionian revolt is described by so vague an expression as ^era 84 ov ttoXKov xpovov civeais KaKWv rjv (v. 28). In the history of the revolt itself, though he gives us the interval between its outbreak and the fall of Miletus (e/cro) ern vi. i8), he does not give us the interval between this and the battle of Lade, nor does he indicate with sufficient precision the years to which the successive phases of the movement belong. Throughout the work professed synchronisms too often prove to be mere literary devices for facilitating a transition from one subject to another (cf. e.g. v. 81 with 89, 90 ; or vi. 51 with 87 and 94). In the 6th century, as Grote pointed out, a whole generation or more disappears in his historical perspective cf. i. 30, vi. 125, V. 94, iii. 47, 48, v. 113 contrasted with V. 104 and iv. 162). The attempts to reconstruct the chronology of this century upon the basis of the data afforded by Herodotus (e.g. by Beloch, Rhein- isches Museum, xlv., 1890, pp. 465-473) have com- pletely failed. In spite of all such defects Herodotus is an author, not only of unrivalled literary charm, but of the utmost 107 \ THE A UTHORITIES. value to the historian. If much remains uncertain or obscure, even in the history of the Persian Wars, it is chiefly to motives or pohcy, to topography or strategy, to dates or numbers, that uncertainty attaches. It is to these that a sober criticism will confine itself. Thucydides. Thucydides is at once the father of contemporary history and the father of historical criticism. From a comparison of i. i, i. 22 and v. 26, we may gather both the principles to which he adhered in the com- position of his work and the conditions under which it was composed. It is seldom that the circumstances of an historical writer have been so favourable for the accomplishment of his task. Thucydides was a contemporary of the Twenty-Seven Years' War in the fullest sense of the term. He had reached man- hood at its outbreak, and he survived its close by at least half a dozen years. And he was more than a mere contemporary. As a man of high birth, a member of the Periclean circle, and the holder of the chief political office in the Athenian state, the Strategia , he was not only familiar with the business of adminis- tration and the conduct of military operations, but he possessed in addition a personal knowledge of those who played the principal part in the political life of the age. His exile in the year 424 afforded him 108 THUCYDIDES. opportunities of visiting the scenes of distant opera- tions (e.g. Sicily) and of coming in contact with the actors on the other side. He himself tells us that he spared no pains to obtain the best information available in each case. He also tells us that he began collecting materials for his work from the very beginning of the war. Indeed, it is probable that much of books i.-v. 24 was written soon after the Peace of Nicias (421), just as it is possible that the history of the Sicilian Expedition (books vi. and vii.) was originally intended to form a separate work. To the view, however, which has obtained wide support in recent years, that books i.-v. 22 and books vi. and vii. were separately published, the rest of book v. and book viii. being little more than a rough draught, com- posed after the author had adopted the theory of a single war of twenty-seven years' duration, of which the Sicilian Expedition and the operations of the years 431-421 formed integral parts, there seem to the present writer to be insuperable objections. The work, as a whole, appears to have been composed in the first years of the 4th century, after his return from exile in 404, when the material already in exist- ence must have been revised and largely recast. There are exceedingly few passages, such as iv. 48. 5, which appear to have been overlooked in the process of revision. It can hardly be questioned that the impression left upon the reader's mind is that the 109 THE AUTHORITIES, point of view of the author, in all the books alike, is that of one writing after the fall of Athens. The task of historical criticism in the case of the Peloponnesian War is widely different from its task in the case of the Persian Wars. It has to deal, not with facts as they appear in the traditions of an imaginative race, but with facts as they appeared to a scientific observer. Facts, indeed, are seldom in dispute. The question is rather whether facts of importance are omitted, whether the explanation of causes is correct, or whether the judgment of men and measures is just. Such inaccuracies as have been brought home to Thucydides on the strength, e.g. of epigraphic evidence are, as a rule, trivial. His most serious errors relate to topographical details, in cases where he was dependent on the information of others. Sphacteria (see G. B. Grundy, Journal of Hellenic Studies, xvi., 1896, p. i) is a case in point. Nor have the difficulties connected with the siege of Plataea been cleared up either by Grundy or by others (see Grundy, Topography of the Battle of Plataea, &c., 1894). Where, on the contrary, he is writing at first hand his descriptions of sites are surprisingly correct. The most serious charge as yet brought against his authority as to matters of fact relates to his account of the Revolution of the Four Hundred, which appears, at first sight, to be inconsistent with the documentary evidence supplied by Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. no THUCYDIDES. It may be questioned, however, whether the documents have been correctly interpreted by Aristotle. On the whole, it is probable that the general course of events was such as Thucydides describes (see E. Meyer, Forschungen, ii. 406-436), though he failed to appre- ciate the position of Theramenes and the Moderate party, and was clearly misinformed on some important points of detail. With regard to the omission of facts, it is unquestionable that much is omitted that would not be omitted by a modern writer. Such omissions are generally due to the author's conception of his task. Thus the internal history of Athens is passed over as forming no part of the history of the war. It is only where the course of the war is directly affected by the course of political events (e.g. by the Revolution of the Four Hundred) that the internal history is "referred to. However much it may be regretted that the relations of political parties are not more fully described, especially in book v., it cannot be denied that from his standpoint there is logical justification even for the omission of the ostracism of Hyperbolus. There are omissions, however, which are not so easily explained. Perhaps the most notable instance is that of the raising of the tribute in 425 B.C. Nowhere is the contrast between the historical methods of Herodotus and Thucydides more apparent than in the treatment of the causes of events. The III THE AUTHORITIES. distinction between the occasion and the cause is constantly present to the mind of Thucydides, and it is his tendency to make too httle rather than too much of the personal factor. Sometimes, however, it may be doubted whether his explanation of the causes of an event is adequate or correct. In tracing the causes of the Peloponnesian War itself, modem writers are disposed to allow more weight to the com- mercial rivalry of Corinth ; while in the case of the Sicilian expedition, they would actually reverse his judgment (ii. 65 ^^ '2iKe\iav ttXovs 6s ov roaovTov yvu>ixr}s afidprrjiia ^v TTfios ovs i-rrrjea-av). To US it SecmS that the very idea of the expedition implied a gigantic miscalcu- lation of the resources of Athens and of the difficulty of the task. His judgments of men and of measures have been criticized by writers of different schools and from different points of view. Grote criticized his verdict upon Cleon, while he accepted his estimate of the policy of Pericles. More recent writers, on the other hand, have accepted his view of Cleon, while they have selected for attack his appreciation alike of the policy and the strategy of Pericles. He has been charged, too, with failure to do justice to the states- manship of Alcibiades.^ There are cases, un- doubtedly, in which the balance of recent opinion will be adverse to the view of Thucydides. There are ^ For a defence of Thucydides' judgment on all three states- men, see E. Meyer, Forschungen, ii. 296-379. 112 THUCYDIDES. many more in which the result of criticism has been to estabhsh it. That he should occasionally have been mistaken in his judgment and his views is certainly no detraction from his claim to greatness. On the whole, it may be said that w^hile the criti- cism of Herodotus, since Grote wrote, has tended seriously to modify our view of the Persian Wars, as well as of the earlier history, the criticism of Thucy- dides, in spite of its imposing bulk, has affected but slightly our view of the course of the Peloponnesian War. The labours of recent workers in this field have borne most fruit where they have been directed to subjects neglected by Thucydides, such as the history of political parties, or the organization of the empire (G. Gilbert's Innere Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter des pel. Kreiges is a good example of such work) . In regard to Thucydides' treatment of the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars (the so-called Pentecontaeteris) it should be remembered that he does not profess to give, even in outline, the history of this period as a whole. The period is regarded simply as a prelude to the Peloponnesian War. There is no attempt to sketch the history of the Greek world or of Greece proper during this period. There is, indeed, no attempt to give a complete sketch of Athenian history. His object is to trace the growth of the Athenian Empire, and the 113 THE AUTHORITIES. causes that made the war inevitable. Much is there- fore omitted not only in the history of the other Greek states, especially the Peloponnesian, but even in the history of Athens. Nor does Thucydides attempt an exact chronology. He gives us a few dates (e.g. surrender of Ithome, in the tenth year, i. 130 ; of Thasos, in the third year, i. loi ; duration of the Egyptian expedition, six years, i. no ; interval between Tanagra and Oenophyta, 61 days, i. 108 ; revolt of Samos, in the sixth year after the Thirty Years' Truce, i. 115), but from these data alone it would be impossible to reconstruct the chronology of the period. In spite of all that can be gleaned from our other authorities, our knowledge of this, the true period of Athenian greatness, must remain slight and imperfect as compared with our knowledge of the next thirty years. Diodorus. Of the secondary authorities for this period the two principal ones are Diodorus (xi. 38 to xii. 37) and Plutarch. Diodorus is of value chiefly in relation to Sicilian affairs, to which he devotes about a third of this section of his work and for which he is almost our sole authority. His source for Sicilian history is the Sicilian writer Timaeus, an author of the 3rd century B.C. For the history of Greece proper during the Pentecontaetia Diodorus contributes compara- 114 DIODOR US PL UTA RCH. tively little of importance. Isolated notices of parti cular events {e.g. the Synoecism of Ells, 471 B.C., or the foundation of Amphipolis, 437 B.C.), which appear to be derived from a chronological writer, may gener- ally be trusted. The greater part of his narrative is, however, derived from Ephorus, who appears to have had before him little authentic information for this period of Greek history other than that afforded by Thucydides' work. Plutarch. Four of Plutarch's Lives are concerned with this period, viz., Themistodes, Aristides, Cimon and Pericles. From the Aristides little can be gained. Plutarch, in this biography, appears to be mainly dependent upon Idomeneus of Lampsacus, an ex- cessively untrustworthy writer of the 3rd century B.C., who is probably to be credited with the invention of the oligarchical conspiracy at the time of the battle of Plataea (ch. 13), and of the decree of Aristides, rendering all four classes of citizens eligible for the archonship (ch. 22). The Cimon, on the other hand, contains much that is valuable ; such as, e.g. the account of the battle of the Eurymedon (chs. 12 and 13). To the Pericles we owe several quotations from the Old Comedy. Two other of the Lives, Lycurgus and Solon, are amongst our most important sources for the early history of Sparta and Athens respectively. 115 THE AUTHORITIES. Of the two (besides Pericles) which relate to the Pelop- ponnesian War, the Alcibiades adds httle to what can be gained from Thucydides and Xenophon ; the Nicias, on the other hand, supplements Thucydides' narrative of the Sicilian expedition with many valuable details, which, it may safely be assumed, are derived from the contemporary historian, Philistus of Syracuse. Amongst the most valuable material afforded by Plutarch are the quotations, which occur in almost all the Lives, from the collection of Athenian decrees (^//"r?0ta/xara)I/ (rvvayuiyi]) formed by the Macedonian writer Craterus, in the 3rd centur}- B.C. The " Constitutions." Two other works may be mentioned in connexion with the history of Athens. For the history of the Athenian Constitution down to the end of the 5th century B.C. Aristotle's Constitution of Athens is our chief authority. The other Constitution of Athens, erroneously attributed to Xenophon, a tract of singular interest both on literary and historical grounds, throws a good deal of light on the internal condition of Athens, and on the system of government, both of the state and of the empire, in the age of the Peloponnesian War, during the earlier years of which it was composed. Inscriptions. To the literary sources for the history of Greece, 116 INSCRIPTIONS. especially of Athens, in the 5th century B.C. must be added the epi^raphic. Few inscriptions have been discovered which date back beyond the Persian Wars. For the latter half of the 5th century they are both numerous and important. Of especial value are the series of Quota-lists, from which can be calculated the amount of tribute paid by the subject-allies of Athens from the year 454 B.C. onwards. The great majority of the inscriptions of this period are of Ath'enian origin. Their value is enhanced by the fact that they relate, as a rule, to questions of organization, finance and administration, as to which little information is to be gained from the literary sources. For the period between the Persian and Pelopon- nesian Wars Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, iii. i, is indispensable. Hill's Sources of Greek History, B.C. 478-431 (Oxford, 1897) is excellent. It gives the most important inscriptions in a convenient form. 117 III. THE FOURTH CENTURY TO THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER. Xenophon. Of the historians who flourished in the 4th century the sole writer whose works have come down to us is Xenophon. It is a singular accident of fortune that neither of the two authors who at once were most representative of their age and did most to determine the views of Greek history current in subsequent generations, Ephorus and Theopompus, should be extant. It was from them, rather than from Hero- dotus, Thucydides, or Xenophon that the Roman world obtained its knowledge of the history of Greece in the past, and its conception of its significance. Both were pupils of Isocrates, and both, therefore, bred up in an atmosphere of rhetoric. Hence their popularity and their influence. The scientific spirit of Thucy- dides was alien to the temper of the 4th century, and hardly more congenial to the age of Cicero or Tacitus. To the rhetorical spirit, which is common to both, each added defects peculiar to himself. Theopompus is a strong partisan, a sworn foe to Athens and to Demo- cracy. Ephorus, though a military historian, is 118 XENOPHON. ignorant of the art of war. He is also incredibly careless and uncritical. It is enough to point to his description of the battle of the Eurymedon (Diodorus xi. 60-62), in which, misled by an epigram which he supposed to relate to this engagement (it really refers to the Athenian victory off Salamis in Cyprus, 449 B.C.), he makes the coast of Cyprus the scene of Cimon's naval victory, and finds no difficulty in putting it on the same day as the victory on shore on the banks of the Eurymedon, in Pamphylia. Only a few^ fragments remain of either writer, ^ but Theopompus was largely used by Plutarch in several of the Lives, while Ephorus continues to be the main source of Diodorus' history, as far as the outbreak of the Sacred War (Frag- ments of Ephorus in Miiller's Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, vol. i. ; of Theopompus in Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, cum Theopompi et Cratippi fragmentis, ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, 1909). It may be at least claimed for Xenophon that he is free from all taint of the rhetorical spirit. It may also be claimed for him that, as a witness, he is both honest and well-informed. But, if there is no justi- fication for the charge of deliberate falsification, it cannot be denied that he had strong political pre- judices, and that his narrative has suffered from them. ^ In the opinion of the present writer the so-called Hellenica Oxyrhynchia is part of Ephorus' History. Cf. also Oxyrhyn- chus Papyri, fragments 1365 and 16 10. 119 THE AUTHORITIES. His historical writings are the Anabasis, an account of the expedition of the Ten Thousand, the Hellcnica, and the Agesilaus, a panegyric of the Spartan king. Of these the Hellenica is far the most important for the student of history. It consists of two distinct parts (though there is no ground for the theory that the two parts were separately written and published), books i. and ii., and books iii. to vii. The first two books are intended as a continuation of Thucydides' work. They begin, (piite abruptly, in the middle of the Attic year 4iiy'io, and they carry the history down to the fall of the Thirty, in 403. Books iii. to vii., the Hellenica proper, cover the period from 401 to 362, and give the histories of the Spartan and Theban hegemonies down to the death of Epaminondas. There is ihus a gap of two 3'cars botween the point at which the first part ends and that at which the second part begins. The two parts difter widely, both in their aim and in the arrangement of the material. In the first part Xenophon attempts, though not with complete success, to follow the chronological method of Thucydides, and to make each successive S})ring, when military and naval operations were resumed after the winter's interruption, the starting-point of a fresh section. The resemblance between the two writers ends, however, with the outwartl form of the narrative. All that is characteristic of Thucydides is absent in Xenophon. The latter writer shows 120 XENOPHON. neither skill in portraiture, nor insight into motives. He is deficient in the sense of proportion and of the distinction between occasion and cause. Perhaps his worse fault is a lack of imagination. To make a story intelligible it is necessary sometimes to put oneself in the reader's place, and to appreciate his ignorance of circumstances and events which w^ould be perfectly familiar to the actors in the scene or to contemporaries. It was not given to Xenophon, as it was to Thucydides, to discriminate between the circumstances that are essential and those that are not essential to the com- prehension of the story. In spite, therefore, of its wealth of detail, his narrative is frequently obscure. It is quite clear that in the trial of the generals, e.g. something is omitted. It may be supplied as Diodorus has supplied it (xiii. loi), or it may be supplied otherwise. It is probable that, when under cross- examination before the council, the generals, or some of them, disclosed the commission given to Theramenes and Thrasybulus. The important point is that Xenophon himself has omitted to supply it. As it stands his narrative is unintelligible. In the first two books, though there are omissions {e.g. the loss of Nisaea, 409 B.C.), they are not so serious as in the last five, nor is the bias so evident. It is true that if the account of the rule of the Thirty given in Aristotle's Constitution of Athens be accepted, Xenophon must have deliberately misrepresented the course of events 121 THE AUTHORITIES, to the prejudice of Theramenes. But it is at least doubtful whether Aristotle's version can be sustained against Xenophon's, though it may be admitted, not only that there are mistakes as to details in the latter writer's narrative, but that less than justice is done to the policy and motives of the " Buskin." The Hellenica was written, it should be remembered, at Corinth, after 362. More than forty years had thus elapsed since the events recorded in the first two books, and after so long an interval accuracy of detail, even where the detail is of importance, is not alwaj^s to be expected.^ In the second part the chronological method is abandoned. A subject once begun is followed out to its natural ending, so that sections of the narrative which are consecutive in order are frequentl}^ parallel in point of date. A good example of this will be found in book iv. In chapters 2 to 7 the history of the Corinthian war is carried down to the end of 390, so far as the operations on land are concerned, while chapter 8 contains an account of the naval operations from 394 to 388. In this second part of the HcUcnica the author's disqualifications for his task are more apparent than in the first two books. The more he is acquitted of bias in his selec- tion of events and in his omissions, the more clearly ^ On the discrepancies between Xenophon's account of the Thirty and Aristotle's, see G. Busolt, Hermrs (1898), pp, 71- 86. 122 XENOPHON. does he stand convicted of lacking all sense of the proportion of things. Down to Leuctra (371 B.C.) Sparta is the centre of interest, and it is of the Spartan state alone that a complete or continuous history is given. After Leuctra, if the point of view is no longer exclusively Spartan, the narrative of events is hardly less incomplete. Throughout the second part of the Hellenica omissions abound which it is difficult either to explain or justify. The formation of the Second Athenian Confederacy of 377 B.C., the foundation of Megalopolis, and the restoration of the Messenian state are all left unrecorded. Yet the writer who passes them over without mention thinks it worth while to devote more than one-sixth of an entire book to a chronicle of the unimportant feats of the citizens of the petty state of Phlius. Nor is any attempt made to appraise the policy of the great Theban leaders, Pelopidas and Epaminondas. The former, indeed, is mentioned only in a single passage, relating to the embassy to Susa in 368 ; the latter does not appear on the scene till a year later, and receives mention but twice before the battle of Mantinea. An author who omits from his narrative some of the most im- portant events of his period, and elaborates the por- traiture of an Agesilaus while not attempting the bare outline of an Epaminondas, may be honest ; he may even write without a consciousness of bias ; he 123 THE AUTHORITIES. certainly cannot rank among the great writers of history.^ Diodorus. For the history of the 4th century Diodorus assumes a higher degree of importance than belongs to him in the earlier periods. This is partly to be explained by the deficiencies of Xenophon's Hellenica, partly by the fact that for the interval between the death of Epaminondas and the accession of Alexander we have in Diodorus alone a continuous narrative of events. Books xiv. and xv. ot his history include the period covered by the Hellenica. More than half of book xiv. is devoted to i the history of Sicily and the reign of Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse. For this period of Sicilian history ; he is, practically, our sole authority. In the rest of j the book, as well as in book xv., there is much of value, i especially in the notices of Macedonian history, i Thanks to Diodorus we are enabled to supply many ! of the omissions of the Hellenica. Diodorus is, e.g., j our sole literary authority for the Athenian naval i confederation of 377. Book xvi. must rank, with ; the Hellenica and Arrian's Anabasis, as one of the three principal authorities for this century, so far, i ^ The fragment of the New Historian [Oxyrhyuchus Papyri, j vol. V.) alfords exceedingly important material for the criticism j of Xenophon's narrative. Cf. my Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, | Lecture v. ! 124 i DIODORUS. at least, as works of an historical character are con- cerned. It is our authority for the Social and the Sacred Wars, as well as for the reign of Philip. It is a curious irony of ^fate that, for what is perhaps the most momentous epoch in the history of Greece, we should have to turn to a writer of such inferior capacity. For this period his material is better and his importance greater : his intelligence is as limited as ever. Who but Diodorus would be capable of narrating the siege and capture of Methone twice over, once under the year 354 and again under the year 352 (xvi. 31 and 34 ; cf. xii. 35 and 42 ; Archi- damus dies in 434, yet commands Peloponnesian army in 431) ; or of giving three different numbers of years (eleven, ten, and nine) in three different passages (chs. 14, 23, and 59) for the length of the Sacred War ; or of asserting the conclusion of peace between Athens and Philip in 340, after the failure of his attack on Perinthus and Byzantium ? Amongst the subjects which are omitted is the Peace of Philo- crates. For the earlier chapters, which bring the narrative down to the outbreak of the Sacred War, Ephorus, as in the previous books, is Diodorus' main source. His source for the rest of the book, i.e. for the greater part of Philip's reign, cannot be deter- mined. It is generally agreed that it is not the Philippica of Theopompus. 125 \ i I i THE AUTHORITIES. ] Historians of Alexander's reign. For the reign of Alexander our earliest extant authority is Diodorus, who belongs to the age of i Augustus. Of the others, Q. Curtius Rufus, who \ wrote in Latin, lived in the reign of the emperor ; Claudius, Arrian and Plutarch in the 2nd century A.D. Yet Alexander's reign is one of the best known I periods of ancient history. The Peloponnesian War : and the twenty years of Roman history which begin ] with 63 B.C. are the only two periods which we can : be said to know more fully, or for which we have more \ trustworthy evidence. For there is no period of j ancient history which was recorded by a larger number i of contemporary writers, or for which better or more abundant materials were available. Of the writers actually contemporary with Alexander there were five of importance Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Callis- thenes, Onesicritus, and Nearchus ; and all of them occupied positions which afforded exceptional oppor- tunities of ascertaining the facts. Four of them were officers in Alexander's service. Ptolemy, the future king of Egypt, was one of the Somatophylaccs (we may, perhaps regard them as corresponding to Napoleon's Marshals) ; Aristobulus was also an officer of high rank (see Arrian, Anab. vi. 29. 10) ; Nearchus was admiral of the fleet which surveyed the Indus and the Persian Gulf, and Onesicritus was one of his 126 HISTORIANS OF ALEXANDER'S REIGN. subordinates. The fifth, CalHsthenes, a pupil of Aristotle, accompanied Alexander on his march down to his death in 327, and was admitted to the circle of his intimate friends. A sixth historian, Clitarchus, was possibly also a contemporary ; at any rate, he is not more than a generation later. These writers had at their command a mass of official documents, such as the /3aa^Xetol ^(^Ty^epi'Ses the Gazette and Court Circular combined edited and published after Alexander's death by his secretary, Eumenes of Cardia ; the o-ra^/iot, or records of the marches of the armies, which were carefully measured at the time ; and the official reports on the conquered provinces. That these documents were made use of by the historians is proved by the references to them which are to be found in Arrian, Plutarch, and Strabo ; e.g. Arrian, Anah. vii. 25 and 26, and Plutarch, Alexander 76 (quotation from the /3o-iXftoi ((pr^^epi^es) ; Strabo xv. 723 (reference to the o-rad^ol), ii. 69 (reports drawn up on the various provinces). We have, in addition, in Plutarch numerous quotations from Alexander's correspondence with his mother, Olym- pias, and with his officers. The contemporary historians may be roughly divided into two groups. On the one hand there are Ptolemy and Aristobulus, who, except in a single instance, are free from all sus- picion of deliberate invention. On the other hand, there are Callisthenes, Onesicritus, and Clitarchus, 127 THE AUTHORITIES. whose tendency is rhetorical. Nearchus appears to have allowed full scope to his imagination in dealing with the wonders of India, but to have been otherwise veracious. Of the extant writers, Arrian is incom- parably the most valuable. His merits are twofold. As the commander of Roman legions and the author of a work on tactics, he combined a practical with a theoretical knowledge of the military art, while the writers whom he follows in the Anabasis are the two most worthy of credit, Ptolemy and Aristobulus. We may well hesitate to call in question the authority of writers who exhibit an agreement which it would be difficult to parallel elsewhere in the case of two inde- pendent historians. It may be inferred from Arrian 's references to them that there were only eleven cases in all in which he found discrepancies between them. The most serious drawback which can be alleged against them is an inevitable bias in Alexander's favour. It would be only natural that they should pass over in silence the worst blots on their great commander's fame. Next in value to the Anabasis comes Plutarch's Life of Alexander, the merits of which, however, are not to be gauged l)y tlic inlluence which it has exercised upon literature. The Life is a valuable supplement to the Anabasis, partly because Plutarch, as he is writing biography rather than history (for his conception of the difference between the two see the famous preface. Life of Alexander, ch. i.), is con- 128 THE ORATORS. cerned to record all that will throw light upon Alexander's character (e.g. his epigrammatic sayings, and quotations from his letters) ; partly because he tells us much about his early life, before he became king, while Arrian tells us nothing. It is unfortunate that Plutarch writes in an uncritical spirit ; it is hardly less unfortunate that he should have formed no clear conception, and drawn no consistent picture, of Alexander's character. Book xvii. of Diodorus and the Historiae Alexandri of Curtius Rufus are thoroughly rhetorical in spirit. It is probable that in both cases the ultimate source is the work of Clitarchus. The Orators. It is towards the end of the 5th century that a fresh source of information becomes available in the speeches of the orators, the earliest of whom is Antiphon (d. 411 B.C.). Lysias is of great importance for the history of the Thirty (see the speeches against Eratosthenes and Agoratus), and a good deal may be gathered from Andocides with regard to the last years of the 5th and the opening years of the next century. At the other end of this period Lycurgus, Hyperides, and Dinarchus throw light upon the time of Philip and Alexander. The three, however, who are of most importance to the historian, are Isocrates, Aeschines, and Demosthenes . 129 THE AUTHORITIES. Isocrates. Isocrates, whose long life (436-338) more than spans the interval between the outbreak of the Pelo- ponnesian War and the triumph of Macedon at Chaeronea, is one of the most characteristic figures in the Greek world of his day. To comprehend that world the study of Isocrates is indispensable ; for in an age dominated by rhetoric he is the prince of rhetoricians. It is difficult for a modern reader to do him justice, so alien is his spirit, and the spirit of his age, from ours. It must be allowed that he is frequently monotonous and prolix ; at the same time it must not be forgotten that, as the most famous representative of rhetoric, he was read from one end of the Greek world to the other. He was the friend of Evagoras and Archidamus, of Dionysius and Philip ; he was the master of Aeschines and Lycurgus amongst orators and of Ephorus and Theopompus amongst historians. No other contemporary writer has left so indelible a stamp upon the style and the sentiment of his generation. It is a commonplace that Isocrates is the apostle of Panhellenism. It is not so generally recognized that he is the piophet of Hellenism. A passage in the Pancgyricus ( 50 (uo-re TO Twv 'V.Wrjvwv (n>ofj.u ^i]kcti tov yfvovs aXXa Trjs ^lavoias 8oK(iv (iinu Kill fiaXKnu "KWip'as KuKflaBai roi'v rrja rrai- bevacciis r^s i]fieT(pcts r'j rovs ttJs KOivrjs (jivaeooi fifTfyovra^i I3Q ISOCRA TES. is the key to the history of the next three centuries. Doubtless he had no conception of the extent to which the East was to be hellenized. He was, however, the first to recognize that it would be hellenized by the diffusion of Greek culture rather than of Greek blood. His Panhellenism was the outcome of his recognition of the new forces and tendencies which were at work in the midst of a new generation. When Greek culture was becoming more and more international, the exaggeration of the prin- ciple of autonomy in the Greek political system was becoming more and more absurd. He had sufficient insight to be aware that the price paid for this auto- nomy was the domination of Persia ; a domination which meant the servitude of the Greek states across the Aegean and the demoralization of Greek political life at home. His Panhellenism led him to a more liberal view of the distinction between what was Greek and what was not than was possible to the intenser patriotism of a Demosthenes. In his later orations he has the courage not only to pronounce that the day of Athens as a first-rate power is past, but to see in Philip the needful leader in the crusade against Persia. The earliest and greatest of his political orations is the Panegyricus, published in 380 B.C., midway between the peace of Antalcidas and Leuctra. It is his apologia for Panhellenism. To the period of the Social War belong the De pace (355 B.C.) 131 THE AUTHORITIES. and the Areopagiticiis (354 B.C.), both of great value as evidence for the internal conditions of Athens at the beginning of the struggle with Macedon, The Plataicus (373 B.C.) and the Archidamus (366 B.C.) throw light upon the politics of Boeotia and the Peloponnese respectively. The Panathenaicus (339 B.C.), the child of his old age, contains Httle that may not be found in the earlier orations. The Philippus (346 B.C.) is of peculiar interest, as giving the views of the Macedonian party. Demosthenes. Not the least remarkable feature in recent historical criticism is the reaction against the view which was at one time almost universally accepted of the char- acter, statesmanship, and authority of the orator Demosthenes. During the last quarter of a century his character and statesmanship have been attacked, and his authority impugned, by a series of writers of whom Holm and Beloch are the best known. With the estimate of his character and statesmanship we are not here concerned. With regard to his value as an authority for the history of the period, it is to his speeches, and to those of his contemporaries, Aeschines, Hyperides, Dinarchus, and Lycurgus, that we owe our intimate knowledge, both of the working of the constitutional and legal systems, and of the life of the people, at this period of Athenian history. 132 DEMOSTHENES. From this point of view his value can hardly be overestimated. As a witness, however, to matters of fact, his authority can no longer be rated as highly as it once was, e.g. by Schaefer and Grote. The orator's attitude towards events, both in the past and in the present, is inevitably a different one from the historian's. The object of a Thucydides is to ascertain a fact, or to exhibit it in its true relations. The object of a Demosthenes is to make a point, or to win hi case. In their deahngs with the past the orators exhibit a levity which is almost inconceivable to a modern reader. Andocides, in a passage of his speech On the Mysteries ( 107), speaks of Marathon as the the crowning victory of Xerxes' campaign ; in his speech On the Peace ( 3) he confuses Militiades with Cimon, and the Five Years' Peace with the Thirty Years' Truce. Though the latter passage is a mass of absurdities and confusions, it was so generally admired that it was incorporated by Aeschines in his speech On the Embassy ( 172-176). If such was their attitude towards the past ; if, in order to make a point, they do not hesitate to pervert history, is it likely that they would conform to a higher standard of veracity in their statements as to the present as to their contemporaries, their rivals, or their own actions ? When we compare different speeches of Demosthenes, separated by an interval of years, we cannot fail to observe a marked difference in his 133 THE AUTHORITIES. statements. The further he is from the events, the bolder are his mis-statements. It is only necessary to compare the speech On the Crown with that On the Embassy, and this latter speech with the Philippics and Olynthiacs, to find illustrations. It has come to be recognized that no statement as to a matter of fact is to be accepted, unless it receives independent corroboration, or unless it is admitted by both sides. The speeches of Demosthenes may be conveniently divided into four classes according to their dates. To the pre-Philippic period belong the speeches On the Symmories (354 B.C.), On Megalopolis (352 B.C.), Against Aristocrates (351 B.C.), and, perhaps, the speech On Rhodes (? 351 B.C.). These speeches betray no consciousness of the danger threatened by Philip's ambition. The policy recommended is one based upon the principle of the balance of power. To the succeeding period, which ends with the peace of Philocrates (346 B.C.), belong the First Philippic and the three Olynthiacs. To the period between the peace of Philocrates and Chaeronea belong the speech On the Peace (346 B.C.), the Second Philippic (344 B.C.), the speeches On the Embassy (344 B.C.), and On the Chersonese (341 B.C.), and the Third PJiilippic. The masterpiece of his genius, the speech On the Crown, was delivered in 330 B.C., in the reign of Alexander. Of the three extant speeches of Aeschines that On the Embassy is of great value, as enabling us to correct 134 DEMOSTHENES. the mis-statements of Demosthenes. For the period from the death of Alexander to the fall of Corinth (323-146 B.C.) our literary authorities are singularly defective. For the Diadochi Diodorus (books xviii.- XX.) is our chief source. These books form the most valuable part of Diodorus' work. They are mainly based upon the work of Hieronymus of Cardia, a writer who combined exceptional opportunities for ascer- taining the truth (he was in the service first of Eumenes, and then of Antigonus) with an exceptional sense of its importance. Hieronymus ended his history at the death of Pyrrhus (272 B.C.), but, un- fortunately, book XX. of Diodorus' work carries us no farther than 303 B.C., and of the later books we have but scanty fragments. The narrative of Diodorus may be supplemented by the fragments of Arrian's History of the events after Alexander s Death (which reach, however, only to 321 B.C.), and by Plutarch's Lives of Eumenes and of Demetrius. For the rest of the 3rd century and the first half of the 2nd we have his Lives of Pyrrhus, of Aratus, oiPhilopoemen, and of Agis and Cleomenes. For the period from 220 B.C. onwards Polybius is our chief authority. In a period in which the literary sources are so scanty great weight attaches to the epigraphic and numis- matic evidence. ^35 BIBLIOGRAPHY. The literature which deals with the history of Greece, in its various periods, departments, and aspects, is of so vast a bulk that all that can be attempted here is to indicate the most important and most accessible works. General Histories of Greece. Down to the middle of the igth century the only histories of Greece deserving of mention were the products of English scholarship. The two earliest of these were published about the same date, towards the end of the 1 8th century, nearly three-quarters of a century before any history of Greece, other than a mere compendium, appeared on the Continent. John ( iillies' History of Greece was published in 1786, Mitford's in 1784. Both works were composed with a political bias and a political object. Gillies was a Whig. In the dedication (to George III.) he expresses the view that " the History of Greece exposes the dangerous turbulence of Democracy, and arraigns the despotism of Tyrants, while it evinces the inestimable benefits, resulting to Liberty itself, from the steady operation of well-regulated monarchy." Mitford was a Tory, who thought to demonstrate the evils of democracy from the example of the Athenian state. His History, in spite of its bias, was a work of real value. More than fifty years elapsed between Mitford's work and Thirlwall's. Connop Thirlwall, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, after- wards Bishop of St. David's, brought a sound judgment to the aid of ripe scholarship. His History of Greece, published in 1 833-1 838 (8 vols), is entirely free from the controversial tone of Mitford's volumes. Ten years later (1846) George Grote published the first volumes of his history, which was not completed (in 12 vols.) till 1856. Grote, like Mitford, was a politician an ardent Radical, with republican sympathies. It was in order to refute the slanders of the Tory partisan that he was impelled to write a history of Greece, which should do justice to the greatest democracy of the ancient world, the Athenian state. Thus, in the case of three of these four writers, the interest in their subject was mainly political. Incom- 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY. parably the greatest of these works is Grote's. Grote had his faults and his Hmitations. His prejudices are strong, and his scholarship is weak ; he had never visited Greece, and he knew little or nothing of Greek art ; and, at the time he wrote, the importance of coins and inscriptions was imperfectly apprehended. In spite of every defect, however, his work is the greatest history of Greece that has yet been written. It is not too much to say that nobody knows Greek history till he has mastered Grote. No history of Greece has since appeared in England on a scale at all comparable to that of Grote's work. The most important of the more recent ones is that by J. B. Bury (1 vol., 1900. New edition, 1919); formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, afterwards Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge. Mitford and Bury end with the death of Alexander ; Gillies and Grote carry on the narrative a generation farther ; while Thirlwall's work extends to the absorption of Greece in the Roman Empire (146 B.C.). While in France the Histoire des Grecs (ending at 146 B.C.) of Victor Duruy (new edition, 2 vols., 1883), Minister of Public Instruction under Napoleon III., and the Histoire de I'Antiquite (ending at 107 B.C.) of Eugene Cavaignac (3 vols., 191 3-19, in pro- gress) are the only ones that need be mentioned, in Germany there has been a succession of histories of Greece since the middle of the 19th century. Kortiim's Geschichte Griechenlands (3 vols., 1854), a work of little merit, was followed by Max Duncker's Ges- chichte der Griechen (vols, i and 2 published in 1856 ; vols, i and 2, Neue Folge, which bring the narrative down to the death of Pericles, in 1884 ; the two former volumes form vols. 5, 6 and 7 of his Geschichte des Altertums), and by the Griechische Geschichte of Ernst Curtius (3 vols., 1 857-1 867). An EngHsh translation of Duncker, by S. F. Alleyne, appeared in 1883 (2 vols., Bentley), and of Curtius, by A. W. Ward (5 vols., Bentley, 1 868-1 873). Among more recent works may be mentioned the Griechische Geschichte of Adolf Holm (4 vols., Berlin, 1 886-1 894 ; English translation by F. Clarke, 4 vols., Macmillan, 1 894-1 898), and histories with the same title by Julius Beloch (3 vols., Strassburg, 1893-1904. 2nd edition, in progress, 1912-1920), and Georg Busolt, (2nd ed., 3 vols., Gotha, 1893-1904). Holm carries on the narrative to 30 B.C., Beloch to 217 B.C., Busolt to Chaeronea (338 b.c). Busolt's work is entirely different in character from any other history 137 BIBLIOGRAPHY. of Greece. The writer's object is to refer in the notes (which constitute five-sixths of the book) to the views of every writer in any language upon every controverted question. It is absolutely indispensable, as a work of reference, for any serious study of Greek history. The ablest work since Grote's is Eduard Meyer's Geschichte des Altertums, of which 5 vols. (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1 884-1 902) have appeared, carrying the narrative down to the death of Epaminondas (362 B.C.). Vols. 2-5 are principally concerned with Greek history. It must be remembered that, partly owing to the literary finds and the archaeological discoveries of the last thirty years, and partly owing to the advance made in the study of epigraphy and numismatics, all the histories published before those of Busolt, Beloch, Meyer, and Bury are out of date. Works bearing on the History of Greece. Earlier works'and editions are omitted, except in the case of a work which has not been superseded. Introductions. C. Wachsmuth, Einleitung in das Studiimi der alten Geschichte (i vol., Leipzig, 1895) ; E. Meyer, Fors- chungen zur alten Geschichte (2 parts, Halle, 1 892-1 899 ; quite indispensable) ; J. B. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (London, 1909). Constitutional History and Institutions. G. F. Schomann, Griechische Altertiimer (2 vols., Berlin, 1855-1859 ; vol. i., tr. by E. G. Hardy and J. S. Mann, Rivingtons, 1880) ; G. Gilbert, Griechische Staatsaltertiimer (2nd cd., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1893 ; vol. i. tr. by E. J. Brooks and T. Nicklin, Swan Sonnenschein, 1895) ; K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch dcr gricchischen Antiquitaten (6th ed., 4 vols., Freiburg, 1882-1893) ; Iwan Miiller, Hand- buch der klassischen Alteytumsivissenschaft (9 vols., Nordlingen, 1886, in progress ; several of the volumes are concerned with Greek history) ; J. H. Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechts- verfahren (Leipzig, 1905, in progress) ; A. H. J. Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History (i vol., Macmillan, 1896) ; Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyklopadie der klassischen Altcrtumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1894 foil,). Geography. E. H, Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography amongst the Greeks and Romans (2nd cd., 2 vols., Murray, 1883), W. M. Lciike, Travels in the Morca (3 vols., 1830), and BIBLIOGRAPHY. Travels in Northern Greece (4 vols., 1834) ; H. F. Tozer, Lectures on the Geography of Greece (i vol., Murray, 1873), and History of Ancient Geography (i vol., Cambridge 1897) ; J. P. Mahaffy, Rambles and Studies in Greece (3rd ed., i vol., Macmillan, 1887, an admirable book) ; C. Bursian, Geographie von Griechenland (2 vols., Leipzig, 1872) ; H. Berger, Ges- chichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen (4 parts, Leipzig, 1 887-1 893) ; Ernst Curtius, Peloponnesos (2 vols., Gotha, 1 850-1 851). Epigraphy and Numismatics. Corpus inscriptionum Atti- carum (Berlin, 1875, in progress), Corpus inscriptionum Grae- carum (Berlin, 1892, in progress). The following selections of Greek inscriptions may be mentioned : E, F. Hicks and G. F. Hill, Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions (new ed., I vol., Oxford, 1901) ; W. Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum (3rd ed., 3 vols., Berlin, 1915-17) ; C. Michel, Recueil d' inscriptions grecques (Paris, 1900). Among works on numis- matics the English reader may refer to B. V. Head, Historia numorum (i vol., Oxford, 1887) ; G. F. Hill, Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins (i vol., Macmillan, 1899), as well as to the British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins. In French the most important general work is the Monnaies grecques of F. Imhoof-Blumer (Paris, 1883). Chronology , Trade, War, Social Life, S-c. H. F. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici (3rd ed., 3 vols., Oxford, 1841, a work of which English scholarship may well be proud ; it is still invaluable for the study of Greek chronology) ; B. Biichsenschiitz, Besitz und Erwerb im griechischen Altertume (i vol., Halle, 1869 ; this is still the best book on Greek commerce) ; J. Beloch, Die Bevolkerung der griechischromischen Welt (i vol., Leipzig, 1886) ; W. Riistow and H. Kochly, Geschichte des griechischen Kriegswesens (i vol., Aarau, 1852) ; J. P. Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece (2nd ed., i vol., 1875) ; A. E. Zimmern, The Greek Commonwealth (Oxford, 19 11). 139 APPENDIX II. ARISTOTLE'S CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS. The Constitution of Athens {'Adrjvalav TroXirfia), a work attributed to the philosopher Aristotle (384- 322 B.C.), formed one of a series of Constitutions (TToXtrfiai), 158 in number, which treated of the in- stitutions of the various states in the Greek world. It was extant until the 7th century of our era, or to an even later date, but was subsequently lost. A copy of this treatise, written in four different hands upon four rolls of papyrus, and dating from the end of the 1st centur\' A.D., was discovered in Egypt, and acquired by the trustees of the British Museum, for whom it was edited by F. G. Kenyon, assistant in the manuscript department, and published in Jan- uary 1891. Some very imperfect fragments of another copy had been acquired by the Egyptian Museum at Berlin, and were published in 1880. Authorship. It may be regarded as now established that the treatise discovered in Egypt is identical witli the 140 AUTHORSHIP. work upon the constitution of Athens that passed in antiquity under the name of Aristotle. The evidence derived from a comparison of the British Museum papyrus with the quotations from the lost work of Aristotle's which are found in schohasts and grammarians is conclusive. Of fifty-eight quotations from Aristotle's work, fifty-five occur in the papyrus. Of thirty-three quotations from Aristotle, which relate to matters connected with the constitution, or the constitutional history of Athens, although they are not expressly referred to the 'xOr^va'mv TroXiTcla, twenty- three are found in the papyrus. Of those not found in the papyrus, the majority appear to have come either from the beginning of the treatise, which is wanting in the papyrus, or from the latter portion of it, which is mutilated. The coincidence, therefore, is as nearly as possible complete. It may also be regarded as established by internal evidence that the treatise was composed during the interval between Aristotle's return to Athens in 335 B.C. and his death in 322. There are two passages which give us the latter year as the terminus ad quern, viz. c. 42 i and c 62. 2. In the former passage the democracy which is about to be described is spoken of as the " present constitution " (77 vvv KaTaarda-is Trjs TroXtrfiW) . The demo- cratic constitution was abolished, and a timocracy established, on the surrender of Athens to Antipater, at the end of the Lamian War, in the autumn of 322, 141 CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS. At the same time Samos was lost ; it is still reckoned, however, among the Athenian possessions in the latter passage. On the other hand, the foreign possessions of Athens are limited to Lemnos, Imbros, Scyros, Delos, and Samos. This could only apply to the period after Chaeronea (338 B.C.). In c. 61. i, again, mention is made of a special Strategus iir\ ras a-v^fiopias ; but it can be proved from inscriptons that down to the year 334 the generals were collectively concerned with the symmories. Finally, in c. 54. 7 an event is dated by the archonship of Cephisophon (329). We thus get the years 329 and 322 as fixing the limits of the period to which the composition of the work must be assigned. It follows that, whether it is by Aristotle or not, its date is later than that of the Politics, in which there is no reference to any event subsequent to the death of Philip in 336. The only question as to authorship that can fairly be raised is the question whether it is by Aristotle or by a pupil ; i.e. as to the sense in which it is " Aristo- telian." The argument on the two sides may be summarized as follows : Against. (i.) The occurrence of non-Aristotelian words and phrases and the absence of turns of ex- pression characteristic of the undisputed writings of Aristotle, (ii.) The occurrence of statements con- tradictory of views found in the Politics ; e.g. c. 4 143 A UTHORSHIP. (Constitution of Draco) compared with Pol. 1274 b 15 {^pcLKOVTOs vofxoL fxiv elcTL, TToXiTcia S' vTrapxoixTTj Tovs v6p.ovs dr] and 1 28 1 b 31 (the archons elected by the demos) ; c. 17 .1 (total length of Peisistratus' reign, 19 years) compared with Pol. 1315 b. 32 (total length, 17 years) ; c. 21. 6 (Cleisthenes left the clan and phratries un- altered) compared with Pol. 1319 b 20 (Cleisthenes increased the number of the phratries) ; c. 21 2 and 4 compared with Pol. 1275 b 37 (different views as to the class admitted to citizenship by Cleisthenes). It will be observed that the instances quoted relate to the most famous names in the early history of Athens, viz. Draco, Solon, Peisistratus, and Cleis- thenes. (iii.) Arguments drawn from the style, composition, and general character of the work, which are alleged to be unworthy of the author of the undoubtedly genuine writings. There is no sense of proportion (contrast the space devoted to Peisistratus and his sons, or to the Four Hundred and the Thirty, with the inadequate treatment of the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars) ; there is a lack of historical insight and an uncritical acceptance of erroneous views ; and the anecdotic element is unduly prominent. These considerations led several of the earlier critics to deny the Aristotelian author- ship, e.g. the editors of the Dutch edition of the text, 143 "CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS." van Hervverden and van Leeuwen ; Riihl, Cauer and Schvarcz in Germany ; H. Richards and others in England. For. (i.) The consensus of antiquity. Every ancient writer who mentions the Constitution attributes it to Aristotle, while no writer is known to have ques- tioned its genuineness, (ii.) The coincidence of the date assigned to its composition on internal grounds with the date of Aristotle's second residence in Athens, (iii.) Parallelisms of thought or expression with passages in the Politics ; e.g. c. i6. 2 and 3 compared with Pol. 1318 b 14 and 1319 a 30 ; the general view of Solon's legislation compared with Pol. 1296 b. i ; c. 27. 3 compared with Pol. 1274 a 9. To argument (i.) against the authorship, it is replied that the Con- stitution is an historical work, intended for popular use ; differences in style and terminology from those of a philosophical treatise, such as the Politics, are to be expected. To argument (ii.) it is replied that, as the Constitution is a later work than the Politics, a change of view upon particular points is not surprising. These considerations have led the great majority of writers upon the subject to attribute the work to Aristotle himself. On this side are found Kenyon and Sand3^s among English scholars, and in Germany, VVilamowitz, Blass, Gilbert, Bauer, Bruno Keil, Busolt, E. Meyer, and many others. On the whole, it can 144 CONTENTS. hardly be doubted that the view which is supported by so great a weight of authority is the correct one. The arguments advanced on the other side are not to ' be hghtly set aside, but they can scarcely outweigh the combination of external and internal evidence in favour of the attribution to Aristotle. An attentive study of the parallel passages in. the Politics will go a long way towards carrying conviction. It is true that a series such as the Constitution might well be entrusted to pupils working under the direction of their master. It is also true, however, that the Constitution of Athens must have been incomparably the most important of the series and the one that would be most naturally reserved for the master's hand. There are no traces in the treatise either of variety of authorship or of incompleteness, though there are evidences of interpolation. Contents. The treatise consists of two parts, one historical, and the other descriptive. The first forty-one chapters compose the former part, tiie remainder of the work the latter. Tiie first part comprised an account of the original constitution of Athens, and of the eleven changes through which it successively passed (see c. 41). The papyrus, however, is imi)er- fect at the beginning (the manuscript from which it was copied appears to have been similarly defective), 145 "CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS." the text commencing in the middle of a sentence which relates to the trial and banishment of the Alcmeonidae for their part in the affair of Cylon. The missing chapters must have contained a sketch of the original constitution, and of the changes intro- duced in the time of ion and Theseus. The following is an abstract of Part I. in its present form. Chapters 2, 3, description of the constitution before the time of Draco. 4, Draco's constitution. 5-12, reforms of Solon. 13, party feuds after the legis- lation of Solon. 14-19, the rule of Peisistratus and his sons. 20, 21, the reforms of Cleisthenes. 22, changes introduced between Cleisthenes and the invasion of Xerxes. 23, 24, the supremacy of the Areopagus, 479-461 B.C. 24, its overthrow by Ephialtes. 26, 27, changes introduced in the time of Pericles. 28, the rise of the demagogues. 29-33, the revolution of the Four Hundred. 34-40, the government of the Thirty. 41, list of the successive changes in the constitution. It may be noted that the reforms of Solon, the tyranny of Peisistratus and his sons, and the revolutions of the Four Hundred and the Thirty, tog(>tlier occupy considerably more than two-thirds of Part I. Part n. describes the constitution as it existed at the period of the composition of the treatise (329-322 B.C.). It begins with an account of the conditions of citizenship and of the training of the ephchi (citizens 146 SOURCES. between the ages of i8 and 20). In chapters 43-49 the functions of the Council {^ovXt]) and of the officials who act in concert with it are described. 50-60 deal with the officials who are appointed by lot, of whom the most important are the nine Archons, to whose functions five chapters (55-59) are devoted. The military officers, who come under the head of elective ofiicials, form the subject of c. 61. With c. 63 begins the section on the Law-courts, which occupied the remainder of the Constitution. This portion, with the exception of c. 63, is fragmentary in character, owing to the mutilated condition of the fourth roll of the papjTus on which it was written. It will thus be seen that the subjects which receive the fullest treatment in Part II. are the Council, the Archons, and the Law-courts. The Ecclesia, on the other hand, is dealt with very briefly, in connexion with the prytaneis and proedri (cc. 43, 44). Sources. The labours of several workers in this field, notably Bruno Keil and Wilamowitz, have rendered it comparatively easy to form a general estimate of Aristotle's indebtedness to previous writers, although problems of great difficulty are encoun- tered as soon as it is attempted to determine the precise sources from which the historical part of the work is derived. Among these sources are un- 147 "CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS." ' questionably Herodotus (lOr the tyranny of Peisis- ! tratus, and for the struggle between Cleisthenes and ] Isagoras), Thucydides (for the episode of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, and for the Four Hundred), Xeno- ; phon (for the Thirty), and the poems of Solon. There ' is now among critics a general consensus in favour of ; the view that the most important of his sources was i the Atthls of Androtion, a work published in all probability only a few years earlier than the Con- j stitution ; in any case, after the year 346. Prom it are derived not only the passages which are annalistic in character and read like excerpts from a chronicle I (e.o. c. 13. I, 22 ; c. 22 ; c. 26. -2, 3), but also most of 1 the matter common to the Constitution and to Plutarch's Solon. The coincidences with Plutarch, which are often verbal, and extend to about 50 lines 1 out of 170 in cc. 5-1 1 of the Constitution, can best be i explained on the hypothesis that Hermippus, the writer followed by Plutarch, used the same source as Aristotle, viz the Atthis of Androtion. Androtion is probably closely followed in the account of the pre- Draconian constitution, and to him appear to be due the explanation of local names {e.g. x<^pif^v arfXt's), or proverbial expressions {e.g. to fir) Aristoteles' Verfassungsgeschichte Athens, in Lehmann's Beitrage zur alten Geschichte, vol. iv. pp. 164 and 270. 153 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. B.C. 1 183 Fall of Troy. 1 1 24 Thessali conquer Thessaly, and Boeoti Boeotia. 1104 Return of the Heraclidae. (Dorian Migration.) [The date of Phcidon of Argos is quite un- certain. The dates which are assigned to him by ancient writers vary from the beginning of the 9th to the middle of the 6th century B.C. Modern authorities incline to place him either in the middle of the 8th century or in the middle of the 7th century B.C.] 776 First Olympiad. 743724 First Messenian War. 735 Foundation of Naxos, hrst Sicilian colony. 734 Foundation of Corcyra and Syracuse. 721 Foundation of Sybaris. 668 Argive victroy over Spartans at Hysiae. 660 Tyranny of Orthagoridae at Sicyon begins. 655 Tyranny of Cypselidac at Corinth begins. 648631 Second Messenian War. 625 Accession of Periander, tyrant of Corinth. 154 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 621 Legislation of Draco. " [The tyranny of Cleisthenes at Sicyon falls between 600 and 560 B.C.] 594 Reforms of Solon. 591 First Sacred War. 585 Death of Periander. Alliance of Alyattes and Cyaxares. 569 Accession of Amasis in Egypt. 560 First tyranny of Peisistratus. Accession of Croesus in Lydia. 560 550 Spartan Conquest of Tegea and Thyreatis. 546 Fall of Sardis. (?) Polycrates tyrant of Samos.^ 527 Death of Peisistratus. 525 Persian Conquest of Egypt. Spartan and Corinthian Expedition against Samos. 523 Death of Polycrates. 521 Accession of Darius. 520 (?) Accession of Cleomenes at Sparta,^ 519 Alliance of Athens with Plataea. I 512 (?) Scythian Expedition. 510 Expulsion of Hippias. Destruction of Sybaris. 508 Reforms of Cleisthenes. ^ The precise date at which Polycrates became tyrant is uncertain. It falls between 545 and 532. 2 Cleomenes came to the throne before 519. The precise date is uncertain. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. jj 506 Athenian defeat of Boeotians and Ghal- cidians. \ 504 (?) Congress at Sparta to restore Hippias. j 501 Institution of the Ten Strategi at Athens. 1 499 Ionic Revolt (499494). j 497 (?) Burning of Sardis. | 494 Battle of Lade. 1 Suppression of the Revolt. Defeat of Argives by Cleomenes at Sepeia. 493 Archonship ot Themistocles. Return of Miltiades from the Chersonese. First Trial of Miltiades. 492 Wreck of Mardonius' expedition off Mt. Athos. Expedition of Datis and Artaphemes. 490 Battle of Marathon. 490 or 489 Parian Expedition. 489 Death of Cleomenes. Second Trial and Death of Miltiades. Archonship of Aristides. 488 Outbreak of war between Athens and Acgina (488-481). 487 Introduction of Lot in appointment of Archons. 485 Death of Darius. Accession of Xerxes. 484 Ostracism of Xantldppus. 482 Ostracism ol Aristides. 156 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 480 Expedition of Xerxes. Battles of Artemisium, Thermopylae, and Salamis. Cathaginian Invasion of Sicily. Battle of Himera. 479 Battles of Plataea and Mycale. 478 Capture of Sestos by the Athenians. 477 Foundation of Confederacy of Delos. 475 Capture of Eion by Cimon. 474 Hiero's Victory over the Etruscans at Cumae 473466 Conquest of Scyrus and Carystus. Revolt of Naxos. Battle of the Eurymedon.^ 472 466 Battles of Tegea and Dipaea.^ 465 Revolt of Thasos. 464 Earthquake at Sparta. Revolt of the Helots. 463 Reduction of Thasos. 462 Cimon's Expedition to Ithome. 462 or 461 Alliance of Athens with Argos and Thessaly. 461 Ostracism of Cimon. Areopagus deprived of its powers by Ephialtes. Assassination of Ephialtes. 460 Outbreak of First Peloponnesian War (460 451). ^ The order of the events is certain, the precise dates uncertain. 2 These two battles fell between these dates. Their precise dates are uacertain. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 459 Athenian Expedition to Egypt (459-454). Battles of Halieis and Cecryphalea. 458 Victory of Myronides over the Corinthians in the Megarid. 457 Battles of Tanagra and Oenophyta. Admission of the Zeutrites to the Archonship. 454 Destruction of the Athenian Expedition in . Egypt. Transfer of Treasury of League from Delos to Athens. 451 Five years Truce between Athens and Sparta. Thirty Years Truce between Sparta and Argos. Pericles' Law of Citzenship. 450 49 Cimon's Expedition to Cyprus. Death of Cimon. 447 or 446 Battle of Coronea. 446 Revolt of Euboea. Peloponnesian Invasion of Attica. 445 Thirty Years Peace. 443 Foundation of Thurii. 440 Revolt of Samos. 436 Foundation of Amphipolis. 435 Outbreak of War between Corcyra and Corinth. 433 Alliance of Athens and Corcyra. Battle of Sybota. 432 Revolt of Potidaea. 158 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 432 Assembly of Peloponnesian Allies at Sparta votes for War. 431404 PELOPONNESIAN WAR. 431 421 Archidamian War. 431 First Year. Theban Attack on Plataea, First Peloponnesian Invasion of Attica. Expulsion of Aeginetans from Aegina. 430 Second Year. Outbreak of Plague. Second Invasion of Attica. Pericles deposed, tried, fined, and re- appointed Strategus. Surrender of Potidaea. 429 Third Year. Siege of Plataea begins. Naval victories of Phormio in Gulf of Corinth. Death of Pericles. Battle of Spartolus. 428 Fourth Year. Third Invasion of Attica. Revolt of Lesbos. Eisphora imposed at Athens. 427 Fifth Year. Fourth Invasion of Attica. Surrender of Mitylene. Fall of Plataea. 159 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 427 Stasis in Corcyra. First Sicilian Expedition under Laches (427 424). 426 Sixth Year. Foundation of Spartan Colony of Heraclea. Aetohan Expedition of Demosthenes. Battle of Olpae. 425 Seventh Year. Fifth Invasion of Attica. Pylos and Sphacteria. Raising of the Tribute. 424 Eighth Year. Congress of Gela. End of First Sicilian Expedition. Failure of Athenian Plot for Capture of ; Megara. Capture of Cythera by Nicias. Battle of Delium. Expedition of Brasidas to Thrace. 423 Ninth Year. Truce of Laches. 422 Tenth Year. Battle of Amphipolis. Death of Brasidas and Cleon. 421 Peace of Nicias. End of Archidamian War. Treaty of Alliance between Athens and Sparta. 160 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 420 Alliance of Athens with Argos, Ehs, and Mantinea.. 418 Battle of Mantinea. 417 Ostracism of Hyperbolu?. 416 Capture of Melos. 415 413 Great Sicilian Expedition. 415 Expedition sails. Recall of Alcibiades. 414 Siege of Syracuse. Arrival of Gylippus. 413 Spartan Occupation of Decelea. Arrival of Demosthenes with reinforce- ments. Battle in Great Harbour. Destruction of the Expedition. 412 404 Decelean or Ionian War. 412 General Revolt of the Subject- Allies. Treaties between Sparta and Persia. Alcibiades deserts the Spartan side. 411 Revolution of the Four Hundred. Revolt of Euboea. , Battle of Cynossema. 410 Battle of Cyzicus. Rejection of Spartan Peace Proposals. 409 Carthaginian Invasion of Sicily. 407 Return of Alcibiades to Athens. . Battle of Notium. Deposition of Alcibiades. 406 Battle of Arginusae. Trial of the Generals. 161 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 406 Rejection of Spartan Peace Proposals. 405 Battle of Aegospotami. Dionysius the Elder becomes Tyrant 01 Syracuse (405367). 404 Surrender of Athens. End of the Pelo- ponnesian War. The Thirty estabhshed. 403 Fall of the Thirty. 403 2 Archonship of Euclides. 401 March of the Ten Thousand. Battle of Cunaxa. 400387 War of Sparta with Persia. 400 Thimbron in Asia Minor. Dercyllidas succeeds Thimbron War of Sparta and Elis. 399 Death of Socrates. 398 Accession of Agesilaus. 397 Conon commander of Persian Fleet. Conspiracy of Cinadon. 396 First Campaign of Agesilaus in Asia Minor. 395 Second and Third Campaigns of Agesilaus. Death of Tissaphernes. Boeotian War. Battle of Haliartus and Death of Lysander. 395387 Corinthian War. 394 Battles of Corinth, Cnidus, and Coronea. 390 Destruction of Spartan mora by Iphicrates. 162 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 389 Successes of Thrasybulus in the Hellespont and Aegean. , 388 Death of Thrasybiilus. 387 Peace of Antaleidas. 385 Dioecismus of Mantinea. Spartan seizure of the Cadmea. 382 Spartan Expedition against Olynthus. 379 Olynthus makes peace with Sparta. Suppression of the Chalcidian League. Expulsion of the Spartans from the Cadmea. 378 Raid of Sphodrias. Alliance of Athens and Thebes. Agesilaus' Invasion of Boeotia. 377 Foundation of Second Athenian Confederacy. 376 Battle of Naxos. 375 Battle of Tegyra. Victory of Timotheus at Al37zia. 374 Peace between Athens and Sparta. 373 Peripius of Iphicrates. Trial of Timotheus. 371 Peace of Callias. Battle 01 Leuctra. Foundation of the Arcadian League. 370 Death of Jason of Pherae. Restoration of Mantinea. 369 Accession of Alexander of Pherae (369 357)- Foundation of Messene. Alliance of Athens and Sparta. 163 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE, 369 Theban Invasion of the Peloponnese. 368 Tearless Battle. 367 Death of Dionysius the Elder. 366 Theban Invasion of the Peloponnese. 364 Naval Expedition of Epaminondas. Battle of Cynoscephalae. Death of Pelopidas. 363 Battle of Mantinea. Death of Epaminondas. 359 Accession of Philip. (359336). 357 Outbreak of Social War (357 354). Death of Chabrias. Expedition of Dion to Sicily. Capture of Amphipolis by Philip. Death of Alexander of Pherae. 356 Outbreak of Sacred War (356-346). Philomelus seizes Delphi 354 End of the Social War. Defeat of the Phocians at Neon. Death of Philomelus. Murder of Dion. 353 Onomarchus expels Philip from Thessaly. 352 Defeat and Death of Onomarchus. 349 Alliance of Athens with Olynthus. 348 Philip's Capture of Olynthus. 346 Peace of Philocrates. End of the Sacred War. Punishment of Phocis. 344 Expedition of Timoleon. 164 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 340 Siege of Perinthus and Byzantium. 339 Battle of the Crimisus. 338 Battle of Chaeronea. 336 Assassination of Philip. Accession of Alexander (336 323). 335 Destruction of Thebes. Accession of Darius Codomannus. 334 Alexander Crosses the Hellespont. Battle of the Granicus. Sieges of Miletus and Halicarnassus. 333 Battle of Issus. 332 Sieges of Tyre and Gaza. Conquest of Egypt. 331 Foundation of Alexandria. Battle of Arbela. Battle of Megalopolis. 330 Death of Darius. 327 Marriage of Alexander and Roxana. 326 Battle of the Hydaspes, 323 Death of Alexander. Outbreak of the Lamian War. 322 End of the Lamian War. Death of Demosthenes. 165 From Basil BlackwelP s List THE ROMAN SYSTEM OF PROVINCIAL AD- MINISTRATION ^ By W. T. Arnold, M.A. Third Edition, revised by E. S. Bouchier, M.A. with a Map. 7s. 6d. net. A book which is probably the best introduction to the subject that could be put into the hands of any young student. Sir Samuel Dill (in The Nation). VIRGILIAN STUDIES ^ ^ ^ Uniform Volumes, 6s. net Each. " The best contribution to Vir^ilian Studies that this country has made for many years." THE OXFORD MAGAZINE. By W. WARDE FOWLER. The Gathering of the Clans : Observations on Aeneid VII. Aeneas at the Site of Rome : Observations on Aeneid VIII. The Death of Turnus : Observations on Aeneid XIL By J. SARGEAUNT, M.A. The Trees, Shrubs, and Plants of Virgil. By T. F. ROYDS, M.A., B.D. The Beasts, Birds, and Bees of Virgil. Virgil and Isaiah : A Study of the Pollio. By M. M. CRUMP, M.A. The Growth of the Aeneid. By Prof. H. E. BUTLER. The Sixth Book of the Aeneid (12s. Gd. net). 'Bl{pAD ST'J^EET, OXFORD From Basil BlackwelP s hist A PRIMER OF GREEK CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY ^ By A. H. Walker, M.A. 3s. 6d. net. It is for high forms at public schools and University Students, and fills a vacant place in their bookshelves by providing a sound and , concise exposition both of the theory and of the history. The Times. ARISTOTLE'S DEFINITION OF THE HUMAN GOOD *^ By J. L. Stocks, Fellow and Tutor of St. John's College, Oxford. 2s. 6d. net. ARISTOTLE'S POETICS ^ Translated from the Oxford Text, with short Notes, by E. S. Bouchier 2s. 6d. net. ARISTOTLE'S POSTERIOR ANALYTICS ^ Trans- lated by E. S. Bouchier. 3s. net. ARISTOTLE'S POLITICS ^ Handbook to L, III., and VII., for Passmen. 3s. net. VIRGIL ^ A Word List, prepared by A. G. S. Is. 6d. net. MAINE'S ANCIENT LAW <5^ Analysis with Notes, by J. B. Oldham. Is. 6d. net. HOBBES' LEVIATHAN ^ Outhnes of Lectures on Political Science, by W. J. H. Cx\aipion. 2s. net. PLINY'S LETTERS, THE SELECTION PRE- SCRIBED FOR PASS MODERATIONS *> Translated by G. B. Allen, Fellow and Tutor of Pembroke College. 2s. 6d. net. 'Blip AD ST-l^EET, OXFORD 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. * Vl-.v^ LJ L^D gil36r m o>.'^9-P^ 4rJGv ' '62 nrr 4 1062 .-, .Z.'^ DEC 5'^^^^ NOV 1 i gS? T ReC'D OCT 27*67 -12 AM t-OAN DEPT. LD 21A-50m-8.'61 General Library University of California nsi "VI 496035 ^ " 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY -*,- - "